If Bush is considered 'What is Republican'...

[kolpo]

"The whole concept that we can stimulate the economy by reducing the deficit is staggeringly ignorant, IMHO. "

If investors stop investing because there is a fear the depth is getting completely out of control can reducing the deficit by raising taxes actually stimulate the economy.

[CharlesBHoff]

Taxes cannot be too low or too hight. I can run for office by saying I willnot have any taxes at all and willnot borrow any money at all. I will just print the money we need to run the government.

Than mature ecomony doesnot grow at 10 % to 15 % per year. Africa nation borrow huge amount of money to built big cities with big builting while not pay attend to rural area where the real wealth was. When England and French left Africa they make sure all bills where fully paid and there where than surplus in each treasurey. The African leader have big ego and want skyscape builting like the west.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
Ned, youre an idiot. thats not what hes saying.

MRT 144, I understood Imran to say that deficits and surpluses had no effect whatsoever on triggering recessions or depressions. This statement implies that deficits and surpluses have no stimulative or deflationary effects on the economy.

If you do not agree with this, I would appreciate some explanation.

But note also, that I am not alone in making these assertions. The article I cite agrees with everything I said and supports the thesis with data and history. The people who oppose what I've been saying, primarily Imran, have been making nothing but conclusionary statements with no supporting data, logical argument or reference to learned articles. Even your own post is a simple insult and not an argument.

[Ned]

Charles, the average ROI for the private economy in the US has been on the order of 12% IIRC since WWII.

Africa states are mostly socialist. 'Nuf said.

[Ned]

Originally posted by kolpo
"The whole concept that we can stimulate the economy by reducing the deficit is staggeringly ignorant, IMHO. "

If investors stop investing because there is a fear the depth is getting completely out of control can reducing the deficit by raising taxes actually stimulate the economy.

Investors stop investing if they cannot make money. Period.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Ned


Investors stop investing if they cannot make money. Period.

No they stop investing when they THINK they cannot make money and a deficit that seems out of control can let them think that they cannot make money. I can give many examples of economic grown that followed getting the deficit under control. Out of control deficits have a lot to do with the whole South American economic problems, if Argentinia wouldn't have a deficit at all or would start rapitly reducing it would that restore investor confidence just like it did in Russia where Putin got the deficit under control.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by kolpo
No they stop investing when they THINK they cannot make money and a deficit that seems out of control can let them think that they cannot make money. I can give many examples of economic grown that followed getting the deficit under control. Out of control deficits have a lot to do with the whole South American economic problems, if Argentinia wouldn't have a deficit at all or would start rapitly reducing it would that restore investor confidence just like it did in Russia where Putin got the deficit under control.

I don't care how bad the deficit is. When the deficit is particularly bad it usually means that the economy is doing particularly badly. Raising taxes and reducing services almost never makes things better. On the contrary it makes things very bad. Russia is a special case, although it was problematic. Russia is seen as a safe investment because investors are confident that the international community will bail Russia out if it gets in real trouble because of the nukes and all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by kolpo


No they stop investing when they THINK they cannot make money and a deficit that seems out of control can let them think that they cannot make money. I can give many examples of economic grown that followed getting the deficit under control. Out of control deficits have a lot to do with the whole South American economic problems, if Argentinia wouldn't have a deficit at all or would start rapitly reducing it would that restore investor confidence just like it did in Russia where Putin got the deficit under control.

Kolpo, if a deficit is "out of control," perhaps. But that implies inflation and price controls as well. People will not invest when there are price controls.

[Ned]

Kid, again I find us in agreement once again.

[Kidlicious]

If you want to look at how well deficit reduction works, look at the IMFs record. The IMFs record is so poor that the only reason that one can assume that they are still recieving funding is that the funding nations have some other interest it the IMF other than improving the economies of economically failing nations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you want to look at how well deficit reduction works, look at the IMFs record. The IMFs record is so poor that the only reason that one can assume that they are still recieving funding is that the funding nations have some other interest it the IMF other than improving the economies of economically failing nations.

Kid, I assume that the IMF has a screw loose somewhere in their economic theory. They must all be balanced-budget types who insist on throwing economies into depression as the price of a lone.

[CharlesBHoff]

Investor only invest when they see future growth even it the present is bad. One of the reason one of the board knick me off was than Traveller Role Playing Game one where they define than rich planet as haveing than demoncrate from of government along with other citera. I disagree haveing than demoncrate government is no guanter of being rich planet. Than well run dictorship can be than rich planet it if is than key link on than wealth trade routes.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Investor only invest when they see future growth even it the present is bad. One of the reason one of the board knick me off was than Traveller Role Playing Game one where they define than rich planet as haveing than demoncrate from of government along with other citera. I disagree haveing than demoncrate government is no guanter of being rich planet. Than well run dictorship can be than rich planet it if is than key link on than wealth trade routes.

The key feature of dictatorships is their inherent resistance to change, in an effort to centrally maintain power. This is bad developmentally, since this results in stagnation of both science and commerce.

Ergo, dictatorships suck comparitively to democracies, for the purposes of wealth generation.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


The key feature of dictatorships is their inherent resistance to change, in an effort to centrally maintain power. This is bad developmentally, since this results in stagnation of both science and commerce.

Ergo, dictatorships suck comparitively to democracies, for the purposes of wealth generation.

Democracies in the past didnot honour long term contacts of merant the real creator of wealth. While Depots honour long term contacts of merants than they where more willing to protect craftman and merant on they trade route. Dictatorship doesnot alway mean stagnation in science or commerce. Roman Empire invert the first steam engine to open huge heavy temple door in Egypt. Arab Muslim conquest Egypt learn how to built steam engine to use in mineing to pump out bad air and pump in good air and to drain water from mine. European learn about strean engine in 11th or 12th century use in mineing.

[Fake Boris]

I have to agree with CharlesBHoff for once. Dictatorship did not prevent most human advances in history, and I don't think it ever will.

Isn't it strange, though, that both CharlesBHoff and Tripledoc are posting at the same time?