50 years of failed eco predictions

[LV426]

Reversal fallacy. Socialism is theft of wealth. It has no place to steal from without capitalism creating wealth.

"Reversal fallacy" is not a fallacy, and it's clear you're trying to make up that it is because you can't argue your own points.

Socialism isn't a theft of anything, CAPITALISM quite literally steals in order to create wealth...and that theft comes in many forms, from actual dollars that are defrauded, to wages that are stolen, to human beings who are trafficked.

Capitalism doesn't create wealth...consumption does. Wealth can be created outside a capitalist economy, which was the case for over 2000 years of human history (See: Mansa Musa).

 

[Monad Portal]

You can't create capital out of thin air.

Do you think every new business starts out with cash? No. They all start out with loans and in debt. Most of them don't ever come out of it.




No, they're not. They don't produce SHIT. Their workers do, they do not. And their workers only produce to meet demand.

This is precisely why Conservative economies always, always, always fail...Conservatives just have no economic intelligence or experience.




How am I doing that?

Government spends in the same economy as you and I do...they do not have a separate, shadow economy that they spend in.

capital is actually created out of thin air.

that's why our system is fucked up actually.

sound currency would fix many things.

 

[LV426]

No

You sure about that? Because you were here in JPP arguing how great the PPP program was because Trump came up with it.

 

[LV426]

They already did.

Then why did they take the PPP bailout?

Bailouts are not capitalism.

Right, they're the result of capitalism.

Communism is not capitalism.

I don't believe you know what either are.

 

[LV426]

It was a recession. Carter called it a 'stagflation' and so did the Fake News service.

So this is where taking a basic Econ 101 course could have saved you some humiliation.

Stagflation means an economy is GROWING SLOWLY for a prolonged period of time.

Recession means an economy is CONTRACTING over at least two quarters.

So during Carter, GDP grew by 3.25%...so simply because the economy grew, it didn't enter into a recession because a recession only happens when the economy contracts for more than 2 consecutive quarters.

 

[LV426]

It was contracting.

NO. IT. WASN'T.

The economy didn't start contracting until July 1981, 6 months after Carter left office.

You are simply wrong on the facts.

GDP is not economy since it includes government spending.

GDP is the sole measurement of the size of the economy and it will always include government spending because government spends in the same economy you and I do.

How is it that we've gotten deeper into this discussion and you know less and less?

Carter imposed price controls on gasoline, causing long lines at gas pumps.

So what? That was because of the embargo thanks to OPEC and Nixon/Ford.

They're the ones who picked the fight with the OPEC nations when they rushed to defend Israel in 1973.

Again, you don't know ANYTHING. How is it possible someone could be this uninformed with the internet?????

Carter imposed minimum wage increases too.

The minimum wage increase has nothing to do with the recession that started 6 months after Carter had already left office.

Inversion fallacy.

Really? Explain how. Because "inversion fallacy" isn't a fallacy...it's just something you made up to avoid answering for yourself in the debate.

Chump.

 

[LV426]

The government doesn't create private sector jobs.

Look, you were wrong...you were just completely fucking wrong about Carter and Reagan and inflation and all of this.

You're just winging it here because you don't have the motivation to know what you're talking about because no one here -or IRL- holds you to account for the stupid shit you say, think, and do.

What a fucking waste. Call your mommy in to coddle you and tell you how wonderful you are because I'm not going to do that.

 

[LV426]

Guess you forgot about the Keating Five, namely:

The Keating Five Scandal

During this crisis, five U.S. senators known as the Keating Five were investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee due to the $1.5 million in campaign contributions they accepted from Charles Keating, head of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. These senators were accused of pressuring the Federal Home Loan Banking Board to overlook suspicious activities in which Keating had participated. The Keating Five included:

John McCain (R–Ariz.)
Alan Cranston (D–Calif.)
Dennis DeConcini (D–Ariz.)
John Glenn (D–Ohio)
Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D–Mich.)

Only ONE of them was a Republican.

The Keating 5 didn't cause the S&L collapse...Reagan's deregulation from 1982 did.

And besides, weren't you denying that there was even an S&L collapse? You're the one who was saying a dozen posts ago how wonderful Reagan's economy was. LOL.

 

[LV426]

it can become cheaper per unit. let's have honesty.

It can become cheaper per unit, but that's not a good thing if you're looking at your margins.

It means you'll have to sell more in order to get the ROI.

But the more you create, the less valuable it becomes until it reaches the point where it costs you more to manufacture and distribute than if you simply hadn't leaned on the supply-side in the first place, and let organic demand take control.

This is most clear in all the bankruptcies of natural gas and fracking companies. The rush to extract those fuels completely diminished the value of the fuel which means they lose money the more they drill, extract, and sell.

 

[LV426]

Why do waste your time on the too far gone?

Fifty years of failed trickle down voodoo and they still have no connected the dots as to why the USA has such enormous income disparity, has gone from number one in upward mobility to number thirty-something, used to be the home of "The Great Prosperity" due to the higher fairer tax rate, and the insane but now normalized "too big to fail" bull shit. They have been trained to idolize POS Reagan who began the destruction of the middle class.

