Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Icelandic Recovery


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
41 replies to this topic

#13 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

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


welfare stimulates the economy, yes

#14 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

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

#15 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 17,715
  • Reputation: 5,631
Moderators

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

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.

#16 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,934
  • Reputation: 3,143
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:35 PM

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.

#17 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:37 PM

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.

#18 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:40 PM

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?

#19 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,934
  • Reputation: 3,143
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:37 PM

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.

#20 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:40 PM

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

#21 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:41 PM

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

#22 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,976
  • Reputation: 3,496
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:42 PM

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

#23 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,934
  • Reputation: 3,143
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:44 PM

i didn't like your tone

#24 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,934
  • Reputation: 3,143
HUDDLER

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:44 PM

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.