[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"There’s a Word for the West’s Appeasement of Militant Islam" "The Bondi Beach Jihad: Sharia Supremacism and Jew Hatred, Again" "This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China" "How Europe Fell Behind" "The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight" Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat? A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land? US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died "‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much" "Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use" "Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet" "America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!" "Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded" Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR! British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames "Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe. "The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent" CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino) Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting! POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25 2026 in Bible Prophecy 2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat 🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025 Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong England is on the Brink of Civil War! Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE "Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’" Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024 Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization. The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with What the fagots LGBTQ really means I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience. Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson) Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Usually a job engine, localities slow US economy (467K govt. jobs gone) Source: AJC URL Source: http://www.ajc.com/business/usually-a-job-engine-968424.html Published: Jun 6, 2011 Author: AP Post Date: 2011-06-06 11:13:29 by go65 Keywords: None Views: 8442 Comments: 29 WASHINGTON — In a healthy economic recovery, states and localities start hiring, expand services and help fuel the nation's growth. The U.S. economy is moving ahead, however fitfully. Yet state and local governments are still stuck in recession. Short of cash, they cut 30,000 jobs in May, the seventh straight month they've shed workers. Rather than add to U.S. economic growth, they're subtracting from it. And ordinary Americans are feeling it — from reduced services to fewer teachers, police officers and firefighters. The Great Recession officially ended two years ago this month. By the same point during previous recoveries, state and local governments were engines of growth: In the two years after the 1990-91 recession ended, for example, they'd added 430,000 jobs. At the same point after the 2001 recession ended, they had added 249,000. This time is different. More than 467,000 state and local government jobs have vanished since the recession officially ended in June 2009, including 188,000 in schools. Click for Full Text! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27. #2. To: go65 (#0) WASHINGTON — In a healthy economic recovery, states and localities start hiring, expand services and help fuel the nation's growth. WRONG. Government spending takes capital away from the market-place, stifling continued growth. When you fail on the first sentence, the rest of the article is sure to be equally flawed. Capitalist Eric  posted on  2011-06-06   12:02:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2) (Edited) Government spending takes capital away from the market-place... What is the government "spending" money on? war  posted on  2011-06-06   12:03:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: war (#3) From the article: ...states and localities start hiring, expand services... What, your lips too tired to read this morning? Capitalist Eric  posted on  2011-06-06   12:12:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Capitalist Eric (#4) ...states and localities start hiring, expand services... So they actually spend the money...it doesn't disappear. Are jobs part of the market place in your world? Services? war  posted on  2011-06-06   12:24:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: war (#5) So they actually spend the money...it doesn't disappear. Are jobs part of the market place in your world? Services? The current GDP calculation model is as follows: GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports h2; imports), or Y = C + I + G + (X h2; M) Unfortunately, the model is grossly flawed. Government spending, or G, assume 100% efficiency. That is, every dollar that is spent (which is of course, taxed from the rest of the factors), is exclusively used to productive purposes. That is, it isn't wasted. Since we know government DOES waste money, as government spends more, it ends up being a drag on the economy. If government spending increases not as a function of tax receipts, then it can only come through creating more money (digitally, or through the use of the printing press). In this case, GPD would go up, but so would inflation, as a natural result. Of course, we're seeing this right now, as "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke and his fellow-Keynesian dimwits print the dollar into oblivion, and the GDP keeps from going TOO negative (without QE 1&2, the truth would already be obvious). Capitalist Eric  posted on  2011-06-06   12:39:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Capitalist Eric (#6) Government spending, or G, assume 100% efficiency. GDP doesn't measure efficiency. What it measures is the value of the output less inflation. Productivity measures efficiency. Your analysis is spurious and specious. If government spending increases not as a function of tax receipts, then it can only come through creating more money (digitally, or through the use of the printing press). In this case, GPD would go up, but so would inflation, as a natural result. Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. When the aggregate total of dollars available does not equal the demand for dollars that are needed to purchase goods and services, dollars are TOO FEW and thus "creating" dollars is not inflationary. war  posted on  2011-06-06   12:51:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: war (#8) GDP doesn't measure efficiency. I never said it does. My point- which you conveniently sidestepped- is "Government spending, or G, assume 100% efficiency." Of course, you're using Rule of Disinformation #4: Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. What it measures is the value of the output less inflation. Actually, it's much more than that. From investopedia: The gross domestic product (GDP) is one the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy. It represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period - you can think of it as the size of the economy. Usually, GDP is expressed as a comparison to the previous quarter or year. For example, if the year-to-year GDP is up 3%, this is thought to mean that the economy has grown by 3% over the last year. Productivity measures efficiency. Again, you're not telling the whole truth. Again from investopedia: Productivity- An economic measure of output per unit of input. Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other GDP components such as business inventories. Productivity measures may be examined collectively (across the whole economy) or viewed industry by industry to examine trends in labor growth, wage levels and technological improvement. Your analysis is spurious and specious. Classic summary for a Straw-Man Argument. You really should try stand-up comedy- you're very funny, in an unintentional way. Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. Again, you're only telling HALF the truth. From http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html, Causes of Inflation In a nutshell, inflation occurs—that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks—to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars. A standard approach to analyzing the connection between the money supply (M) and the general price level (P) uses an accounting identity called the “equation of exchange”: MV = Py where V denotes the income-velocity of money (the number of times per year the average dollar turns over in transactions for final goods and services), and y denotes the economy’s real income (as measured, e.g., by real GDP). Because V is defined as Py/M, the ratio of nominal income to money balances, the equation follows. The quantity theory of money (a better name would be “the quantity-of- money theory of the price level”) says that a higher or lower level of M does not cause any permanent change in y or desired V—or, in other words, does not permanently affect the real demand to hold money. It follows that, in the long run, a larger M means a proportionally higher P. In less formal terms, putting more dollars in circulation dilutes the purchasing power of each dollar; or: prices rise when there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. So, there are more $ chasing too few goods, when the government PRINTS more. When the aggregate total [SIC] of dollars available does not equal the demand for dollars that are needed to purchase goods and services, dollars are TOO FEW and thus "creating" dollars is not inflationary. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. In the market-place (absent government interference) the total number of dollars ALWAYS equals the demand for dollars, dummy. The supply of dollars equals the amount of dollars demanded, plus the interest assigned to those dollars. Creating more dollars than the market demands (by surpressing interests rates to absurdly low levels, for example) leads to increased risk-taking, asset bubbles (can you say "housing bubble?"), the dot-com bust, etc., etc. You can thank "Helicopter Ben" and Alan Greenspan for these latest examples. Oh, and thanks for reverting to the rules of disinformation. I knew you wouldn't be able to have an honest discussion about my favorite subject. Capitalist Eric  posted on  2011-06-06   14:53:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Capitalist Eric (#10) Again, you're not telling the whole truth. Sure I am. If productivity increases then output has become more efficient to costs. If it falls it is less. Causes of Inflation In a nutshell, inflation occurs—that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks—to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars. Too many dollars chasing too few goods...of course the purchasing power decreases because you need MORE dollars to buy the same amount of goods and thus you're not holding the dollars either... That is why hiking interest rates is the proper way to "cure" inflation. You receive more value from holding the dollars, i.e. saving them, than you do by purchasing a "thing" the price of which is appreciating not because of its intrinsic value but because of monetary dislocation. When the monetary forces return to balance, the price will stop rising and, as likely, will fall from reduced demand. WAR: When the aggregate total [SIC] of dollars available does not equal the demand for