patrick.net

turtledove says

You're right. Screwing over the taxpayers is much more admirable.

How about we find someone that doesn't screw over either?

tatupu70 says

How about we find someone that doesn't screw over either?

Trump used the existing laws to legally restructure businesses that weren't profitable. Investors take risks when they make an investment. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. They know that going in and they make the choice accordingly. Fast forward to the bailouts/bail-ins... We, as taxpayers, were forced to invest in businesses that were failing. New laws were created to make this possible. We had no say. We were not granted the choice of whether the investment was one worth making. Our elected officials decided for us. They gambled with taxpayer money... Money that was taken by force. I don't even see how you can compare the two.

Ironman says

By having experience working in the private sector, knowing what it takes to create jobs, before becoming president..... Duhh..

Really? Do tell me more. How exactly will that experience help one create private sector jobs as President?

Ironman says

Then Bernie isn't your boy.

Actually Bernie is my man. He's not screwing taxpayers--he' wants to implement policies that will restore the health of the US economy.

tatupu70 says

Actually Bernie is my man. He's not screwing taxpayers--he' wants to implement policies that will restore the health of the US economy.

The sad thing is that Tat is in the majority if not with Sanders then will Clinton.

Ironman says

Once again, your LACK of knowledge of how business operates comes through clear as a bell.

I figure--it was really a rhetorical question because everyone knows you aren't going to answer it. Because you can't. There is pretty much nothing that building a hotel will teach Trump that will help him create jobs as President.

turtledove says

Trump used the existing laws to legally restructure businesses that weren't profitable

Yep--nobody said he broke the law. There are a lot of activities that aren't illegal but may not represent things we want our future President to engage in.

turtledove says

We, as taxpayers, were forced to invest in businesses that were failing. New laws were created to make this possible. We had no say. We were not granted the choice of whether the investment was one worth making. Our elected officials decided for us. They gambled with taxpayer money... Money that was taken by force. I don't even see how you can compare the two

That's how a republic works. Your elected officials must make those decisions. Who made the comparison? Certainly not me.

But, fyi--the government actually make a profit on the bailouts.

Good---when you have to break out the stupid Internet memes, that means you've pretty much given up.

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

There is pretty much nothing that building a hotel will teach Trump that will help him create jobs as President.

"building a hotel"...

Do some reading, you might learn something:

Sorry, I take it back. He also builds golf courses.

tatupu70 says

That's how a republic works. Your elected officials must make those decisions.

Sure, when they are making decisions that represent the will of the people. When they go rogue, it's more like a hostile takeover. What a shock, voters have since mutinied.

Ironman says

So, tell us, old wise one, if Trump doesn't have the knowledge to create private sector jobs, how does Bernie accomplish this wish list with all HIS past ability?

Not surprisingly, you have completely misunderstood the point. The President doesn't create private sector jobs. All he can do is allocate Federal m money to programs that will employ people and/or improve the economy so that there is more demand. Bernie will do both. Making taxes more progressive, increasing cap gains, and the inheritance taxes will reduce inequality, increase demand, and create private sector jobs. He will also allocate Federal money to programs that hire people--creating jobs.

My point wasn't that Trump couldn't or wouldn't create jobs--just that building hotels doesn't give him any great insight.

This is where the mutts get confused with all the Keynesian gibberish.

The true factors are Says Law and the Hayekian triangle. IOW production comes 1st in the sequence, production creates the demand NOT the other way around.

indigenous says

Says Law

Not that bullshit again.

thunderlips11 says

Not that bullshit again.

Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true. The key is objective rather than the subjective gibberish you subscribe to.

indigenous says

production creates the demand NOT the other way around.

What if no one wants what you are producing?

indigenous says

Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true. The key is objective rather than the subjective gibberish you subscribe to.

I love a guy who puts a priori logic over data, observation, quantification, and general empiricism, talk about subjective vs. objective.

turtledove says

What if no one wants what you are producing?

Then you have to change your name to "government".

