You simply cannot apply the same ideas that make sense for a home or a business at a national scale. It's like Newtonian physics. It works perfectly well at a scale we are used to (humans, cars, buildings, etc) but it completely breaks down when things get either very small (particles) or very large (stars, black holes, etc).

Do you have any links to a thorough explanation of why this is? I know at least one person who is much better versed in economics (and indeed, an entire political party in Canada!) who believes otherwise.

It's exactly as he described. Our markets/hiring/spending practices are speculative, and Austerity destroys them and crashes the market.

Spending for effect is a key principle of Keysnian economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Because Spending is what props up our markets. It would make no sense for an individual to throw their money into the economy, but the government must to keep it functioning.

I don't mean "why austerity is bad" specifically, I mean more why the government shouldn't treat their budget the way an individual would.

Because when governments spend money, a percentage of that money comes back to them in the form of taxes.

If the government gives a company $100million to build a road, then they have to pay their workers wages.

That gets taxed and comes back to the government.

The workers go out and buy goods and services, and probably some drinks. The government collects sales tax, duty, etc.

The goods bought by the workers (and the materials for the road) enable other parts of the economy to keep going, thereby generating more revenue for the government.

That simply doesn't happen on a household scale.

If you go out and spend $100 on alcohol... well, you're drunk, you're $100 worse off and the government collects a few dollars in duty or excise.

Sure, but the workers and the people they pay still keep some of the money. Surely not all of the money comes back, and the money that doesn't go back just accumulates? Shouldn't we care about that? What you're arguing is like, I spend $100 on alcohol, the store gives me $80 back, and now I'm only down $20. 5 trips to the liquor store later, I'm still down $100, it just took longer.

Is there a more expansive explanation? You know, with data and math proofs and such that one could wave in somebody's face. Bearing in mind not everyone is a Keynesian, I think data and proofs therefrom would be most convincing. I can't really point someone trained in economics more than I at forum posts here and be like "this is why you're wrong." ;)

Sure, but the workers and the people they pay still keep some of the money. Surely not all of the money comes back, and the money that doesn't go back just accumulates? Shouldn't we care about that? What you're arguing is like, I spend $100 on alcohol, the store gives me $80 back, and now I'm only down $20. 5 trips to the liquor store later, I'm still down $100, it just took longer.

Is there a more expansive explanation? You know, with data and math proofs and such that one could wave in somebody's face. Bearing in mind not everyone is a Keynesian, I think data and proofs therefrom would be most convincing. I can't really point someone trained in economics more than I at forum posts here and be like "this is why you're wrong." ;)

Certain forms of taxes, such as sales tax, can apply repeatedly. The idea behind Keynesian economics is that encouraging the circulation of money through things like forcing down unemployment stimulates growth and magically pays off deficits. Of course, much like with its trickle-down cousin, the merits of Keynesian economics are largely folklore, the only questionable success (that I'm aware of) coinciding with literally the largest war in human history.

Keynesians aren't alone in this problem though; most economic theories lack serious irrefutable success stories.

Certain forms of taxes, such as sales tax, can apply repeatedly. The idea behind Keynesian economics is that encouraging the circulation of money through things like forcing down unemployment stimulates growth and magically pays off deficits. Of course, much like with its trickle-down cousin, the merits of Keynesian economics are largely folklore, the only questionable success (that I'm aware of) coinciding with literally the largest war in human history.

Keynesians aren't alone in this problem though; most economic theories lack serious irrefutable success stories.

Agreed, there's a reason that economics is often referred to as a "black art". FWIW, I don't wholly endorse Keynesian economics either, but what I do know is that austerity definitely doesn't work.

Sorry to be late.

Won’t America wake up?

Why do Americans hate a good economy?

The majority of people the world over don't understand the hidden-in-plain-sight mechanics of monetary inflation/deflation, because they are (ironically) too distracted trying to survive week to week financially.

Those who do know how it works (and want to inform others), cannot compete with the various 'noises' that dominates media today. It almost seems to be considered as a taboo topic.

