Bernie Sanders would be best for the ecomony

[Tom Joad]

I think this is exactly right.

In the board game Monopoly, when one player gets all the money and has hotels on all the major properties the game is over. That's where we are headed right now.

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...bernie-sanders

"Well, I think it’s quite simple," he began. "If you look at something called ‘velocity of money’—you guys know what that is, I presume—that means how much gets spent and turns around. When you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five, 10 percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend 100, or 110 percent of what they earn. As you’ve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money. Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about both fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will get the banks to begin to generate lending again as opposed to speculation. So from an economic point of view, it’s straightforward.”

[JCricket]

Interesting. It seems to make sense. I wonder if it is actually correct. I would love to see the response from the right on this.....

[Tom Joad]

Here are a couple of videos from another rich guy that gets it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

[whell]

Seems to me like a bastardization of the concept of velocity of money. He's putting it in micro-economic terms, and I don't think the concept is meant to be used that way. Its typically a macro-economic term that compares consumer spending to GDP. The concept doesn't really care who is spending the dollar, simply looks at the dollars being spent.

On the other hand, it probably not arguable that consumer spending is in a relative low point at present. Lack of faith in the economy has been keeping both capital expenditures and personal expenditures on the sidelines.

The recipe for countering that would be get the economy growing again. It seems that we've been asked to accept a 3 - 4% economic growth rate as the "new normal" but that's not going to fix consumer spending or push GDP upward. I'm also not sure exactly how a Bernie Sanders economic plan would fix any of this either.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

Seems to me like a bastardization of the concept of velocity of money. He's putting it in micro-economic terms, and I don't think the concept is meant to be used that way. Its typically a macro-economic term that compares consumer spending to GDP. The concept doesn't really care who is spending the dollar, simply looks at the dollars being spent.

On the other hand, it probably not arguable that consumer spending is in a relative low point at present. Lack of faith in the economy has been keeping both capital expenditures and personal expenditures on the sidelines.

The recipe for countering that would be get the economy growing again. It seems that we've been asked to accept a 3 - 4% economic growth rate as the "new normal" but that's not going to fix consumer spending or push GDP upward. I'm also not sure exactly how a Bernie Sanders economic plan would fix any of this either.

Personal expenditures are on the sidelines because we have too many people working shit jobs that they can't even survive on without going into debt, let alone have anything left over for disposable income. As for capital expenditures we have the 1% ers sitting on trillions of dollars of cash which they aren't using except to create a stock market bubble. We now have 35 years worth of experience with Reagan's trickle down economic theory and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that it has failed miserably.

And you Whelly, all you are is just another Carnival Barker blowing smoke out your ass in an effort to sell the same worthless snake oil that the right wing has been pedaling since Reagan was elected.

[donquixote99]

I wish i knew what whelly was up to. Does he cynically think it somehow worthwhile to throw bullshit arguments around the place, or does he really think like he writes? Neither hypothesis quite adds up.

Really, only the paid shill possibility makes any sense to me.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I wish i knew what whelly was up to. Does he cynically think it somehow worthwhile to throw bullshit arguments around the place, or does he really think like he writes? Neither hypothesis quite adds up.

Really, only the paid shill possibility makes any sense to me.

Nah, he occasionally makes sense. Just not lately, and particularly not in his defense of The Donald.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nah, he occasionally makes sense. Just not lately, and particularly not in his defense of The Donald.

'Occasionally makes sense' means he usually doesn't. So, on those occasions, what is true?

Does he think he always makes sense? Hard to believe.

Does he want to get a shot off so badly that he goes into denial about the necessity of quality in argument? This is what I think.

So, why does he want so badly to get in one rhetorical lick after another? Is his motivation just a strong habit and inclination for verbal rumbles with the enemy? Or is his motivation money? That is the question.

But the first possibility requires a unusual ability to be gratified by rumbling even though his 'arguments' often suck and he gets clobbered. But I suppose it's possible, since getting pounded constantly in verbal argument doesn't actually hurt....

So I guess it's a coin toss whether coin is part of his motivation or not.....

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

Seems to me like a bastardization of the concept of velocity of money. He's putting it in micro-economic terms, and I don't think the concept is meant to be used that way. Its typically a macro-economic term that compares consumer spending to GDP. The concept doesn't really care who is spending the dollar, simply looks at the dollars being spent.

On the other hand, it probably not arguable that consumer spending is in a relative low point at present. Lack of faith in the economy has been keeping both capital expenditures and personal expenditures on the sidelines.

The recipe for countering that would be get the economy growing again. It seems that we've been asked to accept a 3 - 4% economic growth rate as the "new normal" but that's not going to fix consumer spending or push GDP upward. I'm also not sure exactly how a Bernie Sanders economic plan would fix any of this either.

Lets disregard economic terms for the time being and deal with basics.

What needs to be establish here is whether the top is returning sufficient to the American economic for it to grow and promote consumer spending.

And BTW lack of faith in what?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Personal expenditures are on the sidelines because we have too many people working shit jobs that they can't even survive on without going into debt, let alone have anything left over for disposable income.

You're talking about the symptom but not the disease.

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

As for capital expenditures we have the 1% ers sitting on trillions of dollars of cash which they aren't using except to create a stock market bubble. We now have 35 years worth of experience with Reagan's trickle down economic theory and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that it has failed miserably.

Trickle down died circa 1991. You're living in the past.

As for the 1%'ers sitting on cash, that's because the climate for investment and risking capital is lousy. Wriston's law still applies: capital will go where it is wanted and stay where it is well treated. Doesn't say much for an economic environment where money is treated best when it stays on the sidelines. Until that changes, I suspect we'll continue to have more folks "working in shit jobs."

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

And you Whelly, all you are is just another Carnival Barker blowing smoke out your ass in an effort to sell the same worthless snake oil that the right wing has been pedaling since Reagan was elected.

You go boy. Get on board that Bern bus and go light a fire for the revolution.