Depression Economics 101

No matter how much finance is available nothing is pulling the US out of high unemployment. This is permanent.

Paul Krugman [someone I usually admire] is dead wrong when he claims that only a multi-tirllion dollar government expenditure like the Second World War would jolt us out of this. Nothing can jolt us out of this.

Unlike the present, in 1945 the US had a staggering trade surplus with dominance in exports in all sectors. It had a colossal manufacturing base as well as total energy independence. Today everything is the reverse.

The booms of the 1980s and 1990s were fueled by high tech manufacturing and construction, making for a band-aid over continued massive trade deficits. Since then high-tech manufacturing has gone overseas, and the speculation in real estate will never soar again.

The ugly truth about the modest growth of the last thirty years [during which huge trade deficits were on-going] was that it came mostly from immigration, both legal and illegal. When I was in college the US population was 240 million; now it's a staggering 311 million in just a couple of decades.....and this is unsustainable crowding of our cities and towns has been the only real engine of GDP expansion.

No amount of new government spending will reverse this because so much of the resulting spending will just go overseas. No amount of education reform will remedy it because there aren't enough jobs for the trained people we already have. If the US were to spend less on medicine instead of more it will only make things worse by downsizing the only sector of high income jobs we still have. If the US downsizes the military, throwing out of work everyone dependent on that, it will only make things worse. Reducing government spending on anything will only make things worse.

The only thing that can restore a strong economy is to begin running trade surpluses again. That means restricting imports and taxing imported energy so as to make expand domestic production of everything.

The dogma of free trade to which economists like Krugman will never vary is what lies at the heart of the matter.

Otherwise I like Paul Krugman.

Otherwise I like Paul Krugman. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Paul Krugman is clinically insane. I say that because no one could be stupid enough to hold his views economics unless they were completely psychotic. He said Obama's "stimulus" bill only failed because it wasn't big enough. That's beyond stupid.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...ane/page/full/

http://looktruenorth.com/prosperity/...ly-insane.html

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NION-205090346

That's a spot on analysis. Well stated.

I'm so sick of hearing "we need to educate more engineers...." all that does is is lower the price of engineer labor.

Except for the military part, I believe downsizing our overseas military presence would have a positive effect.

No amount of new government spending will reverse this because so much of the resulting spending will just go overseas. No amount of education reform will remedy it because there aren't enough jobs for the trained people we already have. If the US were to spend less on medicine instead of more it will only make things worse by downsizing the only sector of high income jobs we still have. If the US downsizes the military, throwing out of work everyone dependent on that, it will only make things worse. Reducing government spending on anything will only make things worse.

The only thing that can restore a strong economy is to begin running trade surpluses again. That means restricting imports and taxing imported energy so as to make expand domestic production of everything.

The dogma of free trade to which economists like Krugman will never vary is what lies at the heart of the matter. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Government cannot get us back to growing economically except by getting out of the way of business. If government spending was the solution we would all be rolling in money. We must quit making it more beneficial to manufacture overseas. Trade barriers are not the solution. Lowering taxes on businesses in the US. Simplifying regulation to reduce the overhead of doing business. Legal reform to minimize the cost of law suits and limit damage awards to the actual amount of the damages except in cases of gross negligence. Bottom line encourage the creation of business activity in the US. The government should be doing what it can to help businesses become profitable.

I agree with bringing the military home from peaceful locations unless the host nation wants to cover the cost.

It it possible though, to remove enough regs and taxes for US manufacturing to compete with the low wages paid in Asia?

I'm not saying we shouldn't make it cheaper to operate here, but if Malasia for example can pay $1/hr to make blue jeans... would us lowering overhead even matter?

It takes more than regulation reform, we need an entirely different tax system. We will not solve our problems using our current tax code. It is part of the problem.

Simply put, we need The FairTax. One problem with it, however, it takes an enormous amount of power away from Congress and their lobbyists. So even though it would completely reinvigorate our economy and make us once again the World's Great Economic Power, since it reduces the power of congressmen/women, who love power, it won't happen soon.

It it possible though, to remove enough regs and taxes for US manufacturing to compete with the low wages paid in Asia?