There is a slow, yet (un)alarming, shift of automation into the commercial sector, which is beginning to/or already has begun to displace jobs at a faster rate than jobs can be created.

Mass unemployment may finally force people to rethink how the economy actually functions and the 'guarantees' that need to be set in place for there to be greater stability.

Until there is a more general awareness -or- until certain concepts become common knowledge, causing a change of the main topic in politics; it really won't matter who is running/elected to be President.

That was only Part A. On the other side of the coin, there seems to be a lack of multi-generational planning. But I'll leave that alone since it is a discussion that upsets people the most, though I don't understand why.

1. Bernie is too much of a nice, cool, honest and gentle personalty who plays by the rules, to face Donald Trump.

Can he withstand the nastiness of Donald Trump?

Yes

It would have the opposite effect than it had on the republican nominees and work in Bernie Sanders' favour.

2. Is he physically strong enough for this job?

Yes.

But Bernie Sanders would be 75 when/if he becomes president, can he last 4 years, not to talk of running for a second term??

Don Rickles is 89 and still sharp as ever.

And he too is a... man.

Money is very much like water in a way with how our current economy functions. Sitting still, it does nothing. It isn't being used, nothing is being traded, more and more people start to run low on it and those who have any left spend less of it because they too don't want to run out and then be left with nothing like those poor sods who have run out of bits of paper or digital entries on a computer. And of course, without those bits of paper or digital notes on some super special computer, we can't possibly DO anything. It would be totally illogical to do things like just give someone land and tools and seeds and help them grow food. Or just help someone repair their home. Of course not, that would be beyond silly and stupid if they can't provide you with an ever increasing amount of magical beans.

But if you have a large enough group, such as a government, forcing projects and spending that ensure a large number of people with little money still get some and can still keep buying things, well then that money cycles.

Just like there isn't an infinite amount of water in the sky to fall down as rain, collect in your well, which you then drink, pass through your body, and then flush away from a toilet... Well, governments don't have an infinite amount of money that they can just keep spending. Instead, they spend some and focus on building up speed and energy in the economy. They get some of it back which they can fire into the economy again and get the wheel turning faster and faster. The more the wheel turns, the more a government can collect to fire back into it and spin it even faster.

And thanks to inflation, debt isn't really as serious a problem as some make it out to be, assuming things work well. "You can't borrow your way out of debt!" is true for a household, but a household doesn't collect a bit of money off nearly every last transaction that goes on in the country. Debt can keep growing and a country can stay well ahead of it, if the economic growth stays ahead of the debt growth. The amount of debt isn't what one needs to worry about, even if it grows into the quadrillions of dollars. The ratio of debt is the critical factor.

Of course, humanity is going to have to sit down and reevaluate how it conducts economics, because our current system has become far too fragile and chaotic to have much hope of surviving the next hundred years of automation and AI advancement without an exceptionally high risk of some nasty bloodshed and revolution. And I for one LIKE big shiny metal robots that do cool things, and would prefer to not see them smashed just so that humans can go back to having jobs and thinking they're better off than serfs and medieval peasants were.

Well.... long story put short....

I am done with supporting a political class which sells the USA to the world, wants NO Borders, loves unrestricted MASS immigration, and bypasses our USA Constitution with Globalism such as TPP (which never was put before the voters and Congress did not review it before it was approved).

For the previous and other betrayals by the traitors in the Capitol and the capitals of the states of this great union, I am voting

Donald Trump for President

Hillary Clinton for Prison

Bernie Sanders for the dust heap of Marxism history

I am done with supporting a political class which sells the USA to the world, wants NO Borders, loves unrestricted MASS immigration, and bypasses our USA Constitution with Globalism such as TPP (which never was put before the voters and Congress did not review it before it was approved).

For the previous and other betrayals by the traitors in the Capitol and the capitals of the states of this great union, I am voting

Donald Trump for President

Hillary Clinton for Prison

Bernie Sanders for the dust heap of Marxism history

Be careful what you wish for,

US needs the rest of the world as much as the rest of the world needs the US. Trump will give you more than you wish for... he will sink the US into oblivion