|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Social Unrest? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
No. Inflation is when more money becomes active. That is not really correct. The price for goods can increase independent of the money supply and an increase in M does not automatically cause inflation, though it obviously can. It depends really on whether you are talking about low or high rates of inflation. Low or moderate rates of inflation can be due to drops in output, thus lowering supply of products and therefor increasing their value in the economy. (Think of the Oil shocks of the 1970's and 80's) It can also be due to an increase in demand for products beyond the ability of the economy to produce said products.
No. Inflation is when more money becomes active. Inflation is the rise in prices over time. One [underline]cause[/underline] of inflation can be when more money becomes active. (Global warming is NOT greenhouse gases. Global warming is the increase in the aggregate temperature of the planet. Greenhouse gases can cause Global warming but not necessarily the only cause.)
NO. HELL no. See above equation. Inflation by itself does not raise demand. Period. Especially small constant inflation. Generally when you relate inflation with demand, its the demand that causes the inflation, known as "demand-pull" inflation. I don't believe that is what he said, though. Having more money (increasing M) can have the effect of increasing demand. That is why governments in recessions dole out the dough. They want to increase demand and thus increase the products produced in response to said demand. It may very well lead to inflation, but that is what you want when you are in a recession.
Read my other two posts where i state in no uncertain terms that value is not tied to money. At. All. You would be right if you were valueing money based on its inherent properties, but you're wrong in that there is meaningful value to money because it is what we use as a medium of exchange and people like you and me want to have it.
For example, if i offer you 100 euros for your pencil, you may assume your pencil has a value of 100 euros, which may or may not be true. If i then offer you 139.12 USD for your pencil, under your mindset the value of your pencil has gone up, because i am using an inflated currency. Let's put it this way. If Jill offers you 100 dollars for your pencil and I offer you 135 dollars the next day, what would that mean about the value of my dollar versus Jill's?
No. A million times no. The nominal market price of his labor is increasing, but the real price of his labor remains the same. His value does not change. What do you mean by the 'real' price of his labor? How does an increase in demand for his labor not increase the value of that labor?
Think about how absurd what you're saying sounds. If you take your pencil and put it in a drawer for 10 years, it will become more valuable as an asset? What sense in the WORLD does that make? What sense would it make if increasing demand for pencils does not increase their value?
For the last time. Money doesn't mean value. Assets dont necessarily rise in value if they rise in price. Ignoring all other considerations, inflation is bad for the sole reason that people like yourself think that greater prices mean that you are becoming richer, and act according to that mindset. Inflation is not inherently bad. We want to have some amount of inflation. While poeple may confuse wealth with inflation, I do not believe that is the case here. For the last time, Money has value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Some recent news stories have looked at spending on infrastructure, stuff like road, rail, dams, bridges, communications.
The US current budgets (and often does not fund) about 2% of our GDP on an infrastructure that has been basically ignored for almost a half century now. Other nations, China, India, much of the EU seems to actually fund 5% to 10% of their GDP annually on infrastructure improvements and replacement. How long can we continue to simply allow our infrastructure to remain at a deteriorated half century old standard? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Let's put it this way. If Jill offers you 100 dollars for your pencil and I offer you 135 dollars the next day, what would that mean about the value of my dollar versus Jill's? It is less. But this is off-topic, really. We should start an inflation thread. Jon Check out the Purple Quill!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
To ease congestion I thought I would combine my response to Jon.
Post 74 I assumed this was the case when I replied to you earlier. You never addressed the issue. I never addressed the issue because I never said I was talking about during the war, but afterward. Your question didn't seem relevant to my statement about the economy, unless you could be more clear about why you bring up the economy during the war versus the economy after.
Certainly wasn't money spent on condoms... Flippant but perhaps I deserved that. M increased, but what happened to the economy?
No, they COST more; their VALUE does not change. Jeebus. I'm not sure if we are talking around each other or you are purposely being obtuse.