The key to success in the economy is choosing to produce a product/service that is wanted. E.G. A GP in the flyover part of the country makes way less than a plastic surgeon in Hollywood. Another example is over-investment where many people were fooled by low interest rates into investing in oil fracking. Oil is always valuable was the assumption. In this situation the entrepreneurs then have to reevaluate what is valuable.

thunderlips11 says

I love a guy who puts a priori logic over data, observation, quantification, and general empiricism, talk about subjective vs. objective.

Back at ya. Got any of that data to prove your contention?

tatupu70 says

My point wasn't that Trump couldn't or wouldn't create jobs--just that building hotels doesn't give him any great insight.

Trump is much more likely to be great president who could make economy go. Sanders or Hillary can't do it, they don't know how it even works. Sanders is just smarter than Hillary, because he learned that to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left and scream for communistic ideology.

Reality check the only Prez who really got out of the way was the GREAT Coolidge. We need another Coolidge the only one close would have been Ron (not Rand) Paul.

indigenous says

We need another Coolidge

Along with the wonderful music. Everything is the 20's was memorialized in music, including Coolidge's famous statement--I've heard that Spike Jones (born in 1911) was greatly influenced as a young man in his late teens in the late 20's by the madcap antics of Harry Reser's Six Jumping Jacks.

www.youtube.com/embed/KSAZPVhtZVI

FortWayne says

Trump is much more likely to be great president who could make economy go. Sanders or Hillary can't do it, they don't know how it even works. Sanders is just smarter than Hillary, because he learned that to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left and scream for communistic ideology

I think Trump has some good ideas w.r.t. international trade and H1Bs But building a hotel or golf course didn't give any great insight.

You're being ridiculous about Sanders--unlike Clinton, he hasn't moved left for the primaries. He's stayed true to himself

indigenous says

choosing to produce a product/service that is wanted

So if demand influences production, how can production create demand?

Thanks, that is what I call High Fidelity, and the music isn't bad either.

Ironman says

I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what he's actually accomplished in his past 3 decades in Congress. You know, PAST proof, facts and results, not FUTURE promises.

Past performance usually gives you good insight in Future accomplishments.

Just like looking at investment funds. Do you buy them based on "sales pitches" or based on past performance?

Here's the thing--you're trying to penalize Sanders for having idiots in Congress with him. He voted against the Iraq War. He voted to break up the banks. He led the fight to get rid of NAFTA.

It's not his fault that the other Congressman and woman value campaign contributions over their constituents.

turtledove says

So if demand influences production, how can production create demand?

The way I think of this is to think of a barter economy. In this situation the seller has to produce something that someone will buy before there is any demand. I.E. you can't say I want to trade for this if you don't have anything to trade.

To prove my point Japan has made money easier and easier to get for over 20 years yet their economy still languishes.

Another example is in this country, the Fed had QE for 7 or 8 years with the velocity of money (DEFINITION of 'Velocity Of Money' The rate at which money is exchanged from one transaction to another, and how much a unit of currency is used in a given period of time.) is at historic lows.

BTW this is where the mutts get confused because Keynesian economics says demand is everything. This is why Japan has tried to create economic growth for over 2 decades without success as has this country since the housing bust.

Ironman says

No, I'm trying to penalize him for BEING an idiot

Well, you're doing a piss poor job. I just provide 3 key pieces of legislation that he was 100% correct on and his colleagues were 100% wrong. If Sanders were President and could have vetoed them, the country would be a helluva lot better off.

Ironman says

You're missing the point.... again..

I don't want to hear about legislation he piggy backed on and was a FOLLOWER..

I want you to provide proof of something HE proposed and got passed, there's a BIG difference.

No, I'm not. I'm saying bills he proposed didn't get passed because of the other idiots in Congress. And looking back, he was right.

Ironman says

Cop out..

They didn't get passed because they were poorly written bills.

If a bill has wide sweeping benefits to ALL the American people (not just a D or R), do you really think they don't get passed?

I'll repeat it again, what bills did he sponsor that had benefits to ALL were signed into law during his 3 decade career in Congress?

