OT: $222,000,000,000,000, if you please!

You're off by a factor of x10 too high.

It's ok. Trump is on the job reducing our deficit and debt. Oh, wait, the deficit and debt are both rising? How can that be happening? Heck, Mexico is paying for the wall, right?

Did you actually read the article?

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

I think the thanks need to go to the Founding Fathers back 1787.

The constitution they put together had a lot of innovative features, some g ood, which have been widely copied, and some obviously less good - bugs rat her than features - which haven't been copied, and should have been thrown out long ago.

Socialism didn't exist back then. The word socialism first appeared on 13 F ebruary 1832 in a French newspaper.

National debt goes back quite a bit further, as do irresponsible politician s who let it get out of hand. The defects of the US electoral system are we ll known - Donald Trump reflects just one of many - and a more rational ele ctoral system using proportional representation to create a more representa tive legislature might go a long way to introducing more responsible govern ment in the US.

It would probably also be more socialist than the current collection of mil lionaires, but that would be an incidental advantage.

Not interested in anything some idiot like Kotlikoff computes. People like him are always trying to make a splash. All this unfunded liability arithme tic they use is oversimplified and strangely ignores the idea of averting c alamity with minuscule tax increases.

So was Obama. They bitched because of Trump's trillion in a year but forgot to tell you that Obama threw out NINE trillion in EIGHT years. That is 12.5% MORE.

Who wins ?

I am not responding to Slowman's drivel anymore. It is like playing chess with a parrot.

My warning stands and he can take that to the government and then you know what happens to me ? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

ot to tell you that Obama threw out NINE trillion in EIGHT years. That is 1

Obama. His billions prevented a re-run of the 1930-33 Great Depression. Tru mp's extravagance is purely aimed at getting him re-elected, though it has the incidental advantage of making John Larkin happier - John can appreciat e the extra money in his pocket, and doesn't bother thinking about the impl iciations of an enlarged budget deficit...

ot to tell you that Obama threw out NINE trillion in EIGHT years. That is 1

The Obama deficit was largely due to the economy going sour from the econom ic crisis and the spending to help stimulate the economy. You can see that the stimulus likely worked since the deficit dropped to just over $400 bil lion. Now, under Trump's tax cuts and increased defense spending, the defi cit is again rising and again likely to top $1 trillion.

Obama spent money to bring the economy out of ruin. Trump has taken a well functioning economy and pumped it with steroids, then asked it to do the i mpossible as a routine matter. Fortunately he won't get a second chance to ruin things. Or is it Mexico ruining things?

Only Jurb woud be silly enough to bother starting such a game, and the parrot would probably get him with fool's mate in two moves.

Nobody is goin to take jurb seriosuly, not even the government.

it...

A rerun of the Great Depression is extremely unlikely to have occurred. Too many changes in the economy have occurred. One example is Social S ecurity and unemployment payments. During the Great Depression if someone lost their job they had no other income to replace their wages. And retir ees did not get any Social Security payments and private pensions were rare .

Dan

cit...

Too many changes in the economy have occurred. One example is Social Security and unemployment payments. During the Great Depression if someon e lost their job they had no other income to replace their wages. And ret irees did not get any Social Security payments and private pensions were ra re.

The only one of those which are useful in that situation was the unemployme nt benefits... which were part of the bail out causing the trillion dollar deficit.

Social Security didn't impact the equation and unless I missed something, c ompany pensions are pretty rare these days.

I'm not sure what your point is really. You claim the great depression wou ld not have been repeated if the economy had not been stimulated, but I fai l to see a significant difference. Oh, I bet I know the difference, YOU di dn't lose your job or your home.

I know people who did.

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:56:14 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrot e:

ment benefits... which were part of the bail out causing the trillion dolla r deficit.

company pensions are pretty rare these days.

Think about it. How much money was paid to retired folks during the G reat Recession? I did not research it, but it was a bunch. Those receiv ing SSBN spent the money and each dollar from SSBN benefits was just as muc h a help as each dollar spent on infrastructure.

ould not have been repeated if the economy had not been stimulated, but I f ail to see a significant difference. Oh, I bet I know the difference, YOU didn't lose your job or your home.

