Bill Maher Right Liberals Too Tolerant of Muslims?
Bill Maher argued liberals are too tolerant of muslim mistreatment of women and too sensitive to gender inequality issues in our own country, using the example of Yale University atheists rescindin...
By: LiberalViewer
Read the original:
Bill Maher Right Liberals Too Tolerant of Muslims? - Video
Boom: This TV Star Just Unleashed An Epic Must-See Rant That Liberals Will Hate
Boom: This TV Star Just Unleashed An Epic Must-See Rant That Liberals Will Hate.
By: gyth567
Continue reading here:
Boom: This TV Star Just Unleashed An Epic Must-See Rant That Liberals Will Hate - Video
Paul Krugman recently complained that the rich were going back to the days of conspicuous consumption. While I sympathize with the pain caused to non-rich liberals when the rich live large, I do wish they would make up their mind about what they want the rich to do.
Krugman is complaining that the rich are spending their money and enjoying the spoils of their hard work and success. This is odd because usually the liberals complain that income inequality is bad because the rich do not spend enough of their money. Liberals, adherents to Keynesian economics, incorrectly believe that consumption (spending) is good for the economy and saving (which leads to investment) is bad.
The idea seems to be that money which is spent boosts the economy, but money which is saved disappears. It is as if the liberals believed that the rich kept their savings either stuffed in their mattresses or buried in their backyards. Yet I promise you that Paul Krugman does not keep his savings in a mattress or backyard. In reality, everyones savings are taken by banks and lent out to somebody else who wants to spend it. Thus, saving is just as good for the economy as spending.
Liberals have made a habit of supporting income redistribution because of the fact that the poor will spend all of the money they receive, while the rich save too much. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly declared extended unemployment benefits a stimulus program under her theory that the recipients would spend all the money (unlike the rich who were explicitly or implicitly blamed for hurting the economy with their lack of spending).
Paul Krugman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Yet the money to fund those benefits came from government borrowing, meaning that a rich person had to save the money first. If nobody ever saved money, the government could not borrow it. In that sense, it should be obvious that saving is equally good for the economy as spending since one is easily transformed into the other through either the miracle of government redistribution or a bank loan.
Just in case anyone tries to escape this simple point on a technicality, lets get technical for a minute. If I spend a dollar, one dollar goes into the economy. If I save a dollar, not quite the whole dollar gets lent out because banks have to keep some in case their depositors want to withdraw some of their money. On average, a fair number is that 10 cents gets lost from the economy as bank reserves while 90 cents gets borrowed and then spent. This makes it look like spending is, indeed, better than saving.
Unfortunately, it is not so simple. Some of what we buy consists of imports. When you buy an imported product, some of the money leaves the economy to pay for the imported products. Across the entire U.S. economy, imports equal 17 percent of GDP. That means spending is actually worse for our economy than saving (in the sense of more money disappearing from circulation). So actually, the economy might grow faster if we redistributed income from the poor to the rich (not that I am suggesting that).
In fact, the advantage to rich peoples money is even bigger. It turns out that poor people spend their money mostly on things (food, shelter, clothing) while the rich spend a higher percentage of their money on services (spa days, personal chefs, luxury travel). This implies a higher percentage of the poors spending is on imports because generally you import goods, not services. The poor are shopping at Walmart where many products are imported while the rich are spending their money on domestic services like manicures. This makes a rich persons spending potentially even better for economic growth because more of it stays in the economy.
The morale of this story is that income distribution does not matter for economic growth. Yes, rich people save more money than poor people, but that is good for the economy, not bad. Rich people also buy fewer imports, which is also good for the economy. Redistributing income from rich people to poor people does not boost the economy. Yes, it produces more consumer spending and less saving, but that just means less investing and borrowing. In the short run, it has little effect on GDP because consumption and investment both count the same. In the long run, less saving, investing, and borrowing means fewer jobs and a poorer nation. Thus, redistribution actually has no effect initially and makes future generations poorer (Robert Solow won the 1987 Nobel Prize in economics for this, so it is not exactly a recent breakthrough in economic knowledge; Paul Krugman has undoubtedly taught students that very fact).
Here is the original post:
Paul Krugman And Liberals Need To Decide If They Want The Rich To Spend Or Save Their Money
The Liberals and the New Democrats were staking out their positions Thursday ahead of a coming vote in Parliament on the question of whether Canada should enter a combat mission against extremists in northern Iraq.
The House of Commons is expected to wrestle with the issue next week, once Prime Minister Stephen Harpers Conservative government lays out what shape it wants the mission to take.
Though parliamentary approval isnt necessary in order to send soldiers into combat or to participate in airstrikes, Harper has already indicated the matter will be subject to both a debate and a vote in the House.
The timing of both remains unclear, although government House leader Peter Van Loan told the Commons on Thursday that routine proceedings would be disrupted next week as a result of the Iraq debate.
The details of a motion that would be the subject of that debate are expected as early as Friday.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said the government has been murky at best in disclosing the truth about Canadas contribution of special forces advisers, a mission with a 30-day window set to close Saturday. As a result, he said, its hard to trust what Harper says about the next steps.
It would interesting to hear some straight answers from the Conservatives, Mulcair said. A lot of what theyve been telling Canadians has been duplicitous on things that are easily verifiable.
It wasnt until earlier this week the government specified that of the 69 special-forces members committed to the operation, only 26 are currently there.
It is believed that what Harper will propose next will be a contribution of fighter aircraft to join the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the militant al-Qaida splinter group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Mulcair didnt entirely rule out the NDP backing such a plan.
Here is the original post:
Liberals, NDP plan debate strategy on Iraq mission
Canada could be sending its military into a combat mission in Iraq over the objections of both opposition parties, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper tells the House of Commons Friday what his governments next steps are in the campaign to stop ISIL extremists.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau issued broad hints Thursday that his party, like the NDP, wont be on-side with a combat role.
On Thursday evening the opposition parties were informed that Harper will deliver a statement in the House on Friday outlining Canadas additional support for counter-terrorism efforts against ISIL, said the Prime Ministers Office.
This group has made direct terrorist threats against Canada and Canadians, in addition to carrying out atrocities against children, women, and men in the region, said Harpers spokesman, Jason MacDonald.
As the prime minister has said before, when we recognize a threat like this that must be addressed, and that involves Canadian interests, we do our part.
He said Harpers statement will outline Canadas contribution to thecounter-terrorism operation, as well as our ongoing humanitarian support. A motion will be introduced in Parliament thatMPs will debate, and vote on, Monday.
In a speech at a conference hosted by think-tank Canada 2020 Thursday, Trudeau agreed that this country must play a role in the battle against ISIL. The Liberal leader spoke in favour of Canada helpingin a variety of ways: non-combat training; airlift transport; medical aid; and humanitarian aid for refugees.
But he said Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not yet explained why a combat mission involving CF-18 fighter bombers should be part of the Canadian response to the crisis.
Trudeauaccused the prime minister of playing politics and refusing to address key questions.
Mr. Harper is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq. He needs to justify that. He has not made the case for it. He hasnt even tried, Trudeau said.
See the original post here:
Liberals hint they'll oppose combat mission in Iraq