Do the checks increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation? In our example, does it move us from E1 to E2, or from E2 to E1? It depends on what they do with it, wouldn't you say . Let's get back to the real world. We expect that if the economy is working properly, an increase in monetary supply will cause inflation, but it will also likely cause an increase in productivity, which has the effect of eventually suppressing inflationary pressures. Of course any large shock due to pricing caused by supply and demand pressures or any shock induced by monetary policies can induce either hyperinflation (bad) or stagflation (bad) but if everything works and there are no shocks then most economists would agree that having that little bit of inflation is a good thing.
Small condolence, since the money left over is now worth less than yesterday. Not if your purchasing power has not been significantly affected, which would be the case when productivity has increased. You're telling me that you would rather pay 6% interest on your house than you would 4%?
Now on to post 78 It is less. But this is off-topic, really. We should start an inflation thread. Not necessarily. While I agree that prima facie it would appear to be the case that my dollars are worth less, that would be the case IF everything else cost more as well. It might even lead to inflation if this happened in significant portions, but this is a one time occurence where the value of the dollar remains the same, it is the subjective value of the pencil that has increased. If you can buy more things because you sold that pencil for more, the dollars value with respect to your purchasing power has basically remained the same. I am tending to disagree that this is off-topic, in the sense that this topic seems relevant to the opening post, (I was tracking toward wage pressures and inflation but perhaps I was being too slow to begin) and so I will gladly shift back toward the topic of Phats post if that is what people want. I am sure wage pressures and inflation will turn up again. With that in mind, he did ask you:
Phat writes:
Jon writes:
Perhaps current attention will finally start getting underway certain measures required to fix the problem we have been creating for the past several decades. I then asked: What solutions do you propose, Jon? (in other words, what measures need to be undertaken?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4905 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
Commodities and other hard assets DO appreciate in value with inflation. Why do you think they are used as a hedge against inflation? Because they dont LOSE value. If you hold money in a period of great inflation, youre losing wealth just by sitting there. You lose less money by getting rid of all your cash and having assets, because they will eventually rise in price to the new, devalued currency. From the concise encyclopedia of econ:
quote: Higher tax on money holdings means a greater oppertunity cost to holding money. That means it would be less costly to get rid of money and get assets. From wiki:
quote: Loans and bonds can suffer. Not the last sentence, reprinted in bold caps: INFLATION HAS NO EFFECT ON THE REAL VALUE OF NON-MONETARY ITEMS (goods, commodities, gold, real estate) From an article titled "How inflation effects the market and book value of assets:
quote: Because it can give people debt relief for one.
Yes, and i'd agree with you here that this is a well-known point for inflation. Whether or not i agree with allowing debt-forgiveness on principle is a different story.
What happens when the government decides to give you a nice bonus tax refund check. Why and when would they do that? What are people likely to do with that check?
That money was taken from the workforce in the first place, the govt isnt just magicking you money. There's no additional investment in the workforce to make them spend more, theres the same money that was there in the first place.
For the record, when I say 'post-war' I mean after world war 2. As a side note, what was one of the consequence of military soldiers coming home from the war with those big fat paychecks? Oh, i know. The government, instead of allowing money to be spent on capital and consumer goods, threw the money away by spending it on disposable items that didnt improve the prosperity of the USA. Do you disagree? The soldiers coming home and spending money is not what raised prosperity, i would argue. Again, that's just money that came from the same system, its not an injection of productivity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4905 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
Because inflation is caused by more money chasing the same amount of goods and services Wrong. If you could do math as well as you said you could, you would be able to see this. Inflation is a general rise in the price level. By the equation MV = PQ, the price "P" can rise by either a raise in V or M, or a fall in Q. The same amount of money could be after the same amount of goods and services, and you could have inflation.
But that's a good thing. More demand for goods and services puts more people in the business of providing goods and services. Any goods or services that people already have increase in price. Actually, you can have inflation without having a rise in demand, which invalidates your silly theories about positive business growth. From a Macroecon textbook:
quote: The first part, the large shift in Demand, is demand pull inflation. Note that after this change, wages and average material costs increase untill the SRAS (short run aggregate supply) shifts inwards, CONTRACTING the amount of supply to compensate for the raised Demand. The economy moves BACK towards long run equilibrium. If what you are saying is true, then the only solution we would ever need is to have constant inflation.