I would never waste my time on such willful ignorance.

I actually don't mind it because it helps me hone some of my arguments.

 

[Monad Portal]

It can become cheaper per unit, but that's not a good thing if you're looking at your margins.

It means you'll have to sell more in order to get the ROI.

But the more you create, the less valuable it becomes until it reaches the point where it costs you more to manufacture and distribute than if you simply hadn't leaned on the supply-side in the first place, and let organic demand take control.

This is most clear in all the bankruptcies of natural gas and fracking companies. The rush to extract those fuels completely diminished the value of the fuel which means they lose money the more they drill, extract, and sell.

you could keep prices the same and make profit per unit.

please stay rational.

gouging at all levels isn't the only strategy, it just feels like it.

 

[Cinnabar]

I actually don't mind it because it helps me hone some of my arguments.

Okay and your arguments are spot on! But definitely casting pearls before swine.

 

[LV426]

it's pretty good with every dem against him though.

No, it's bolstered by the fact that he babysat Obama's economy for 2017 before making his mark in 2018 with his shitty tax cuts that plunged manufacturing into a recession in 2019, and the rest of the economy in February 2020.

 

[Monad Portal]

No, it's bolstered by the fact that he babysat Obama's economy for 2017 before making his mark in 2018 with his shitty tax cuts that plunged manufacturing into a recession in 2019, and the rest of the economy in February 2020.

no. it was good considering all dems were against him.

 

[Into the Night]

No they're not.

Yes they are. For what cars have in them today, they are cheap. MUCH cheaper than when cars first started being produced.

They're just as expensive as ever, you just need to account for scale...which you're not doing because if you did, it would ruin your argument.

I am accounting for scale. That's part of my argument. Pay attention, dumbass.

Right, but computers already existed, so you're not creating a new product, you're just improving on one for which demand already exists.

Personal computers DID NOT EXIST. The cloud services DID NOT EXIST. They were created out of nothing but innovation and drive.

The demand is for the IMPROVED product, not the product itself.

Personal computers DID NOT EXIST.

This is why most businesses fail; the people running them have no fucking idea what they're doing.

Wrong. Businesses fail because they fail to keep up with their competitors.

Not if they don't have the money to buy it.

Get some. Nothing is stopping you from making money except you and the government.

Increasing production doesn't make the item cheaper to produce...

Improving production does.

it means it costs MORE to produce because you're INCREASING your production.

Nope. The cost per unit is the same or lower. That means lower prices. A good thing.

But if there is no demand for your shitty product, then all you're doing is deflating its value by producing more of it.

You just denied your own argument. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?

And just because something is cheaper doesn't mean people will start buying it...like what happened with Shale and Fracking...

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

so much of it was produced that its value has diminished

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

which has pushed hundreds of companies into trillions of dollars of bankruptcies because they did exactly what you're saying here...overproduce a product to drive down its cost to make it appealing for consumers to buy...but if consumers don't have the money to spend to buy it, then all you've done is deflate the value of your product on the market and completely erased any possible ROI.

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

Again, you are the best example of why most businesses fail.

You argue that producing more increases cost, then argue that producing more decreases cost. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

OK, before you said it didn't, so now you're moving the goalposts here because you realized that no one can buy a product if they don't have a wage high enough.

Fallacy fallacy. RQAA.

Supply-side economics doesn't fucking work because of that...and going all-in on the supply side is a sure fire way to devalue your product (see: natural gas & fracking).

There is no such thing as 'supply side economics'. Buzzword fallacy. Every capitalist economy has buyers and sellers.

And it also doesn't fucking work when wealth is hoarded at the top and not disseminated down the workforce via higher wages.

Wealth is not hoarded. Higher wages did occur. Hiring did occur.

So you can waste all your time and money building an inventory of product, but if no one has the money to spend, all you're left with is the debt you went into in order to generate this artificial supply to meet speculative demand that doesn't exist.

Contrivance. Special pleading fallacy.

And that is why more than half of all businesses fail.

Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[Into the Night]

Government plays a significant role in the economy.
Presently, government spending makes up about 17% of the economy.
So if you cut government spending and aren't making up that spending in other places, you will contract the economy.

Government spending ain't free. Communism doesn't work.

 

[LV426]

no. it was good considering all dems were against him.

The Russia Tax Cut was not good, it cost at least $2.5T and a recession.

 

[LV426]

Yes they are. For what cars have in them today, they are cheap. MUCH cheaper than when cars first started being produced.

So you're just spitting nonsense here...cars are not cheap to produce, and never have been cheap to produce.

 

[LV426]

I am accounting for scale. That's part of my argument. Pay attention, dumbass.

No you're not accounting for scale because in order to increase production, you have to expand your production, and that costs money.

Money you have to borrow to expand and then hope to pay back later by increased revenues and business.

Virtually every major business carries a debt load.

What a fucking dumbass.