Unemployment is a good indication of how the economy is performing.. of course only people in the labor force who are actively seeking jobs are counted in the statistic.. but it is still an effective measuring device.. as is 3 months of decreasing gdp= recession
How is some of the employment 'completely unproductive?' The fluff economy is still part of the economy.. wars help generate jobs.
"Generating jobs"? The notion of "generating" or creating jobs is a bogus notion used by politicians. The creation of jobs that do nothing prevents employers from coming in and hiring people to do useful things.
It is a legit term. Think about it, in times of war we proportion more money to the military, and government spending increases which makes employment increase, and generates jobs for Americans.
Building jets, tanks, guns, etc. are certainly not useless jobs.. either is the armed services.. They do useful things, and generate gdp for the economy..
It is a legit term. Think about it, in times of war we proportion more money to the military, and government spending increases which makes employment increase, and generates jobs for Americans.
Private employers hiring people to do things "generates" jobs, too. Do you think nobody will come around and take advantage of unemployed people? And as a side effect, useful things that improve well-being get produced. Military spending is useful too, in that it cancels out the bad effects of having enemies around you, but whether you account the reduction in overall quality of life to the enemies who cause instability or the military spending has nothing to do with the fact that every extra dollar of military spending causes the GDP to overstate the well-being of the country by a dollar.
Private employers hiring people to do things "generates" jobs, too. Do you think nobody will come around and take advantage of unemployed people?
Not in times of recession when unemployment is high. World War II helped end the Great Depression b/c of the high spending.
Military spending is useful too, in that it cancels out the bad effects of having enemies around you, but whether you account the reduction in overall quality of life to the enemies who cause instability or the military spending has nothing to do with the fact that every extra dollar of military spending causes the GDP to overstate the well-being of the country by a dollar.
That run-on sentence/paragraph makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
Not in times of recession when unemployment is high. World War II helped end the Great Depression b/c of the high spending.
We're not in a recession.
It's true that spiking government spending temporarily can clear up the excessive cautiousness that inhibits trade, but that has nothing to do with the fact that wasteful spending distorts the GDP and unemployment as a measure of well-being. Do you have anything to say about the distortion of the meaning of the statistics as a result of wasteful government spending, or can I assume you agree with me?
It's true that spiking government spending temporarily can clear up the excessive cautiousness that inhibits trade, but that has nothing to do with the fact that wasteful spending distorts the GDP and unemployment as a measure of well-being. Do you have anything to say about the distortion of the meaning of the statistics as a result of wasteful government spending, or can I assume you agree with me?
How does increased spending 'distort' the gdp? When we are at war, our gdp is usually higher, and unemployment is low, true. However, I do not see how government spending for military and defense is 'wasteful'. The government is simply reallocating resources to better suit the military. Nothing we produce is 'wasted' economically. Everything we create is eventually destroyed..
Besides, government spending accounts for little over 17% of our gdp.. Our gdp does not change much when government spending increases/decreases.
How does increased spending 'distort' the gdp?
Um, hello? When the spending is wasteful, it does not contribute to overall well-being. Thus the GDP is a weaker measurement of well-being than it would be without spending.
Um, hello? When the spending is wasteful, it does not contribute to overall well-being. Thus the GDP is a weaker measurement of well-being than it would be without spending.
A fact that I always found interesting is that bankruptcy and divorses will always improve the GDP.
Not in times of recession when unemployment is high. World War II helped end the Great Depression b/c of the high spending.
Actually, a case could be argued against that.
True, in WW2, some of the effects of the Depression were apparently negated. Wealth was produced, at least on paper, and goods were being produced. Unemployment shrank drastically. Sounds good, right?
Look again. The 'paper wealth' wasn't much good, because production of civilian goods wasn't really increasing. The vast amount of the increase was in military goods...and hummers and the like aside, when's the last time you saw the average working man go buy a piece of military ordinance, or a tank or helicopter, or...you get the idea. Things didn't really settle until after the war, when the production went back to civilian goods and there was finally something to spend all that accrued paper wealth on.
As to the unemployment issue, well, yeah. Unemployment went down. That's what happens when you suddenly swell the size of your armed services; people who weren't employed elsewhere can be employed by the military.
And don't get me started on the Great Depression. (Or do, if you want to take this thread on another tack. Alternately, yell at me, and I'll move it to the history thread.)
Actually, a case could be argued against that.
