People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

16th November 2011, 20:36
donKey jote

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Never said you were taking glee in it. I just want to know how much you want. Give me a number 60%? 70%? 90%?

~35% of my salary goes to the Finanzamt (~22%) and Social Security (~13%). I'm quite happy with what I get in return, despite being FORCED to help bail out those poor greek buggers and being FORCED to help subsidise those lazy welfare git's new 50" LCD and being FORCED to yadda yadda ...

So, how would 35% sound to you?
16th November 2011, 23:13
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malbec

Yes, the depression of 1920 which had entirely different causes.

Differences:

1920 was characterised by sharp deflation. We have high INflation. These are opposite in nature.
1920 was largely limited to the US. The current problem involves all major economies to some extent. Countries cannot just export themselves out of trouble because consumption is depressed everywhere.
1920 was caused by a cut in government spending following WW1. In the current crisis government spending is cut as a consequence of tax incomes dropping thanks to the drop in economic output.
In 1920 the private sector was largely intact but had to realign itself to a peacetime economy with reduced government spending. In 2008 the private sector was decimated due to a previous reliance on credit and an inability to raise fresh capital.

The differences far outweigh the similarities between the two crises.

So instead of asking me to refer to a non-relevant recession why don't you explain in greater detail HOW not intervening in 2008 would have made the current crisis shorter?

I did explain it, you just don't seem to like it. Let bankrupt companies go throght the bankruptcy procees where they will either restructure and/or their viable assets will be bought by other investors, corporations, or startups. This is exactly what happened in 1920 (yes the causes were different, but I'm talking about the consequences), the government allowed everything to go through its normal process, it was painful, but the recovery was quick.

Just because you do not seem to want to accept any sort of painful process doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what's needed.
16th November 2011, 23:15
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I did explain it, you just don't seem to like it. Let bankrupt companies go throght the bankruptcy procees where they will either restructure and/or their viable assets will be bought by other investors, corporations, or startups. This is exactly what happened in 1920 (yes the causes were different, but I'm talking about the consequences), the government allowed everything to go through its normal process, it was painful, but the recovery was quick.

Just because you do not seem to want to accept any sort of painful process doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what's needed.

Let me get this straight. Your theory is based on the fact that something that happened in 1920 would happen again in 2008 or 2011? I hate to tell you that I think the world has altered somewhat in the intervening years.
16th November 2011, 23:17
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So we do nothing? We just accept it because "it just is"?

No they shouldn't, but most do and many not out of economic or political policy choices. Many African nations appear to be better than Europe and the US where % of debt is concerned yet the DRC seem particularly hard hit as a result of their recent history.

Just as Europe was on its knees and needed financial support after WW2 so too is DRC after its own "African World War". But now there are vulture funds to "help" them. Thank goodness for the free market :dozey:

Why must we always "do something"? Why can't we just allow the natural processes work?

Ok so since governments run massive debts that they can't pay back, someone just has to step in and bail them out? What happens when there is no one left with any money to bail out? When do the bail out dominoes stop falling?
16th November 2011, 23:22
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by donKey jote

~35% of my salary goes to the Finanzamt (~22%) and Social Security (~13%). I'm quite happy with what I get in return, despite being FORCED to help bail out those poor greek buggers and being FORCED to help subsidise those lazy welfare git's new 50" LCD and being FORCED to yadda yadda ...

So, how would 35% sound to you?

35% total sales tax, property tax, local income, state income, federal income, exise tax on my vehicles, I'm probably forgetting some? If that's what you mean then 35% would end up being a bit of a cut for me, and I'm not rich by any means. For someone that meats Obama's definition of "rich", that would be a very significant cut.

So I'd probably be ok with that.
16th November 2011, 23:24
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Let me get this straight. Your theory is based on the fact that something that happened in 1920 would happen again in 2008 or 2011? I hate to tell you that I think the world has altered somewhat in the intervening years.

Sure it's different. But we haven't tried that approach since. Perhaps it's time for another go at it? You don't seem to think that approach would work, so why not enlighten us with how you would shorten the time to recovery?
16th November 2011, 23:29
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why must we always "do something"? Why can't we just allow the natural processes work?

Because the evidence shows that they don't seem to.
16th November 2011, 23:31
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sure it's different. But we haven't tried that approach since. Perhaps it's time for another go at it? You don't seem to think that approach would work, so why not enlighten us with how you would shorten the time to recovery?

I don't know, but unlike you I'm not so bold as to claim I do.
16th November 2011, 23:37
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't know, but unlike you I'm not so bold as to claim I do.

I don't know for sure it will work. I do know the last time it (nothing) was tried, it worked. And that all the "fixes" we've tried since '08 haven't done much. Isn't it time for something new?
17th November 2011, 04:28
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Let me get this straight. Your theory is based on the fact that something that happened in 1920 would happen again in 2008 or 2011? I hate to tell you that I think the world has altered somewhat in the intervening years.

The only thing that has altered are the things that are making things worse.

The Free Market is the Free Market. Whether it is 1920 or 2011 it works the same.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page