Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Perhaps it could of been written better.

My argument against social mobility programs of "most" types is that it would put our country further into dept, unless we get all of our spending under control. not whether it is morality right or not. I believe its a fair sentiment to help those in need to get a good education as i believe in the teach a man to fish mentality.

The problem, I think, is that you're focused absolutely on the dollar cost in the present. If you look at the cost of excluding kids that might otherwise be excellent doctors, engineers and scientists, isn't it just as possible to declare you can't afford to exclude that talent from the next generation that will drive your economy forward?

You want to talk about what you can afford, think about breaking the poverty trap, drawing those kids up into the middle class... how can you afford to let another generation be a drain on the federal coffers?

But im not an economist, and i wouldn't know how to balance a complex budget of the united states government.
but i can budget my own as i don't spend more then i have.

The thing most people don't get is that budgeting at the individual level (earn more than you spend) simply stops functioning when you get to the level of the economy.

To explain it as simply as possible, what you spend is another person's income. And what you earn is dependant on someone else spending. That is what economics is, not dollar and cents, but a network of interactions, where earning allows you to spend, and spending is the only way anyone can earn. And so government's role is not just about minding its surplus/deficit, but also to make sure that the overall network of spending and earning continues.

This can mean, in the short term that in certain circumstances where the rest of the economy is saving more than it spends it is not only acceptable but an unquestionably good thing for government to undergo a short term period of spending more than it taxes, to maintain as best it can the above network of overall spending and earning.

But ignoring the dollars part is completely irresponsible. a programs like these are permanent, and its not short term. you have to pay for these programs for every generation, and the payment keeps moving every generation if you are spending at a deficit. all i want to know is how much will you be willing to make everyone pay for such a thing? the intentions are good but unless someone can come up with a realistic plan its pointless.

also please explain how going into dept for a short period of time is good for a country and how this applies to long term programs like these? i mean im not an economist.
At one point we should be bring more in then we spend to pay it off but how would you do that?

 whembly wrote:
I've read quite a few too as my ex's dad is part of a state department that help find people jobs and government assistances... who has all of these data points at his finger tips. My state (and I'm sure others are doing this too) are really, REALLY good at collecting these kinds of data and extrapolating on these movements..in fact, I've read quite a bit on the subject.

Most academia reviews on this subject are inherently slanted to the idea that "Our current model is wrong"... and they really go afters the flaws of the system to such degree that they've either ignored or dampen some of the good aspects... Conversely, there a study that I believe you'd be really interested in by Washington University that surmise that the percieved lack of mobility was essentially "Crying Wolf" (and I can't fething find it... you'd appreciate it cause of all the gooey details and datapoints).

I actually would really like that, especially given how subjective any kind of measure on something like this can be. If you manage to find it that'd be great.

Eh... that's rather subjective and maybe it's the "Murrica, rah-rah" mindset... we have it good here imo... but, I can't say by how much because I've never lived anywhere else.

Absolutely you have it good, like the rest of the developed world (I get bored very quickly with people who claim China or whoever else has such a better system because they're stockpiling cash and therefore somehow 'winning', when here in the developed world we're delivering a very high standard of living to most citizens - sure a more important measure).

But having it good doesn't mean calling it a day. Nor does it mean claiming that you have it better than anywhere else, as Gray Templar did.

And in my opinion, you shouldn't but too much weight into looking at other countries.

Look, I deal with multiple relational database and health informatic groups. I know how hard it is to analyse complex systems and attempting to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison between countries is almost pointless. There are so many variables in such a review that the combinations / permutations and, let's face it, "human element" to really make a good analysis...

I agree that's true in many places, especially in healthcare. But it doesn't mean that we just give up and ignore any and all comparisons, just that we do our best to make equivalents as accurate as possible, and make sure to spell out any places where comparisons are not completely equal.

Yeah, I agree in Sowell's article that it was lazy... but, there's merits to the idea that a well endowed welfare system can disincentivize(sp?) activities towards positive social mobility.

Definitely, and that's a thing every welfare system has to balance. But I think most do a pretty good job of achieving that balance, in most places. The biggest challenge seems to come from having a basic cost of living that can often be higher than the minimum wage... in which case the answer to me seems to be to make sure 40 hours at the minimum wage is a much better pay than the minimum cost of living handed out by welfare.