I retired before the Great Recession started. I was out there spending tho se Social Security checks.

Another reason the stimulus had little effect is world trade. In the thir ties stimulus dollars tended to stay in the U.S. In the Great Recession th e dollars went for things like clothes made outside the U.S. Keynes corr ectly said each dollar gets spent about three times. During the Great Recession the multiplier was 1.5 or less. That is why many economists no l onger believe in Keynesian stimuli.

Dan

ote:

oyment benefits... which were part of the bail out causing the trillion dol lar deficit.

g, company pensions are pretty rare these days.

Great Recession? I did not research it, but it was a bunch. Those rece iving SSBN spent the money and each dollar from SSBN benefits was just as m uch a help as each dollar spent on infrastructure.

would not have been repeated if the economy had not been stimulated, but I fail to see a significant difference. Oh, I bet I know the difference, YO U didn't lose your job or your home.

hose Social Security checks.

irties stimulus dollars tended to stay in the U.S. In the Great Recession the dollars went for things like clothes made outside the U.S. Keynes co rrectly said each dollar gets spent about three times. During the Grea t Recession the multiplier was 1.5 or less. That is why many economists no longer believe in Keynesian stimuli.

The problem wasn't so much international trade as where the stimulus spendi ng went. If it had gone to the poor, who could be relied on to spend it (mo stly locally) the mulitplier would have been bigger.

The Republicans treated it as a pork-barrel and directed it at people who w ould vote for them, who stuck most of the money into the bank againsy the d ay the economy had recovered and they could invest it in profitable interpr ises.

This depressed the multiplier, and the effect.

Some economists have never believed in Keynesian stimulus spending - their mathematically tractable models of the economy assume that the market clear s every day, and nobody ever leaves money in the bank. This is unrealistic, but it doesn't seem to worry them.

Too many changes in the economy have occurred. One example is Social Security and unemployment payments. During the Great Depression if someon e lost their job they had no other income to replace their wages. And ret irees did not get any Social Security payments and private pensions were ra re.

The US economy shrank at about 6% per year during the Great Depression.

In the first quarter after the global financial crisis (GFC, the US sub-pri me mortgage crisis) it shrank by 1.6% (which would have been 6.4% over the full year). The Keynesan deficit-funded stimulus spending kicked in a that point, and the shrinkage stopped.

If social security and pensions were the crucial factors that prevented a r e-run of the Great Depression it's difficult to see where that 1.6% shrinka ge in the first quarter after the GFC came from, or why it stopped when it did.

ote:

oyment benefits... which were part of the bail out causing the trillion dol lar deficit.

g, company pensions are pretty rare these days.

Great Recession? I did not research it, but it was a bunch. Those rece iving SSBN spent the money and each dollar from SSBN benefits was just as m uch a help as each dollar spent on infrastructure.

Sorry, the only references I can find to SSBN are about nuclear submarines. I assume you are talking about some aspect of social security. I'm still in the dark about how this impacted the crash recovery.

The great depression may not have had social security, but people had other means as well as dying. People didn't live so long. What about it?

would not have been repeated if the economy had not been stimulated, but I fail to see a significant difference. Oh, I bet I know the difference, YO U didn't lose your job or your home.

hose Social Security checks.

So? People with savings or investments used those. What about it?

Who said the stimulus has "little effect"? Unemployment went from high tee ns to below 5% before Trump took office. I'd say that was no "little effec t".

t Recession the dollars went for things like clothes made outside the U.S. Keynes correctly said each dollar gets spent about three times. Duri ng the Great Recession the multiplier was 1.5 or less. That is why many e conomists no longer believe in Keynesian stimuli.

Huh??? Can you provide some facts about your "outside the US" claims???

Social Security... Just count how many migrant workers and other "aliens" that take a job and pay INTO Social Security on a semi-regular basis. They cannot access a penny of that due to fake documents.

I ask the NASTY question, WHERE does that hundreds of thousands of dollars per week go to? More than enough to support Social Security..

The same place they go when people die before they can collect. It is stolen by the friends of politicians.

And it may be millions. But even $52 million a year is but a drop in the bucket.