True, in WW2, some of the effects of the Depression were apparently negated. Wealth was produced, at least on paper, and goods were being produced. Unemployment shrank drastically. Sounds good, right?
Look again. The 'paper wealth' wasn't much good, because production of civilian goods wasn't really increasing. The vast amount of the increase was in military goods...and hummers and the like aside, when's the last time you saw the average working man go buy a piece of military ordinance, or a tank or helicopter, or...you get the idea. Things didn't really settle until after the war, when the production went back to civilian goods and there was finally something to spend all that accrued paper wealth on.
As to the unemployment issue, well, yeah. Unemployment went down. That's what happens when you suddenly swell the size of your armed services; people who weren't employed elsewhere can be employed by the military.
And don't get me started on the Great Depression. (Or do, if you want to take this thread on another tack. Alternately, yell at me, and I'll move it to the history thread.)
It doesn't matter what the government spends money on so long as they spend money. During the Great Depression, the idea of deficit spending became prominent, and the prez attempted to create many jobs by spending more money.. for example, people were paid to brick roads, clean parks, things that were not needed.. but it would have destroyed our economy if we just handed out money, so people did unnecessary work to earn money. After the nazis invaded, the U.S. increased spending on military supplies which in turn created jobs, increased consumer/business spending and ultimately raised our GDP. More military tools were created; however, civilian goods also increased.
I'm more in favor of the citizens getting to spend the money for themselves than the government doing it for them...I'm not really that fond of the idea of 'leech awareness week' or something like that.
in WW2, some of the effects of the Depression were apparently negated.
thats why you got so rich after the war, the UK only finished paying off our lend/lease war debts for WW1 and 2 to you in the 1980s
The government was spending their own money.. Taxes were lowered during the Great Depression and thus disposable income rose. Instead of cutting spending in order to maintain a balanced budget, the government chose to sell more government securities and thus was able to lower taxes and raise government spending concurrently. The United States government spent its own money to help the citizens out of depression.. ending the classical economic theory.
Ironic considering that the only thing that kept the recession going was the interference of the government in the economy.
>The government was spending their own money..
I don't know were you get the notion that goverments has money of their own.
You lost me there. Goverments take OUR money.
Ironic considering that the only thing that kept the recession going was the interference of the government in the economy.
This is true. The government did prolong the depression. Roosevelt's new deal, and his efforts helped to end the depression too. The shift from classical to Keynesian economics occured here.. It was the government's fault for not doing anything at first, but it was also them who saved us from the depression. The federal reserve did a pretty shitty job too.. there was almost a recession again in 1981 (I think), but the Fed actually acted, and the chairman Volcker saved us from certain death :)
>The government was spending their own money..
I don't know were you get the notion that goverments has money of their own.
You lost me there. Goverments take OUR money.
huh? The government makes money in the same way that a department store makes money. You buy something from a department store, and you give them money. This money becomes their money, does it now? Or do you yell and protest, because they take your money? Your logic is idiotic.. The government offers us services such as the police department, the ability to live here as citizens, parks, schools, etc. You think you get all this for free?? NO! Don't be a fool. The government earns money from its people just as a department store earns money from its customers.
>Don't be a fool.
I prefer to be a fool that a socialist.
>You buy something from a department store, and you give them money. This money becomes their money, does it now?
When I go to a department store, I choose to give the money that I am willing to pay for some product or services.
I am not force to buy this or that particular brand nor do I have to pay for a replacement plan.
>Or do you yell and protest, because they take your money? Your logic is idiotic..
You said the right words. See, even when you tried to camouflaged it following eloquent words like "Your logic is idiotic.. ".
...they take your money? My money.
The difference is not much more than if someone threat me to hurt me if I don't give up my money. No because I can not do much about it, takes away the knowledge that what is in hands of the criminal is my money. It is taken from my pay check every period.
>The government offers us services such as the police department, the ability to live here as citizens, parks, schools, etc. You think you get all this for free??
I am not going to debate with you what services I do require.
However don't be so dramatic. I can still live if the goverment goes away. And people are very resourceful in finding what they need and taking care of it.
Should I give you a bad rep for not agreeing with your nonesense? Why then are you so quick in judging peoples opinions and handling bad rep?.
Your statement was not correct, though. Your 'opinion' was that the government does not make money on its own.. which is both literally and metaphorically incorrect. (The United States treasury 'makes' money by ordering to be printed;))
Seriously, though. You don't have to pay taxes. Leave the country if you don't like our government/laws. You do have a choice. However, you choose to live in this country and you choose to use government services. So you should be required to pay.