So up that minimum wage!

Sure, every country is dealing with multiculturalism to a certain degree... but, lately, in the U.S.... it's been taboo to attribute any failings on multiculturalism. It's like its racist or something. o.O

We all get that man. Hey, over here it can actually be illegal, if someone chooses to see it as offensive. Seriously.

Point being we've all got the challenge of trying to have a real and meaningful conversation on multiculturalism can be improved, while often getting shouted down by the self-righteous left and the racists/nostalgics longing for some idealised 1950s world. Just gotta keep sticking to the middle ground, and making sure the point is made clear despite the noise of the extremists of both sides.

Fair enough.

That's the debate isn't it? How far do we push/pull that lever towards government/free market principle?

True, there's basically a forever debate to be had on how much tax we're willing to pay to help people.

No... that's false. I don't think you've grasp what it would take for us to convert to something like the Canadian model. It won't be like a "switch".

Oh, absolutely. You can't just stop using your system one day and start using another system the next day. I'm talking in very simplistic terms, to express one simple point - other systems deliver equal or better standards of healthcare for less dollars. From there where you take that information is more complex.

Hey, we have people phreaking over bewbs! But, hey, we're fine with peoples head blown off on TeeVee...

See... weird. What's wrong with bewbs?

We Australians spend a huge amount of time talking about how backward Americans are about gay rights issues, but we just banned one of your movies from showing here because it's got gay sex in it.

And you have gay marriage in some states, something that won't happen here for a very long time.

Whaaaa? Government don't pay for all of the bankruptcy cost. Where did you get that idea?

I didn't. I said nowhere in the world will a government even consider stepping in to pay for divorce costs, so while it may be a major cause of bankruptcy it isn't really relevant to this discussion. Whereas when one developed nation has a very high number of bankruptcy caused by medical expenses, while the other developed countries have no such thing and get on just fine, it's a worthwhile point of discussion.

There are problems with the US Health System... but, bankruptcy isn't it.

No, seriously, it's the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US.

"a new study done by Harvard University suggests that more than 62% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by the cost of over-whelming medical expenses."
http://www.giveforward.com/blog/medical-expenses-top-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-the-united-states

? Why not? That's why I shared it with ya...

Okay then, but only in brief...

First up, there's a big difference between income inequality and social mobility. Income inequality is just asking the difference between what a person at the top earns, compared to someone in the middle or at the bottom. Whereas social mobility is about how freely people move between the categories (and inter-generational mobility asks how much the advantage of having high income parents matters compared to hard work and talent).

"Wealthy people are not wealthy because they have more money; it is because they have greater productivity."

Well that's a basic mistake between wealth and income. Income is what you earn in a year - how much new money comes your way. Wealth is your sum total of assets at any given point in time. And in confusing the two they miss a big point in what drive income inequality.

"Redistribution of wealth increases the costs of entrepreneurship and innovation, with the result being lower overall economic growth for everyone."

Wildly speculative. Redistribution also opens the door up to capable people who would otherwise be trapped in a poverty cycle and unable to experiment. Whether the economic activity gained from engaging more people in the system outweighs the economic activity lost from having higher taxes for successful entrepreneurs is a near impossible question to answer.

Consider JK Rowling, who took a year off from teaching to write Harry Potter. Now, you might not be comfortable with the idea of someone getting paid after choosing to not work for a year (personally I think she kind of scammed the system) but at the end of the day, that was possible in the UK and now there's the billion dollar Harry Potter thing.

"Poverty and income inequality are related, but only the former deserves a policy-based response."

Only as long as the only issue is ensuring no poverty. Given the importance of a healthy middle class to any modern democratic society, I find that argument screwy.

there's a PDF with more gooey details.

I think there's a problem with what they're looking at there. I mean, it shows that people tend to start on low incomes and move to high incomes. I mean, duh. The only thing that's showing is that the economy is working as we all thought it does.

Whereas inter-generational social mobility is asking a much bigger, and much more challenging question - does the income of the parents impact the income of the children.

Like I said... "Murrica...rah-rah"????

That's basically it, yeah.

