The Greatest Depression

[vdzele]

OUR GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY!!!!

But your government has to spent too much money. In fact, as the time goes by, it will have to spend larger and larger amounts of money.

That's the laws of the Ponzi Scheme. The math, the mechanics, the core,... of the system you live in. Without spending these amounts of money the system would fall apart (and slaves would probably wake up)

I know one when I see one, I lived in one of the largest hyperinflation ever recorded in history. Runaway inflation is a result of a Ponzi Scheme. Yours is just prolonged over decades and setup to burst in the future. But when it bursts...o boy ...its going to be something we never experienced.

No need to be upset about. No need for capitol letters. Your society is adopted to these criminal laws.

"Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."


This guy even wrote a book called Planet Ponzi [watch from 16:00]

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

LozHinge the Unhinged: Originally Posted by KillerAim
LozHinge the Unhinged:


You seem to have forgotten how this discussion got to this point. We were talking about the upcoming “fiscal cliff”. The proposal offered by the White House was to raise tax rates. Since the fiscal cliff is directly caused by our ongoing deficit, we can assume that the White House was arguing that the increased tax rates would bring in more tax revenue. I pointed out that economic theory, supported by the results of all modern historical tax rate changes, said that this would more likely lead to lower tax revenue.


There was no need to mention any other type of economic stimulus. It wasn’t and still isn’t germane to the topic at hand.

But you are basing your premise (tax increases = reduced revenues, and the reverse) upon data that includes the effect of other types of economic stimulus. Which means it is germane to the subject at hand.

Sigh. Translation: you’re too lazy to even look at the sites that linked to before. Nope. There is a significant change in the tax revenue delta that occurred within the fiscal periods right after the tax rates were increased or decreased.

I appreciate your obvious patience.


Yes, revenues went up or down after the tax rates were lowered or raised. Is there some reason to dismiss the idea the tax rates were of only tangential importance, and enacted due to existing economic indicators? Remember, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I'm asking you to prove yourself right. I'm not even seeking to prove my own hypothesis, I only offer it in response to what I saw as a possible flaw in the theories being expressed.


I actually see this kind of thinking often in the media - very often, in connection with medical studies. Statistics are rolled out to prove a correlation of a person's health compared to where they live, what they earn, etc. Or the response test patients report when undergoing certain treatments. I see an obvious gap or flaw in the data presented and wonder why it doesn't appear to have been addressed. And how I wish I had kept a note of some examples, right about now.


Complex systems are resistant to analysis in a simple fashion with any hope of accuracy or precision. I too often see simplistic conclusions being drawn from incomplete data, and my logical mind has rebelled against the topic at hand.

Do you really think that anyone would be arguing that lowered tax rates led to increased tax revenues if the economy was in the midst of an upswing before the tax rates went into effect? That would have cut the legs out from under our argument before we even got started. We wouldn’t do anything like that because, you see, we base our beliefs on research, training, and actual figures. We don’t base them on gut feelings.

And yet they are only your beliefs, filtered through whatever pre-existing biases you may have. Your interpretation of data, which may or may not be sufficiently complete for you to draw your conclusions. I do not doubt your expertise with figures, or the expertise of those from whom you draw your opinions, but if the economy was susceptible to extrapolation and a fine detail of understanding, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Your figures cannot tell you the whole story.


Having re-read your quote above, it seems a bit cockeyed. You appear to be suggesting that if I was right, we wouldn't be arguing about this. Presumably, we are only arguing because I am wrong. OK

Can you name one computer model that accurately predicts the weather more than a week ahead of time? Are you seriously arguing that the experts could look at the computer generated economic projections for a week from now and use them to determine future tax rate changes?

What I am saying is that experts can look at trends already in existence and work from that. On a one-off basis, you can possibly predict fragments of the market - that's what traders do, I guess - but as for predicting a large enough trend before it even begins with a view to aligning taxation rates, well, I doubt that. Experts predict earthquakes from data on events already taking place, they don't use a crystal ball.

I totally agree. But these factors would only enhance the decisions they made. You always going to have tagalongs; people who wait to see how the Market is trending before they make their own decisions to go the same way. So why would you bring up something that supports my position and hurts yours? Unless you’re really that ignorant of how the Market works?

Sorry? Runs on currency are an enhancement? Frantic selling of stocks, based upon who knows what rumour or intel, leading to stock market crashes are enhancements?


As I say, you may be able to predict a small part of the market, for a finite time period, but the whole she-band? No.

Fine. You’ve persuaded me to your point of view.


But you seem to think that vast amount of North See Oil had a great impact on Britain’s economy. My gut instinct tells me that that is wrong and it was really that the goblins at Gringotts became worried about the overall economy in your Country so they decided give some wizards gold over to the Bank of England to help out. I don’t have the time or resources to support this gut feeling with any proof, but I believe that my interpretation of history has as much merit as yours.

Whilst we are on a flight of fancy, I'll share with you a theory I once heard - I'm sure you know it already. The theory goes that the days are longer in Summer because the heat of the sun expands them. In Winter, the days are shorter due to contraction.


Now, I'm no physicist but I don't place a lot of credence in a theory which overlooks, or is entirely ignorant of all pertinent data. And I don't need to be aware of all the relevant data to feel comfortable with that.


You see that, don't you?

[KillerAim]

LozHinge the Unhinged:

Sorry? Runs on currency are an enhancement? Frantic selling of stocks, based upon who knows what rumour or intel, leading to stock market crashes are enhancements?

