LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1997, there were 834,949 instances of the words "may not", "must", "prohibited", "required" and "shall" in the Federal Register, which coincide with each single rule implemented by the U.S. federal government.

By 2010, that number had risen to 1,001,153, an increase of 16.6% in 13 years. Or if you prefer, an average rate of increase of 12,808 per year.

For the preceding 208 years, going back to 1789, the average rate of increase of regulations in the U.S. was just 4,013 per year.
Click to expand...
http://finance.townhall.com/columni...1/counting_all_the_us_governments_regulations
 
4es卍_4es卍_gump;42296931 said:
You guys are so cute thinking that anything is new in economics that we haven't known since 1850...
Click to expand...

Still pining away for the gold standard, Chief?

It's gone and will never come back.
 
This curious phenomenon of a vaunting inflation occurring at the same time as a steep recession was simply not supposed to happen in the Keynesian view of the world. Economists had always known that either the economy is in a boom period, in which case prices are rising, or else the economy is in a recession or depression marked by high unemployment, in which case prices are falling. In the boom, the Keynesian government was supposed to "sop up excess purchasing power" by increasing taxes, according to the Keynesian prescription — that is, it was supposed to take spending out of the economy; in the recession, on the other hand, the government was supposed to increase its spending and its deficits, in order to pump spending into the economy. But if the economy should be in an inflation and a recession with heavy unemployment at the same time, what in the world was government supposed to do? How could it step on the economic accelerator and brake at the same time?
Murray N. Rothbard
 
JohnnySavage said:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I tried to engage you in post-17th century economic theory, but you would rather play poopy-head with your lit enemies.
Click to expand...

How long have you been here?

AJ is not interested in debate. He's interested in promulgatin' his Glibertarian talking points, and drowning out the opposition.
 
JohnnySavage said:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I tried to engage you in post-17th century economic theory, but you would rather play poopy-head with your lit enemies.
Click to expand...

No I am ignoring them now.

I was also in a hurry that day and kinda ADHD; unfocused...

;) ;) Besides, I hate meaningless phrases; creative destruction, like military intelligence.

:eek:
 
4es卍_4es卍_gump;42297194 said:
Besides, I hate meaningless phrases; creative destruction, like military intelligence.
Click to expand...

...jumbo shrimp.....
...libertarian thought....
...Justice Scalia....
...Ayn Rand philosophy....
 
New poll shows that people who believe the statement "Obama is shipping my job to China" work at Waffle House.
 
How much will the underfunded pension benefits of government employees cost taxpayers? The answer is usually given in trillions of dollars, and the implications of such figures are difficult for most people to comprehend. These calculations also generally reflect only legacy liabilities — what would be owed if pensions were frozen today. Yet with each passing day, the problem grows as states fail to set aside sufficient funds to cover the benefits public employees are earning.

In a recent paper, we bring the problem closer to home. We studied how much additional money would have to be devoted annually to state and local pension systems to achieve full funding in 30 years, a standard period over which governments target fully funded pensions. Or, to put a finer point on it, we researched: How much will your taxes have to increase?

We found that, on average, a tax increase of $1,385 per U.S. household per year would be required, starting immediately and growing with the size of the public sector. An alternative would be public-sector budget cuts of a similar magnitude, or a combination of tax increases and cuts adding up to this amount.

For some states these numbers are much higher. New York taxpayers would need to contribute more than $2,250 per household per year over the next 30 years. In Oregon, the amount is $2,140; in Ohio, it is $2,051; in New Jersey, $2,000. California ($1,994), Minnesota ($1,928) and Illinois ($1,907) are not far behind.

Most states have traditional defined-benefit pension systems, which guarantee a certain payment upon retirement. In the past 10 years a handful of states have added defined-contribution elements, in which workers share in the market risk of their pension investments, as most private-sector workers do through IRAs or 401(k) plans.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
 
mercury14 said:
Every time they carry on about the gold standard we're reminded of the sheer depth of their fantasies.
Click to expand...

They refuse to acknowledge that we became the world's greatest economic power only AFTER abandoning the gold standard. And always resort to quoting Austrians, whose country of course remains a world economic power:rolleyes:
 
So I see unemployment is declining in 41 states now? Jack Welch's conspiracy is spreading like the zombie apocalypse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
322
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
445
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top