One of the most puzzling things to me about America is how strangely you think about your own country. In something like the America being the best place for a person to move from the bottom to the top through their own hard work and talent, it's an almost unquestionable belief, despite being completely and utterly wrong.

But elsewhere where you've got exceptional strengths, you complain constantly.

Well... sure, if you're ready to take the risk.

I don't personally consider equitable school funding and a higher minimum wage a risk. In fact I'd call them essential elements of nation building.

sebster wrote:And how did freedoms get to be so narrowly defined, as purely freedom from government? Whatever happened to the idea that government could play a part in extending your freedoms, such as the idea that you are free from being bankkrupted because you got cancer?

I think it's John Locke's fault.

 sebster wrote:

One of the most puzzling things to me about America is how strangely you think about your own country. In something like the America being the best place for a person to move from the bottom to the top through their own hard work and talent, it's an almost unquestionable belief, despite being completely and utterly wrong.

My personal favorite is the constant refrain for more stringent academic standards, despite a broad lack willingness to employ "failures".

 azazel the cat wrote:

sebster wrote:And how did freedoms get to be so narrowly defined, as purely freedom from government? Whatever happened to the idea that government could play a part in extending your freedoms, such as the idea that you are free from being bankkrupted because you got cancer?

I think it's John Locke's fault.

It really isn't. John Locke's definition of social freedom (or liberty) aimed only at opposing that of Hobbes, which was much more vile. Social liberty à la Locke requires a government, but also requires your assent to it, and that that government aims at your benefit.

And as for Sebster's question, freedom is so narrowly defined only and always when it suits the purpose. Every academic will tell you that freedom is a term with many different significations.

In fact, if we Westerners didn't worship freedom and put it on a pedestal above every other value, we might actually get away with a Hobbesian definition of freedom. From a strictly semantical point of view, we do tend to mix power and freedom. If we could always talk of freedom in relation to power, security, happiness and health (most obvious and pragmatic values I could think of), then talking about freedom as 'absence of restriction' would make sense.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

Except for those times when there is.

Yep, those government death panels sure are terrible...

Oh, wait, that was a CORPORATE death panel. Well, that's okay then.

[/sarcasm]

 Vulcan wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

Except for those times when there is.

Yep, those government death panels sure are terrible...

Oh, wait, that was a CORPORATE death panel. Well, that's okay then.

[/sarcasm]

Well then... just move to Canada, Aussie, Britain where there's free Healthcare... cuz, you know... unicorns!

 sebster wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.

But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.

The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!

Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.

Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.

When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.

 Vulcan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.

But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.

The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!

Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.

Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.

When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.

That's all fine and dandy in abstract... but, you're not assessing the human element here.

What's the incentive to invest that money?

 dogma wrote:

 sebster wrote:

One of the most puzzling things to me about America is how strangely you think about your own country. In something like the America being the best place for a person to move from the bottom to the top through their own hard work and talent, it's an almost unquestionable belief, despite being completely and utterly wrong.

My personal favorite is the constant refrain for more stringent academic standards, despite a broad lack willingness to employ "failures".

This is how the wealth inequality is propegated through the generations. Weath generates advantatges denied to the poor, so the poor cannot learn the skills to become wealthy, thus ensuring they stay poor.

And then people with money complain about how much it costs to keep the poor from dying in the streets. How about you spend some money on educating their kids so they CAN learn the skills to... well, at least not be so poor they need government assistance to survive?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

Except for those times when there is.

Yep, those government death panels sure are terrible...

Oh, wait, that was a CORPORATE death panel. Well, that's okay then.

[/sarcasm]

Well then... just move to Canada, Aussie, Britain where there's free Healthcare... cuz, you know... unicorns!

I've considered it many times. I don't have the funding to actually pay for the move, pity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.

But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.

The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!

Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.

Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.

When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.

That's all fine and dandy in abstract... but, you're not assessing the human element here.

What's the incentive to invest that money?

On an individual basis, not much. But on a CORPORATE basis, the incentive is to counteract the five-year trend of falling sales revenues caused by a near-total lack of liquidity in the American economy.

