Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Goddamnit, don't try to paint me as agreeing with your special brand of stupidity.

We did not go into a recession because people stopped spending.  We went into a recession because the economy crashed.  People stopped spending as a by-product of that, not as a cause of that.

Again: cause --> effect.  Not the other way around.

Are you joking?

The real estate bubble popped. What did that cause? A massive decrease in spending. That's why we went into a recession. That's why the stimulus helped pull us up. That's why things slowed down again when the stimulus ran out. That's why we shouldn't cut the deficit until we're fully recovered.

There was a cascading series of events that occurred to cause the recession.  A slowdown in consumer spending came at the tail end of these events.  That did not CAUSE the recession to occur . . . it was already underway.  Consumer spending was inevitable collateral damage for what had become an unstoppable series of financial failures.

You can read about it here.

I don't think you ever answered my question . . . .were you comatose in 2008 when all this was happening?

Christ.

People didn't stop spending because the economy crashed. The stop in spending IS the economy crashing. 

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.

That's theoretical full employment. We probably can't get that far without a bubble, you're right. But 6.5% is possible and would be good enough to pull back spending.

Okay, good.  We'll move the bar to 6.5%.  So is the below an accurate synopsis of the plan, as you see it?
 
Continue the deficit at its current rate until we hit 6.5% unemployment, hopefully fairly soon.
Hope the economy doesn't dip between now and then, because then we'd ramp up the deficit accordingly to stimulate our way out of the dip (you haven't said this that I've seen - I'm admittedly making an assumption here).
Hope that the national debt doesn't get so large that, with the rising interest rates that come with a recovering economy, the payments on the debt get out of hand.
Once we get to 6.5% unemployment, hope that we sustain it for long enough to not only cut the deficit, but pay down a good chunk of the debt.

If all of that is correct, we seem to be pinning a lot on hope.  Not the least of which is our nation's ability to ultimately pay the bills.

Banks stopped lending.  Companies started layoffs.

This was the economy crashing.

Then people stopped spending, because they were losing their jobs.  Because the economy was in the process of crashing.

Cause --> effect.

Again, did you miss all this when it was happening?

I'm really trying to use small words to try to get you to understand this.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Banks stopped lending.  Companies started layoffs.

This was the economy crashing.

Then people stopped spending, because they were losing their jobs.  Because the economy was in the process of crashing.

Cause --> effect.

Again, did you miss all this when it was happening?

Yes. The layoffs. That is people (people includes businesses) not spending. Then the laid off employees spend less because they DON'T HAVE JOBS.

Then the people that used to sell stuff to those laid off employees have to lay off their employees. And that new group of laid off employees stop spending. And on and on and on.

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.

That's theoretical full employment. We probably can't get that far without a bubble, you're right. But 6.5% is possible and would be good enough to pull back spending.

Okay, good.  We'll move the bar to 6.5%.  So is the below an accurate synopsis of the plan, as you see it?
 
Continue the deficit at its current rate until we hit 6.5% unemployment, hopefully fairly soon.
Hope the economy doesn't dip between now and then, because then we'd ramp up the deficit accordingly to stimulate our way out of the dip (you haven't said this that I've seen - I'm admittedly making an assumption here).
Hope that the national debt doesn't get so large that, with the rising interest rates that come with a recovering economy, the payments on the debt get out of hand.
Once we get to 6.5% unemployment, hope that we sustain it for long enough to not only cut the deficit, but pay down a good chunk of the debt.

If all of that is correct, we seem to be pinning a lot on hope.  Not the least of which is our nation's ability to ultimately pay the bills.

We've maintained a debt of over a trillion dollars for over thirty years. Don't focus on the debt. It will literally never be paid off.

The deficit, though, is a different story. Cutting spending to reduce the deficit now will put us back into recession. This is a fact. We have to wait to do it until we get to a point where it won't put us back into a recession. When exactly that is, I don't know. But we do have to do it eventually.

What part of this did you not understand?:

"At this time, banks were afraid to lend to each other or anyone else, this is what really started the Great Recession on Main Street. Companies use this borrowing to finance their business. For example, Target will take a 30 day loan to pay for its inventories and payroll. Without any way to borrow as usual, the layoffs started."

Here's the sequence of events

1)  Banks stopped lending
2)  Companies could not get loans to finance their businesses.
 
(This was the economy crashing)

3)  Companies started to layoff employees

blah, blah, blah

Did you somehow miss all this when it was occurring in 2008?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.

That's theoretical full employment. We probably can't get that far without a bubble, you're right. But 6.5% is possible and would be good enough to pull back spending.

Okay, good.  We'll move the bar to 6.5%.  So is the below an accurate synopsis of the plan, as you see it?
 
Continue the deficit at its current rate until we hit 6.5% unemployment, hopefully fairly soon.
Hope the economy doesn't dip between now and then, because then we'd ramp up the deficit accordingly to stimulate our way out of the dip (you haven't said this that I've seen - I'm admittedly making an assumption here).
Hope that the national debt doesn't get so large that, with the rising interest rates that come with a recovering economy, the payments on the debt get out of hand.
Once we get to 6.5% unemployment, hope that we sustain it for long enough to not only cut the deficit, but pay down a good chunk of the debt.

If all of that is correct, we seem to be pinning a lot on hope.  Not the least of which is our nation's ability to ultimately pay the bills.

We've maintained a debt of over a trillion dollars for over thirty years. Don't focus on the debt. It will literally never be paid off.

The deficit, though, is a different story. Cutting spending to reduce the deficit now will put us back into recession. This is a fact. We have to wait to do it until we get to a point where it won't put us back into a recession. When exactly that is, I don't know. But we do have to do it eventually.

And herein lies the problem "When exactly that is, I don't know".

