Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (655951)	5/23/2012 7:39:03 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579737

"Yes, you and two nitwits -- Roemer & Krugman." Hardly the only ones. "Okay, when?" Look at the Reagan years. Government spending grew at a massive rate, many times more that it has under Obama. All borrowed. Look at China during the collapse. They and many European countries spent more than the US as a percentage of GDP. All they all did better than the US until they did what you want to do and implemented austerity measures. Then their economies stopped growing and started to contract. And that is just to mention some recent examples. Just open your eyes and look around. "Wrong about what?" A lot. He influenced our economic policy for over 3 decades. Instead of everyone benefiting from economic growth, it has resulted in the stagnation of wages for the vast majority of Americans. And it led to the near economic collapse of a couple of years ago.Not only that, similar things have happened in nearly every country that has adopted his policies. The rich get richer and everyone else gets an every decreasing percentage of the economy. "This nonsense about how this recession was "caused by Bush" or by this policy or that is bullshit" Funny. You consider the debt to have been the problem, yet Bush contributed more to the debt that all of the other administrations combined. "That a government spending borrowed money can prop up an economy with a structural debt and structural unemployment problem, by merely hiring people off of borrowed money to do make-work?" Long term? No. But short term? Happens all the time. Especially here. 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. To spend, people need money and jobs. When they lose said jobs, they cut back on their spending. The concept is pretty simple, not sure how you seem to be unable to understand it. "As you're fond of saying, "there go the goalposts..."" Not at all. Deficit spending results in an economic stimulus. The greater the spending, the greater the stimulus. And that is what we saw during those years. Over $5 trillion over his 8 years was a significant percentage of the GDP. So of course the economy did well. Unfortunately, the benefit was concentrated at the top.