dollars that are needed to purchase goods and services, dollars are TOO FEW and thus "creating" dollars is not inflationary. Erica: Wrong, wrong, WRONG. I'm not wtong. In the market-place (absent government interference) the total number of dollars ALWAYS equals the demand for dollars, dummy. Speaking of wrong wrong wrong. That's wrong wrong wrong. You couldn't find an instance in history where monetary demand has maintained an equilibrium to money supply. During booms it's always greater and during busts it's always less. But even a co-existent monetary/barter system alone obviates your statement. Your "model" implies that there is no such thing as appreciating or depreciating intrinsic value or that if the value of one "thing" appreciates than the value of another "thing" must depreciate by like value. The supply of dollars equals the amount of dollars demanded, plus the interest assigned to those dollars. "Interest" is a future value based upon the implied purchasing power of a dollar at point "X" in time where "X" is greater than 0 days. You're long on bullshit and short on real knowledge, Erica. war  posted on  2011-06-06   15:21:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: war (#14) WAR: When the aggregate total [SIC] of dollars available does not equal the demand for dollars that are needed to purchase goods and services, dollars are TOO FEW and thus "creating" dollars is not inflationary. Erica: Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Dummy: I'm not wtong. LMAO. Shit, you can't even get the denial right! Oh, BTW, saying "I'm not wTong" doesn't change the fact that you are indeed wrong. Your argument is fatally flawed, which of course is why you revert to the Rules of Disinformation. ME: In the market-place (absent government interference) the total number of dollars ALWAYS equals the demand for dollars, dummy. Dummy: Speaking of wrong wrong wrong. That's wrong wrong wrong. You couldn't find an instance in history where monetary demand has maintained an equilibrium to money supply. During booms it's always greater and during busts it's always less. Sure you can. Throughout history- and often even during times of Fed interference, you can find monetary equilibrium. It occurs right now, but on a grand scale... we call it the "risk premium." Sometimes it takes into account political risk, sometimes financial risk of the country, sometimes even financial risk of the currency itself. Market interest rates account not only for the desired profit from loaning to someone else, but also the risk of them NOT repaying the loan. But of course, a economic "scholar" such as yourself already knew that, right? Witness, for example, what's happening to Greece. They're paying exhorbitant amounts of interest. Why? Because they're under the threat of national default. The INTEREST rate accounts for this. If the market rate of interest is lower than the perceived risk, then people borrow. If it's higher, then people don't borrow. This results in a monetary equilibrium. The Fed keeps the risk artificially low, to entice people to borrow. Instead the banks borrow at ~0%, and park the cash back at the Fed, and earn 3-4% interest, with NO risk. At the same time, people are hurting financially, trying to get OUT of debt, not incur more... so borrowing by normal people has dropped... and all the money that the Fed has created, hasn't gone anywhere. YET. But it will. For now, there is an equilibrium- just not at the level the Fed wants (they're pushing to make the stock market accelerate faster than inflation, which is essentially hopeless, at this point). But even a co-existent monetary/barter system alone obviates your statement. Your "model" implies that there is no such thing as appreciating or depreciating intrinsic value or that if the value of one "thing" appreciates than the value of another "thing" must depreciate by like value. It's not MY model, dummy... it's the generally accepted (and still flawed) model that idiots like you run to, to justify Keynesian stupidity. But hey, nice try to derail the thread to a meaningless subject such as barter economics. You fail. "Interest" is a future value based upon the implied purchasing power of a dollar at point "X" in time where "X" is greater than 0 days. Already disproven. You're talking about interest paid on a savings account, I'm talking about interest in the REAL world. Like you know shit about the real world... You're long on bullshit and short on real knowledge, Erica. Whether I was or was not, you don't know enough to spot the difference. Anyway, you're really not worth the effort of me proving my level of knowledge. Suffice to say, you're way out of your league, boy. You can thank me for the lesson now. Capitalist Eric  posted on  2011-06-06   16:29:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Capitalist Eric (#17) ROFLMAO...you can say "wrong wrong wrong" with no plausible explanation as to why but I can't respond in kind. Sure you can. Throughout history- and often even during times of Fed interference, you can find monetary equilibrium. It occurs right now, but on a grand scale... we call it the "risk premium." There is no such unified thing as "monetary equilibrium", doofus. It's a macro term that attempts to describe a theoretical state of congruence between the supply of money and its price over time. But it's reference point is always a matter of time and distance rather than at the intersection of any X/Y point. "Monetary equilibrium" is a theory not a state. Furthermore, a "risk premium" is, quite simply, an implied rate of interest that is charged in excess of what gets charged for time value. It's associative to counter party or market risk rather than to any monetary