Wow, a great economist and a very good cartoonist as well.

"Neolibs will love this video because it speaks to them viscerally to thoth thwarteth of thine highest willfull, money" - Winstonfeld Pennypacker

"COINS!! TAXES ARE THE SAME AS RACIAL SEGREGATION!" - Blankfist

"Argle bargle flargle gargle" - Quantummushroom

Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.

Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

ratios hard :-|,
subtracting is much easier for some than division

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 13th, 2011 3:33pm PDT - doublepromote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 13th, 2011 11:59pm PDT - promote requested by Issykitty.

DAmmit, I just wasted a point.

Does that make it a triple promote? We are pushing the boundaries of the sift-time continuum.

*controversy *news

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News) - requested by xxovercastxx.

Lies

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Does that make it a triple promote? We are pushing the boundaries of the sift-time continuum.


You're blowing my mind, man.

>> ^bobknight33:

Lies


You know what?

*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Boise_Lib.

>> ^volumptuous:

"Neolibs will love this video because it speaks to them viscerally to thoth thwarteth of thine highest willfull, money" - Winstonfeld Pennypacker
"COINS!! TAXES ARE THE SAME AS RACIAL SEGREGATION!" - Blankfist
"Argle bargle flargle gargle" - Quantummushroom


That's unusually coherent for QM.

The more detailed version came around last month. </shameless>

*debunked
*politics

Adding video to channels (Debunked, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

>> ^bobknight33:

Lies


Prove it then motherfucker. With data and facts*. Not rhetoric.


*[meaning, actual events & quantities that happened in this reality. Not some random figure you read in an Ann Coulter article]

@Spacedog79

Money is debt. Which means More debt = More money.

I know, it's fucked up right? Just one big game of Monopoly, worthless paper currency and all.

To answer that borrowing question tho..
If any government had any real brass, they would just:
1. contract the money supply
2. reset prices
3. make money creation the sole responsibility of town meetings and congress and such

"Shit, that food was really expensive before they reset the price and increased the purchasing power of my income."

That way, we can bring back my dreams of 5 cent candy bars. Mmmmm, chocolate.

@GenjiKilpatrick that is why the idea of bitcoins was pretty awesome to me. It doesn't have the failure of a gold standard (not being able to inflate fast enough to avoid a deflationary spiral), or pure fiat (that can be manipulated behind closed doors to finance all sorts of evils by inflation). All valuation is inevitably fiat, which is why a gold standard actually makes LESS sense than a fiat, so in that, to devise a fiat that can't be manipulated by the inscrutable would be a very good currency indeed! The things you DO with money should be evil or good, not the supply itself! Money controlled by a computer system/formula, just makes sense. But it will never happen, bankers will make sure of that. Cheap money, great for bankers bad for Americans

"Robert Reich's 7 biggest lies about the economy."

Title fixed.

Like I said, PROVE it motherfucker.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

"Robert Reich's 7 biggest lies about the economy."
Title fixed.

*timeshift

Adding video to channels (Timeshift) - requested by bareboards2.

My shameless plug for a sensible dupe policy that reflects the reality of the Sift as IT ACTUALLY WORKS.... An 8 minute wasn't watched. A 2 minute video was.

Unless cartoons are that much more compelling?



>> ^radx:

The more detailed version came around last month. </shameless>

>> ^Spacedog79:

Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?


The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

Like I said, PROVE it

Sure.

Step 1: Take RR's "crap I pulled out my hinder" arguments
Step 2: Say the exact opposite.

Boom. There. I've given you as much "proof" as RR did in his stupid 164 second waste of time.

For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).

I could go on, but there's no point to it. Prog-Libs have a mantra they stick to in the face of all facts and evidence, and all it takes is a bearded moron reinforcing the dumb ideas they believe to convince them they have 'proof'. All RR ever does is barf up typical left wing talking points. Nothing new here. He pukes up the same bologna, opinion based interpretation of the world every time he opens his piehole.

>> ^volumptuous:

"Neolibs will love this video because it speaks to them viscerally to thoth thwarteth of thine highest willfull, money" - Winstonfeld Pennypacker


So close! It's "Prog-Libs"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).
I could go on, but there's no point to it.


Looking at your census data, median household income in 1979 was $34,666 and in 1993 it was $33,660 (in the face of more women joining the workforce), which exactly matches what Reich said about wages dropping between 1980 and 1992. So thanks for providing proof that RR is correct with your holistic picture. BTW, your sentence "Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office" doesn't even make sense.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2011/10/06/another-bailout-for-the-banks/

Robert Reich has a little experience... "He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997." I usually agree with his ideas and I especially think the idea of trickle-down economics to be a load of crap.

*lies

Reich is lying here.

Nobody actually ever paid the outrageous high marginal tax rates that libs like him try to look back to.

When the high marginal tax bracket was lowered by Reagan, he (and this is important) also eliminated tax shelters and loopholes.

Medicare is also not "cheaper than private insurance". Though if people want to pay $12k/year for Medicare, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to enroll in it if they want to.

Don't listen to the 4th Reich.

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.

The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.

>> ^sigmel:

>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

>> ^Spacedog79:

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.
The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.
>> ^sigmel:
>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).



To be fair, I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted; I was just trying to explain as I understood it. You get the money for government spending by creating more money. Our interest rates on our bonds are very low right now, so there is no immediate inflation concern. This would have the effect of devaluing our money, but that could help us in terms of making our exports more competitive. If you borrow to create growth, then you should be creating enough in order to cover the initial cost and interest in due time.

Considering that we have such high unemployment, then I feel that using growth to get us out of this is very valid. If unemployment were a lot lower, then obviously we wouldn't have much in the way of ability to grow. But considering we need employment and increased tax revenue, I think creating jobs would be a good move to solve both problems. I also think it is possible to do this in a way that isn't detrimental in an environmental or social way.