invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
41
Reality
2019 Sep 4, 11:34pm
Heraclitusstudent says
Not all debt is for consumption. In fact, most debts are supposed to be for investment . . . "supposed" because when government borrow to "invest" it usually ends up as consumption/malinvestment instead of investment.
The only good debt is borrow to invest . . . with achievable expectations that exceed the interest on the debt.
That's what our monetary system is based on.
If your only understanding of debt is borrowing for consumption (i.e. not productive debt, or even break-even roll-over debt, but consumption with no hope of paying back type of borrowing), then you are screwed.
The result is not enough income, and the need for debt. And some transfers to the poor as a way to compensate.
More of that is necessarily coming, as we are still moving in the same direction.
Not all debt is for consumption. In fact, most debts are supposed to be for investment . . . "supposed" because when government borrow to "invest" it usually ends up as consumption/malinvestment instead of investment.
The only good debt is borrow to invest . . . with achievable expectations that exceed the interest on the debt.
That's what our monetary system is based on.
If your only understanding of debt is borrowing for consumption (i.e. not productive debt, or even break-even roll-over debt, but consumption with no hope of paying back type of borrowing), then you are screwed.
42
Reality
2019 Sep 4, 11:41pm
Heraclitusstudent says
May want to look up the concept in economics called "Comparative Advantage." If you are a lawyer and you can type 30 words per minute or earn $200/hr when not typing, and if the assistant can only type 20 words per minute or earning $20/hr when not typing . . . you'd be better of hiring her to type for you even if you type faster than she does . . . simply because you can earn even more money when hiring her to do the typing for you.
What I'm saying is there is not enough jobs for both Americans, under-the-table workers, and Chinese. You may say this worker should get the job rather than that one, but this is not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is there isn't enough for everyone. Those who do have the jobs are productive enough for everyone.
May want to look up the concept in economics called "Comparative Advantage." If you are a lawyer and you can type 30 words per minute or earn $200/hr when not typing, and if the assistant can only type 20 words per minute or earning $20/hr when not typing . . . you'd be better of hiring her to type for you even if you type faster than she does . . . simply because you can earn even more money when hiring her to do the typing for you.
43
Expat
2019 Sep 5, 2:55am
Fricking Democrats. Here are a few choice paraphrases:
-We must speak up and defend the rights of the poor and the needy.
-If you want to be part of us, you should share your wealth with the poor. If you don't, you are not a good person.
-I prefer honest, poor men to rich corrupt men. Good people care about the poor and needy; if you don't care, you are a terrible person.
-Even in our country there will unfortunately always be poor people. It is the duty of the wealthy to help them. Even simple things like clothes and food; rich people should share these with poor people.
The politicians who said these things are obviously commies and their opinions show they should be driven from office and kicked out of America.
-We must speak up and defend the rights of the poor and the needy.
-If you want to be part of us, you should share your wealth with the poor. If you don't, you are not a good person.
-I prefer honest, poor men to rich corrupt men. Good people care about the poor and needy; if you don't care, you are a terrible person.
-Even in our country there will unfortunately always be poor people. It is the duty of the wealthy to help them. Even simple things like clothes and food; rich people should share these with poor people.
The politicians who said these things are obviously commies and their opinions show they should be driven from office and kicked out of America.
44
HeadSet
2019 Sep 5, 12:36pm
HeadSet
2019 Sep 5, 12:36pm
If you want to be part of us, you should share your wealth with the poor. If you don't, you are not a good person.
Do not see too any rich Dems giving much of their own money to the poor. Imagine the Clinton's and other rich Dems deciding to live on say. $200k per year while donating the rest. Guess they are not good people.
Do not see too any rich Dems giving much of their own money to the poor. Imagine the Clinton's and other rich Dems deciding to live on say. $200k per year while donating the rest. Guess they are not good people.
45
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Sep 5, 12:39pm
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Sep 5, 12:39pm
Reality says
Investments mean... buying stuff right? As in: money spent on people doing work, who then turn around and spend that money on other things.
Apparently there is not enough of that going on that the gov feels the need to do it itself. Massive quantities of it.
Why? Isn't the money going in a circle? If not where is the money getting stuck, not being spent?
Reality says
You just need to read your credit card fine prints, or medical payments fine prints, or any such lawyer talk applied to doing business with people not as smart as they think they are. That ought to convince a reasonable man that robbing people is indeed an art.
I get that most Americans will prefer to continue in the current downward spiral and feel indignant that we dare to pay people for doing nothing, or spend money on otherwise uneconomical endeavor. Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying itself.
Not all debt is for consumption. In fact, most debts are supposed to be for investment . . .
Investments mean... buying stuff right? As in: money spent on people doing work, who then turn around and spend that money on other things.
Apparently there is not enough of that going on that the gov feels the need to do it itself. Massive quantities of it.
Why? Isn't the money going in a circle? If not where is the money getting stuck, not being spent?