If some of that money doesn't go back into the economy for people to spend, the American economy WILL collapse inside five years, ten at the outside. That's how long businesses in America can withstand the slow hemmorage of sales numbers before the majority of them are in the red... and file for bankruptcy. Which will chop the amount of money in circulation even more dramatically, leading to even lower revenues among the businesses that survived that far, leading to more bankruptcies...

You see where that goes.

 Vulcan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.

But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.

The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!

Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.

Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.

When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.

You keep the money in case the economy tanks. You keep the money to avoid repatriating it and incurring taxes. Otherwise if the shareholders want special distributions they can vote on it.

 Desubot wrote:
But ignoring the dollars part is completely irresponsible. a programs like these are permanent, and its not short term.

Please read what I am writing. Actually start to finish, read the whole sentence. Because it's becoming clear you're really not doing that, and it's getting boring.

The point I made, very fething clearly, was that there are dollar costs in the present, and dollar costs in the future. You are looking purely at the dollar cost today and asking 'oh how can we possibly pay for this?', while I am pointing out the dollar cost of a guy getting a shoddy education and then grinding from minimum wage job to minimum wage job, getting government money to support all the kids he's got but can't afford, and maybe spending some time in jail for some stupid nonsense he did without thinking... that's a hell of a lot more than the cost of giving him 12 years of schooling.

Do you get it now?

also please explain how going into dept for a short period of time is good for a country and how this applies to long term programs like these? i mean im not an economist.

I did explain it, but if you really want I'll try again. The economy is a network of self interested people, all looking after their own best interests. I earn money and spend it, and that spending is the next person's income, and so on an so on, every person's income is dependant on other people spending. When everything is going well it produces at its maximum capacity, and even invests more to expand that capacity. But things will happen to breakdown that network (such as the Global Financial Crisis) and parts of the economy will decline. That in itself isn't a bad thing, but what happens from there is that those people will stop spending, and so other people who weren't part of that original breakdown will start to see their own incomes decline, and so they'll spend less, and other people will see their incomes decline. In turn they spend less, and so other incomes decline, and so on. And so it spreads through the entire economy.

All of a sudden, the total amount produced by the economy is much lower than it was before, despite us still having the same technical expertise, and the same technology and machinery available. All that extra ability is just lost, in the form of unemployed people and machinery. Instead of allowing this spiral to take place, instead of just tolerating that for a period of time the economy will just be wastefully less than it can be, government steps in. They increase their own spending, and cut off the downward spiral described above.

People freak out because 'aargh government debt' not realising the cost of leaving all those unemployed resources idle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And as for Sebster's question, freedom is so narrowly defined only and always when it suits the purpose. Every academic will tell you that freedom is a term with many different significations.

In fact, if we Westerners didn't worship freedom and put it on a pedestal above every other value, we might actually get away with a Hobbesian definition of freedom. From a strictly semantical point of view, we do tend to mix power and freedom. If we could always talk of freedom in relation to power, security, happiness and health (most obvious and pragmatic values I could think of), then talking about freedom as 'absence of restriction' would make sense.

I agree that freedom is defined narrowly and to the purpose of the one defining it (it's often funny how freedom is defined purely in terms of money, as if the only freedom to consider is the freedom of money to be moved as those with it choose to move it).

And I agree with your summary, and really like the way you expressed it. If freedom were seen as only one of many important factors, then it could be defined as narrowly as stated. But instead, taken as all important and stretched by the individual to whatever he personally thinks is important, then the definition purely in terms of freedom from government is very problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's John Locke's fault.

He's certainly part of the origin. But when you read about Locke's labour theory of value and see how it became Marx's own labour theory of value, I think it's safe to say there's been a lot of selective editing of what parts of Locke's theories ended up in the American theory of freedom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing.

I just said that. I then went on to explain why that money continues to sit there, and how it's silly to just expect that money to start being used, just because wouldn't it be nice if it was.

None of which, fairly obviously, you even half bothered to read.

If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!

Only if you represent all of the economy. Which, obviously, no company does. Instead of all the money your employees spend, it is going to be spent in other companies as much as it is spend in your own. Consider real estate giant WalMart, with revenue of about 450 billion. Consider if they just upped the salaries they paid by a billion. That would all get spent again through the economy. But given its a 15 trillion economy only 3% of that money would come back to WalMart, the rest would go to all the other companies that make up the economy.

