Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions by kpo

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YOO HOOO!!!

* waves handkerchief*

Thread still waiting for a single conservative idea!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 20, 2014 9:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Basically, you have doubts that any theory works. That includes yours, correct?

Nope. Not correct.

I don't have a theory about what particular actions to take to end a recession. As I've noted again and again, I am doubtful that any of the actions proposed by various theories can be shown to have been the sole cure for recessions.

Your question is like asking me how many angels I believe can dance on the head of a pin, when I've said I don't believe in angels.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 20, 2014 10:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
To beat a point to its logical death- as I have stated in many posts over several threads by now, you can't prove a hypothesis because hypotheses can't be universally tested. You CAN, however, disprove them because a single countervailing instance can cause a hypothesis to fail.

So the hypothesis is that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions.

All it takes to disprove the hypothesis is one conservative idea on what to do about recessions (or depressions, I would add). I don't think I've seen any. What I've read, several times over, is that in fact it's impossible to formulate ANY ideas from the data at-hand. So far, the hypothesis stands.

As noted in the original article, and cited over and over again:

Quote:
To be clear, conservatives absolutely do have an economic policy agenda. They favor lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery. They favor these policies now, they favored them in 2008, and they favored them in 2004.

That is, conservatives favor the same set of economic policies when the economy is weak and when it is strong; when unemployment is high and when it is low; when few homeowners are facing foreclosure and when many are. The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles.

So the conservatives apparently do have ideas what to do about recessions - follow their economic policy agenda. The fact that their ideas do not require a change in policy during a recession doesn't mean they don't have an idea.

As to whether this idea is any more or less effective than any other idea, that's pretty much my question.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 20, 2014 10:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
YOO HOOO!!!

* waves handkerchief*

Thread still waiting for a single conservative idea!!!

Just continue to ignore the one I've been quoting since the beginning of this thread.

Since, despite your claim that you want to discuss the relative merits of economic theories in re recessions, you don't seem to be willing to do that, I guess we're done here.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:15 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Once again, the conservative idea is not to do anything different than business as usual in response to a recession.

You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there. I simply asked you to provide the same standard of evidence that I've supplied for government spending spurring growth. Or else accept your claim is bunk.

Quote:
So there will be no BIG spending cuts during a recession. Regular conservative economic policy

And yet there HAVE been examples of BIG spending cuts in a recession. Care to hear how GDP reacted?

Quote:
One might also wonder if the reason the recessions during Coolidge's administration were so small (as you noted) was due to his conservative economic policy.

Or they might realise that there was no massive financial crisis that preceded them, and not try to compare them to the Great Depression.

Quote:
Anyone would have to agree that if you throw enough money out there, some of it will be spent to hire new folks.

If you accept that large stimulus packages work, there's really no logic to dismiss the idea that small stimuli work just as well (if not better), in proportion to their size. The only difference is that with big stimuli the effect is too big for you to ignore, and dismiss. But it proves the principle.

Quote:
More to the point of effectiveness, looking at the responses to Question B, less than half agree that the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.

46% agree that benefits of the stimulus will exceed costs, to 12% who disagree. Nearly 4-1 in favour of the stimulus. For an issue that's as politicised as this one, that's a very strong result, in favour of Keynesianism.

Quote:
That paper tracks the length and severity of financial crises. The name "Keynes" is not found in it. Not sure it links the actions above to Keynes.

What was your point in giving that list of policies, and asking if it was Keynesian?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

Your own example of the 1920s contradicts you.

If you take that statement out of context, maybe.

How is that out of context??

Quote:
So the idea is to boost the economy by government spending during recessions and then throttle back when things get back on track.

The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

I can understand this point as a human tendency, but not as a hard and fast rule. And I think you're failing to differentiate between stimulus spending, which is short term, not open-ended by definition, and general government spending.

For example the US right now could ramp up infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy, at the same time as it carries out entitlement reform to tackle the budget deficit. It could (and arguably, should) do both things together. Spending might spike up in the short term, but would go down in the medium/long term.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:12 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there. I simply asked you to provide the same standard of evidence that I've supplied for government spending spurring growth. Or else accept your claim is bunk.

No I did not.

I stated that Coolidge's policy was to cut spending and taxes, the same thing your article cited as conservative economic policy. He did this as standard conservative policy, and made no changes to this policy during a recession. I told you this before, but apparently you just cannot accept the idea that government is incapable of leaping into action (of some sort) in response to a recession.

Quote:
Quote:
So there will be no BIG spending cuts during a recession. Regular conservative economic policy

And yet there HAVE been examples of BIG spending cuts in a recession. Care to hear how GDP reacted?

Yep. Obviously you didn't read my sentence quoted above, or were incapable of understanding what it meant.

Also didn't note the cite above about GDP going up during the Coolidge administration, when, as I think we've established, spending went down.

Quote:
Quote:
One might also wonder if the reason the recessions during Coolidge's administration were so small (as you noted) was due to his conservative economic policy.

Or they might realise that there was no massive financial crisis that preceded them, and not try to compare them to the Great Depression.