Reality says
I'm sorry, I don't find robbing other people to be an art
You just need to read your credit card fine prints, or medical payments fine prints, or any such lawyer talk applied to doing business with people not as smart as they think they are. That ought to convince a reasonable man that robbing people is indeed an art.
I get that most Americans will prefer to continue in the current downward spiral and feel indignant that we dare to pay people for doing nothing, or spend money on otherwise uneconomical endeavor. Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying itself.
46
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Sep 5, 12:46pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Sep 5, 12:46pm
Heraclitusstudent says
This is a waste of money. Even if efficiency improved 100%, it could never replace the current need for electric generation.
Putting birth control in the wells and aqueducts of 3rd world countries would produce far better results at a cheaper cost, as would mandatory sterilization of hoodrats after the 2nd child.
or invest massively in solar/wind,
This is a waste of money. Even if efficiency improved 100%, it could never replace the current need for electric generation.
Putting birth control in the wells and aqueducts of 3rd world countries would produce far better results at a cheaper cost, as would mandatory sterilization of hoodrats after the 2nd child.
47
socal2
2019 Sep 5, 12:47pm
Expat says
Or maybe they should run off and become priests, rabbis or imams preaching their religious values instead of becoming politicians?
Conservatives are already more generous than Liberals when it comes to donating time and money to various charities. So we are not interested in raising our taxes to make up for cheap-skate and greedy Liberals who don't volunteer their time and money.
Government should provide a very basic safety net. Just enough money to keep you off the street, but not enough to be comfortable.
Private institutions like charities and religious organizations should provide the rest.
The politicians who said these things are obviously commies and their opinions show they should be driven from office and kicked out of America.
Or maybe they should run off and become priests, rabbis or imams preaching their religious values instead of becoming politicians?
Conservatives are already more generous than Liberals when it comes to donating time and money to various charities. So we are not interested in raising our taxes to make up for cheap-skate and greedy Liberals who don't volunteer their time and money.
Government should provide a very basic safety net. Just enough money to keep you off the street, but not enough to be comfortable.
Private institutions like charities and religious organizations should provide the rest.
48
Reality
2019 Sep 5, 8:46pm
Heraclitusstudent says
In a genuine market economy, someone investing in machinery or a factory can realistically expect products turned out by the machinery and factory down the road can more than service the debt and interest . . . i.e. the goods turned out by the machinery and factory down the road can hold down the price inflationary effect of new money created by that time to service the debt payment. In the Keynesian model ignoring the medium to long term inflationary effect of fiat money injection (it takes time for money to propagate through the economy to raise price levels, a delay effect that makes Keynesian scam appear workable on paper), government printing of money to spend on projects that do not generate positive return would result in no new increased products to offset the new money, so despite the nominal increase in money the total purchasing power is lower after adjusting for inflation simply because goods/services are less available after the mal-investments / capital-consumptions.
Heraclitusstudent says
Notice, those licensed monopolies / oligopolies are created by government regulations. I agree with you that they are robbing people. Doesn't mean however creating more robbery schemes would somehow magically make the situation better. The real productive members of the society would be even more disincentivized to work if we add more robbers into the mix.
Investments mean... buying stuff right? As in: money spent on people doing work, who then turn around and spend that money on other things.
Apparently there is not enough of that going on that the gov feels the need to do it itself. Massive quantities of it.
Why? Isn't the money going in a circle? If not where is the money getting stuck, not being spent?
In a genuine market economy, someone investing in machinery or a factory can realistically expect products turned out by the machinery and factory down the road can more than service the debt and interest . . . i.e. the goods turned out by the machinery and factory down the road can hold down the price inflationary effect of new money created by that time to service the debt payment. In the Keynesian model ignoring the medium to long term inflationary effect of fiat money injection (it takes time for money to propagate through the economy to raise price levels, a delay effect that makes Keynesian scam appear workable on paper), government printing of money to spend on projects that do not generate positive return would result in no new increased products to offset the new money, so despite the nominal increase in money the total purchasing power is lower after adjusting for inflation simply because goods/services are less available after the mal-investments / capital-consumptions.
Heraclitusstudent says
You just need to read your credit card fine prints, or medical payments fine prints, or any such lawyer talk applied to doing business with people not as smart as they think they are. That ought to convince a reasonable man that robbing people is indeed an art.
Notice, those licensed monopolies / oligopolies are created by government regulations. I agree with you that they are robbing people. Doesn't mean however creating more robbery schemes would somehow magically make the situation better. The real productive members of the society would be even more disincentivized to work if we add more robbers into the mix.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
Considering the very oldest Zoomer just graduated college, that the largest Milennial cohort by age is about 29, and the non-stop Socialist/SJW propaganda aimed at kids these days, this is really good news.
It's great when kids rebel against Socialist authorities in Education.
Oh, and I've been nattering on about who has kids? Studies - if you can believe them - have Gen Z going to Church more often than either Milennials or Gen X.
Naturally - leftists have fewer kids.