Which is more important right now- a balanced budget, or low unemployment? - Page 2 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2011, 10:00 PM   #11 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

Why can't I get to page 2? lol. Let me in!
snowjeeper is offline  
Old 10-05-2011, 11:05 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
skycdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShredLife View Post
kill the rich and eat their children.
Actually it's the other way around. You eat the children who are suffering in poverty and misery. There are far more of those than rich kids and you can get rid of the poverty class. The article is called "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. Read it, very interesting.
skycdo is offline  
Old 10-05-2011, 11:12 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
HoboMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 2,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skycdo View Post
Actually it's the other way around. You eat the children who are suffering in poverty and misery. There are far more of those than rich kids and you can get rid of the poverty class. The article is called "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. Read it, very interesting.
Wow weird, I was just thinking of that same writing. Legendary piece of satire.
__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja
HoboMaster is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 02:27 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
gibbous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blondieyo View Post
they assume that the money the government would originally have borrowed will be loaned to the private sector, instead of to the government, where there will be a greater profit made from the same money
To me it sounds like that's assuming that there is currently a huge amount of private enterprise that's not growing ONLY because they can't get a loan from anybody. I've heard of some small businesses that are running into problems with getting financing from cautious banks, but I still have to believe that if there were really a group of industries in the U.S. that had real potential to collectively put millions of unemployed people back to work, investors would still be lining up to give them loans so they could reap the benefits as well. China is still loaded, the big banks are still making huge profits, why wouldn't they want to use that money to make more if they thought they could? That's what investors do.

Maybe if the government did borrow less, investors would be willing to put more money into a few things that they currently see as too risky relative to the security of government bonds. But are there really so many of those risky new ventures in the U.S. that it would turn around an entire economy? Pretty hard when there are companies overseas that will do the same thing for way less money IMHO...
gibbous is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 02:43 AM   #15 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Radelaide, Australia
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbous View Post
To me it sounds like that's assuming that there is currently a huge amount of private enterprise that's not growing ONLY because they can't get a loan from anybody. I've heard of some small businesses that are running into problems with getting financing from cautious banks, but I still have to believe that if there were really a group of industries in the U.S. that had real potential to collectively put millions of unemployed people back to work, investors would still be lining up to give them loans so they could reap the benefits as well. China is still loaded, the big banks are still making huge profits, why wouldn't they want to use that money to make more if they thought they could? That's what investors do.

Maybe if the government did borrow less, investors would be willing to put more money into a few things that they currently see as too risky relative to the security of government bonds. But are there really so many of those risky new ventures in the U.S. that it would turn around an entire economy? Pretty hard when there are companies overseas that will do the same thing for way less money IMHO...
It's not a straight out 'there is no money left to loan to investors' but the more money the government borrows, the less there is for the private sector in total, like taking a bigger slice out of a pie. This leads to an increase in the real cash rate on the loanable funds market. So basically it costs more to borrow money which is obviously a disincentive to invest and grow. Note when I say invest I mean borrow money to undertake new projects to increase capital NOT 'investing' in shares, bonds or a high interest rate bank account. I'm not saying this policy (if you could call it that) is effective at all at increasing growth, it's purely one way of looking at recovering from a recession.

Also just adding something here, if you looked at the profits most banks make, they may be making large profit figures, however, the profit margin is tiny in terms of percentage of a rate of return. Just taking a guess but it probably wouldn't be any higher than a 3-5% return on what they're investing which really is sweet f*** all.

Last edited by blondieyo; 10-10-2011 at 02:48 AM.
blondieyo is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 02:49 AM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
gibbous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboMaster View Post
It is why over the past 20 years the top 5% make something like [400] times the salary of someone in the middle-class.
By an inflation-adjusted dollar, the average CEO makes four times what they did in the 70's for doing the same job. Are they really four times more valuable? Meanwhile, middle class wages have been growing at a rate that is far less than the rates of increase in costs of housing, energy, education, health care, etc, etc, etc... That just makes more private debt, less demand, and fewer jobs as a result. Add in the globalization of the economy and outsourcing of everything that can be done cheaper elsewhere as you mentioned, and it seems were are truly screwed unless our government can change in a big way...
gibbous is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:23 AM   #17 (permalink)
Drunk with power...er beer.
 
Donutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,536
Blog Entries: 214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blondieyo View Post
based on the assumption that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.
In Canada, couple years back, the gov't put itself in charge of distribution of pot for medicinal purposes. The department lost money. The government can't even sell pot at a profit.
__________________

I hate the parts between winter
Donutz is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:11 AM   #18 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

The difference is that the private sector can easily charge more money to make up for their inefficiencies.
snowjeeper is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 01:58 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
HoboMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 2,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
The difference is that the private sector can easily charge more money to make up for their inefficiencies.
This is true and is reflected by a decline in consumer and employee benefits over the past 30 years. As new costs have arisen, they have been mitigated in some way or another by shoving the cost on consumers/employees. Cutting profit for the sake of efficiency is only ever a very unpopular last resort.

You can argue that because the private sector is profit driven, they do have a high efficiency rate just for the sake of making more money, (if you can make more money by running a tight ship, you will do it).

If you could make governmental agencies run on a system of non-critical incentives, they would probably be more likely to have higher efficiency rates. Incentives often corrupt institutions though, so it's a bit of a quandary.
__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja

Last edited by HoboMaster; 10-10-2011 at 02:00 PM.
HoboMaster is offline  
Old 10-10-2011, 06:08 PM   #20 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Radelaide, Australia
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
The difference is that the private sector can easily charge more money to make up for their inefficiencies.
It's not just charging more, it's actively seeking to keep costs as low as possible in order to make as large a margin possible. That's why privitisation is so effective.

A businesses goal is to make their business as profitable as possible, if it is profitable it's succesful. A government running a sector is less concerned with making a profit and more concerned with just covering their costs in order to offer a service. If they're just covering their costs the price of whatever they're providing will be less but they also won't be as tight on keeping costs low.

Last edited by blondieyo; 10-10-2011 at 06:14 PM.
blondieyo is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums