Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Icelandic Recovery

42 posts in this topic

Posted

There was some congressman saying here how unemployment was a good investment because of someone being able to buy

welfare stimulates the economy, yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Even shorter answer. Because Iceland is very small and in no way comparable to the US.

you see because america is bigger it's totally unfeasible to throw bankers under the fuging prisons

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, I'm sorry DD, I can't agree with that... As Floppin said, I view it as a microcosm of our own system, and therefore, the policies implemented adjusted to scale should still yield the same or extremely similar results. And the big takeaway from their story regardless is that we are doing the opposite of what would turn our entire economy and system around, and our leaders continue to try to force a square peg into a round hole, knowing it's destined to collapse... But, hey, the top 1% are able to keep padding their pockets, so kewl beans.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

welfare stimulates the economy, yes

stimulate possibly. but to follow that logic why not have EVERYONE on unemployment?

its a safety net for sure. but someone who is working spends more and has a better shot at upward mobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

stimulate possibly. but to follow that logic why not have EVERYONE on unemployment?

its a safety net for sure. but someone who is working spends more and has a better shot at upward mobility.

no, the logic is that poor people will spend welfare immediately. if rich and middle class people were given the same benefits, they would likely not spend the money as quickly, and they may even save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I mean wouldn't it make way more sense to bail out the people? In the end, whatever measures are taken are supposed to be about the preservation and well being of the people, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

no, the logic is that poor people will spend welfare immediately. if rich and middle class people were given the same benefits, they would likely not spend the money as quickly, and they may even save it.

i don't know man. thats not giving the poor enough credit and the rich/middle too much. i have heard that as well.

this is why i say our biggest and best way out of our financial woes is simply more people working. they buy or save but they are getting taxed or fees or using or buying goods that helps somebody else who buys or saves or buys other stuff and so on. not talking trickle down either. this is a variation of a Keynesian mulitplier effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what does that even mean? "not giving them enough credit"? it's not that they're too dumb to save the money or whatever; it's that they have to spend it on necessities. $100 means a whole hell of a lot more to someone living below the poverty line than it means to someone netting $50k a year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

also, yes, higher employment is always ideal, as is a higher minimum wage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hey, out of curiosity. Why the fug was my earlier post deleted from this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i didn't like your tone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what does that even mean? "not giving them enough credit"? it's not that they're too dumb to save the money or whatever; it's that they have to spend it on necessities. $100 means a whole hell of a lot more to someone living below the poverty line than it means to someone netting $50k a year

but if both are getting u/e it is relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites