Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 31, 2016, 04:01:59 PM
while the higher earners will SAVE it offering NO impact to the economy.

Quote from: taxed on July 31, 2016, 05:38:05 PM
Are you saying saving money is bad for the economy?

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 31, 2016, 05:56:28 PM
no taxed that is not what I said.  Again if you are being intentionally obtuse ok LOLhahaha.

Looks like you're getting yourself into a pickle.

Quote from: taxed on July 31, 2016, 06:03:31 PM
Looks like you're getting yourself into a pickle.

This is what happens when "Feelings" collide with reality.
There is only one way for an economy to function in full, but if you want to micromanage it, then this is what you get, pure nonsense.

Quote from: Solar on July 31, 2016, 06:06:59 PM
This is what happens when "Feelings" collide with reality.
There is only one way for an economy to function in full, but if you want to micromanage it, then this is what you get, pure nonsense.

What are the odds he will be able to articulate HOW saving money is bad for the economy?  Last time I checked, people need capital to start businesses.

Quote from: taxed on July 31, 2016, 06:09:00 PM
What are the odds he will be able to articulate HOW saving money is bad for the economy?  Last time I checked, people need capital to start businesses.

Noooo, lib Econ 101 dictates irreparable debt drives the economy, just ask the Marxist.
If they can print money, spend like drunken sailors in a whore house, and the country is still standing, that's all the proof they need that saving is foolish, just run up your credit cards, use one to pay the other down.

God this nation is in serious trouble, if this is what passes for economic logic.

Quote from: Solar on July 31, 2016, 07:40:06 PM
Noooo, lib Econ 101 dictates irreparable debt drives the economy, just ask the Marxist.
If they can print money, spend like drunken sailors in a whore house, and the country is still standing, that's all the proof they need that saving is foolish, just run up your credit cards, use one to pay the other down.

God this nation is in serious trouble, if this is what passes for economic logic.

I'm trying to figure out if he knows this but is somehow obligated to keep parroting this idiocy, or if he really truly doesn't know this. Right now he's trying to play the "I'm just trying to have a conversation and you're being mean conservatives who are in the minority of the country" BS.   He says saving money is bad, then I ask him if he said it, then he says he didn't say it.

Quote from: taxed on July 31, 2016, 07:45:21 PM
I'm trying to figure out if he knows this but is somehow obligated to keep parroting this idiocy, or if he really truly doesn't know this. Right now he's trying to play the "I'm just trying to have a conversation and you're being mean conservatives who are in the minority of the country" BS.   He says saving money is bad, then I ask him if he said it, then he says he didn't say it.

As Jeff Foxworthy would say, "Bless his heart".

Honestly, I believe he means well, problem is, like you said, he's parroting, he's never really thought this through to it's logical conclusion, because if he had, he would have simply agreed and moved on.
It's why Keynes was a blithering idiot that was the laughing stock of the financial world, but when GW started spending like a jilted, depressed menopausal woman with her husband's credit cards, the GOP embraced Keynesian lib logic and now help the Marxist rob the treasury.

Quote from: taxed on July 31, 2016, 06:03:31 PM
Looks like you're getting yourself into a pickle.

hardly.


My statements remain perfectly consistent but I have chosen to ignore your circular reasoning it bores me.

I enjoy talking with you, I find you do try to debate but you misrepresent my words to such extent you either don't understand what I am saying or are being obtuse either way its just boring.


Saving is fine and noble but too much of it by a broad mass will stagnate the economy we need spending this is why the Bush tax cuts FAILED people saved the checks they didn't spend them.

I don't mean to offend because I do find you one of the more interesting people here where I come from what you did was toss up a big white flag.


I forgive you.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on August 01, 2016, 03:41:40 PM

hardly.


My statements remain perfectly consistent but I have chosen to ignore your circular reasoning it bores me.

I enjoy talking with you, I find you do try to debate but you misrepresent my words to such extent you either don't understand what I am saying or are being obtuse either way its just boring.


Saving is fine and noble but too much of it by a broad mass will stagnate the economy we need spending this is why the Bush tax cuts FAILED people saved the checks they didn't spend them.

I don't mean to offend because I do find you one of the more interesting people here where I come from what you did was toss up a big white flag.


I forgive you.

I'll bet you never considered what happens when a large portion of the masses save.
Think about it, lending institutions are flush with cash/currency, they can invest it and make it grow, instead of simply paying out interest.
So what do you suppose happens with this capital? People borrow it, which grows the economy, rates for borrowing decreases, making cash cheaper to borrow, so they do, they borrow more, spend more, invest in business ventures, take morer risks in hopes of better returns.

In other words, saving money spurs growth in the economy.
Seriously, take an econ class, because the crap you parrot makes you sound like an MSNBC news reader. No, that  is by no means a compliment.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2016, 03:54:25 PM
I'll bet you never considered what happens when a large portion of the masses save.
Think about it, lending institutions are flush with cash/currency, they can invest it and make it grow, instead of simply paying out interest.
So what do you suppose happens with this capital? People borrow it, which grows the economy, rates for borrowing decreases, making cash cheaper to borrow, so they do, they borrow more, spend more, invest in business ventures, take morer risks in hopes of better returns.

In other words, saving money spurs growth in the economy.
Seriously, take an econ class, because the crap you parrot makes you sound like an MSNBC news reader. No, that  is by no means a compliment.

well, my degree is in accounting and my minor was economics I know it was a while ago but the math is still the same I would imagine.


I will say Solar your view is interesting I have never had anyone explain it that way, and I really do find it interesting.  It is a different view and I am fascinated with it and I am thinking about what you said.


Now my world goes like this:
1. when banks are not lending but flush with cash they are losing money and no one makes money at 2% which is what it is when everyone is flush.

2. when people don't spend they don't generate consumption people get laid off companies don't grow.

3. when companies don't grow they are afraid to borrow.

4. the cycle repeats people save MORE beause they are afraid and it gets worse.

5. not to mention the INLFATION would be like Germany in 1920's taking wheel barrows of money to the store.


this is why CREDIT was created and why our world depends so much on it without credit we would have WAY less growth CREDIT gives us LEVERAGE which is necessary to increase the return of each dollar invested.

using your example the economy would be so bad even people who saved would be forced to use those savings since the jobs would be so bad banks would require 100% collateral.


it would be a disaster.


No, Solar, saving is good but it has to be balanced with an appropriate amount of spending either real mmoney or credit because spending is what moves the economy which is why Keynesian Economics worked during WWII.


But I did find your theory interesting,  In a parallel universe kind of way.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on August 01, 2016, 04:05:44 PM

well, my degree is in accounting and my minor was economics I know it was a while ago but the math is still the same I would imagine.


I will say Solar your view is interesting I have never had anyone explain it that way, and I really do find it interesting.  It is a different view and I am fascinated with it and I am thinking about what you said.


Now my world goes like this:
1. when banks are not lending but flush with cash they are losing money and no one makes money at 2% which is what it is when everyone is flush.

2. when people don't spend they don't generate consumption people get laid off companies don't grow.

3. when companies don't grow they are afraid to borrow.

4. the cycle repeats people save MORE beause they are afraid and it gets worse.

5. not to mention the INLFATION would be like Germany in 1920's taking wheel barrows of money to the store.


this is why CREDIT was created and why our world depends so much on it without credit we would have WAY less growth CREDIT gives us LEVERAGE which is necessary to increase the return of each dollar invested.

using your example the economy would be so bad even people who saved would be forced to use those savings since the jobs would be so bad banks would require 100% collateral.


it would be a disaster.


No, Solar, saving is good but it has to be balanced with an appropriate amount of spending either real mmoney or credit because spending is what moves the economy which is why Keynesian Economics worked during WWII.


But I did find your theory interesting,  In a parallel universe kind of way.

Damn, how many Dale Carnegie classes did you take.   

Quote from: walkstall on August 01, 2016, 04:16:12 PM

Damn, how many Dale Carnegie classes did you take.   

that was well played walks.


touche'

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on August 01, 2016, 04:05:44 PM

well, my degree is in accounting and my minor was economics I know it was a while ago but the math is still the same I would imagine.


I will say Solar your view is interesting I have never had anyone explain it that way, and I really do find it interesting.  It is a different view and I am fascinated with it and I am thinking about what you said.


Now my world goes like this:
1. when banks are not lending but flush with cash they are losing money and no one makes money at 2% which is what it is when everyone is flush.

2. when people don't spend they don't generate consumption people get laid off companies don't grow.

3. when companies don't grow they are afraid to borrow.

4. the cycle repeats people save MORE beause they are afraid and it gets worse.

5. not to mention the INLFATION would be like Germany in 1920's taking wheel barrows of money to the store.


this is why CREDIT was created and why our world depends so much on it without credit we would have WAY less growth CREDIT gives us LEVERAGE which is necessary to increase the return of each dollar invested.

using your example the economy would be so bad even people who saved would be forced to use those savings since the jobs would be so bad banks would require 100% collateral.


it would be a disaster.

Wrong! I never said 100% of the population, I stated a large portion of the country. When banks are flush with cash, they are eager to loan it, so they sell it at lowered rates, this alone spurs the economy.
If I am flush with a product as a business owner, wouldn't behoove me to move it at reduced prices?
Sadly, we no longer live in a Friedman economy, we're living in a Keynes controlled economy, one that by no means can exist for much longer. When the world decides the dollar is a risk, we'll collapse as the financial leader in the world and within a month collapse in the worst depression the world has ever witnessed.

QuoteNo, Solar, saving is good but it has to be balanced with an appropriate amount of spending either real mmoney or credit because spending is what moves the economy which is why Keynesian Economics worked during WWII.


But I did find your theory interesting,  In a parallel universe kind of way.

But it's a temporary economic condition, and to prove it, just look at the more than 100 trillion in actual debt we face.
The Keynes effect is printing money to pay down the debt, in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
At some point it will all come due, and no, it's not just the Dims that are to blame, both leftist party's are guilty.

There is but one way to rectify this problem, and that's to start living within our means.
Sure, credit is great, but if it's backed by unfunded debt, the economy is playing with Monopoly money.
I see why you're totally oblivious to how a real economy functions, you took a leftist econ course.
Now take a real econ class and compare notes.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2016, 04:29:56 PM
But it's a temporary economic condition, and to prove it, just look at the more than 100 trillion in actual debt we face.
The Keynes effect is printing money to pay down the debt, in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
At some point it will all come due, and no, it's not just the Dims that are to blame, both leftist party's are guilty.

There is but one way to rectify this problem, and that's to start living within our means.
Sure, credit is great, but if it's backed by unfunded debt, the economy is playing with Monopoly money.
I see why you're totally oblivious to how a real economy functions, you took a leftist econ course.
Now take a real econ class and compare notes.

The dollar was last year among the strongest it has been in a long time to the point companies like GM were having problems overseas because the strong dollar was making their cars so expensive.

But I agree with your point we need a "moderately strong dollar? maybe a "stable" dollar.

I also agree with putting in real but not suicidal financial contraints the problem is two fold:

1. the nation is so dependent on big government with some 4 MILLION employees drastic cuts would send us into another recession its like heroin we have to wean off SLOWLY (I don't know anything about heroin I'm just making an analogy).

2. right now and for the foreseeable future our nations debt is simply not a problem.  Its not.  Gvt makes the payments easily and CONGRESS has ZERO incentive to make cuts because that will make their constituents mad and vote them out.

so we do need to address that.


Obviously, I went to a state school from a socialist state to be indoctrinated in Marxist Ideology..."From everyone according to their ability to each according to their need."


ah yes, we used to pledge to the flag every day.  All we do in Massachusetts is churn out good socialists.  I guess the jig is up.


by the way, I don't think my view is backwards and the reason I know this is because you felt compelled to come around ever so slightly.  I have learned it pains you to do two things.  one is to agree with anyone with a different view EVEN if you find some common ground!  Which we just had an you don't know how to handle it.

