Moving toward the Bang Point

Originally posted by whodey
Do you really think that those in government don't know these things? The bottom line is they don't care, period. I'm simply offering some light as to why.

And this seems to be a global phenomenon. At least, the US and Europe seem to be on an economic suicide mission together. Perhaps it is intentional with the plans to form a global government or econ ...[text shortened]... ld that struggle to gain more and more control over those they govern and the world at large.

Originally posted by whodey
If carbon emissions are really destroying the globe, what should be done? Economics tells us that a reduced economy equals reduced carbon emissions. No economy equals no carbon emissions.

Also, you hear rumblings from the left wingers about populations not being able to sustain themselves and resources being scarce etc. In a country like the US with a C ...[text shortened]... ght wingers say these things. If they are out there then so what, then they are nuts as well.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
In the real world they are usually called environmentalist's or Greens, the last thing a leftie would want is less demand for the labour of industrial workers. That scenario would tip the balance of supply and demand firmly in the direction of those who lefties accuse of exploiting the workers.

.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Perhaps when you use the term leftie you are thinking of middle and upper income intellectuals, who do not have an eye for the day to day struggles of life.

.[/b]

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Having said that; it makes sense to this leftie that we should all argue for the least environmentally damaging strategy within the real world of industrial necessity.[/b]

Originally posted by whodey
Argue? What is there to argue about? Do you think you can convince people to do your bidding? No. It is only through force and oppression that you can convince them not to drive their SUV or buy a smaller home or not have that second child etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your OP has quite a bit of opinion in it.

So there you have it lefties. You want to reduce the wealth divide? Stop incurring govt debt so the little guy can generate a return on his daily labor! But read on. He advocates "shared sacrifice" (tax increases) as well.

Originally posted by whodey
Do you really think that those in government don't know these things?

Some do. Some don't. Our job is to replace the ones who don't get it with people who do.

The bottom line is they don't care, period. I'm simply offering some light as to why.

Again, some care, some don't. What are you doing to help the ones who do?

What you are offering is not light. It's useless hand wringing mixed with conspiracy theories that weaken any viable argument you might try to make. Let me suggest a different use for your energy. Since you have only two viable parties to choose from in the US, and that's not about to change, pick whichever one that seems the lesser of the two evils and try to replace the idiots in it with better people.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I haven't actually advocated anything at this point. I posted links to an interesting interview and provided my own summary. The consumption tax advocated by Hunt is not the main thrust of it. I know it is long but has anyone watched it?

Originally posted by normbenign
Clearly there are only two ways to control deficits or pay off debts. Spend less and/or increase revenues.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
I can think of a third option. Assuming the debts are denominated in dollars, how about minting more money to pay them off?

Sure, it would cause inflation and weaken the dollar. But the US has the potential to be self-sufficient in most basic goods; Americans don't travel abroad much compared to other citizens of the developed world; and a weak dollar would boost the American economy by encouraging exports.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
I can think of a third option. Assuming the debts are denominated in dollars, how about minting more money to pay them off?

Sure, it would cause inflation and weaken the dollar. But the US has the potential to be self-sufficient in most basic goods; Americans don't travel abroad much compared to other citizens of the developed world; and a weak dollar would boost the American economy by encouraging exports.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
I can think of a third option. Assuming the debts are denominated in dollars, how about minting more money to pay them off?

Sure, it would cause inflation and weaken the dollar. But the US has the potential to be self-sufficient in most basic goods; Americans don't travel abroad much compared to other citizens of the developed world; and a weak dollar would boost the American economy by encouraging exports.

And so, these types of policies, like the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing operations, they do benefit SOME people. The stock market has recovered. There have been increases in wealth for some. But unfortunately these type of policies have exacerbated what economists call the income and wealth divide. The majority of our people, their main resource is what they earn from their daily labor, and that's not generating a return. So we're skewing the distribution of income between those that are extremely well off and the majority of our people."

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I'm just copying this quote from Hunt from my OP. Hunt says QE policies exacerbate the wealth divide by making it impossible for the working class to generate a return on their daily labor.
[quote]And so, these types of policies, like the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing operations, they do benefit SOME people. The stock market has recovered. There ...[text shortened]... do you think would be required to mint our way out? Could Joe Blow America afford to eat?

Originally posted by Barts
How does Hunt explain this ? Inflation hits savings, money loses value. Generally, inflation will push wages up as well, so someone who lives from his wages as opposed to from saved capital should be hurt less by inflation.