Republicans Sell Us Out --Again. Why Do We Need Them?

[Tsing Tao]

Well, I'm heading to the mall to do some last minute Christmas shopping. I got a raise this year, so I'll be spending less than I did last year as a percentage of my income. Who cares about total dollars. See you guys later.

 

[Ricter]

We evaluate our income based on total dollars. Cost of living lets us know how well we're doing in terms of paying the bills, but if someone continues to spend more as their income increases (as a percentage of their income) they are still spending more.

When you write "as a percentage of their income", you're conceding my point.

Leaving it out and assuming their spending is rising with their growing income, yes of course they are spending more. But that is additional spending no one cares about, and in fact is pretty much expected.

 

[Ricter]

I got a raise this year, so I'll be spending less than I did last year as a percentage of my income

I doubt it, unless you're shopping for gifts at the dollar store.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

"Why do we need them?"

As a cautionary tale.

 

[ETcallhome]

"Why do we need them?"

As a cautionary tale.

we need them like we need security guards at the mall to keep you democrats from shoplifting

 

[Frederick Foresight]

we need them like we need security guards at the mall to keep you democrats from shoplifting

 

[ETcallhome]

exactly

 

[Tsing Tao]

When you write "as a percentage of their income", you're conceding my point.

I'm not conceding anything, or, if you think I am then you're not listening.

But that is additional spending no one cares about, and in fact is pretty much expected.

Again, says you. To say "no one cares about additional spending, it's to be expected when your income rises" is complete horseshit. The total dollars you spend absolutely matters. It may not to your life of limos and mansions, but it's a very relevant statistic to most people. You just throw in the "% of GDP" because it's a convenient way to say "we're not spending as much". Proves my point entirely - spending is not important to a Keynesian. If it were, you'd not have to come up with clever ways to make the number look better.

Additionally, the government wouldn't have to change the GDP calculation in order to make it look better. The only thing that matters is total dollars spent, adjusted for inflation (even though inflation is a rigged number as well).

 

[ETcallhome]

I'm not conceding anything, or, if you think I am then you're not listening.



Again, says you. To say "no one cares about additional spending, it's to be expected when your income rises" is complete horseshit. The total dollars you spend absolutely matters. It may not to your life of limos and mansions, but it's a very relevant statistic to most people. You just throw in the "% of GDP" because it's a convenient way to say "we're not spending as much". Proves my point entirely - spending is not important to a Keynesian. If it were, you'd not have to come up with clever ways to make the number look better.

a good case in point is Warren Buffet. If his house in Omaha reflected his total net worth it would take up the whole State of Nebraska.

 

[Ricter]

Let's suppose your income rose dramatically this year, say you won the top Power Ball prize, $30 million. Is anyone (who still loves him or has him around) really going to buy dad the same for Christmas, a new sweater?