What REALLY caused the economic crisis, inflation,...

This is a society in which we ALL benefit from the fruits of everybody else. It's our Social Contract established by the Constitution and in which the fundamental principles that must be met are explained in the Preamble, so nobody is caught by surprise (except people who don't read it). But participation is voluntary. Unlike other countries in which you are not allowed to leave, here you are free to decline participating and move somewhere in which this social contract is to your liking, or where there is NO social contract at all. There are many lawless areas in the world with no social contract. And there are also still thousands of uninhabited islands in the Pacific that have not been swallowed by Global Warming. So you do have options.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your statement was

YOU: "I aim to demonstrate that the claim made by certain ‘economists’ that “policy by Biden has been bringing us out from the verge of a recession in which the Trump regime put us” holds as much validity as the claim made by different ‘economists’ that “policy of Biden ruin American successful economy built by Trump’."​

The OP provides arguments to address the first statement from the point of view of debt. So do employment numbers, wage increase now outpacing inflation, stock markets, infrastructure... none of which by themselves imply we are out of the woods yet from the Trump debacle, but they DO show great improvement as to where we were when the consequences of the Trump policies (or lack thereof) kicked in. But they were a consequence of REAL policies by Biden (infrastructure bill, ARPA, promoting the Covid vaccine -as opposed to Trump getting his vaccine in secret-, etc). So now it's YOUR turn. Show what Trump policies validate YOUR claim that Trump built a successful economy. BTW, I can also list Obama policies that gave Trump a smooth ride during his first years. But you need to show TRUMP policies.

YOU "aim to demonstrate" that. Not AI, not economists.... YOU. So do it!

You

 

I would agree with these economists if the government were using money it already has. Government debt and monetary devaluation never do anything positive for the economy. They are positive only for government. So left leaning economists will have opinions like this. Nothing new.

Infrastructure is the responsibility of the owner of the infrastructure. Federal government is responsible only for its own infrastructure and has no business maintaining anybody else's. Hard landing from what? I don't think the economy has been flying out of control. It isn't bad, though. The problems - inflation and high prices - are on federal government, not the economy.

 

If that is the case, the Biden administration has very little to do with socialism. Because the Biden administration is A LOT about using other people's money to build bridges.

 

I have not seen any new or repaired bridges. I have read about Biden "forgiving" student loans. It ignores the fact that many of us paid for our own loans and scraped through without getting a loan. It also ignores the fact that those loans contributed to an education which did not pay enough to pay off those loans, while at the same time, many blue collar workers paid for their own education in blue collar trades which this country needs.

 

Economics is not a science. It is an analysis of human behavior like psychology or sociology. It is basically a potpourri of opinions. Science is always subject to challenge but has more agreement and fewer opinions than social "sciences."

The problem we have today is the definition of inflation. It was clear in the past but very messy today. The reason is that government, for obvious reasons, combines prices with monetary policy under the umbrella of inflation. Inflation is inflation of the money supply with the resulting monetary devaluation. It is permanent because government avoids deflation like a plague. Prices have nothing to do with government. They respond to changes in the relationship between supply and demand. They are temporary. They happen in the economy.

Currently the administration is blaming business for high prices. It is a serious lie. Businesses are in competition with each other and that tends to depress rather than raise prices. Competition is the reason capitalism is so successful. What is actually happening is that the dollar is becoming less valuable so it takes more dollars to buy anything. That is all on government. Businesses have to respond to rising costs with rising prices. They cannot operate at a loss, at least not for very long.

So if we want clarity we need to understand that inflation is caused by expansion of the money supply. Expansion of the money supply is caused by government profligate overspending. It is caused by government. Prices respond to supply and demand. They always have. Government doesn't set them. People who buy and sell things do that.

The dollar has lost more than 90% of its value during my lifetime. Think about that.

 

Perhaps you should reread the Constitution, because 'General Welfare of the United States' does not mean 'welfare for people who won't provide for themselves'. It also doesn't mean that congress has the power to tax and spend on whatever they want.

Speaking of voluntary participation, I'll assume you feel the same way about individual states deciding their own abortion laws?

 

Weird how the voters aren't buying the OP.