People tire of wondering "when exactly that is" because our government is incapable of passing a budget.   I'm sure many people live without a budget but they HAVE TO PAY THEIR BILLS.   So they assume the government will have to also.   And they lack the confidence that they can.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):

What part of this did you not understand?:

"At this time, banks were afraid to lend to each other or anyone else, this is what really started the Great Recession on Main Street. Companies use this borrowing to finance their business. For example, Target will take a 30 day loan to pay for its inventories and payroll. Without any way to borrow as usual, the layoffs started."

Here's the sequence of events

1)  Banks stopped lending
2)  Companies could not get loans to finance their businesses.
 
(This was the economy crashing)

3)  Companies started to layoff employees

blah, blah, blah

Did you somehow miss all this when it was occurring in 2008?

So you're changing your story now?

So the economy crashed before the layoffs? You're somehow separating the layoffs from the cause of the recession? Interesting logical gymnastics over something that doesn't really matter. The disappearing demand and the recession go hand in hand. We aren't fully recovered until the demand is back.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/5/2013 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Banks stopped lending.  Companies started layoffs.

This was the economy crashing.

Then people stopped spending, because they were losing their jobs.  Because the economy was in the process of crashing.

Cause --> effect.

Again, did you miss all this when it was happening?

Yes. The layoffs. That is people (people includes businesses) not spending. Then the laid off employees spend less because they DON'T HAVE JOBS.

Then the people that used to sell stuff to those laid off employees have to lay off their employees. And that new group of laid off employees stop spending. And on and on and on.

I liked your first explanation better tec.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.

That's theoretical full employment. We probably can't get that far without a bubble, you're right. But 6.5% is possible and would be good enough to pull back spending.

Okay, good.  We'll move the bar to 6.5%.  So is the below an accurate synopsis of the plan, as you see it?
 
Continue the deficit at its current rate until we hit 6.5% unemployment, hopefully fairly soon.
Hope the economy doesn't dip between now and then, because then we'd ramp up the deficit accordingly to stimulate our way out of the dip (you haven't said this that I've seen - I'm admittedly making an assumption here).
Hope that the national debt doesn't get so large that, with the rising interest rates that come with a recovering economy, the payments on the debt get out of hand.
Once we get to 6.5% unemployment, hope that we sustain it for long enough to not only cut the deficit, but pay down a good chunk of the debt.

If all of that is correct, we seem to be pinning a lot on hope.  Not the least of which is our nation's ability to ultimately pay the bills.

We've maintained a debt of over a trillion dollars for over thirty years. Don't focus on the debt. It will literally never be paid off.

The deficit, though, is a different story. Cutting spending to reduce the deficit now will put us back into recession. This is a fact. We have to wait to do it until we get to a point where it won't put us back into a recession. When exactly that is, I don't know. But we do have to do it eventually.

And herein lies the problem "When exactly that is, I don't know".

People tire of wondering "when exactly that is" because our government is incapable of passing a budget.   I'm sure many people live without a budget but they HAVE TO PAY THEIR BILLS.   So they assume the government will have to also.   And they lack the confidence that they can.

Leave this to the adults, kiddo.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/5/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/5/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/5/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
In an earlier post, you cited 5% unemployment as the benchmark at which the government would stop spending.  I'm assuming that's your threshold for a healthy economy.  Since 1972, we've been there twice - during the dot-com bubble and during the mortgage bubble.  That would indicate to me that it requires a bubble to get where you're comfortable with putting the brakes on spending.

That's theoretical full employment. We probably can't get that far without a bubble, you're right. But 6.5% is possible and would be good enough to pull back spending.

Okay, good.  We'll move the bar to 6.5%.  So is the below an accurate synopsis of the plan, as you see it?
 
Continue the deficit at its current rate until we hit 6.5% unemployment, hopefully fairly soon.
Hope the economy doesn't dip between now and then, because then we'd ramp up the deficit accordingly to stimulate our way out of the dip (you haven't said this that I've seen - I'm admittedly making an assumption here).
Hope that the national debt doesn't get so large that, with the rising interest rates that come with a recovering economy, the payments on the debt get out of hand.
Once we get to 6.5% unemployment, hope that we sustain it for long enough to not only cut the deficit, but pay down a good chunk of the debt.

If all of that is correct, we seem to be pinning a lot on hope.  Not the least of which is our nation's ability to ultimately pay the bills.

We've maintained a debt of over a trillion dollars for over thirty years. Don't focus on the debt. It will literally never be paid off.

The deficit, though, is a different story. Cutting spending to reduce the deficit now will put us back into recession. This is a fact. We have to wait to do it until we get to a point where it won't put us back into a recession. When exactly that is, I don't know. But we do have to do it eventually.

And herein lies the problem "When exactly that is, I don't know".

People tire of wondering "when exactly that is" because our government is incapable of passing a budget.   I'm sure many people live without a budget but they HAVE TO PAY THEIR BILLS.   So they assume the government will have to also.   And they lack the confidence that they can.

Leave this to the adults, kiddo.

Sorry, I can't until you recognize that debt/deficit is actually something that's on the mind's of people and it affects consumer confidence.   

Once you say "Yeah, I understand that", my work will be done.   Til then, STFU or respond with more nonsense.

How would you know? You don't know what the deficit is.

Admit it, mike. It wasn't the comment about your tiny dick that made you red line my poll, it was the dig on Jeter's range? AMIRITE?

I didn't even bother to read it.  I saw it was a poll and knew you'd doubled down on your assholishness.   And knew full well it was plenty to give you a vacation.   Worked better than I'd planned.

Now, that aside, do you understand that all facets of the economy affect consumer confidence?   That it's just not a monthly unemployment figure?