So on their 'lets just pay everyone more money' scheme, WalMart spent $1 billion and got back $30 million. That's called failing at business.

Now, if you want to go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll note I pointed out this changes when every company does the same thing. Everyone invests in new staff and expands business. Then everyone benefits equally from the increase in production.

But no invidual company will do that, because the benefits spreads across the whole. It's called tragedy of the commons.

The only organisation with the scale and deep pockets to do this, and with a mission statement of the overall benefit (and not just personal profit) is government. Hence the call for government spending during recession.

When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.

Yes, it is that simple. The problem comes with the tragedy of the commons. Which is a simple thing you would have learned about if you'd bothered to read my first answer.

I understand your point. But i have to add how many of these "guys" will actually succeed and add more wealth back into the system, and how many more will regress back into failure with the added cost of schooling?
And that's my point. this is basically gambling and I'm not talking about education programs alone. You could give a man 1000$ in food stamps and watch him save his own money to fund his opportunities out of poverty, but it is entry possible the same person could spend his money on a new xbox and nothing is gained. Its not that there are no incentives, its that there is no enforcement of abuse. people that can will regress and become leaches to the system. how much more will that add to your cost?

And now that you have explained again (thank you) the only thing i have to ask is, wouldn't giving people incentives to spend there money via say tax breaks, do the same thing? Government takes in less and spends less while the people have the opportunity to spend and invest in what they want. people wont spend there hard earned money if they have less and less of it every month. same goes for businesses.

Quite frankly if this discussion is become too boring for you then perhaps we should just end it.

 Desubot wrote:
I understand your point. But i have to add how many of these "guys" will actually succeed and add more wealth back into the system, and how many more will regress back into failure with the added cost of schooling?

Do you have any reason to believe the number will be low? Any lower than it would be for the people we put through our education systems right now?

And now that you have explained again (thank you) the only thing i have to ask is, wouldn't giving people incentives to spend there money via say tax breaks, do the same thing? Government takes in less and spends less while the people have the opportunity to spend and invest in what they want. people wont spend there hard earned money if they have less and less of it every month. same goes for businesses.

Different kinds of spending have different impacts. One of the big issues is whether people will just squirrel that money away like they would any other money, or if they spend it how likely it is to be spent on overseas goods. Economists study this stuff pretty regularly, and the results are pretty consistent - infrastructure projects produce the biggest impact on demand, while tax cuts perform the worst. Even just straight up cutting everyone a cheque and sending it out to every person does better than tax cuts (presumably because a big chunk of new money is likely to be spent on a splurge item, while simply increasing take home pay is unlikely to change spending habits materially).

That said, there are other factors. Big infrastructure project can't be decided upon on Monday, and underway on Tuesday. There's a long lead in time which means they might be a good part of the long term spending plan during recession, but they can't be used as a response to an immediate crisis, whereas you can decide to give people money and/or cut taxes, and put that into place the next day. And given the political realities, it is just plain more practical to put a stimulus plan in place that has a mix of options.

Quite frankly if this discussion is become too boring for you then perhaps we should just end it.

No, it's fine.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.

But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.

The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!

Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.

Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.

When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.

You keep the money in case the economy tanks. You keep the money to avoid repatriating it and incurring taxes. Otherwise if the shareholders want special distributions they can vote on it.

If the economy tanks, it doesn't really matter how much money a corporation has. Without new revenue to support it, it goes out of business, period. So... where again is the need to hold onto the money?

Evidently Vulcan has no concept of business, cash flows in a business cycle, or something called 'math.'

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently Vulcan has no concept of business, cash flows in a business cycle, or something called 'math.'

Math? Whazzat? I was told to learn the "DC math"... would that work?

 sebster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I understand your point. But i have to add how many of these "guys" will actually succeed and add more wealth back into the system, and how many more will regress back into failure with the added cost of schooling?

Do you have any reason to believe the number will be low? Any lower than it would be for the people we put through our education systems right now?

And now that you have explained again (thank you) the only thing i have to ask is, wouldn't giving people incentives to spend there money via say tax breaks, do the same thing? Government takes in less and spends less while the people have the opportunity to spend and invest in what they want. people wont spend there hard earned money if they have less and less of it every month. same goes for businesses.

