215,000 new jobs in November; let the good times roll again!

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, maybe there is "negitive thinking" because the economic condition of Joe Shoe doesn't match "the official possition."

There's no excuse for Joe Schmoe (Smoe, Shoe?) thinking the economy is in a recession when it's really been enjoying robust growth for years now. People who believe that are as ignorant as those who still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, a group of people you wouldn't think twice about heaping scorn upon. Of course, the folks who think Saddam is behind 9/11 only believe that because Bush misled them, right? So who's misleading Joe Schmoe now to convince him that the economy is in a recession when it's acutally booming?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake, maybe there is "negitive thinking" because the economic condition of Joe Shoe doesn't match "the official possition."

There's no excuse for Joe Schmoe (Smoe, Shoe?) thinking the economy is in a recession when it's really been enjoying robust growth for years now. People who believe that are as ignorant as those who still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, a group of people you wouldn't think twice about heaping scorn upon. Of course, the folks who think Saddam is behind 9/11 only believe that because Bush lied to them, right? So who's lieing to Joe Schmoe now to convince him that the economy is in a recession when it's acutally booming?

BECAUSE THE GROWTH IS NOT REACHING THE AVERAGE WORKER! IT JUST MAKING THE RICH RICHER! "TRICkLE DOWN" IS A SHAM!

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you even know what a recession is?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
BECAUSE THE GROWTH IS NOT REACHING THE AVERAGE WORKER! IT JUST MAKING THE RICH RICHER! "TRICkLE DOWN" IS A SHAM!

Jesus, your affair with Fez is starting to affect you. Do you even have any evidence, btw?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Do you even know what a recession is?

Negative economic growth for at least 6 months. You learn that in HS civics.

What I am getting as is that using GDP as a benchmark makes no distintion about who is benifiting from the growth. The rich could be getting richer while wages stay stagnant and you would still get an GDP increase.

[Drake Tungsten]

Negative economic growth for at least 6 months. You learn that in HS civics.

If you learn it in high school, Joe Schmoe doesn't really have an excuse for believing the country is in a recession when it quite clearly is not.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Jesus, your affair with Fez is starting to affect you.

I'm pissed off that Dan keeps posting such BS while I hear everywhere things about the death of the middle class because people are stuck working at McJobs. Oh, but that's just anectodal evidence, so I guess my observations don't count.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, but that's just anectodal evidence, so I guess my observations don't count.

Exactly.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Negative economic growth for at least 6 months. You learn that in HS civics.

If you learn it in high school, Joe Schmoe doesn't really have an excuse for believing the country is in a recession when it quite clearly is not.

I never said people think we are in a recession. I was saying that the economic growth isn't reaching the average worker. All the growth is filling the pockets of the rich.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Oh, but that's just anectodal evidence, so I guess my observations don't count.

Exactly.

Smart-azz.

[OzzyKP]

Copy cat thread

[Odin]

I found this little essay on another forum:

The NeoCon-Artists are claiming that today's economic report indicates the overwhelming success of their economic policies. As such, they are using today's report to justify extending the tax cuts on the wealthy. Some are begrudgingly acknowledging that our huge national debt is a major problem. I completely agree that our $8 trillion national debt is a huge problem. However, the Republican "solution" is the same illogical economic mythology that they are famous for. As expected, extending the tax cuts on the most affluent is the key to their plans. And it still makes absolutely no economic sense. However, that's never stopped them in the past.

At present, cutting taxes on the affluent has no benefit whatsoever. The justification given is that if we increase the take-home pay of the affluent, they'll have more money to "invest." However, there is simply no need for increased investment capital at present.

The markets are already glutted with capital, because there are few investment opportunities. In other words, the amount of investment capital exceeds investment opportunities. (The Wall Street Journal states that the markets are "glutted with capital at present.") Capital does our economy no good sitting in Corporate cash-on-hand accounts, or being invested in foreign production facilities.

Why don't we role back the tax cuts on the top 2%, and use that money to pay down our debt? The capital created by those tax cuts is in excess of that which can be productively invested, so eliminating those tax cuts would NOT hurt our economy. In fact, reducing excessive investment capital might reduce the amount invested in foreign production facilities, which would reduce outsourcing and increase demand for American workers, increase aggregate American labor income, and in turn, increase wage-financed consumer spending.

Such changes would increase utilization of our current over-sized, under-utilized production capacity. A capacity utilization rate of 79.% indicates underutilization. And that indicates that our industrial capacity exceeds the demand for the production it provides. The goal should be to increase the utilization of capacity. It should NOT be to increase investment in an already over-sized, under-utilized capacity.

Why don't we stop listening to supply-side propaganda that believes that economic growth is related exclusively to the availability of investment capital, and its corollary that tax cuts for the rich ALWAYS help the economy? This is simply self-serving economic fantasy. Economic expansion is related to the PRODUCTIVE investment of capital, which is related to demand for the production that capital facilitates. There is no capital investment without anticipated returns. And those returns are created by consumer spending, and the production demand it creates.

We need to put more money in the hands of consumers, not Corporate America. Only then will we have true economic "growth."

[DanS]

Why would you read that essay past the first clause?

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS
Why would you read that essay past the first clause?

Yep, reject something just because it doesn't fit your sacred cows. You sound like Fez and Ned. maybe because it goes against your failth in the almighty God of Supply-Side economics and Trickle-downism. It is basically saying that our current economic growth is not helping anything because it is not getting down to the average person.

[KrazyHorse]

You suck, Odin.