I only bad reped you, because your statement was incorrect, not because I did not agree with your opinion.
This is true. The government did prolong the depression. Roosevelt's new deal, and his efforts helped to end the depression too. The shift from classical to Keynesian economics occured here.. It was the government's fault for not doing anything at first, but it was also them who saved us from the depression. The federal reserve did a pretty shitty job too..
Roosevelt presided over eight or nine years of high double digit unemployment rates. This should be regarded as utter incompetence. The fact that the depression ended during his reign should be attributed to the fact that he was in office for thirteen years, and to keep a nation under depression for such a period of time requires deliberate effort.
Also, your view of Keynesian economics makes it seem that you've taken AP Macroeconomics. I'm going to assume you haven't looked at other schools of economic thought or simply looked at things in a more nuanced manner (since the Keynesian view is rather primitive) and suggest that you do more research on your own.
> there was almost a recession again in 1981 (I think), but the Fed actually acted, and the chairman Volcker saved us from certain death :)
No, Volcker deliberately caused the recession, viewing it as a necessary evil to kill inflation.
huh? The government makes money in the same way that a department store makes money. You buy something from a department store, and you give them money. This money becomes their money, does it now? Or do you yell and protest, because they take your money? Your logic is idiotic.. The government offers us services such as the police department, the ability to live here as citizens, parks, schools, etc. You think you get all this for free?? NO! Don't be a fool. The government earns money from its people just as a department store earns money from its customers.
The department store makes money by offering voluntary services that people voluntarily pay for. The government takes money by force and in return, it gives it away to corporations, spends it on bureaucracy, decimates foreign populations, locks people in cages for years and years, because they decided to own certain kinds of plants, kills people in investigative efforts for these purposes, maintains a monopoly on the postal system, and manipulates the economy with regulations, causing us to have an absurdly expensive health care system, expensive and low-quality food products, a completely asinine education system, inefficient transportation systems, and tax credits and subsidies, that is, corruption payments, and various forms of second-class citizenship.
Now, I fully expect you to reply like a robot, answering with whatever you've been programmed to believe, but instead, why don't you spend a few days thinking about things the federal government has done that has caused improvement in your life, in the past 18 years, relative to how your life would be if that service had not been provided by the federal government. Name all the things. Now ask yourself how much your parents have paid in taxes to the federal government.
Personally, I can only think of one such thing.
>I only bad reped you, because your statement was incorrect, not because I did not agree with your opinion.
May I give you a word of advise?.
When you are debating with someone, with passion, and with the heat of the discussion; abstain yourself of giving bad rep to make a point.
Let others judge what's the merits of the comment and rep accordingly. In that way you know for sure you are not the police, the judge and the executor of what it is right and wrong.
>Seriously, though. You don't have to pay taxes. Leave the country if you don't like our government/laws. You do have a choice. However, you choose to live in this country and you choose to use government services. So you should be required to pay.
That's so lame. You only say that because you know that I was not
born in this country. Nevertheless, I will address your comment.
This is as much my contry as is yours. My children's country is my country and I will defend it because that's what patriotism means for me. The land were my family lives.
What I said, I said it, because I refuse to let anyone, nor you, nor any of those "hot-shots" in congress to define for me what MY country is or is not, by Social Engineering.
I am supporting MY country, I pay what is necesary for the services my family and I use. What I do not agreed is with the arrogance my money is taken away. How they take it for granted, how "you" call it their money. And how little I can do to make sure the money is use in US, the citizen; properly. I hope when someday you start working for real you remember your words.
Roosevelt presided over eight or nine years of high double digit unemployment rates. This should be regarded as utter incompetence. The fact that the depression ended during his reign should be attributed to the fact that he was in office for thirteen years, and to keep a nation under depression for such a period of time requires deliberate effort.
What ignorance is this? I don't think it's fair to judge roosevelt as he was not president during the crash. Relative to the first 4 years of the depression, Roosevelt did well with what resources he had. I doubt you could have done much better..
Also, your view of Keynesian economics makes it seem that you've taken AP Macroeconomics. I'm going to assume you haven't looked at other schools of economic thought or simply looked at things in a more nuanced manner (since the Keynesian view is rather primitive) and suggest that you do more research on your own.