Different kinds of spending have different impacts. One of the big issues is whether people will just squirrel that money away like they would any other money, or if they spend it how likely it is to be spent on overseas goods. Economists study this stuff pretty regularly, and the results are pretty consistent - infrastructure projects produce the biggest impact on demand, while tax cuts perform the worst. Even just straight up cutting everyone a cheque and sending it out to every person does better than tax cuts (presumably because a big chunk of new money is likely to be spent on a splurge item, while simply increasing take home pay is unlikely to change spending habits materially).

That said, there are other factors. Big infrastructure project can't be decided upon on Monday, and underway on Tuesday. There's a long lead in time which means they might be a good part of the long term spending plan during recession, but they can't be used as a response to an immediate crisis, whereas you can decide to give people money and/or cut taxes, and put that into place the next day. And given the political realities, it is just plain more practical to put a stimulus plan in place that has a mix of options.

Quite frankly if this discussion is become too boring for you then perhaps we should just end it.

No, it's fine.

I don't have any reason to believe that the number will be low. But nor do i have any reason to believe that the numbers will be high ether. as long as the program can create more successes that can cover the cost (by that mean from the addition potential created business, jobs and taxes gained) i wouldn't have a problem with it. but without hard numbers and only going based on futures, it is basically gambling, and gambling with the taxpayers money at that (should the government have such a right? though i feel this may be a bit OT)
My other worry is that with what would be a flood of people in the system, the quality of service could be impacted, as it already is in the states, especially in public schools.
is the potentially lowering the standards be a good thing overall? especially for our doctors and engineers?

To the second point which makes sense though i always though squirreling away money in banks helped decrease interest rates allowing for bigger purchases such as cars and homes in the future. (il admit i might be wrong) but also to clarify i would have no problem with state level infrastructure programs and stimulus while im further concerned with bigger federal programs as it begins to get farm more complex.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently Vulcan has no concept of business, cash flows in a business cycle, or something called 'math.'

Ah, there's the Frazz I've always known and loathed, quick to throw out a gratuitous insult rather than make an actual counterpoint.

If the economy tanks, there IS NO CASH FLOW. If the economy tanks, there IS NO BUSINESS CYCLE. Simple as that. No economy, no money, no business.

No country either, but that's a separate issue.

 Desubot wrote:
I don't have any reason to believe that the number will be low. But nor do i have any reason to believe that the numbers will be high ether. as long as the program can create more successes that can cover the cost (by that mean from the addition potential created business, jobs and taxes gained) i wouldn't have a problem with it. but without hard numbers and only going based on futures, it is basically gambling, and gambling with the taxpayers money at that (should the government have such a right? though i feel this may be a bit OT)

But we do this right now. This 'gambling' you're talking about is exactly what the public education system does right now. It's just that instead of just 'gambling' on the kids in the middle class, it's gambling on every kid born in the country.

My other worry is that with what would be a flood of people in the system, the quality of service could be impacted, as it already is in the states, especially in public schools.

No, it's not about new people into the system. Everyone gets an education now, there will be no new people who previously never got an education suddenly becoming part of the system.

It's about giving the kids already in the system as good a standard of education, whether they're born in poor or middle class areas.

is the potentially lowering the standards be a good thing overall? especially for our doctors and engineers?

It isn't lowering the standard. It's investing the money to make sure everyone gets the same high standard. Which means more people get the education that makes it possible for them to become doctors and engineers. Which means a greater pool competing for college educations in medicine and engineering, which means the medical and engineering schools can be more selective and pick better candidates, which means the standard of medicine and engineering improves.

To the second point which makes sense though i always though squirreling away money in banks helped decrease interest rates allowing for bigger purchases such as cars and homes in the future. (il admit i might be wrong)

Sure, and in normal economic conditions that's exactly how it works. If there's more savings than investment the interest rate drops, making saving less attractive and investment more attractive, leading to a balance.

But there comes a point where interest rates can't drop any more. It's called the zero lower bound, and basically means there is a point where interest rates can't drop any more - risk free investment (such as treasury bonds) is basically borrowed at very close to 0% return. That's the point you're in now, and it means that interest rates just don't work any more. You have to do something else, like directly increasing aggregate demand by government spending more money.

but also to clarify i would have no problem with state level infrastructure programs and stimulus while im further concerned with bigger federal programs as it begins to get farm more complex.