 

The Oceans have risen 400 feet over the last 20,000 years and the current rate of rise is half the 20,000 year rate, and you seen to have really wandered off topic.

 

Economics is a science. It's a social science, like psychology or sociology. Because it analyzes human behavior. But you can establish testable hypothesis and a method to falsify them. You can hypothesize, for example, that a business that spends more than it receives will have to shut down. You can't forecast WHEN it will shut down because this depends on human behavior. But that it WILL shut down is testable, verifiable and can be repeated again and again. Some divide it into two types: behavioral economics and scientific economics. Behavioral economics use scientific principles, but the output to deal with real-life scenarios are models. And, as we have explained many times, models are always wrong. But they guide as to what we should avoid, and in what direction we should head. But scientific economics does engage in experimentation and is quite testable. However, when the results are taken into real life, they become behavioral.

 

In my opinion......

brilliant people understood since the time of the Weimar Republic that the only way to set in motion a hyper-inflationary recession or depression......

was to decrease PRODUCTIVITY!!!!!!

Biden and Trudeau are reading a script that has been passed to them by some off the scale intelligent economists who understood this fact very well......

WWW.BANKINGSYSTEMFLAWS.BLOGSPOT.COM/

 

In fact, it does. But that's besides the point. Whether they provide for themselves, the constitution states as the purpose of this nation to provide for the GENERAL welfare. Not individual welfare. General welfare means doing things that benefits everybody. Tax cuts for the middle class benefit everybody. Tax cuts for the rich don't. The OP demonstrates this.

No idea why you would assume such a thing, when what the Preamble of the Constitution says would imply exactly the opposite. "General" means everybody. No difference between women in one state or another. Off-topic, though. Open a thread if you want to discuss further.

 

Right! When tax breaks for the rich mean there is no money for security, education, infrastructure, you actually ARE decreasing productivity.

 

Good point......

I personally am going at this from another angle that is rather controversial.... but I feel is worth an honest try?????



http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-basic-minimum-income.605034/#post-1073807321

?
Should believers in Pro-Life support an Unconditional Basic Minimum Income?

1. 
   I am Pro-Choice and I DO NOT support an Unconditional Basic Minimum Income
   1 vote(s)
   5.6%
2. 
   I am Pro-Choice and I DO NOT support an Unconditional Basic Minimum Income
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
3. *
   I am Pro-Life and I support an Unconditional Basic Minimum Income
   1 vote(s)
   5.6%
4. 
   I am Pro-Choice and I support an Unconditional Basic Minimum Income.
   6 vote(s)
   33.3%
5. 
   NO
   8 vote(s)
   44.4%
6. 
   YES
   2 vote(s)
   11.1%

Change Your Vote

 

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an idea that has been around for centuries. It should not be unconditional, though.

 

Economist Milton Friedman hated bureaucracies.... and felt that an UNCONDITIONAL Basic Minimum Income was the only logical and practical way to make bureaucracy UNNECESSARY when it would come to the distribution of a B. M. I.

 

Taking from one group of people and giving it to another is exactly what individual welfare is. If you give me $10,000, that is benefiting me, not so much you, regardless if you can 'afford it' or not. Me paying off my student loan debt AND yours is a benefit to you, not to me. So it is in no way shape or form 'General'.

And one other thing regarding 'taxing the rich'. Aside from being completely immoral, liberals believe in this fairy tale that big daddy government is going to take $10 million from the rich and give it to the poor. When in reality, they'll take $10 million from the rich, give the poor $50, and keep the rest for themselves.

 

In my opinion.....
President Abraham Lincoln proved that we do not really need to tax the rich or the poor........

We could do something more along the line of what the original thirteen states did before 1750.....


My humble apologies but it seems as if we Canadians played a role in deceiving the majority of Americans regarding monetary policy!


https://famguardian.org/Publications/InThisAgeOfPlenty/plenty49.htm

For the record... I did make my apology about this public......

Do we Canadians owe America an apology for 1750 - 1783?


?
Do Canadians and Brits owe America an apology for our ignorance in 1750 -1783?

