75% blame Bush's policies for deteriorating economy

Both WW1 and WW2 brought prosperity to the US due to all the war materials that we sold prior to the entry into the world. It's rumored that the US got the entire gold reserves of the British Empire. Both Iraq and Afganistan are costing a lot of money. The US needs to start fighting those wars cheaper.

 

I believe the debt associated from WWII was like 75% of our GDP when the war was over in 1945. This war is much cheaper in relative terms.

 

Why would I support a big business that pays no property tax that sends all their profit to Arkansas.

Are you of the people that support walmart paying no impact fees while sticking it to the small business owner?

 

You are wrong the local government can do more to stimulate the economy than they are doing.

You yet again have failed to make any point that the local governments are not to blame too. Most people fail to realize that all cost the government places on a business owner is passed on to the consumer. These cost are taxes, license fees, impact fees, zoning permits,flood, hurricane and earthquake studies, insurance, and the list goes on and on. Everything I listed is placed on the business by the local government.

 

Sure but Roosevelt had Britain dry. All their gold a swell as assets in the US and Canada. Plus all the war supplies sold to the Netherlands, Norway, France, Finland and China.

 

Plus Bretton Woods, which made dollars our biggest export commodity and have allowed us to inflate like no other time in history.

 

You are correct the Federal government did not make anyone over extend themselves financially. I too am guilty of buying property that I do not need. Why does a person need 3 houses for themselves that do not produce income? I have changed my habits with the recession and started saving a large portion of my income each month. I think everyone should start an aggressive savings plan and save a large portion of their income to shelter the recession storm.

 

We were still on a pseudo gold standard at the time.

Right now, we're inflating GDP along with the spending, so you won't see the cost.

Did you read the Fallacy of the Broken Window?

Basic logic. If war brings prosperity, then why aren't we constantly at war? (Of course, we have been since the mid-80s but I digress...)

It's the same failed logic behind the minimum wage. If a minimum wage makes us more prosperous, why don't we raise it to $10/hr? $20/hr?

Unplug. Take the red pill.

 

I don't understand everything you just stated. But I do know we should have never left the gold standard.

And for the wage law, It goes back to my discussion with Grim. Any increase fee you add on a business such as the wage law. Will cause the price of goods and service to increase and then some.

 

I'm cracking up. I can just imagine some politician becoming popular with the voters by promising a war in every continent and a $100/hr minimum wage.

They definitely skipped that chapter on the fall of Rome in school. Well, you know what they say: "Those who do not larn from history are doomed to repeat it." I guess the rest of us are stuck on the ride too, but at least we see what's coming.

 

Well, our pseudo gold standard was a gold exchange standard. Meaning that gold was held in ratio to federal reserve notes. A true gold "standard" is a full reserve standard. Each note is worth precisely X gold, no matter what.

All wars are paid for with inflation. If the government had to tax us for war, we would revolt and storm Washington. So they inflate the money supply by deficit spending. They create "new money" out of "thin air" by just printing it up. Eventually that money circulates through the economy, buying up stuff, which raises prices, which causes inflation.

An always expanding economy constantly sees it's GDP go up. So while they may spend $200 billion this year for the war, they are expanding the economy by $400 or $600 billion. So the war costs as a % of GDP still seem rather contained.

It's fun with #s.

The Fallacy of the Broken Window is based on a parable by one of the great Frenchmen, Frederic Bastiat. It says that if a boy throws a rock through a window, it triggers all sorts of good economic activity. The person owning the window has to hire a glazier to put in a new window, the glazier in turn gets paid and buys bread, shoes and a new coat, triggering work for the baker, cobbler and tailor.

So the fallacy in this sort of thinking is, if breaking windows increases GDP, then we should break all of our windows so our economy is robust and growing. That's the fallacy of the broken window.

Every natural disaster or war, some economists will pipe up and talk about all of the GDP growth that will be triggered by making bombs or repairing devastation. While technically, they may be correct, are we really better off by being devastated by nature, or getting into a 6 year war?

Would we not be more prosperous if we invested in education, innovation, arts, relaxation? Looking at the price of oil today, I would say YES!

The minimum wage is a price control. When you control prices, you get shortages and surpluses. The minimum wage creates shortages, so we have more unemployed than we should. Those people require a social safety net, so we have constructed a welfare state.

Basically, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Unplug. From the MATRIX.

Take the Red Pill (and never see things the same way again).

 

That's stupid. Essentially human labor is being used to make things that are destroyed. It's just a stupid logic. Why not claim that walking down the street and smashing car windshields benefits the economy because of all the work it creates for the windshield repair business?

Destruction isn't prosperity.