And two, I'm not sure if you have ever laughed except when discharging a full clip from a big gun.


I cant help you with #2 but believe it or not we are closer in thought than you might care to believe.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on August 01, 2016, 03:41:40 PM
My statements remain perfectly consistent

Do savings hurt the economy?  Yes or no?  Help make it clear for me.

Quote
but I have chosen to ignore your circular reasoning it bores me.

Nice try, but you know you made a boo boo.  Don't feel bad -- you're not the first.

Quote
I enjoy talking with you,

You are a sweet heart...

Quote
I find you do try to debate but you misrepresent my words to such extent you either don't understand what I am saying or are being obtuse either way its just boring.

You seemed pretty clear with your point.  Maybe you can help clarify?

Quote
Saving is fine and noble

OK...

Quote
but

I knew that was coming....

Quote
too much of it by a broad mass will stagnate the economy

Why?

Quote
we need spending

People don't spend while they save?

Quote
this is why the Bush tax cuts FAILED people saved the checks they didn't spend them.

I started my first business because I had a lot saved up.  That was under Bush.  My company employed engineers, customer support reps, etc.  After I sold out of that company, I started another, where I employed even more people.  I also used my savings to get into the real estate investment game where I employed contractors, etc.  Now I have a small tech company that employs a handful of engineers.

How did I hurt the economy by saving my money so I could start my businesses and employ people again?  I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why it would have been better for me to blow all my cash and be broke.

Quote
I don't mean to offend because I do find you one of the more interesting people here where I come from what you did was toss up a big white flag.

I guess my real world experience and common sense understanding is conflicting with your academic theory of how business and the economy works.  No offense taken.

Quote
I forgive you.

Thank you.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on August 01, 2016, 04:48:58 PM
The dollar was last year among the strongest it has been in a long time to the point companies like GM were having problems overseas because the strong dollar was making their cars so expensive.

"Strong" is relative, considering the world is linked to our dead economy like a dead mule behind the wagon, and if we sneeze, the world suffers pneumonia, so to claim it's strong is actuality farting rainbows and calling it a cure for stupidity.

QuoteBut I agree with your point we need a "moderately strong dollar? maybe a "stable" dollar.

I also agree with putting in real but not suicidal financial contraints the problem is two fold:

1. the nation is so dependent on big government with some 4 MILLION employees drastic cuts would send us into another recession its like heroin we have to wean off SLOWLY (I don't know anything about heroin I'm just making an analogy).

2. right now and for the foreseeable future our nations debt is simply not a problem.  Its not.  Gvt makes the payments easily and CONGRESS has ZERO incentive to make cuts because that will make their constituents mad and vote them out.

so we do need to address that.

Absolutely! Our nation was never designed to function where there are more govt jobs than that of private sector, especially where ludicrously high wages outpace those of the private sector.
Govt jobs are a leach on the economy, they produce absolutely nothing. Friedman was right: "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.".

QuoteObviously, I went to a state school from a socialist state to be indoctrinated in Marxist Ideology..."From everyone according to their ability to each according to their need."


ah yes, we used to pledge to the flag every day.  All we do in Massachusetts is churn out good socialists.  I guess the jig is up.

Admittance is the first step in recovery.

Quoteby the way, I don't think my view is backwards and the reason I know this is because you felt compelled to come around ever so slightly.  I have learned it pains you to do two things.  one is to agree with anyone with a different view EVEN if you find some common ground!  Which we just had an you don't know how to handle it.

What? By agreeing that the Marxists aren't the sole cause of our ills? No, I'll always throw the lib RINO under the bus every chance I get, and spend a tankful of fuel running their worthless asses over and over again.

QuoteAnd two, I'm not sure if you have ever laughed except when discharging a full clip from a big gun.

Seriously? Your every post gives me the grin an old man gets watching a 7 year old do a face plant.

QuoteI cant help you with #2 but believe it or not we are closer in thought than you might care to believe.

I don't doubt that, it's how we view the issue that is the problem.