America on the rebound with Obama Administration Policies

Quote from trefoil:

Shiteater. Nice, descriptive username. Goes with the level of the "Economics" discussions around here, which basically amount to "Ugh! Gubmint bad!"
I was especially amused when someone put up graphs of the government spending levels of Ireland and some others that clearly showed spending shooting through the roof AFTER the crisis in 2008, and everyone ignoring it and saying it was overspending that is causing the euro sovereign debt crisis. Ideology over all, all the time, every time around here.
Why doncha all just keep repeating that "Ugh! Gubmint bad!" forever? It's all you ever do anyway.
Defending our current government is like trying to say juice at the bottom of a dumpster is healthy - go ahead and drink that stupidity - good luck with that - LOL!
 
If all these urban dwellers that stay in the cities for whatever reason all had jobs making widgets for 25k a year plus some basic health insurance would things really be any different? Doubtful! Why? Greed, Jealously, Drugs. I'm the least religious person I know but this country needs some sort of moral cleansing. When I'm playing call of duty or whatever online and I hear some 8 or 9 year old saying the most disgusting shit that I can't even fathom it kind of inspires me to want to do something. But when I think about how huge the problem is I just want to take all my guns and move to the middle of nowhere. I guess every generation thinks the same thing about the next one coming up.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Interesting point of view however incorrect it may be. For example the Government spending versus unemployment graph (link below) actually shows that increasing government spending causes unemployment to go down not up. You will note that in each case spending increases are "followed" by a decrease, not an increase as claimed, in unemployment. This is exactly as modern economic theory would have it. When the private sector leverages down, the public sector leverages up to compensate. The government increases spending, and this puts people back to work. Though some of them may be working at newly created government jobs, many will be working at newly created private sector jobs funded by government spending in the private sector --something some of us may refer to as corporate welfare.

I read a lot of your posts and you must be at least 1 of the top 5 smartest guys that visit this site. You need a TV show :D
 
It is relatively easy to summarize what happened in Detroit: Detroit was too heavily dependent on one industry. Over the years de facto segregation of economic classes occurred spontaneously as those of greater economic means moved to suburbs. Whether this move was fueled by rising crime rates, rising property taxes, or other issues is immaterial. This meant, of course, that the local tax burden was assumed by an increasingly smaller fraction of the cities residents. This accelerated the trend toward relocation to the suburbs, and with that there was a further rise in the crime rate in the inner city. --The reasons for this have been addressed nicely in Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" written in 1961!

City management, which one can argue was not very good in the first place, found itself under increasing political pressure and did not, or could not, adjust by cutting back sufficiently on services and other expenditures, nor was it forward thinking enough to institute other measures that might have succeeded in heading off otherwise inevitable collapse. When the American auto industry went bad, the city, which was already on the precipice of collapse, experienced what will happen to any city where a too small fraction of the population is asked to bear the financial burden of maintaining infrastructure. Those who can get out will, so there will be even fewer remaining to bear the cost. Those who remain are overwhelmingly in the underclass with virtually no disposable wealth and no means of supporting the City's infrastructure via taxes.

This is a pattern that can play out, and is as I write this, in any City where a trend is established that requires an increasingly smaller fraction of the City's inhabitants to bear an increasingly larger fraction of the City's operational costs. Usually there will be warning signs many years in advance, but once this trend establishes itself it becomes politically difficult to arrest.
 
Quote from Mvector:

Defending our current government is like trying to say juice at the bottom of a dumpster is healthy - go ahead and drink that stupidity - good luck with that - LOL!

Ah yes, reading comprehension. I wasn't even talking about ours specifically in that one, just anything that said the word "government", which would bring out the usual Pavlovian response. Which the above illustrates quite nicely. Who needs thought, or something useless like reading comprehension, when all you have to do is repeat the same crap over and over and over?
 
Quote from piezoe:

It is relatively easy to summarize what happened in Detroit: Detroit was too heavily dependent on one industry. Over the years de facto segregation of economic classes occurred spontaneously as those of greater economic means moved to suburbs. Whether this move was fueled by rising crime rates, rising property taxes, or other issues is immaterial. This meant, of course, that the local tax burden was assumed by an increasingly smaller fraction of the cities residents. This accelerated the trend toward relocation to the suburbs, and with that there was a further rise in the crime rate in the inner city. --The reasons for this have been addressed nicely in Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" written in 1961!

City management, which one can argue was not very good in the first place, found itself under increasing political pressure and did not, or could not, adjust by cutting back sufficiently on services and other expenditures, nor was it forward thinking enough to institute other measures that might have succeeded in heading off otherwise inevitable collapse. When the American auto industry went bad, the city, which was already on the precipice of collapse, experienced what will happen to any city where a too small fraction of the population is asked to bear the financial burden of maintaining infrastructure. Those who can get out will, so there will be even fewer remaining to bear the cost. Those who remain are overwhelmingly in the underclass with virtually no disposable wealth and no means of supporting the City's infrastructure via taxes.

This is a pattern that can play out, and is as I write this, in any City where a trend is established that requires an increasingly smaller fraction of the City's inhabitants to bear an increasingly larger fraction of the City's operational costs. Usually there will be warning signs many years in advance, but once this trend establishes itself it becomes politically difficult to arrest.

That might be right, but too many words, we'll never know....hurts brain......reason simple........commie socialist welfare-loving liberals did it. See, much easier.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

That might be right, but too many words, we'll never know....hurts brain......reason simple........commie socialist welfare-loving liberals did it. See, much easier.

:D :D :D

Thank you for brightening my day!
 
Back
Top