I’m sorry, but economists...
Comments
-
This...building an economy where you pay someone to literally burn money and wrack up $$$ in debt which sits on the Federal Reserve balance sheet isn’t a structure for long-term success.pawz said:
I don't see the poont of bailing out the repo market to the tune of $4 Trillion.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K.
You're never going to have a truly healthy economy if you don't allow it to crash and burn on occasion and clean itself out. You just blow the bubble up even bigger. Which also causes massive income inequality - the effects of which is a convo for the Tug. (People forget what started the French Revolution. People forget that.)
If you couldn’t get a counter argument out of what I typed (or posted numerous times on this board) not sure I can help you...dflea said:
I think I found an Econ major.Blu82 said:
Probably dumbfucks that think like you.HHusky said:They are people, so I'm sure some are. I've seen precious little evidence that they are especially dumb or that they uniformly agree with one another.
What got your goat?
lol
Houston is going with the Eeyore narrative, so he's not having anyone tell him any different. 6% sounds pretty optimistic to me, too, but I'm not a practicing economist, so I'm not ready to make a counter-argument. I looked for HH's counter argument, but didn't see it.
-
I was thinking this a few days ago. Because I am dumb, I equate complex thoughts to simple ones. It's like selective burning in forests...kill some in a controlled way so a massive rager doesn't start down the road. The Fed has been stopping those controlled burns that we (the forest) has needed for years now, so when the lightning finally does crack this bitch is going to go up hard. Anyway, that's economics to a dummy like me, but yeah, I think when the economy finally can't be propped up anymore all these years of not clearing out the underbrush are going to be disastrous. You guys buy bitcoin, I am buying bullets and beans.pawz said:
I don't see the poont of bailing out the repo market to the tune of $4 Trillion.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K.
You're never going to have a truly healthy economy if you don't allow it to crash and burn on occasion and clean itself out. You just blow the bubble up even bigger. Which also causes massive income inequality - the effects of which is a convo for the Tug. (People forget what started the French Revolution. People forget that.)
#hardtarget -
Interestingly enough, neither does Krugman. For as much as the guy advocates for seemingly endless spending, he at least wants it to go towards something. Free money to people who are just going to stash and create more of a savings glut helps no one.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K. -
This is why the government should only send the $2K to people like me: It wouldn't be necessary, but, hell, I'd sign a contract if they want that guarantees I will blow all $2K of it in the name of stimulating the economy. I'm a team player like that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Interestingly enough, neither does Krugman. For as much as the guy advocates for seemingly endless spending, he at least wants it to go towards something. Free money to people who are just going to stash and create more of a savings glut helps no one.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K. -
New board motto?Swaye said:
I was thinking this a few days ago. Because I am dumb, I equate complex thoughts to simple ones. It's like selective burning in forests...kill some in a controlled way so a massive rager doesn't start down the road. The Fed has been stopping those controlled burns that we (the forest) has needed for years now, so when the lightning finally does crack this bitch is going to go up hard. Anyway, that's economics to a dummy like me, but yeah, I think when the economy finally can't be propped up anymore all these years of not clearing out the underbrush are going to be disastrous. You guys buy bitcoin, I am buying bullets and beans.pawz said:
I don't see the poont of bailing out the repo market to the tune of $4 Trillion.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K.
You're never going to have a truly healthy economy if you don't allow it to crash and burn on occasion and clean itself out. You just blow the bubble up even bigger. Which also causes massive income inequality - the effects of which is a convo for the Tug. (People forget what started the French Revolution. People forget that.)
#hardtarget -
Exactly what I'm buying because I'm still relatively poor.Swaye said:
I was thinking this a few days ago. Because I am dumb, I equate complex thoughts to simple ones. It's like selective burning in forests...kill some in a controlled way so a massive rager doesn't start down the road. The Fed has been stopping those controlled burns that we (the forest) has needed for years now, so when the lightning finally does crack this bitch is going to go up hard. Anyway, that's economics to a dummy like me, but yeah, I think when the economy finally can't be propped up anymore all these years of not clearing out the underbrush are going to be disastrous. You guys buy bitcoin, I am buying bullets and beans.pawz said:
I don't see the poont of bailing out the repo market to the tune of $4 Trillion.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K.