I'm not saying we shouldn't make it cheaper to operate here, but if Malasia for example can pay $1/hr to make blue jeans... would us lowering overhead even matter? Originally Posted by Submodo

You're right.

Even if all regulations were eliminated it would still be far cheaper to continue manufacturing overseas.

We have to return to what we did before we signed onto the free trade regimes. There's nothing fair about slave wages overseas and allowing our competitors to manipulate their currencies while we do nothing. As far as tort reform goes, product liability and other necessary standards are pretty much all we have to protect us from negligence, fraud and malice. Let's not start tinkering with fundamental legal institutions because there's cost involved.

In my opinion at lot of things would be better if we returned to the way all things were socially fifty years ago, and that means lower local tax rates, higher Federal tax rates, less spending on local government, no more "wars" on terror or drugs, etc. Just put the public sector [particularly local which is where the explosion has occured] back in the bottle, and don't trade anymore with foreigners who cheat.

We can remove regulations (and we should remove all unnecessary regs) but that is only part of the problem. We cannot compete with overseas wages but there is so much that keeping jobs here can avoid; insurrections, epidemics, corruption, illiteracy, different langauges and customs.

We also need to change the tax code in order to keep the money in this country. A company produces a product which it then sells to customers. A profit is made by the company after paying corporate taxes, property taxes, state taxes, etc. The left over is paid to employees through paychecks and benefits including healthcare, unemployment, and social security taxes. Anything left goes to pay the owner or stockholders. Now the money gets taxed for the second time when the employee pays taxes, the stock holders pay taxes, and the owner pays taxes. If the employees buy a house, a car, a horse, a condo they get to pay taxes again. They also get to pay taxes on their gasoline. The employees put some of the money away for retirement or a rainy day. That day arrives and they get to pay taxes again (for the fourth time). Maybe they die before they enjoy their retirement...under new Obama regs they get to pay up to 55% of their saved money over a million dollars. Taxed a fifth time! No wonder people want to hide their money. If the money stays in the country then jobs will be created.

It takes more than regulation reform, we need an entirely different tax system. We will not solve our problems using our current tax code. It is part of the problem.

Simply put, we need The FairTax. One problem with it, however, it takes an enormous amount of power away from Congress and their lobbyists. So even though it would completely reinvigorate our economy and make us once again the World's Great Economic Power, since it reduces the power of congressmen/women, who love power, it won't happen soon. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm a big fan of the Fair Tax. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to sell it to 51% of the people. The Dimo's will just say it's a tax break for the rich. I'm afraid the progressive income tax is probably here to stay.

Paul Krugman is clinically insane. I say that because no one could be stupid enough to hold his views economics unless they were completely psychotic. He said Obama's "stimulus" bill only failed because it wasn't big enough. That's beyond stupid.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...ane/page/full/

http://looktruenorth.com/prosperity/...ly-insane.html

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NION-205090346 Originally Posted by joe bloe

Yeah, that's what he won a Nibel Prize in economics and you're the worst economist on a silly whore board.

A Nibel Prize? Yup. Sounds like Krugman. Obama won a Nobel prize, not that it meant anything either.

Yeah, that's what he won a Nibel Prize in economics and you're the worst economist on a silly whore board. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The Nobel Prize is meaningless. It's completely politicized and is controlled by socialists. Of course Krugman would get an award from these clowns. They're certainly not going to give validation to a supply sider.

What makes the Nobel Committee qualified to judge anything? They might as well let the judges on American Idol choose the winners. At least it would be more entertaining.

PS
I'm pretty sure there are no economists on this silly whore board.

PPS
I'm assuming you are talking about the Nobel Prize, not the "Nibel Prize." If you are talking about the "Nibel Prize," please dissregard my post. For all I know, Mr Krugman may be well qualified for the "Nibel Prize."

The Nobel prize is nowadays worth about as much a a pot full of cold piss. Jesus Christ, they gave the fucking thing to obama, for what? Playing golf, hoops , and himself, what a motherfucking joke that is.

The Nobel prize is nowadays worth about as much a a pot full of cold piss. Jesus Christ, they gave the fucking thing to obama, for what? Playing golf, hoops , and himself, what a motherfucking joke that is. Originally Posted by seedman55

They also gave one to Yasser Arafat. I hear Jeffrey Dahmer was first runner up.