Yes, I have taken Macroeconomics AP and Microeconomics AP, and scored 5s on both tests.. How the hell is my Keynesian 'view' primitive? I made one reference to that term, and it was only to briefly describe it.
No, Volcker deliberately caused the recession, viewing it as a necessary evil to kill inflation.
o ok
The department store makes money by offering voluntary services that people voluntarily pay for. The government takes money by force and in return, it gives it away to corporations, spends it on bureaucracy, decimates foreign populations, locks people in cages for years and years, because they decided to own certain kinds of plants, kills people in investigative efforts for these purposes, maintains a monopoly on the postal system, and manipulates the economy with regulations, causing us to have an absurdly expensive health care system, expensive and low-quality food products, a completely asinine education system, inefficient transportation systems, and tax credits and subsidies, that is, corruption payments, and various forms of second-class citizenship.
Wow, another extremely long, and rambling sentence lol.. The federal government can do whatever the hell they want with the money b/c it is theirs. However, we have the option to vote for the people who decide what to do with that money.. and so, we have an indirect ownership of this money, hence democracy. And btw, if you don't like it, then petition and try to change it, or you can leave the country. You don't have to pay taxes, and you don't have to put up with the U.S. government if you don't want to.
Now, I fully expect you to reply like a robot, answering with whatever you've been programmed to believe, but instead, why don't you spend a few days thinking about things the federal government has done that has caused improvement in your life, in the past 18 years, relative to how your life would be if that service had not been provided by the federal government. Name all the things. Now ask yourself how much your parents have paid in taxes to the federal government.
Oh, and what kind of insult is this? lol.. I never respond with what I've "been programmed to believe". Every single belief I have, is one that I have thought of, and decided upon myself. The federal government has done much to improve my life. What have they done that is detrimental to my well-being? Your leftist views are your own views.. not everyone else believes the same as you, and believes in complete anarchy.
That's so lame. You only say that because you know that I was not born in this country. Nevertheless, I will address your comment.
This is as much my contry as is yours. My children's country is my country and I will defend it because that's what patriotism means for me. The land were my family lives.
What I said, I said it, because I refuse to let anyone, nor you, nor any of those "hot-shots" in congress to define for me what MY country is or is not, by Social Engineering.
I am supporting MY country, I pay what is necesary for the services my family and I use. What I do not agreed is with the arrogance my money is taken away. How they take it for granted, how "you" call it their money. And how little I can do to make sure the money is use in US, the citizen; properly. I hope when someday you start working for real you remember your words.
On the contrar, I did not say that comment directed to you, as an immigrant. I say it to all American citizens. Countries require funds to function properly.. and we all agreed to the laws and regulations of the government when we decided to live here (or remain living here). As I said to Rashakil, if you don't like the way this country is run, then either petition and try to do something about it, or you can freely leave.
Leftist views? Do you know what "leftist" means? Somebody opposed to government largesse is leftist? It looks like somebody Fourier transformed your dictionary.
Your "Our government is a well-run government because GTFO" line of reasoning is an amusing form of brain damage.
I'm still waiting for you to name some ways in which the federal government has improved your life.
Leftist views? Do you know what "leftist" means? Somebody opposed to government largesse is leftist? It looks like somebody Fourier transformed your dictionary.
You dislike the government, how it is run, and who runs it.. you want fundamental changes within the federal government.. this sounds liberal to me..
I'm still waiting for you to name some ways in which the federal government has improved your life.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how they haven't improved out lives. Besides, the purpose of any government is to protect its people.. Improving the lives of the people isn't necessarily a goal. However, the American government has improved all of our lives very much in the past 10-20 years. And until you come up with some evidence against this, I really don't find it necessary for me to list anything..
> You dislike the government, how it is run, and who runs it.. you want fundamental changes within the federal government.. this sounds liberal to me..
There's a difference between leftist and liberal. In the U.S. 'liberal' is distorted to refer to leftists, but here you're using it in the 'willing to change government' sense.
> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how they haven't improved out lives. Besides, the purpose of any government is to protect its people..
One way they haven't improved our lives is that they haven't invented magic fairies that grant us free chocolate whenever we ask for it.
> Improving the lives of the people isn't necessarily a goal.
I agree; this happens automatically. So how can the size of the federal government be justified?
> However, the American government has improved all of our lives very much in the past 10-20 years. And until you come up with some evidence against this, I really don't find it necessary for me to list anything..
How? Name a way in which it has. Just name a few. I dare you.