Sure, there's absolutely a difference between running one off stimulus program, and running deficits year on year regardless of economic conditions. The former is good, the latter very bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
If the economy tanks, it doesn't really matter how much money a corporation has. Without new revenue to support it, it goes out of business, period. So... where again is the need to hold onto the money?

The economy doesn't tank, and just collapse into a brutal world of looting, scavenging, and assless chaps. That's just nonsense.

Instead, the economy just sucks for a while. Profits decline and maybe you make some losses. Sales growth declines, and maybe goes negative. But you hunker down and your company gets through it. Lots of people are unemployed (including maybe some laid off by your company) and many people struggle, and it sucks and maybe it sucks for as long as ten years but it does end.

Unless your company is following the Vulcan school of management theory, and just starts splashing a billion dollars out there in pay increases, on the assumption that all that money will come back. Then that company learns that oh dear, it's only 1% of the economy (if its a particularly massive company) and it only gets back $10 million of the billion it paid out. That makes the profits (or losses) $990 million worse than they would have, and that quickly puts the company into a position that it won't be able to sustain for the ten odd years of poor economic times.

Do you get it know? Or are you just going to keep playing games so you can pretend you had it all figured out?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently Vulcan has no concept of business, cash flows in a business cycle, or something called 'math.'

Ah, there's the Frazz I've always known and loathed, quick to throw out a gratuitous insult rather than make an actual counterpoint.

If the economy tanks, there IS NO CASH FLOW. If the economy tanks, there IS NO BUSINESS CYCLE. Simple as that. No economy, no money, no business.

No country either, but that's a separate issue.

I must have missed where every business declared bankruptcy in 2002, then again in 2009. According to Vulcan they should all have fallen.

 sebster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I don't have any reason to believe that the number will be low. But nor do i have any reason to believe that the numbers will be high ether. as long as the program can create more successes that can cover the cost (by that mean from the addition potential created business, jobs and taxes gained) i wouldn't have a problem with it. but without hard numbers and only going based on futures, it is basically gambling, and gambling with the taxpayers money at that (should the government have such a right? though i feel this may be a bit OT)

But we do this right now. This 'gambling' you're talking about is exactly what the public education system does right now. It's just that instead of just 'gambling' on the kids in the middle class, it's gambling on every kid born in the country.

My other worry is that with what would be a flood of people in the system, the quality of service could be impacted, as it already is in the states, especially in public schools.

No, it's not about new people into the system. Everyone gets an education now, there will be no new people who previously never got an education suddenly becoming part of the system.

It's about giving the kids already in the system as good a standard of education, whether they're born in poor or middle class areas.

is the potentially lowering the standards be a good thing overall? especially for our doctors and engineers?

It isn't lowering the standard. It's investing the money to make sure everyone gets the same high standard. Which means more people get the education that makes it possible for them to become doctors and engineers. Which means a greater pool competing for college educations in medicine and engineering, which means the medical and engineering schools can be more selective and pick better candidates, which means the standard of medicine and engineering improves.

But the US public education is open for everyone not just the middle class i don't recall any child being denied entrance. and with that we currently do have overcrowded school rooms with not enough teachers, which can diminish the quality of education with less and less one on one attention to those who need it to clarify what i meant about lowering standards. (depending on what district your in)

Edit: probably should clarify that i do not support the current public school system, not because its a bad idea, only in its execution which is my problem with alot of these programs in general (But this is a general statement)

Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?

 dogma wrote:

My personal favorite is the constant refrain for more stringent academic standards, despite a broad lack willingness to employ "failures".

Actually, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense.

 Desubot wrote:
But the US public education is open for everyone not just the middle class i don't recall any child being denied entrance. and with that we currently do have overcrowded school rooms with not enough teachers, which can diminish the quality of education with less and less one on one attention to those who need it to clarify what i meant about lowering standards. (depending on what district your in)

Of course they're not excluded entirely. But students born to poorer parents will typically go to a school in a poorer area, which is typically much more poorly funded than schools in wealthy areas, which means they generally receive a much lower overall standard of education... which makes it much harder for a child of equal or even greater talent to become an engineer or doctor than a child born in to a middle class family.