Why would I think that? 100 GBP and 139.12 USD are the same amount of money. Because according to you, assets appreciate in inflation. Apparently, the 139$ is more to you, because it is an inflated currency.
More money creates a greater demand for goods and services, which creates a greater demand for the labor necessary to provide them, due to people getting into the "goods and services" business. This is obviously true. No, because every case of inflation is not necessarily caused by a change in demand. Cost push inflation occurs because of changes in supply, not demand. Your example doesnt account for this. The inflation arises from the change in demand, it doesn't cause it. Thats why it's called "Demand pull" inflation.
quote: Some schools of economic thought think that constant demand pull inflation stimulates investment, but im not sure you's care, because absorbing that much econ would make you a moron, apparently.
I do see it, and I can do math. And your equation says that when the volume and velocity of money increase, so does the price level and value of goods. Wrong. Rises in M or V mean rises in P, but NOT Q. Q doesnt chance, short term.
No, think about the absurd world you're proposing, the one where your corner grocer can't figure out how much the price of tomatoes should be that day until he calls up everyone in the country to find out how much money they have. That's the result of "economics moron" thinking, where the economics moron thinks he's being intelligent when he says "increasing the money supply makes money less valuable", as though the value of the money in your pocket comes from how large a percentage of all the world's money it represents. That has a label, its called sticky prices. The grocer doesn't need complete information to act according to what he thinks is the best transaction. Your critique is old and incomplete, it was first heard when capitalism arose as an idea. Sticky prices is a legitimate event, but it doesn't impact the whole picture. Fact is, the grocer changes his prices all the time to compensate for inflation. Inflation is calculated based on the grocer's items. So think about it. If the grocer never changes the price of his goods to reflect inflation, but you CALCULATE inflation based on how much the price of his goods rose, where does inflation come from?
Absolutely wrong. The value of money is what you can buy with it. If the government throws bales of money from helicopters tomorrow, people are going to want to spend it on goods and services. That increases the demand for goods and services but not the supply of them, so the price increases. Nope. Again. In the following graph, the government threw proverbial bales of money out of helicopters. Short run supply shifts quickly after the price level changes. Can you read this? I have some phone numbers of some economic morons you can dial if its past your grasp of the way things work in the real world.
This is something upon which every economist agrees, so if you find yourself i the position of arguing against the vast economics consensus I'm pretty sure it's not me who's going to be wrong. Hahahahahahahah. Milton Friedman, founder of the Monetarism school of economic thought and recipient of the Nobel prize:
quote: Ludwig von Mises, father of the Austrian school of economic thought and renowned economist and philosopher:
quote: Friedrich A Hayek, winnder of the nobel prize in economics:
quote: What was it you said, that every economist agrees with you, and therefor you MUST be right? It looks like in 5 minutes i could produce 2 Nobel laureates and 2 fathers of modern day economic schools of thought that disagree with you. It really was not all that difficult. This statement is false. Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Wrong. No, right. Inflation is caused by more money chasing the same amount of goods and services. If it wasn't, why would printing more money be inflationary? As you pointed out, if the government gives everyone a thousand dollars to bury in their backyard, there's no inflation. Why not? Because they're burying it, not chasing the same amount of goods and services with it.
Inflation is a general rise in the price level. Right. And that rise is caused by the increased demand for the same amount of goods and services. Supply and demand, remember?
The same amount of money could be after the same amount of goods and services, and you could have inflation. Sure, I guess everybody could just agree to pretend that their money is less, every business could agree to raise prices for no reason and pay workers more; but get real. That's economics moron talking. In the real world, inflation is what happens when more money chases the same amount of goods and services. Or, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, author of the preeminent textbook on economics:
quote: Because according to you, assets appreciate in inflation. Apparently, the 139$ is more to you, because it is an inflated currency. No, I said assets appreciate when demand for them increases. My single pencil increases in value as pencils get used up, because the demand for pencils begins to outstrip the supply. Of course, if people respond to the demand by making more pencils, then the value of any particular pencil will decrease, because there will be more of them. I don't think my posts are complicated or obtuse, Damouse. Is there some reason you're having trouble reading them?
