Jump to content

Unemployment question for the economists among us


Brother Mango

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Much of the investments that are happening now are by those who have capital and they aren't the middle class or the poor. Most families who have IRA's are pulling out and this further erodes confidence in the government and the markets.


 

 

This is something that is overlooked a lot.

 

During even the great depression, many fortunes were made/expanded by those who took the risk to invest. In a lot of cases, the rich did indeed get richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out

of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person

must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody

anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When

half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the

other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the

idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what

they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You

cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

:cool:

 

This quote is soaked with personal baggage.

"half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them."

 

Is he saying that 50% of people aren't working? And not only are they not working but they're relaxed about it because the other 50% are looking out for them? 50% sound awfully high. Is he including children and infants in the 50%.

 

Maybe he's saying that adults are the 50% taking care of children (the other 50% of the population) who are being taught that they don't have to work.

 

Is he saying that the people who make less than the national mean (roughly $45,000) aren't working as hard because the people above the mean are looking out for them?

 

I find the statement repugnant because it doens't teach anything. Instead, it's a rah-rah speech that pits one group of people against another, and makes the government the devil for being the fight promoter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This quote is soaked with personal baggage.

"half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them."


Is he saying that 50% of people aren't working? And not only are they not working but they're relaxed about it because the other 50% are looking out for them? 50% sound awfully high. Is he including children and infants in the 50%.


Maybe he's saying that adults are the 50% taking care of children (the other 50% of the population) who are being taught that they don't have to work.


Is he saying that the people who make less than the national mean (roughly $45,000) aren't working as hard because the people above the mean are looking out for them?


I find the statement repugnant because it doens't teach anything. Instead, it's a rah-rah speech that pits one group of people against another, and makes the government the devil for being the fight promoter.



I think you are missing the point. :D

It's about the inherint dangers of government mandated redistribution of wealth, and the logical conclusion to that line of thinking.

If you want to see an example of it in practice, look at the economic crash of the USSR. Without incentive to excel or work hard, you won't have economic growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I find the statement repugnant because it doens't teach anything. Instead, it's a rah-rah speech that pits one group of people against another, and makes the government the devil for being the fight promoter.

If the government (read as elected officials wanting to keep office) weren't promoting the fight, there would be no devil other than themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
If you want to see an example of it in practice, look at the economic crash of the USSR. Without incentive to excel or work hard, you won't have economic growth.

And then once the system collapses, know one has the drive/knowledge/experience of how to do for themselves. Insert Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This is just not right. Up until recently, most put little into savings. Much of it was invested in the markets (IRA's and mutual funds) not by the rich but by a large number of the middle income earners. We got into this crisis because of the far reaching hand of government intervention into market forces.


I find it hilarious that an expert in the field of economics can come on here and be told that she is "not right" by you. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you are missing the point.
:D

It's about the inherint dangers of government mandated redistribution of wealth, and the logical conclusion to that line of thinking.


If you want to see an example of it in practice, look at the economic crash of the USSR. Without incentive to excel or work hard, you won't have economic growth.

 

Learning that the good Dr. was a preacher, I think I got his point the way he meant it.

 

The USSR had a load of problems. Centralized economy, the 5-yr plan, mandates on how much of X a person is requred to make but the centralized government doesn't provide adequate materials.

 

There are a lot of reasons why the USSR collapsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I find it hilarious that an expert in the field of economics can come on here and be told that she is "not right" by you.
:rolleyes:



why? Even economists disagree on many many points. There are many different "schools" of economics.

having a degree in a subject doesn't make someone correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

why? Even economists disagree on many many points. There are many different "schools" of economics.


having a degree in a subject doesn't make someone correct.

 

 

You won't get any disagreement, there. But Hawkhuff is almost mechanical:

Say something, then count to 10, Hawkhuff will appear saying it's wrong.

 

He may even be right, but it's more comical to stick a nickel in that jukebox and hear that same song.

 

I'm waiting for the day that we get to meet the Hawkhuff who isn't fault-finding. There's probably a decent person under there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Funny. I remember when Clinton was in office the chant from dems of "We don't care about Paula jones, we only care about Dow Jones".



seems that's not as important now, huh?
:D



Paula Jones? No, she's not important at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

This is something that is overlooked a lot.