1. 
   No.... Canada did not even exist until 1867.
   8 vote(s)
   16.0%
2. *
   Yes..... if we had been more well informed we would have supported USA independence.
   7 vote(s)
   14.0%
3. 
   No..... America should still be a part of the British Empire.
   3 vote(s)
   6.0%
4. 
   No.... we are not responsible for what our ancestors do.
   32 vote(s)
   64.0%

Change Your Vote

 

That's the problem with proposing policy based on "hate" and not on its practical implications.

 

Hating BUREAUCRACIES......

is not the same thing as hating Americans or Canadians.......

but I supposed people who LOVE BUREAUCRACY will look at all of this differently??!!


Best Idea for a Better Canada Contest

 

You appear to have some weird confusion between the words "group" and "individual". They are not synonyms, you know. In any case, the "group" you are talking about is... everybody. That's the purpose of taxes: taking from individuals and providing benefits to EVERYBODY (if you want to call "everybody" a "group")

I don't think you're following what I'm saying... Please re-read the post you responded to. It has NOTHING to do with giving you $10,000

Actually it does benefit you. But it's not what this thread is about.

Taxing the rich is immoral???

Looks like you have completely abandoned the topic we were discussing.

What are you talking about? Who is "themselves"? Are you accusing somebody of embezzlement? Who is that? And what is your evidence? Or did you just decide to abandon all pretense of making sense?

 

I don't love or hate bureaucracy in general. I only hate it when they are inefficient and I'm in a hurry. But sometimes they are unavoidable.

 

Economist Milton Friedman felt that they could be avoided... but it would not be easy..... and giving out an Unconditional Basic Minimum Income to all citizens and legal residents is a hard sell to voters but................ most Americans can see that it is an improvement over giving all that money to The Ukraine..... and to BigPharma for treatments that cause more harm than good and for... ....... etc., etc.,


You might want to take a look at this new discussion and poll......

Could the mess in the United States be addressed from up here in Canada?????

Could the same plan to pay off the national debt of Canada work in the USA as well????

My plan to pay off the deficit at the rate of twenty billion dollars per month?

Am I a blithering idiot to think that this could work?????

In my opinion.... An Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income to all forty one million Canadians of merely five hundred dollars per month........

that is put into the economy in essentially the same manner as the Bank of Canada policy of 1938 to 1974 should....... in my opinion...... PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT.......

AND SOON THE NATIONAL DEBT OF CANADA.....

AT THE RATE OF ABOUT TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH!!!!!

This idea is so simple that this may scare you!!!!!

Forty one million Canadian citizens and legal residents......
if they each receive FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS CANADIAN......

CREATED IN THE MANNER THAT MS. BETTY KRAWCZYK RECOMMENTS......

[in a way that creates essentially zero COMPOUND INTEREST OWING OVER TIME]......

THEN AFTER this money turns over about three times in the economy......

it will be taxed back into the Treasury.......

and will begin to pay down... .first the Deficit and soon The national Debt of Canada??????

Essentially this same idea can work in the USA as well!

 

You're really not all there are you?

How on Earth can you possibly try to defend theft? That is exactly what taking from one person and giving it to another is. Theft. I'm not talking about paying taxes for roads, military, law enforcement, etc. I'm talking about actually taking money out of my paycheck to pay for your student loan, health insurance, etc. Supporting you is not benefitting me, a group, or everybody. It benefits you, all because you're too pathetic to provide for yourself, and you feel entitled to a piece of what someone else earned.

Themselves are every politician that makes $170,000 a year salary and is a multi millionaire in a few years. You probably think that's just a coincidence though

 

I think that there are instances in which they are the best solution. They might be avoided at some point with technology and AI, but I doubt that's what Friedman had in mind.

The fact that many Americans don't understand what's at stake in Ukraine, whether due to lack of information, or not knowing history, is an example of the dangers of democracy. But we should avoid deciding policy based on ignorance.

and to BigPharma for treatments that cause more harm than good and for... ....... etc., etc.,


You might want to take a look at this new discussion and poll......

I don't know, but I really enjoyed "A Handmaid's Tale."

Depends on where those twenty billion dollars come from.

Before we think of paying off the deficit, we need to think about not making it worse. Every Republican administration since Ragan have adopted policies that increase the deficit, and every Democratic administration have enacted policies that have effectively reduced it. I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about Canada to opine. But THAT should give us a hint as to how to tackle the deficit in the U.S.