Note that after this change, wages and average material costs increase untill the SRAS (short run aggregate supply) shifts inwards, CONTRACTING the amount of supply to compensate for the raised Demand. More economics moron talk. People respond to increased demand by increasing supply, not by decreasing it. If all of a sudden bread becomes more valuable, bakers respond by baking more bread - not by burning their bakeries down. I mean, Mouse, at this point I'm forced to ask - have you ever bought or sold anything? Ever? I mean you seem to have absolutely no idea how money works. I can only wonder if you've ever actually had any.
Rises in M or V mean rises in P, but NOT Q. Not in the equation you've posted. Q is a variable, not a constant. You know what those terms mean, right? I mean, you're apparently a math lecturer or something, so surely you would know the difference between a constant and a variable?
The grocer doesn't need complete information to act according to what he thinks is the best transaction. No, he just needs to have a notion of how much money people will pay for his tomatoes. In other words it's the value of tomatoes to people that determines the price of his tomatoes, not the amount of all the money in the world, which he doesn't need to know or care about.
Fact is, the grocer changes his prices all the time to compensate for inflation. No, he changes his prices to account for the supply and demand of tomatoes, economics moron. Businesses operate on supply and demand. They still teach supply and demand in your economics classes, right? Or is that simple concept now considered too basic for economics morons like yourself to bother with?
In the following graph I don't see a graph, just a big blank blue space. Maybe next time use a graph without an alpha channel, just a thought.
quote: That's what I'm saying. Maybe you meant to quote somebody else.
quote: Not enough context here to have any idea what von Mises is talking about; but von Mises characterized inflation as
quote: just as I do. Hayek, same deal.
What was it you said, that every economist agrees with you, and therefor you MUST be right? Every economist disagrees with you. Including the ones you quoted (which is really amazing.) Doesn't that maybe indicate that you're wrong?
It really was not all that difficult. I imagine that if you simply cut and paste citations without even reading them, as you appear to have done, it's fairly easy indeed to make yourself feel like you've said something intelligent. Too bad you continue to be completely and absolutely wrong, as I've shown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4905 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
You seem to love reading between the lines, responding to only what you feel you can fight.
Every economist disagrees with you. Including the ones you quoted (which is really amazing.) Doesn't that maybe indicate that you're wrong? Lets go over my quotes again: From freidman:
quote: Do you think he meant this in a positive way? Do you think modern economists think taxation without legislation is a good thing? Tell, me, my dear frog, how on any terms this indicates Mr. Freidman is for inflation and not against it. From von Mises:
As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Ive bolded the relevant word. If von Mises was for inflation, would he seek to fight it? Let me educate you:
quote: It seems that to fight inflation, Mr. Mises would have to consider inflation an ADVERSARY. Interesting. Its almost like von Mises thinks inflation is bad! What a strange concept. From Mr. Hayek, nobel prize laureate:
quote: You're either delusional or illiterate, because clearly Mr. Hayek is arguing against inflation in this quote. You accuse me of not reading my own references, but you cant seem to understand phrases like "...STOP INFLATION....", a direct quote from Hayek. If this is still difficult to understand, ill post the whole letter from Hayek, titled "Can we still avoid inflation?" Your tactics in avoiding any sort of compromise are admirable, but childish. What prevents you from accepting that economists share my viewpoint? Edited by Damouse, : No reason given. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4905 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
Right. And that rise is caused by the increased demand for the same amount of goods and services. Supply and demand, remember? No, again. Inflation is not necessitated by a rise in demand. Supply-push inflation has nothing to do with demand. It is not generated by a rise in the demand curve.
