The Ecomony will not Recover until the Government Spends MORE Money!!

I... Did it for three reasons:

1) It is by far the best thread and opening OP on the forum
2) The Budget deal was officially passed (on the sneak) for 2014
3) The stock market is currently reacting to the speculation of tapering for QE.

Fiscal outlooks for 2014 are very positive from what I've read in the last couple weeks. It would appear that Republicans letting up on AUSTERITY and allowing the government to SPEND money is FINALLY starting to happen.

 

Not sure why this thread is still going. We know how Obama will lean on this matter. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

 

He's talking about the debt, not the deficit. Putting money into the economy affects the deficit first and foremost. If we cannot pay for that, then it becomes debt. The fun here is trying to balance projected new tax revenue so that the deficit doesn't become debt down the road. As well, debt is not a bad thing. It's what drives an economy overall to fairly significant degree.

 

But we aren't paying for it. We are borrowing it. So it become debt. You borrow money form someone you are now in debt aren't you?

 

This is true. Currently it's a weird ass ponzi-scheme-ish international debt musical chair game going on. Some of the debt is toxic because it's borrowed without productivity and you need GDP in order for it to be healthy. We're pumping up the stock market to artificially inflate the GDP so it looks fine, but it's not. It won't take much, but this bubble will pop again in the near future and you're going to see fingers flying all over the place. There's no telling how bad it's going to be, but it's not going to be good. The last time we had the wealth disparity that exists now, we dropped into the Great Depression. So...that doesn't really sound all that fun.

 

Just bought the book the Patriots. Haven't started reading yet.
Just saying Obama hasn't budgeted the debt yet. Won't in the future. And how do we pay off the nations debt? Deflate our money? Drop the value of the dollar to lower the debt? Hell there isn't enough money in the US to cover it.
I agree. It will happen. Some hard choices will have to be made. There will be a lot of people doing with out.

 

1. This point is so subjective it's pointless, and akiphidelt (who seems to have ragequit or something) is too antagonistic and full of himself for me to designate his OP as a good piece of argument.
2. The fact that a bill is passed does not mean it is a good idea
3. The stock market reacts to everything. If you make decisions based on what a bunch of money-grubbing gamblers on Wall St. are going to do you're letting them hold you hostage.

The government spending money doesn't mean jack (*)(*)(*)(*). If the government simply puts money in people's pockets you cause inflation, this is whyt he government give it to banks so the banks can lend more. This whole idea is based on two faulty assumptions:

1. The presence of more money to loan out will make more people want to
2. There will be enough wealth created to make up for the interest gained on that loan and thus either keep the economy the same or grow it.

If either of those assumptions fail this whole exercise is pointless. Unlike what akphi constantly trumpeted, the simple existence of more money does not create more wealth since money is not wealth, a distinction his mind simply did not comprehend. If more wealth is created then you need more money - the assumption is people can use the loans to create wealth, pay back the loan and thus the economy is grown. This only occurs if doing so produces a positive effect. If people are worried about not being able to pay it back, or their investment being bad and not making returns, you've actually made the situation worse. If you want to improve things, trying to incentivize risky behaviour like that is not going to work, you need something more robust and dependable.

 

The stock market is a sham these days. It NEEDS to fall so it can build back up with actual value. As it is, it's a house of cards and there's no bailing that out along with the banks too...We gotta let it hit rock bottom when it falls.

 

The word is 'backwards'.

Regardless: there are all sorts of entrepreneurs who create demand for products simply because they have the vision that people will want their products once they are produced. Producers - real creators - can do that. Steve Jobs is an excellent example. There was no demand for Apple's products; he created demand.

 

Again, demand is fueled by SPENDING MONEY. I want TONS of things. I really do! Can I buy them all? Hell no I can't!

Is this really hard to figure out? If there's no money to spend, it doesn't matter how much 'mental' demand there is. There has to be a means to fuel that mental demand in order to translate it into a true demand in terms of the economy. It's like food...there's a high demand for food and water. Everyone needs food and water. But some people cannot afford it. Therefore they do not buy it. You don't even NEED to create a market for food, it's always going to exist. Sheesh.

 

Many businesses are funded with venture capital. That means jobs are created based upon vision - not demand. The demand is assumed. In some cases, it's simply hoped for.

Your point is stupid. If there is 'no money', there is no way to actually give people enough money to create a sustained growth pattern, because business people - me among them - understand that no long term capital expenditure to expand based upon the hope that the Government will merely keep giving people money to spend at a business that I put my life on the line to open.

You don't know a single thing about economics, or the metrics of opening or growing a business. You are completely lost on this topic, and the arrogance you display will never allow you to change. Listen to people who have been there and done that, instead of flapping your gums.

 

So your assumption is that someone is going to waste money funding a new business in an economy where it's likely to get very little support?

 

How do you know it is going to get very little support? Entrepreneurs are serial optimists. They take chances based upon passion and intelligence. They are seeking reward. There are two very specific things which kill such a spirit:

1) Punitive taxation and regulation;
2) ObamaCare.

Both are wildcard/unknowns that make it extremely difficult to predict the possible difficulties in opening a business, or even if it is worth it to try. There was no 'demand' for an iPod when it was first envisioned; it was an educated hunch based upon an understanding of human nature and a perception of what people could not do without that resulted in the huge success that it was.

In addition, iMacs continue to be sold, even though their cost is in many cases several times what a comparably performing PC is. This 'very little support' thing is nonsense.

Entrepreneurs make this country go. Get out of their way, and it will.

 

You're talking about blind risk vs. calculated risk. It's more common that in economic downturns calculated risks become more common and during economic prosperity, you see more blind risk, just throwing caution to the wind. You're right, some people will still take risks no matter what, but they become smaller and conservative by nature and less frequent.

 

Significantly higher production and more people in the workforce.

Wiki Answers:

The US government's reaction to its entry into WWII was to institute massive deficit spending, and the conscription of all able bodied young men for the war effort, thus creating a full-employment economy which was the immediate end to the Great Depression. A belief existed that another depression might occur upon the return of the young men to the labor force so a comprehensive veteran's benefit package was legislated. The logistics of the ensuing peace created a natural US trade advantage which allowed for the unfettered repayment of the war generated deficit. The liberal veteran's educational and housing benefit resulted in increased productivity and a construction boom. These forces combined to forestall any otherwise feared return to the depression.

Most historians and economists agree that the Depression did not end until the beginning of WWII.
It improved economics because the war created more jobs such as creating weaponry and manufacturing the raw materials to run a war. These new jobs were able to jump start the economy.
businesses had to make items for the war, so they made money and could employ people again. the butterfly effect, the people could pay their debts and afford food.

The war economy ended unemployment when everyone (including women) had to work in all the unfilled positions so the armament, ships and planes could be built. The wages went up and inflation did not skyrocket. So the economy stabilized.
In the US , WW2 put many back to work in factories .

 

You missed the point entirely. Supply side economics is a help primarily in an up cycle when people are starting to be employed and make more money. Yet effectively, if more people would dig deep even in a down cycle the cycle would not last as long.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Government spending is not what will improve our economy as what the government spends comes FROM the economy in taxes thus it only shifts who is spending it.