A Solution to the Economic Problem

That's not true. There is a distinction between counter-cyclical expenditure and general consumption. There is a distinction between technological investment and general consumption.

Again not true. We know that the US has used the military sector as a counter-cyclical protection. We know that arms production has led to spin-off technologies such that economic growth has been generated (note much of the distinction between US and EU R&D expenditures has been military oritentated)

You're the only that gave the inappropriate statement, not me (you of course gave it whilst completely misrepresenting what socialism entails)

This isn't a cunning comment at all. It basically says that you're in favour of short term gains at the expense of long term costs. GDP will rise through polluting production, but that will often be at the expense of future production possibility (e.g. deaths experienced over time)

Capitalism feeds off the profiteering opportunities provided by asymmetric information. The Coase Theorem, for example, is essentially a neat summary for why the market cannot eliminate these problems (with moral hazard significantly increasing transaction costs through non-productive bargaining)

That doesn't (and cannot) happen in capitalism. You may have constructed yourself a laissez-faire possibility, but its merely a bubble that ignores economic reality (and the inability to separate the public and private sectors, with the former required for the latter's continued 'success')

This is ignorant on two fronts. First, you through in socialism willy-nilly. This again shows that you haven't got a clue what socialism entails. Second, the private sector naturally delivers mass unemployment. The reserve army represents a substantial discipline device on the workforce. This ensures compliance and standard profit maximisation criteria to operate. Its the private sector therefore that ensures the need for welfare (as that ensures the physical efficiency of the unemployed can be maintained)

It cannot be. Its the key economic agent in capitalism.

Utter garbage again, showing no understanding of socialism. Interventionism into health care has nothing to do with socialism. Instead it reflects two key aspects. First, as shown by empirical evidence into cost efficiency and production output, it tends to lead to efficiency gains. Second, we essentially have provision of a public good. This introduces market failure, by definition.

 

This won't solve our economic problem, but good try, I'll give it a like and a rep for the effort.

We don't need to worry about currency being taken our of the economy due to it being lost in couches because there is a constant inflation rate (at least in the US) that replaces that money in the economy. If you found every lost cent in America, all you would do is increase inflation.

Also the amount of lost money is minute as far as I can see, not enough to pull the US out of its recession.

There is an argument that inflation causes economic growth, but it is a very dangerous thing to do to the economy.

 

So Obama can print 100 trillion dollars and get reelected? I would love to see that.

If things aren't good, politicians get replaced, and thus government is accountable for their actions, including their actions that caused debt.

Name a country that has all its roads created by the private sector. And not some third world country that has dirt roads.

Walmart and other businesses that rely on roads cannot exist with out government made roads. They might be able to take over the roads later, but how could they build their own roads before their business even exists and is profitable?

 

In our current society government likes to take care of those services like roads, etc. but we do have private roads and bridges in the USA and it would be no problem to expand this. Instead of toll roads and bridges there would need to be another way for the private sector to obtain their funding.

I still disagree. There is no doubt in my mind that if I was 16 years old again in 2012, that I could finish high school, that I could avoid criminal activities, that I could obtain advanced or college education, and that I could find a reasonable career. Then I just need to be reasonably fiscally responsible and I would have a very enjoyable life. If I can do this with all of my limitations, then others can as well. At the same time, if people today wish to invest little to nothing in themselves, live with their parents, scratch out an existence, and find happiness in this scenario, I think this is just fine.

I think 'wealth' is severely politicized and overrated...

 

Conversation is not about being re-elected?? Obviously Obama can print money since he has to the tune of $5 trillion or whatever number it now is.

What percentage do incumbents get re-elected?

Why must it be 'all of it's roads'? What's wrong with 25% of it's roads?

I live on a private road...no problem whatsoever...

 

Conversation is not about being re-elected?? Obviously Obama can print money since he has to the tune of $5 trillion or whatever number it now is.

What percentage do incumbents get re-elected?

Why must it be 'all of it's roads'? What's wrong with 25% of it's roads?

I live on a private road...no problem whatsoever...