You're never going to have a truly healthy economy if you don't allow it to crash and burn on occasion and clean itself out. You just blow the bubble up even bigger. Which also causes massive income inequality - the effects of which is a convo for the Tug. (People forget what started the French Revolution. People forget that.)
#hardtarget
-
Basically my weed budget1to392831weretaken said:
This is why the government should only send the $2K to people like me: It wouldn't be necessary, but, hell, I'd sign a contract if they want that guarantees I will blow all $2K of it in the name of stimulating the economy. I'm a team player like that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Interestingly enough, neither does Krugman. For as much as the guy advocates for seemingly endless spending, he at least wants it to go towards something. Free money to people who are just going to stash and create more of a savings glut helps no one.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K. -
No drug tests on commercial job sites?RaceBannon said:
Basically my weed budget1to392831weretaken said:
This is why the government should only send the $2K to people like me: It wouldn't be necessary, but, hell, I'd sign a contract if they want that guarantees I will blow all $2K of it in the name of stimulating the economy. I'm a team player like that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Interestingly enough, neither does Krugman. For as much as the guy advocates for seemingly endless spending, he at least wants it to go towards something. Free money to people who are just going to stash and create more of a savings glut helps no one.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K.
-
Not for managementpawz said:
No drug tests on commercial job sites?RaceBannon said:
Basically my weed budget1to392831weretaken said:
This is why the government should only send the $2K to people like me: It wouldn't be necessary, but, hell, I'd sign a contract if they want that guarantees I will blow all $2K of it in the name of stimulating the economy. I'm a team player like that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Interestingly enough, neither does Krugman. For as much as the guy advocates for seemingly endless spending, he at least wants it to go towards something. Free money to people who are just going to stash and create more of a savings glut helps no one.YellowSnow said:
Probably someone like Krugman.HoustonHusky said:Guy got a question on if there is a limit to how much money the Fed can print and how large the Federal Government deficits can go and he replied by saying 'the interest rates are incredibly low so the Federal Government should be borrowing everything it can'.
Same guy literally got several questions about unnaturally high oil prices considering the reduction in usage, rapidly rising housing prices, and if the stock market is overvalued and then went on a long talk about how amazingly low inflation numbers are...
Guy forecasts 6% GDP growth for at least the next 2 years...
Had a sweet graph too on how the economy as a whole will be above prepandamic forecasts for 2023 if we pass the large stimulus in front of Congress...admitted under questioning that there is a minor assumption of just using standard multipliers (i.e. if you borrow 10 trillion than the GDP will grow to 50 trillion, or the more the govt spends the better the economy looks...).
With these folks in charge we might get some of those Chinese empty cities built yet...
I'd avoid Spanish banks.
I'm not opposed to still borrowing money at amazingly low interest rates, but that spending has to go into things like infrastructure and/or R&D which increase productivity and have long term ROI. I don't see the point in just giving everyone $2K.
I'm in a gap year anyway
When the testing bullshit started I asked a GC if he wanted his floor done or not.
Of course
Then don't test my crew
-
6% isn't even particularly healthy, unless your argument is that it's healthy when coming back from a massive decline. Maybe that's the thinking here, but it sounds pretty unlikely to me as well. There are better arguments for "going big" than promises of the short term growth rate. I completely agree with everyone who has chimed in about updating infrastructure. It was the one wish list item where I was most in sync with the previous administration's rhetoric, at least.dflea said:
I think I found an Econ major.Blu82 said:
Probably dumbfucks that think like you.HHusky said:They are people, so I'm sure some are. I've seen precious little evidence that they are especially dumb or that they uniformly agree with one another.
What got your goat?
lol
Houston is going with the Eeyore narrative, so he's not having anyone tell him any different. 6% sounds pretty optimistic to me, too, but I'm not a practicing economist, so I'm not ready to make a counter-argument. I looked for HH's counter argument, but didn't see it.