During even the great depression, many fortunes were made/expanded by those who took the risk to invest. In a lot of cases, the rich did indeed get richer.

 

 

To take a risk, one must first have something to risk. As the saying goes, it takes money to make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hear is a favorite quote of mine:


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out

of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person

must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody

anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When

half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the

other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the

idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what

they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You

cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

:cool:

I think it may well be a favorite quote of mine too. Thanks. :thu:

I recall correctly, this is what happened to the pilgrims at Plymouth back in the 1600's (don't recall the dates). It nearly wiped them out.

This quote and implied personal philosophy might also mean you will be hated by many on this forum. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You won't get any disagreement, there. But Hawkhuff is almost mechanical:

Say something, then count to 10, Hawkhuff will appear saying it's wrong.


He may even be right, but it's more comical to stick a nickel in that jukebox and hear that same song.


I'm waiting for the day that we get to meet the Hawkhuff who isn't fault-finding. There's probably a decent person under there.

I am a real nice guy mango man but you will never see it.

 

Why would I wish to meet you? I can think of no reasons to converse with you let alone actually go out of my way to actually meet you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I find it hilarious that an expert in the field of economics can come on here and be told that she is "not right" by you.
:rolleyes:



Don't kid yourself that there isn't an ideology prism used in the field of economics.

Just like we could find 5 psychiatrists to testify that you're psychotic we can probably find another five that say maybe you are. :blah: :blah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I am a real nice guy mango man but you will never see it.


Why would I wish to meet you? I can think of no reasons to converse with you let alone actually go out of my way to actually meet you.

 

 

I have no idea why you'd wish to meet me. But I'm here if you ever do. And I'll be in DC in May ... really close to MD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Once again, my wife:


To answer Brother Mango's question, high unemployment is a problem, but the weak economy is a result of the housing market crisis, credit crisis, and high unemployment. These things are interconnected: massive losses in the banking sector due to people defaulting on their mortgages have lowered the availability of credit. When businesses cannot obtain credit to pay their workers, they reduce employment. If people lose their jobs, they reduce their consumption and default on their mortgages. When people reduce their consumption, less products are demanded, and businesses reduce employment. And so on.

The next federal budget, if passed, will exceed the sum of all the federal budgets of previous years going back to the first US budget, COMBINED. I fail to see how the government needs to spend more. So we should go into further hock to foreign governments thus cementing us as a debtor nation for the foreseeable future? Are you prepared to pay much higher taxes now and have your subsequent generations paying for this too?


This was exactly what the dems were screaming bloody murder about; deficits any time a rep POTUS wanted to increase defense spending. Now it is their turn to make things right and they are moving, no sprinting in the opposite direction toward far more socialization of most economic activities.


More government and more hypocrisy is precisely what we don't need more of; bloated budgets, huge deficits, and many more bureaucrats. Incidently, the government is the only sector in the economy where employment numbers are increasing. This is not a good sign for those who like and support the 'free' market system.


Never has a government spent its way into prosperity by confiscating wealth from it hard working citizens and from future citizens.
:facepalm:



There are two issues here: one is deficits and the other is government spending. With regard to deficits: in the long run, we need to reduce deficits, or foreign investors may not believe that we'll pay back our debts and will reduce investment. In the short run, we need to spend money in order to stimulate the economy. (I've explained why government spending increases GDP above.) If we don't stimulate the economy and more people lose their jobs, we could have even worse deficits in the future because of decreased tax revenue from income taxes.

With regard to government spending: different policies are appropriate in different situations. When the economy was good, we shouldn't have been deficit spending. Now that the economy is bad, we must deficit spend. Assuming that we should always treat the economy the same way, regardless of the situation, is like asking your doctor for blood thinners after you get shot. (After all, they worked great after your heart attack!)

Don't worry yourself sick about the demise of free markets. Government has long intervened in markets without setting the prices and quantities of goods produced (see New Deal, Social Security, environmental regulation, free public education, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...