 

Okay I understand the one part. I think that is the first time we agreed on anything.We did agree on the wage law and the gold standard correct? I will mark that on my calendar.
Now explain the red pills, the blue pills and the "unplug the matrix”.

 

We probably agree on all kinds of things. But it's more fun discussing the things we don't agree on.

You have to watch the first Matrix movie. Keanu Reeves character, Neo, is confronted with a choice. Take the red pill, or the blue pill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpill


~

 

Ahh yes after the vast majority of the funds 'taxes' have already been taken by the federal level, the locals should use whatever they have left to stimulate the economy.

Did I state the local government couldn't do anymore? I believe you are now putting words into my mouth, the fact remains the federal government takes the vast majority of the funds 'taxes' leaving only scraps for the locals.

I have made multiple posts directed at your original beef of business paying more for items than home owners. Of which all you have posted is pretty much nonsense.

You appear to have vision that only works when something is not posted against your posts as I have posted multiple items, you know like reality that the feds take the vast majority of the tax revenue. But yeah that's 'no point'

 

Ahh yet your entire point behind not taxing business 'hook up fee' was because they are the ones who create jobs, and they simply go over the boarder.

Most local mom and pop businesses that live off of the local economy do not just pack up and move a crossed the boarder. Walmart also employs many, many more than even a few small businesses combined on a local scale.

It's like you use reasons for your arguments that don't fit the puzzle in all seriousness.

Yes the prices will go up, yet you make it so the consumers lose their houses, you lose the consumers, you lose your business.

One has prices go up just slightly, while your way makes home owners lose their homes in the long run also making more business go under.

Which one sounds better? Both get screwed? Or letting the small business write the fee off 'which they will do, if they don't they are fng morons, you claimed they will not' and simply increase their services/goods slightly to pay for any increased fee.

The home owner will be able to pay the increase of 5 cents per loaf of bread while keeping their homes and still supporting the local business, but I guess you are right, let the home owners lose their homes, or possibly keep their homes with no purchasing power left which helps the small businesses out how exactly? The small business needs customers, people with money to spend.

BTW I think it's a further smart idea by the locals to increase the fee for the company over that of the home owner, on so many levels, how about this one though.

It's an underhanded way of getting more money back from the feds!

You ask how?

Well easy, the business owner is able to deduct the connection fee. This equates to the small business owner making less that year, which equates to the small business owner paying less taxes to the FEDERAL government, which equates to more money staying in the local community!

But yeah lets make the home owners lose their houses, have no buying power left so the business which makes money 'the home owners are just doing that nasty habit of living' can avoid a fee that they will easily recover all the while killing their customer base, yep lets do it that way.

 

Grim I would hate to put words in your mouth and miss quote you. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

Most local governments are not running on scraps in South Carolina. I don't know how you guys do it in your State. But in SC, its add more fees and spend,spend and spend.

Its not nonsense its fact.

and you are wrong just admit that you did not realize that businesses passed along fees.

huh? I agree with the fact that the feds takes a large% but I was pointing out that the local government robs from the taxpayers just as much if not more. Don't at like the god ole boy local government is a saint.




The federal government takes to much we agree on that Grim

 

No more stupid than Japan and Chima exporting to the US manufactured goods that people don't need and store in their closet or basement.

The US shipped vast amount of war materials in the WW1 & WW2 pre-war periods and this brought a boom to the US economy. Also the US made a lot of monet shipping food to the same countries.

The US also achieved a great prosperity during the Napoleonic wars trading with both sides.

 

No feelings hurt.

It's scraps compared to that of what the feds take.

It's scraps of the puzzle which don't fit the puzzle you're trying to portray.

Again with misquoting. When did I ever say business does not pass along any expenses or fees?

You however were incorrect about saying the business would not deduct the expense.

I will admit when I'm wrong, I however did not state what you are claiming. I have been a 'small business' owner most of my life, I think I know when I pass along fees to my customers I also know that I will deduct any and all expenses that I can.

You are missing the point.

The feds take the vast majority. The local government does need money to operate. If they are bringing in a new water system do you think they should have done this for free? If so where would they get the money?

In many of these cases where water hooks ups are needed for a new required water system it is in fact the Federal and or State level forcing the locals into it.

No level of government is a 'saint' you however have to take it into perspective.

I totally agree the government, especially on the Federal level takes too much. If I had it my way I'd be all for seriously reducing taxes, bloated services, etc. However I unfortunately do not have that luxury, I am arguing by what is the best method of what we currently have available to us.

 

We started the discussion by me stating the local government is at fault too.


I think that there should be a charge for water but the governt thinks they can rape the business owner and the rich. The end result is not the result that was desired.

So what is the best method to jump start the economy if you were in charge?