phenomenon. Witness, for example, what's happening to Greece. They're paying exhorbitant [sic] amounts of interest. Why? Because they're under the threat of national default. The INTEREST rate accounts for this. If the market rate of interest is lower than the perceived risk, then people borrow. If it's higher, then people don't borrow. This results in a monetary equilibrium. What a crock of double talk shit that is. First off, what is happening in Greece is an example of rates being charged that are almost wholly risk premium. First and foremost, money has TIME value. Secondly it has RISK value. Thirdly it has MARKET value. Time value is a function of the perceived risk of future inflation or deflation. at a specified point in time. For $1.00 of goods purchased today - which is also its market value - what will those same goods cost at some specified point in the future? Secondly, really, thirdly, it has risk value. What are the "odds" that this money is going to be paid back? The higher the risk of default, the higher the risk premium. It's why a AAA credit can borrow money for 10 years @ 3% and a Caa credit has to pay 10%. Money is borrowed for a variety of reasons. When it's borrowed out of necessity, there is going to be a higher risk premium. In regard to Greece, what has occurred there is the result of FISCAL dislocation and thus a necessity to borrow. What exacerbates Greece [Ireland and Spain too] is that doesn't control its currency and while Greece may de facto default on its debt, the result would be a devaluation of the EURO and the imperilment of other economies that share that currency not as a monetary phenomenon but because of a FISCAL one. The Fed keeps the risk artificially low, to entice people to borrow. Instead the banks borrow at ~0%, and park the cash back at the Fed, and earn 3-4% interest In reality, they earn .25%. Since this economy has run on credit since our western expansion, times of low interest rates have historically been a time to re finance liabilities to clean up balance sheets. The actuality of this cycle, with the Fed paying interest, it's simply given the banks an arbitrage opportunity. So, outside of your error, I actually agree with you. It's not MY model, dummy... it's the generally accepted (and still flawed) model that idiots like you run to, to justify Keynesian stupidity. There you go again. I am as much of a monetarist as I am Keynesian. It's times such as these that should actually have monetarists running for the hills and not the Keynesians. There is and has been for nearly three years, $1.4trillion in excess reserves that by every monetarist definition should have stopped the recession, sparked a recovery, fed an expansion and then led us into inflation. In fact, it's done none of those. The only success that has been achieved over the last 3 years have been KEYNESIAN successes...lower payroll taxes...demand side tax cuts and credits... WAR: "Interest" is a future value based upon the implied purchasing power of a dollar at point "X" in time where "X" is greater than 0 days. Erica:Already disproven. You're talking about interest paid on a savings account, I'm talking about interest in the REAL world. Like you know shit about the real world... Geezus are you effen stupid. I defined the Yield Curve, Erica. Are you claiming that the Yield Curve has been "disproven"? Interest rate = time value of money aka A FUTURE VALUE of money. What influences time/future value of money...INFLATION which erodes PURCHASING power or deflation which increases purchasing power. war  posted on  2011-06-06   21:11:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: war (#18) There is no such unified thing as "monetary equilibrium", doofus. Sure there is. The balancing factor, is called INTEREST, which is charged to account for various risks associated with the person (company, bank, country) taking out the loan. That you can't GET this, is simply a confirmation that you are, indeed, economically illiterate. And given the fact that you are so fatally flawed on the first sentence, there is no point in reading further to your vacuous (and utterly boring) statements. But hey, thanks for the laughs! You're an entertaining fool, in an unintentional way... dummy DwarF: "I'm not wtong." LMAO. Capitalist Eric  posted on  2011-06-07   13:51:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 27. #28. To: Capitalist Eric (#27) (Edited) That you can't GET this, is simply a confirmation that you are, indeed, economically illiterate. And given the fact that you are so fatally flawed on the first sentence, there is no point in reading further to your vacuous (and utterly boring) statements. ROFLMAO...the difference between you and I, Erica, will always be that I know what I am "talking" about. You didn't even know that banks get paid 25bps and not the 3-4% that you claimed. Monetary equilibrium is, as I have stated, Erica, an unknown point on the cureve in which money supply and interest rates are in balance. You, your self, recognize that there is "risk" and thus a "risk premium" on some borrowers., What you're too stupid to realize is that risk premium is a sign of dis- equilibrium...here's something from my archives...it's scholarly and uses big words...have someone read it to you... war  posted on  2011-06-07 13:59:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: Capitalist Eric (#27) balancing factor, is called INTEREST, which is charged to account for various risks associated with the person (company, bank, country) taking out the loan. You've just described risk premium, doofus. war  posted on  2011-06-07 14:09:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 27. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com