I mean, how many times do you want me to explain that?


And the point of the whole thing, start to finish, is that you spend the money to equalise education - spend the money so that poor areas have as much spend on education per child as wealthier areas. That doesn't mean more overcrowding (a claim you've been repeating, and I've been constantly pointing out makes no sense). It doesn't mean lowering standards. It means giving a kid born into a poor area as high a much of an education as middle class kids are currently getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?

It is in a lot of ways unfairly attacked. Truth is there system is middle of the pack, with some unique strengths (excellent systems for high achievers to excel, and excellent systems to help struggling students catch up) and some unique weaknesses (the funding model is county based, so wealthy counties are overflowing with money and poor counties are massively underfunded). But you can say that about most any system.

 sebster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
But the US public education is open for everyone not just the middle class i don't recall any child being denied entrance. and with that we currently do have overcrowded school rooms with not enough teachers, which can diminish the quality of education with less and less one on one attention to those who need it to clarify what i meant about lowering standards. (depending on what district your in)

Of course they're not excluded entirely. But students born to poorer parents will typically go to a school in a poorer area, which is typically much more poorly funded than schools in wealthy areas, which means they generally receive a much lower overall standard of education... which makes it much harder for a child of equal or even greater talent to become an engineer or doctor than a child born in to a middle class family.

I mean, how many times do you want me to explain that?


And the point of the whole thing, start to finish, is that you spend the money to equalise education - spend the money so that poor areas have as much spend on education per child as wealthier areas. That doesn't mean more overcrowding (a claim you've been repeating, and I've been constantly pointing out makes no sense). It doesn't mean lowering standards. It means giving a kid born into a poor area as high a much of an education as middle class kids are currently getting.

I though i was making the point that quality and crowding happens depending on districts but whatever no need to explain
but what i am saying is that we already have programs like universal education and it gets fethed up because of bureaucracy.
simply injecting a system like this with more money (at least for the states) would just cause the same problems as most districts will have to redistribute all funds (if i recall correctly even direct donations to specific schools though i cant recall at least for my area) evenly even between poor and rich schools making it near impossible for poorer schools to expand and hire additional teachers.

I believe the only way to make it work is to reformed the entire education system in such a way to give a fair and balanced education to ALL students in any district. including the proper distribution of students to teachers and resources. at least that would be a great place to start the dialog.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?

It is in a lot of ways unfairly attacked. Truth is there system is middle of the pack, with some unique strengths (excellent systems for high achievers to excel, and excellent systems to help struggling students catch up) and some unique weaknesses (the funding model is county based, so wealthy counties are overflowing with money and poor counties are massively underfunded). But you can say that about most any system.

If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.

 Desubot wrote:
I believe the only way to make it work is to reformed the entire education system in such a way to give a fair and balanced education to ALL students in any district.

That's what I said in the first place. Honest to God...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.

Bill Gates made money in computers, therefore Bill Gates is an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of various educational systems...

Seriously, international comparisons are made between countries constantly, and the results are studied by every country, each looking for a way to improve their own systems and get a leg up in international competition. The US doesn't do that badly.

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.

Bill Gates made money in computers, therefore Bill Gates is an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of various educational systems...

Seriously, international comparisons are made between countries constantly, and the results are studied by every country, each looking for a way to improve their own systems and get a leg up in international competition. The US doesn't do that badly.

Microsoft hires a wide range of people - software designers, advertisers, business analysts etc. As an ex-CEO and as chairman of the company, he'd be interested in who he is recruiting. Currently, education is geared towards attaining jobs and if a large technology tech company doesn't feel that they can get the right people for their jobs, then there's an issue.

The US is 17th in the world for their education system. As the country that dominates the world, you should be doing a lot better. Hell, Singapore, a tiny island country, is at no. 5! Australia's is better! And at 18th is Hungary. Isn't that telling? (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html)

 daedalus wrote:

 dogma wrote:

My personal favorite is the constant refrain for more stringent academic standards, despite a broad lack willingness to employ "failures".

Actually, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense.

To the extent that employers have decided to phone in the interview process, I agree.