 

Absolute bobbins! You've been guilty from the start by making silly error. It hasn't just been silly error over socialism (which clearly goes above your head). It has also been ignorance over what you're actually stating. I have always maintained that the problem is your dissonance, where your tacit support for inefficiency and class makes your position untenable. We've seen that in action, nothing more!

 

And now he has an opponent championing "fiscal responsibility"

I don't know, but that percentage definitely lowers in a bad economy.

Well what countries have 25% private sector roads?

Maybe not now, but if that business goes goes under you bet you will be finding problems.

 

Who knows, maybe there wouldn't be roads at all, we might have flying cars by now, but I'm not all that interested in having a conversation about la-la land.

Cognitive dissonance. What you think or feel is irrelevant.

But measurable and that matters.

 

No politicians are fiscally responsible...the voters won't allow this to happen.

Incumbents are overwhelmingly re-elected so voters rarely kick a politician out of office.

We have private roads and bridges today...this can be expanded at any rate the governments will allow.

This has been a private road for 35 years and no problem so far. When it needs fixing we fix it. There is plenty of opportunity for the private sector to take on more current government projects...

 

What I think or feel is 100% relevant to me...

 

What I think or feel is 100% relevant to me...

 

Indeed, the very nature of dissonance

 

And only you. As Reiver is reminding you, that's why I called it cognitive dissonance.

I work in the IT field, it'd be like me saying there was no recession because.. well, I never saw it. Fortunately I'm open minded enough to consider information that challenges my biases.

 

That's why Tea party voters don't want fiscal responsibility?

But the percent lowers during a bad economy, incentivizing congressmen/women to get things right.

Why? Why do we need to make this change when there is absolutely no problem with government roads and bridges?

 

NO politicians or voters want fiscal responsibility! Everyone will talk about it but when the rubber hits the road and budget cuts begin to directly effect numero uno, most voters scream!

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

Fact remains...incumbents are overwhelmingly reelected. Voters RARELY kick an incumbent out of office.

Government cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure; why not allow more of it into private hands?

 

What's the definition of fiscal responsibility?

 

Fiscal responsibility is living within our means, using financial resources wisely and making financial decisions in an open and transparent way. Fiscal responsibility can include the 'wise' use of debt money. Perhaps a key question is the sustainability of financial actions?

Once again, voters do not want any financial actions that they perceive takes from them. Doesn't even make any difference if the reasons are valid; people don't change and certainly don't like financial change unless it benefits them...

 

What's the definition of 'living within our means'? Try to be 'more economic'!

 

When you're dealing with politics and people you cannot be economically defined. Obviously a government can just declare fiscal responsibility by demanding a balanced budget but the outcome of this is they will be voted out of office if this creates too much personal impact. Government can declare a debt pay-down action but if this involves higher taxes or lost jobs, etc. the people will vote them out of office.

Self-serving greed is a harsh statement. But this is our general MO today and government cannot buck this in the short term. Maybe over several decades to minimize the voter effects but this would require a government who can be proactive and stick to policy...which is also non-existent today.

So, there is no solution to the current economy other than waiting it out and adjusting. Governments cannot balance budgets or pay down debt because the numbers have become too large which causes more ill-effects on the voters...

 

I see. You're trying to waste my time with mere opinion. Sorry, no dice.

 

Then why is solving the debt crisis a large issue in this election? We'll see how this turns out.

But the fact remains that that statistic goes down in a bad economy, like how it did in 2010, down from 94% to only about 85%, that definitely has congressmen/women worried, thus they want to do a better job.

What percent of the deficit is caused by paying for infrastructure?

 

Solving the debt crisis IS NOT a priority of Americans! If you believe so, then please provide some polling information to show this.

Makes no difference if it is 94% or 85%...fact remains incumbents are overwhelmingly re-elected.

Except for Social Security and Medicare in which the FICA contributions are earmarked from those programs, all other taxation goes into a big pot and it's impossible to know which programs can be construed as deficit spending. What you can know is that ALL programs/departments on average are spending approximately 36% deficit money...only about 64% is funded by the taxpayers...

 

You do that and you're just perpetuating the notion that the very wealthy can siphon all they want out of your checkbook. They already feel they are entitled to your labor.