As you pointed out, if the government gives everyone a thousand dollars to bury in their backyard This is an example of inflation, not a definition. This encompasses one part of inflation, demand pull inflation. You could EASILY have cost-push inflation resulting in a higher price level without a rise in demand.
author of the preeminent textbook on economics: An author of A preeminent textbook. As in: one author of one textbook, not the authority on econ. He happens to be of the macro school of thought that opposes my own. The fact is, his school disagrees with the school that i tend towards. That notwithstanding, you've still managed to do what you've accused me of:
quote: It seems he's saying that inflation, in the long run, does NOT result in a higher productivity or production rate. GDP returns to long run stability. Real GDP. The actual, natural GDP. Are you silly, my man? This is what i have been saying. Not only does inflation not increase asset value, it results in a NORMAL GDP. It. Doesnt. Help. Anything. Longterm.
quote: Haahahahaah. Read the above excerpt from your post, where krugman talks about real GDP shrinking back to normal. Then, look at the graph i posted again. Because you love to ignore solid contradictory posts, heres the direct link to the graph i posted. Page Not Found | tutor2u Again, if it's difficult for you to interpret, feel free to ask a friend. Or telephone your friend krugman, even he will tell you exactly what it means, exactly the same way he said it in the above quote of yours.
Not in the equation you've posted. Q is a variable, not a constant. You know what those terms mean, right? I mean, you're apparently a math lecturer or something, so surely you would know the difference between a constant and a variable? Short term, Q is a constant. No matter how much less your money is worth, my goods will not get any better. Unless you think your 136$ makes me pencil better than your 100 euros. If the fed were to drop double the amount of money currently in M1 onto the US in two seconds, you honestly think the real value of your pencil would increase in 2 seconds? As another way to appraise true value, think of buying and selling in terms of bartering. This is how i should have said this all along, i feel... If your pencil could be traded for a pen before the inflation, could your pencil be traded for two pens after? In other words, did your pencil double in value after? The answer is obviously no. If i pay you one bill for your pencil now and two bills worth half as much for your pencil later, your pencil didnt appreciate in real value, those two bills you got will still only buy you a pen later. Everyone's asset appreciate in nominal value equally, which means you cannot buy more real value with them after as you could before. Their real value, therefor, doesn't appreciate. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You seem to love reading between the lines, responding to only what you feel you can fight. It's poor form to quote and reply to an entire message. I choose remarks that are representative of your points, and are the most direct expressions of where we disagree. I'm trying to instruct you in your error, not write a novel.
Do you think he meant this in a positive way? No, of course not. Freidman hates inflation. But he agrees with me on the cause: "more money chasing the same amount of goods."
Tell, me, my dear frog, how on any terms this indicates Mr. Freidman is for inflation and not against it. I never said that he was.
If von Mises was for inflation, would he seek to fight it? I never said that von Mises was in favor of inflation, either. But he certainly agrees that it's caused by "more money chasing the same amount of goods."
You're either delusional or illiterate, because clearly Mr. Hayek is arguing against inflation in this quote. Hayek is a third person I never asserted was in favor of inflation, but he certainly agrees that it's caused by "more money chasing the same amount of goods." It's the textbook definition of inflation, Mouse - in fact I directly quoted a fucking textbook - and to the extent that you've put yourself in clear opposition to Friedman, von Mises, Hayek, and Krugman, no reasonable person is going to believe you over them.
What prevents you from accepting that economists share my viewpoint? The fact that none of them do. Every economist I can find describes inflation as "more money chasing the same amount of goods", frequently in those exact words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Inflation is not necessitated by a rise in demand. No, again. When more money chases the same amount of goods, inflation will occur. Every economist agrees on this, it's the textbook definition of "inflation." I don't understand why you're so adamant that literally every economist in the western world has it completely wrong. Doesn't that strike you as unlikely, at least?
As in: one author of one textbook, not the authority on econ. Yeah, you're right. Paul Krugman is just some jack-off that nobody takes seriously. What the fuck was I thinking? You're truly living up to the "economics moron" epithet. I was originally sorry that "moron" was in there, but I didn't have a better word to describe the notion of an "idiot savant" who can quote economists at length but doesn't actually understand how anything works. But you're certainly living up the colloquial notion as well.
