The Stimulus didn't work?!

[stokes234]

1) I did not attack the arguer

2) You have no argument. If all you say is its morally wrong to inherit money or make (too much) money in the market, there is nothing else to say to you.

1) I didn't say "attack", and you were definetely addressing me. I'm sure it's within the rules, but it isn't constructive.

2) I believe I do have an arguement; that acquiring money through luck is not a valid form of "rightfully earning" it, because in the case of inheritance there is no "earning" process, and in the case of the shares lottery the amount of labour put it is completely disproportionate to the amount of money acquired, when compared with other professions such as medicine, scientific research, engineering etc.

Simply put, advocates of the free market capitalist system often believe, or at least try to imply that the amount of money earned by an individual is determined by the amount and quality of labour put in, and this is a falsehood. If you genuinely believe money earned should be a result of effort, skill and risk, then you would support firefighters, doctors, soldiers, mechanics etc earning more than bankers.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I don't ever remember the government asking me if I was going to use the money I earned before making me give it to them.

 

[MikeMangum]

If someone invests $30 million, but holds $20 million back, they aren't risking anything in real terms. Even if they lose all $30 million, they're still going to spend the rest of their life with a much higher than average standard of living.

Sure. And we could cut your income and total net worth in half, and by the standards of the world, you would still spend the rest of your life with a much higher than average standard of living. So it wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't be a real change at all.

Right?

 

[MikeMangum]

Oh, by the way...remember how Germany responded to the economic crisis by engaging in austerity measures, and how all the cool kids said that Germany was cutting its own economic throat by not engaging in greater 'stimulus'?

I wonder how that turned out?

German minister says full employment 'possible soon'

Data released this week showed German business confidence at a 20-year high.

German optimism is in marked contrast with the gloom engulfing some European economies struggling with high debts.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, 'things that make you go hrmmmm'.

 

[WildCat]

Oh, by the way...remember how Germany responded to the economic crisis by engaging in austerity measures, and how all the cool kids said that Germany was cutting its own economic throat by not engaging in greater 'stimulus'?

I wonder how that turned out?

German minister says full employment 'possible soon'


As Arsenio Hall used to say, 'things that make you go hrmmmm'.

Well, in Germany "full employment" is an unemployment rate of 9% or so, like they had even during the best of times.

 

[Thunder]

Well, in Germany "full employment" is an unemployment rate of 9% or so, like they had even during the best of times.

I'd like to see evidence of that.

 

[lomiller]

Oh, by the way...remember how Germany responded to the economic crisis by engaging in austerity measures, and how all the cool kids said that Germany was cutting its own economic throat by not engaging in greater 'stimulus'?

I wonder how that turned out?

German minister says full employment 'possible soon'


As Arsenio Hall used to say, 'things that make you go hrmmmm'.

You are shooting yourself in the foot. Real growth in government spending in Germany was nearly double that of the US. Low and behold, it worked. Their austerity plan is aimed at bringing their deficit down over the next decade and if I’m not mistaken it includes tax increases.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/ever-expanding-government/

 

[stokes234]

Sure. And we could cut your income and total net worth in half, and by the standards of the world, you would still spend the rest of your life with a much higher than average standard of living. So it wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't be a real change at all.

Right?

No, because you're omitting scale from your arguement again. Between my salary - roughly average for the uk - and half the average for the uk is a significant gap. Take away half of it, and I would suffer loss of comforts - I would have to choose between not having a car, having a particularly small flat, having no tv or no computer/no internet, etc. I'd still be on a higher living standard than most of the world, but I would be losing tangible comforts and conveniences.

My arguement is that after a certain point above the average, there comes no tangible gain in living standards, or at least not on a similar scale to the majority. For example, take one person on $100 million dollars a year and knock him down to $1 million a year, then take the $99 million a year and bump 9,900 people from $10,000 dollars to $20,000 dollars a year, and you're going to see a significant average rise in living standards for the 9,901 people involved. Of course it's more complicated than that, you can't just distribute wealth in that way under the current system, but I believe that democratically elected officials are the better option for deciding how the money should be distributed.

 

[novice skeptic]

Point out to me where this bailout is costing tax payers $49.5 billion. GM was LENT money, they are going to pay it all back with interest. They've already paid back a substantial amount.



Yes, SOME of those agreements were made by the Bush administration.

With money they got from another government program. Paying back the citizens with money taken from the citizens isn't paying them back now is it.

 

[novice skeptic]

Labor is not the sole input in wealth creation. Without tools, raw materials, etc. there isn't anything for a laborer to do. Capital plus labor equals wealth creation. If someone invests $30 million, he has provided a very large amount of capital, he has risked a very large amount of wealth, with which to create new wealth. Of that newly created wealth, the investor only gets a fraction.

Not only that, but many venture capitalists specialize in areas involving medical innovation and breakthroughs. My brother in law is such a person, and because my sister has a disability, he has made it an issue to raise much money for a cure, while also making it a business investment. If a cure for a rare debilititating disease is found, I'd say those investors earned whatever profit they make, and surely as much as a clerk at the Registry of Motor Vehicles earned his/her salary by being rude to customers and providing lousy service.

 

[thaiboxerken]

With money they got from another government program. Paying back the citizens with money taken from the citizens isn't paying them back now is it.

Evidence?

 

[novice skeptic]

Evidence?

LOL look at you playing the "cite" card. I'm still waiting for your proof that Republicans have said that they believe that people who lose their jobs deserve nothing.

But since it's the holidays and I'm feeling generous:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/gm-hot-water-ftc-truth-advertising/

Oh wait that's the evil Fox News. How about this from Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ceo-says-gm-has-repaid-government-loans-full/

"Grassley's claim about the origin of the money used to repay the loan was acknowledged by company and government officials.