Give me a break. You think Republicans would have voted for Glass Steagall if the bill had been written better??? Are you kidding me?

indigenous says

Back at ya. Got any of that data to prove your contention?

Nah, not in the mood. I'll spend fifteen minutes to half an hour putting shit up like I always do. Then I'll realize I've already done it 10x with you and the other Austrian on this board. Then you'll dismiss it by referring to Thomas Aquinas or some Thomas Woods XIII bullshit.

Ironman says

Think about that for a minute or an hour.

As a congressman, he can't get the other members of congress on board with his proposals.

But somehow, you think as President, he'll have better results in congress?? Really?

Are you naïve enough to think that Congressmen vote yea or nay based on the persuasive powers of the bill sponsor?? Well, if so, let me dispel you of that notion quickly.

The good thing is that, as President, Sanders would have much more power by using the bully pulpit to pressure Congressmen. And, even better, he can veto the crappy legislation that are proposed by neoliberals. That is a HUGE difference.

If Sanders had been President rather than Clinton/Bush, we wouldn't have had a housing bubble, nor would have gone to Iraq.

Much different history, don't you agree?

thunderlips11 says

Nah, not in the mood.

That's fine, just don't say that you put anything up but conjecture.

Once again for anyone who is not a mutt, 20+ years and 7+ year of Keynesian's trying to stimulate the economy, in Japan and the US, by trying to increase demand through monetary and fiscal means has been a complete failure.

Now the Wogster will come in with his usual blather 5,4,3,2,1

This explains a bit further regarding Say's law:

Because all movements between supplying and demanding have to take place through the medium of money, it is somewhat oversimplified to say that production is the source of demand. Actually demanding products requires the possession of money, which in turn requires a previous act of supply. We sell assets or labor services for money, which we then use to demand. Money is an intermediate good that enables us to buy the things we ultimately desire. However, we have to be careful to remember that what enables us to purchase is not the possession of money, per se, but the possession of productive assets that can fetch a money’s worth on the market. When we sell that asset (or our labor services) we receive wealth in the form of money. As we spend that money, we demand from the wealth our production created.

Unlike Keynesian critics of Say’s Law of Markets who saw deficient aggregate demand resulting from various forms of market failure as causing economic downturns, we have argued that a more accurate understanding of Say’s Law suggests that there is no inherent flaw in the market that leads to deficient aggregate demand, nor is the existence of real-world recessions a refutation of the Law. Rather, once we understand the role of money in making possible the translation of our productive powers of supply into the ability to demand from other producers, we can see that the root of macroeconomic disorder is most likely monetary, as too much or too little money will undermine that translation process. Despite having been dismissed in the onslaught of the Keynesian revolution, Say’s Law, when properly understood both in its original meaning and its relationship to the banking system, remains a powerful insight into the operations of a market economy.

If you can understand this, you are ahead of the mutts in understanding economics.
.
http://fee.org/freeman/understanding-says-law-of-markets/

You mutts are screwed now HE CAME WITH SAYS LAW!!!

errc says

You mutts are screwed now HE CAME WITH SAYS LAW!!!

Dammit errc tomorrow is a workday and you are still baked...

errc says

You mutts are screwed now HE CAME WITH SAYS LAW!!!

thunderlips11 says

Nah, not in the mood.

BTW your new avatar is the worst. No matter how hard Sanders tried to fuck things up he would be hard pressed to do a fraction of what that asshole did.

Say's law and Hayeks Triangle are sound principles.

And a day later:

www.youtube.com/embed/K8E_zMLCRNg

tatupu70 says

You're being ridiculous about Sanders--unlike Clinton, he hasn't moved left for the primaries. He's stayed true to himself

If you want to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left, Obama did it during primaries vs Clinton, Sanders is doing that too now.
Republican nominee requires you to go far right, Romney did it, now Trump is doing it.

I'm just saying, they learned the system. It's just a big dog and pony show. It'll be fun to watch them all come back to the center for general election after nomination.