Not only does inflation not increase asset value, it results in a NORMAL GDP. Right. A return to normal GDP levels. That's what inflation can give you - for instance, if your economy is plagued by a shortfall in demand resulting in depressed GDP or GDP growth. See "The United States economy, 2008-present." That's why Krugman is a proponent of economic stimulus - it's inflationary, and that's what we could use right now.
Because you love to ignore solid contradictory posts, heres the direct link to the graph i posted. And it shows a positive correlation between price growth and national income, which is exactly what I've been saying. Don't you know how to read a graph?
If the fed were to drop double the amount of money currently in M1 onto the US in two seconds, you honestly think the real value of your pencil would increase in 2 seconds? No, I think people would rush out to buy pencils, increasing the demand for them. (Assuming that the only thing keeping people from buying pencils is the lack of money to pay for them. That's probably not true of pencils, but it's true of other goods - people would buy more of them if they had more money.) The next day, the pencil sellers would respond to the increased demand by raising the price. That's such an obviously true thing - supply and demand - that, again, I'm flabbergasted that you think it's not true. I mean, even a complete economics idiot savant knows about supply and demand.
If your pencil could be traded for a pen before the inflation, could your pencil be traded for two pens after? In other words, did your pencil double in value after? We're not on the barter system, that's a different economy. And we don't measure the value of things in "pens", we measure them in "money." That's one of the purposes of money, to represent value. And, no, obviously the pencils couldn't be exchanged for 2 pens; the value of pens has increased alongside the value of pencils, because we're talking about inflation - an increase in demand for everything. Inflation increases the value of all goods and services. It's a rising tide that lifts all boats. The value of money is that you can buy and sell things with it. Under inflation the amount of money it takes to buy a good increases, indicating the increase in its value. There's no "abstract value" that items have independent of their price, because "value" means "how much money something is worth." We measure the value of things in money, that's the point of money. The absurd notion that something has an abstract worth unrelated to it's dollar value is like saying you have an "abstract height", not measured in any discernible unit of length, and that is completely unrelated to the physical measure of the distance between your feet and your head. It's "economics moron" thinking - it sounds all academic and shit but it's completely divorced from economies in the real world, where I (at least) reside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1
|
Phat writes: Who determines and/or sets the value scale? Frako writes: the market does, supply and demand, or in some cases you can if you have enough money mostly in stocks though. Good article in yesterdays Denver Post:
Many who started in middle class find lifestyle slipping away. Some quotes from the article:
quote:Devastating! In the past year since I started this topic, social unrest has in fact been increasing, as witnessed by the "occupy WallStreet" crowd. quote:The article notes that this study was done before the economic downturn of the past few years. quote: Again, I ask the question--what can we Americans do to reclaim our destiny? If we get educated and work harder yet still make less than Mom and Dad did, can you blame us for being angry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
jar writes: Some recent news stories have looked at spending on infrastructure, stuff like road, rail, dams, bridges, communications. The US current budgets (and often does not fund) about 2% of our GDP on an infrastructure that has been basically ignored for almost a half century now. Other nations, China, India, much of the EU seems to actually fund 5% to 10% of their GDP annually on infrastructure improvements and replacement. How long can we continue to simply allow our infrastructure to remain at a deteriorated half century old standard? Is there a way to fix the infrastructure by training and hiring people...putting them to work fixing the roads and bridges rather than cutting these services? Seems that we had enough to fund two wars. Investing in ourselves seems like a wise move.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Seems that we had enough to fund two wars. Investing in ourselves seems like a wise move. It would have been but unfortunately, we decided not to do that and instead spend the money on two wars in Iraq (that never has attacked the US) and in Afghanistan (that also never has attacked the US). That money is gone.
Phat writes: Is there a way to fix the infrastructure by training and hiring people...putting them to work fixing the roads and bridges rather than cutting these services? Sure, as long as we raise taxes to get the money to pay those workers and the repairs.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Jar, why raise taxes when the government can borrow at a negative interest rate?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024