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: 8433
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
the premise of this article is wrong, cutting government leads to economic growth, which is why the economy is booming. Oh wait....
"Thats because your basically and idiot." 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.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: What is the government "spending" money on?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." From the article: ...states and localities start hiring, expand services... What, your lips too tired to read this morning?
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: So they actually spend the money...it doesn't disappear. Are jobs part of the market place in your world? Services?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." 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).
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: Dumbass.....
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
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.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." It's a better name for you than Badeye, for sure, but it does not beat out Boofer... but we can put it up for a vote if you'd like...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" 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. 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. 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. Classic summary for a Straw-Man Argument. You really should try stand-up comedy- you're very funny, in an unintentional way. Again, you're only telling HALF the truth. From http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html, 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. 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.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: ERICA: I never said it does. Yes you did. This is what you wrote: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You go on to state that the model is flawed because of the "efficiency" assumption it makes about government spending. It doesn't care about efficiency in any aspect of its calculations. It's simply the dollar value of all output less inflation.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" ROFLMAO...you just restated what I stated. GDP is a MEASURED VALUE. How it is EXPRESSED, be it as an absolute $ difference or as a % increase/decrease over a previous quarter or year is moot to what GDP actually is.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" Aha. I see your point. You're using the following: Rule of Disinformation #13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact. Rule of Disinformation #17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. Rule of Disinformation #19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Rule of Disinformation #20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: 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.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" Fuck off, Erica. You're spouting nonsense and have now been called. You're using the classic "Lie your ass off and hope no one notices."
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" is he still posting to me despite me telling him I have him ignore? If so, then "dumbass" is an appropriate name for him. :-) See tagline.
"Thats because your basically and idiot." 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. 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). 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... 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.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: 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.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" Chyea... The irony that is Boofer is...overwhelming...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" The forum is a lot more enjoyable without his B.S.
"Thats because your basically and idiot." Negative attention is still attention to Ermine La Boof... Hilarious watching him pretend that Palin isn't a fool...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" Hookers, parties and their own retirement accounts........
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Dumnbass, and a liar now, huh? Whatever.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Dumbass, most thought this when you and your DNC talking point bullshit wasn't visible here for months.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Chuckle...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" Hey Boofer...GBR has you listed as "GBR Advisor"... What, exactly do you "advise" them about? How to get less "hits"? Funny that the most active state for GBR was when I posted there actively under one of my names, eh?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" 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.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: 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...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" You've just described risk premium, doofus.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#2. To: go65 (#0)
WASHINGTON — In a healthy economic recovery, states and localities start hiring, expand services and help fuel the nation's growth.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
(Edited)
Government spending takes capital away from the market-place...
--GW Bush
#4. To: war (#3)
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#4)
...states and localities start hiring, expand services...
--GW Bush
#6. To: war (#5)
So they actually spend the money...it doesn't disappear.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#7. To: go65 (#0)
The U.S. economy is moving ahead,
#8. To: Capitalist Eric (#6)
Government spending, or G, assume 100% efficiency.
--GW Bush
#9. To: Badeye (#7)
(Edited)
Dumbass.....
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#10. To: war (#8)
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.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods.
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”:
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.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#11. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
(Edited)
WAR: GDP doesn't measure efficiency.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#12. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
(Edited)
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.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#13. To: war (#11)
You go on to state that the model is flawed because of the "efficiency" assumption it makes about government spending. It doesn't care about efficiency in any aspect of its calculations. It's simply the dollar value of all output less inflation.
Rule of Disinformation #9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Your playbook is old news, moron.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#14. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
Again, you're not telling the whole truth.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#15. To: Capitalist Eric (#13)
(Edited)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#16. To: war (#9)
It's a better name for you than Badeye, for sure, but it does not beat out Boofer... but we can put it up for a vote if you'd like...
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#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.
ME: In the market-place (absent government interference) the total number of dollars ALWAYS equals the demand for dollars, dummy.
But even a co-existent monetary/barter system alone obviates your statement.
You're long on bullshit and short on real knowledge, Erica.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#18. To: Capitalist Eric (#17)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#19. To: go65 (#16)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#20. To: war (#19)
The irony that is Boofer is...overwhelming...
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#21. To: go65 (#20)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#22. To: war (#3)
What is the government "spending" money on?
#23. To: go65 (#16)
#24. To: go65 (#20)
#25. To: Badeye (#24)
Dumbass, most thought this when you and your DNC talking point bullshit wasn't [sic] visible here for months.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#26. To: Badeye (#24)
(Edited)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#27. To: war (#18)
There is no such unified thing as "monetary equilibrium", doofus.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, mininggold, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list, you're too fucking stupid to hold a real conversation.
#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.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#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.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]