Reading comprehension problem? I did not say that they were enhancements of the economy; I said they were enhancements of the experts’ decisions. If the experts believe that the market was about to go up due to a boom in the economy, they would alter their investment portfolios and invest more in the Market. The rest of the players would see the increase in Market investment by these experts and many would also expand their investments. Thus, the accuracy of the experts’ belief would be enhanced even before the Economy actually improved.

As I say, you may be able to predict a small part of the market, for a finite time period, but the whole she-band? No.

Agreed. Market prices are based on what investors believe will be happening to the economy in the future. The more you can accurately predict the economy’s future, you more you can make sound investments today.


You argue that politicians can accurately predict the future of our Economy. I say they can’t. You now admit that no one can predict the future of the full Market for an extended time. Again, you’re giving us information that’s supports my position rather than yours.

Now, I'm no physicist but I don't place a lot of credence in a theory which overlooks, or is entirely ignorant of all pertinent data. And I don't need to be aware of all the relevant data to feel comfortable with that.

You see that, don't you?

Well I AM an economist and I also don't place a lot of credence in a theory (that politicians knew that good times were about to happen and that that is why they lowered the tax rates) which overlooks, or is entirely ignorant of all pertinent data. And I AM aware of much of the relevant data to feel comfortable with my opinion.

You see that, don't you?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

LozHinge the Unhinged:


Reading comprehension problem? I did not say that they were enhancements of the economy; I said they were enhancements of the experts’ decisions. If the experts believe that the market was about to go up due to a boom in the economy, they would alter their investment portfolios and invest more in the Market. The rest of the players would see the increase in Market investment by these experts and many would also expand their investments. Thus, the accuracy of the experts’ belief would be enhanced even before the Economy actually improved.

Yep, that would be my reading comprehension fail.


On the other hand, perhaps your point above goes some way to supporting my counter-suggestion regarding tax cuts, that there are other factors having more bearing - clever market traders, for example.
No, perhaps not.


When I see the media discussing ways out of a recession these past few years, I haven't read about a stock-market led recovery - it seems to me that it's usually referred to as a consumer-spending driven recovery. Perhaps you can correct my misapprehension there.

...


You argue that politicians can accurately predict the future of our Economy. I say they can’t. You now admit that no one can predict the future of the full Market for an extended time. Again, you’re giving us information that’s supports my position rather than yours.

Yikes. No, I argue that politicians rely upon existing trends, they don't predict future trends (unless they are predicting "growth" immediately prior to an election).

Well I AM an economist and I also don't place a lot of credence in a theory (that politicians knew that good times were about to happen and that that is why they lowered the tax rates) which overlooks, or is entirely ignorant of all pertinent data. And I AM aware of much of the relevant data to feel comfortable with my opinion.


You see that, don't you?

Heh.


Politicians cannot afford to gamble on the stock market in the same way the traders do (even though there's no risk and traders never go broke or take a bath on a bad decision *cough*). I'm reasonably confident though that politicians can often guess that a downward economic spiral has bottomed out (or will do so very shortly). They may then decide it is "safe" to cut taxes. And get re-elected.





Just to re-iterate, as we have occasionally wandered into the wilderness here - I do not see evidence that tax cuts necessarily promote growth. They may coincide, but growth will or won't happen because the time is right or wrong for it (woolly layman-speak, apologies). Anyone saying that "You need to cut taxes to stimulate the economy" is most likely selling something.

[BobCox2]

OK everybody come here and post a scream as we all fall over the fiscal Cliff.

I'm going to yes $$$ thousands of times as are you.

They can fix it anymore

They all need to be thrown out of office.

[Technomancer]

OK everybody come here and post a scream as we all fall over the fiscal Cliff.

I'm going to yes $$$ thousands of times as are you.

They can fix it anymore

They all need to be thrown out of office.

Spoiler

[BobCox2]

Deal or no Deal?

[Glurin]

Same old crap. Raise taxes now for the vague promise that they'll consider cutting spending over time later.

When I see the media discussing ways out of a recession these past few years, I haven't read about a stock-market led recovery - it seems to me that it's usually referred to as a consumer-spending driven recovery. Perhaps you can correct my misapprehension there.

And high taxes are soooooo helpful in driving consumer spending. That's why the only way out of a recession is to make them higher. /sarcasm

Seriously though, it's like talking to a wall. I suspect you are just trolling.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Same old crap. Raise taxes now for the vague promise that they'll consider cutting spending over time later.

Er. Who are you responding to with this suggestion?

And high taxes are soooooo helpful in driving consumer spending. That's why the only way out of a recession is to make them higher. /sarcasm

Were you even reading the thread?

Oh. And you misspelled /foolishness.

Seriously though, it's like talking to a wall. I suspect you are just trolling.

Don't feel bad if you missed the point of all this.

[BobCox2]

6 Things You Won't Believe That Are In The Fiscal Cliff Bill That The Senate Passed At 2 AM While Most Americans Were Drunk

So why is the bill 157-pages long?
Because when Washington does business and passes a huge bill, there are all kinds of little other pre-existing tax things most Americans have never heard of, but which needed to be extended, that also get into the bill. It's just how it works.
1. There's a provision extending a tax policy related to Puerto Rican rum.


2. And a tax credit for 2- and 3-wheel electric vehicles.


3. Something having to do with Diesel Fuel:


4. An extension of some special rules for the film and television business.


5. A gift to the car-racing world.


6. Help to asparagus farmers.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/whats...#ixzz2GmRXTGpE