In an April 21, 2010, interview on the Fox Business Network, GM's vice chairman, Stephen Girsky, was asked if GM is just paying the government back with government money.

"That is, in effect true," Girsky said. "


Since I gather you are a Muay Thai fan, let me put this in language you can understand: You've just been KTFO.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Since I gather you are a Muay Thai fan, let me put this in language you can understand: You've just been KTFO.

Cherry-picking isn't something that will KO me. I can cherry-pick as well, from the same article:

"It's a genuine paying back," White said. "It does reduce the federal government's involvement."

Next time, bring a bigger stick.

 

[novice skeptic]

Cherry-picking isn't something that will KO me. I can cherry-pick as well, from the same article:

"It's a genuine paying back," White said. "It does reduce the federal government's involvement."

Next time, bring a bigger stick.

Looks like your glass jaw only necessitates a twig. You asked for evidence that GM paid back the government with money from the government. Unlike you, when asked I provided you with a link. I've asked you 5 times now for similar evidence and you've dodged, ducked, dove and dodged. Why?

The links I provided showed evidence of what I said.

And down goes Frasier.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The links I provided showed evidence of what I said.

While at the same time showing evidence of what I've said.

 

[Skeptic]

People in favour of wealth redistribution are, by and large, not in favour of taking money from those who earned it through pure hard graft, up to a point.

Oh, I see.

You're only for taking money from bad people who don't deserve it.

Somehow I don't find that too reassuring.

 

[stokes234]

Oh, I see.

You're only for taking money from bad people who don't deserve it.

Somehow I don't find that too reassuring.

No, it wasn't the "deserve" part I was strictly questioning in that sentence, it was the "hard graft" part. I don't believe a CEO who earns say, $5 million a year is putting in 25 times as much effort and skill as a doctor who earns $200k a year.

 

[WildCat]

I'd like to see evidence of that.

Note that the current 7.5% rate is near a historic low:

Source

 

[Region Rat]

No, it wasn't the "deserve" part I was strictly questioning in that sentence, it was the "hard graft" part. I don't believe a CEO who earns say, $5 million a year is putting in 25 times as much effort and skill as a doctor who earns $200k a year.

I'm curious. I'm not justifying CEO pay with this question, but I wonder what it would be worth to you to be the CEO of a major global corporation, and know that at any time, any minute, some employee at the very bottom of the organizational chart could make a mistake and kill himself, kill others, or cause a major environmental disaster. Or, to take the person out of it, that a major equipment malfunction could kill someone or cause an environmental tragedy? Or, even knowing that some low level employee, many levels of administration down from you where you probably wouldn't even know his name, would make a mistake that would financially cripple the corporation, and maybe affect the national economy? Knowing that in the eyes of the world, you are ultimately responsible for what happens in situations over which you have no knowledge or control?

What would it cost for you to bear that responsibility? What would they have to pay to to be the CEO of BP, and know you might have to stand in front of camera's every day because of a mistake at the front lines of production?

I've been in front line and middle management, and my biggest fear was that despite all the training, education and support that the production units get, mistakes get made, people get hurt, things happen, and I am responsible. That's responsibility for 40-50 people or so, in an area that I know everyone and everything. Multiply that by thousands and many, many layers of administration in between.

You couldn't pay me enough. The money and perks and country club memberships couldn't even begin to cover the stress.

But that's just me. Maybe I'm a wimp. How much would you take for pay?

 

[BeAChooser]

Note that the current 7.5% rate is near a historic low

There are many lessons in Germany for those willing to listen but thinking what Obama and the democrats did will lead to success is not one of them.

Take a look at this chart of German unemployment rate the last 50 years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ate.svg/795px-GermanyUnemploymentRate.svg.png

You might wonder what happened in the early 1970s when unemployment rates in Germany suddenly began to skyrocket. Well the answer is simple. Up until that time, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) … i.e., socialists … did not control the country. From 1949 to 1966, the SPD was only an outsider … the opposition party. Then in 1966 it became part of a winning coalition led by the Christian Democratic Union Party. And in 1969, the SPD won the majority of seats itself and dominated the government until 1982. That was time enough to establish Germany as a social welfare state with unemployment steadily climbing to over 8% and rising. And you can see from the chart, after the other parties regained control, they managed to get the unemployment growth stopped and it started to drop ... back down to well under 8% by 1992.

Then the SPD began to regain their strength. And as they grew in power, unemployment began to rise again. They took complete control in 1998, by which time unemployment was over 10%. The held control until 2005 ... with unemployment remaining over 10% the whole time. When their hold finally began to weaken, the unemployment rate dropped. In the current government they are now the minor party of a three party coalition with their support now down to less than 25% in national polls. So maybe that's the real reason for Germany's current 18 year low in unemployment rate and it's economic recovery. Just different thinking than the sort of thinking promoted by US/German democrats/progressives/socialists/communists.

And just for contrast, in the US the highest the unemployment rate reached during the post war period was slightly over 10.8% for the briefest of times in late 1982 during a recession. Here: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/10/30/saupload_unemployment.jpg . Most of the time it was well below Germany's 7.5% . In fact, during a republican controlled congress in the late 90s, it fell to 4%. Here: http://perotcharts.com/images/indicators/indicators05-640.png . In fact, as you can see from that chart, then even with George Bush Jr (who liberals despise) in the Whitehouse, the unemployment rate in the US barely climbed above 6% despite a recession and the economic turmoil following 9/11. Then, during the time when Republicans controlled Congress, it fell steadily … below 5% for two years of Bush Jr's term. It only started going up (and then it went up to German levels) when democrats took over both houses of Congress near the end of Bush's term.

Yes, I think there's a lesson in all the above, but those who vote for democrats just seem completely deaf to it.