I could name a few how it's helped mine. First, there's the leasing of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our government does this via a silly quota system, but the principle of providing for spectrum ownership is not unreasonable. You could count the general protection of property rights, particularly mathematical ones such as the spectrum and copyright, and of course, patents. Making international treaties regarding these rights is helpful, too. Those are a few obvious ones. Also, they sponsored MOSP. And basic law enforcement might have improved my life. I suppose you could also credit the federal government for the hilarity of the Daily Show.
> You dislike the government, how it is run, and who runs it.. you want fundamental changes within the federal government.. this sounds liberal to me..
There's a difference between leftist and liberal. In the U.S. 'liberal' is distorted to refer to leftists, but here you're using it in the 'willing to change government' sense.
No, I equate liberal as someone who favors change, and a conservative as someone who likes things the way they are.. which is the original meaning of the two. Leftist means you are far left, to the liberal end of things.. right=conservative.. mmk, now that we know how people are classified, let's continue..
> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how they haven't improved out lives. Besides, the purpose of any government is to protect its people..
One way they haven't improved our lives is that they haven't invented magic fairies that grant us free chocolate whenever we ask for it.
hmm.. that may not be an improvement, as all that chocolate would rot out our teeth, and we would eventually regret it. Sorry, try again ;)
How? Name a way in which it has. Just name a few. I dare you....
I suppose you could also credit the federal government for the hilarity of the Daily Show.
I enjoy the Daily show :)
How has the government helped me? The government has provided me with health care, police officers who protect us, the millitary who protect us, a nice $60 tax return, public schooling, electricity, plumbing, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the ability to travel freely between the states, etc. Some of these you may not consider to be ways in which the government has helped, but I do.
>How has the government helped me? The government has provided me with health care,
It does for you? And if it were gone, you wouldn't receive health care?
>police officers who protect us,
They aren't provided for by the federal government.
> the millitary who protect us,
You should congratulate them for a century of successfully protecting us from Canadian invasion.
> a nice $60 tax return,
That means it took $60 extra in taxes from you, which means it deprived you of the interest that amount of money would generate, or simply the freedom to have spent it earlier.
Edit: Seriously, are you _trying_ to make yourself look stupid?
> public schooling,
Schooling is provided at the state level or lower, depending on the state you're in. How has the federal meddling improved your education?
> electricity,
WTF are you smoking? Power companies provide you with electricity.
> plumbing,
Local communities, or if you're referring to the people that built your house, um, no, that's not the feds either.
> freedom of speech,
They don't give you that.
> the right to bear arms,
They don't give that either.
> the ability to travel freely between the states, etc.
They don't give that either. These they just don't take away.
> Some of these you may not consider to be ways in which the government has helped, but I do.
That sentence sounds like religious idiot style reasoning there. All the things you've mentioned that involve doing something have no reason the federal government should have anything to do with them, except the military, which hasn't improved your life any. (And certainly any marginal benefits you could claim are wiped out by the taxes you visibly or invisibly pay.) An argument for free children's health insurance could be made in the same vein as public education, but what is purpose of federal implementation of that?
Oh, you missed border control.
>How has the government helped me? The government has provided me with health care,
It does for you? And if it were gone, you wouldn't receive health care?
nope
>police officers who protect us,
They aren't provided for by the federal government.
The FBI and CIA are police officers in a way..
> the millitary who protect us,
You should congratulate them for a century of successfully protecting us from Canadian invasion.
Without the military to at least scare people away from the idea of attacking us, a coup would certainly occur..
> a nice $60 tax return,
That means it took $60 extra in taxes from you, which means it deprived you of the interest that amount of money would generate, or simply the freedom to have spent it earlier.
Hey, I get to invest it now though, don't I? The saved me from going out and wasting it early.
> public schooling,
Schooling is provided at the state level or lower, depending on the state you're in. How has the federal meddling improved your education?
And the state and local governments derive their power from who?
> electricity,
WTF are you smoking? Power companies provide you with electricity.
Actually, some cities set up a monopoly and a committee to regulate electricity..
> freedom of speech,They don't give you that.
> the right to bear arms,
They don't give that either.
Really? Then what exactly does the bill or amendments do? It protects us from the federal government by enabling us to possess said rights..
> the ability to travel freely between the states, etc.
They don't give that either. These they just don't take away.
Exactly.. If they don't disallow it, then it is allowed, right? lol
You have yet to provide an anti-example
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.