When is Reality more important than your Political Ideology? With graphs.

you don't know what you're talking about

 

So then you must agree that the more of it that there is, the more wealth that there is.

Because with money they can obtain other things that they want. If there is nothing that can be purchased with money, it is worthless. You can't use money to build factories. It can't be eaten. It can't be worn. It can't be used to educate, entertain, or do anything that wealth does. It simply is a medium by which one can obtain wealth.

 

Did I ask for that to be explained? No, I asked you to explain how more transactions automatically equates to more wealth and more growth. You are attempting to change the argument.

I am convinced by logic and clearly articulated reason. Neither of these things have you presented. You've made assertions. When questioned, you dissemble, insult, and then try to change the argument.

I am going to stay on you with this one, rather than let you play your usual game.

Answer this very simple question, with logic and clearly articulated reason:

How do more transactions equate to more wealth and economic growth?

 

you don't know what you're talking about

because it has value

sure you could

 

No you haven't. You are a little kid!

 

Interesting theory, lol. So if more people buying and selling goods and services doesn't create more wealth than what does? You guys have a weird ideology, lol.

 

Personal attacks and using the same old excuse instead of actually refuting a logical argument.

Everyone except dujac knows you're arrogant and refuse to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is intelligent. Your "facts", as I pointed out, are deceptive based on carefully chosen axes that do not reflect what is actually going on. You also never break it down and analyze what causes trends in said graphs, you insist the graph is self-explanatory and we should just accept what it says and the correlation you assume.

Like I said, actually doing so requires quite a bit of research that I do not care to look up. Your assertion that because you have "numbers" and I have "logic" you win is simply not true, because the numbers cannot tell you anything if they are not correctly analyzed.

You "relatively less" argument is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Jumping several trillions of dollars in debt in one decade is ridiculous. I cannot even think what you base "relatively" off of other than some other rigged graph of yours.

Also, again, you are proving my point by insisting you will always have buyers. Insisting there will always be anything is absolutely stupid - it doesn't matter if it's just a thought, which is apparently inferior in an argument for you, it is true. Nothing we ever do is permanent, we always change, we always mix it up, things rise and fall. You are literally saying that because, right now, system conditions will allow you to borrow as much money as you want, this will ALWAYS BE TRUE because you are assuming NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

That is absolutely stupid, and if you actually have anything to prove there will always always always be buyers no matter what until the end of humanity, I would absolutely love to see it.

Also insulting my intelligence does not win you any points because you cannot actually prove that no matter how much smarter than me you think you are.

 

I can analyze every graph I post. I usually just post them to simply show people that the data does not line up with their ridiculous uneducated comments.

Numbers tell you a lot more than words. And the fact you don't understand relativity in regards to economics is true testament of how little you know about the economy. I don't know why you keep making statements. If I were you I would throw out everything I thought I knew about economics and just start over. It will be much better for you in the long run.

It's not stupid at all if you understand that we create the buyers. If we create the buyers and the market how would we run out of buyers? Like I said, you are just thoroughly confused. The macroeconomy is too complex for you. I would suggest starting with something simple like studying banking and then go from there. Because right now, you are not doing yourself any favors by believing these silly theories you have.

 

just because borrowed money is someone else's income doesn't mean that it's zero sum. For example, if I lend you money, and you use that money to start up a business which then makes more money than I lent you, then you have created net value.

 

i gave these guys an example of how it works in post # 373

they're not interested in the truth

 

who is, nowadays?

 

i'm interested in the truth

 

here's the one truth I know - we're all wasting our time debating on this stupid forum, doing battle with people whose minds we're never gonna change anyhow.

we need to find better things to do with our lives

 

I heard that.

Posting on an internet political forum has got to be one of the biggest wastes of life there is.

 

what's better than telling the truth?

 

i dunno, golfing?

 

i don't think so

 

We could sell pieces of paper to each other all day long, and then we'd become poor, and then starve to death and die.

Or, if you like, we could all become entertainers. We'd spend all our days in transactions, entertaining each other. And then we'd all die.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed. But that is not what government does with money. That's the whole point.

 

Ah, that's an easy one.

Understanding that you are not the arbiter of truth, and probably aren't even capable of discerning it, if you stumbled upon it, is the beginning of wisdom.

"The Truth", as you say, is either folly, evil, or both...

 

except that when the government spends money, it creates jobs. The people employed by those jobs get money. Those people spend that money, which creates even more jobs. This creates a vicious cycle of job creation and growth, which increases tax receipts and results in the government having even more money. That's how the government can get money by spending money.

 

The govt creates very few sustainable jobs. Instead, govt jobs, some of them necessary, are almost entirely dependent on taking money from the more productive private sector (generally speaking).

 

not true. During a recession, government spending does not take money from the private sector. This is because interest rates are at or near the zero bound. So government borrowing and spending does not have any effect on the private sector.

 

I am referring to taxation.

 

Nowadays we just spend half a trillion to 1 trillion in deficits so I guess that does relieve some of the taxation burden lol.

 

i would oppose raising taxes during a recession as well. but we're not talking about taxation. we're talking about spending.

- - - Updated - - -

it is essential to run high deficits during a recession. if you do not, you will doom your economy to a permanent recession which will lead to higher debt in the long run.