But isn't the liberal solution supposed to be the only solution to recession, big or small? If Coolidge's 'solution' of following general conservative economic policy, and not reacting to recession by changing anything, worked, as it did (the recessions went away), apparently the liberal solution isn't the only solution.

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone would have to agree that if you throw enough money out there, some of it will be spent to hire new folks.

If you accept that large stimulus packages work, there's really no logic to dismiss the idea that small stimuli work just as well (if not better), in proportion to their size. The only difference is that with big stimuli the effect is too big for you to ignore, and dismiss. But it proves the principle.

But I don't accept that large stimulus packages work. Just because a lot of extra money spent increases employment somewhat doesn't mean the package is working.

Quote:
Quote:
More to the point of effectiveness, looking at the responses to Question B, less than half agree that the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.

46% agree that benefits of the stimulus will exceed costs, to 12% who disagree. Nearly 4-1 in favour of the stimulus. For an issue that's as politicised as this one, that's a very strong result, in favour of Keynesianism.

So since it's a politicized issue, should we accept these figures at all, considering the overwhelming support of liberal thinking in universities?

Quote:
Quote:
That paper tracks the length and severity of financial crises. The name "Keynes" is not found in it. Not sure it links the actions above to Keynes.

What was your point in giving that list of policies, and asking if it was Keynesian?

Just wanted to see if you thought that the liberal ideas as to what to do about recessions, as stated in the article, aligned with Keynes' ideas.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

Your own example of the 1920s contradicts you.

If you take that statement out of context, maybe.

How is that out of context??

Quote:
So the idea is to boost the economy by government spending during recessions and then throttle back when things get back on track.

The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

I can understand this point as a human tendency, but not as a hard and fast rule. And I think you're failing to differentiate between stimulus spending, which is short term, not open-ended by definition, and general government spending.

Interesting that you pretend not to understand the context by leaving out the sentence that provides it.

"Federal spending has done nothing but increase since shortly after the de-militarization decrease following WWII."

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:07 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there.

No I did not.

You absolutely did. And you did so again in this very post I'm replying to.

Quote:
He did this as standard conservative policy, and made no changes to this policy during a recession. I told you this before

I understood it the first time. Please feel free not to repeat it again. I never said he changed policy, I said he cut spending, which is a continuation of policy.

Quote:
Also didn't note the cite above about GDP going up during the Coolidge administration, when, as I think we've established, spending went down.

There it is.

Quote:
If Coolidge's 'solution' of following general conservative economic policy, and not reacting to recession by changing anything, worked, as it did (the recessions went away)

Who says it worked? Who says the spending cuts didn't cause those economic slumps, and then prolong them? This idea that a recession going away proves that every policy that was tried during it worked... I don't even know where to start with it. Especially when you apply it to 1929-1933.

Quote:
But I don't accept that large stimulus packages work.

This is you earlier, conceding that large stimulus works:

Geezer: "...until WWII came along and bailed the Keynesians out."

Quote:
Just because a lot of extra money spent increases employment somewhat doesn't mean the package is working.

Increased employment, increased growth... these aren't good enough for you? You demand more in a stimulus package?

Quote:
So since it's a politicized issue, should we accept these figures at all, considering the overwhelming support of liberal thinking in universities?

Economists voting 4:1 in favour of the ARRA. The result is even stronger if you weigh the respondents' answers according to their confidence.

Quote:
Interesting that you pretend not to understand the context by leaving out the sentence that provides it.

"Federal spending has done nothing but increase since shortly after the de-militarization decrease following WWII ."

You're backtracking, but I don't mind. The key thing is that there ARE examples of governments increasing spending in the short term, and then cutting back.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:56 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there.

No I did not.

You absolutely did. And you did so again in this very post I'm replying to.

Quote:
He did this as standard conservative policy, and made no changes to this policy during a recession. I told you this before

I understood it the first time. Please feel free not to repeat it again. I never said he changed policy, I said he cut spending, which is a continuation of policy.

Okay. I can only assume you're purposefully being obtuse on this issue, since the whole point of the discussion is governments doing something different than business as usual in response to recessions. Coolidge did not do anything different than the conservative business as usual, i.e. reducing spending and cutting taxes, during the recessions that occurred while he was in office.

I can only assume from this tack that you actually have nothing, and are going to continue to pretend to misunderstand my points in the hope that I'll eventually get tired of your obfuscation and smoke blowing and give up.

'fraid not.

Quote:
Quote:
Also didn't note the cite above about GDP going up during the Coolidge administration, when, as I think we've established, spending went down.

There it is.

So spending cuts, as part of overall conservative economic policy, not related to or in response to recessions, make GDP go up. Not seeing your point if you think increased spending cures recessions.

Quote:
Quote:
If Coolidge's 'solution' of following general conservative economic policy, and not reacting to recession by changing anything, worked, as it did (the recessions went away)

Who says it worked? Who says the spending cuts didn't cause those economic slumps, and then prolong them? This idea that a recession going away proves that every policy that was tried during it worked... I don't even know where to start with it. Especially when you apply it to 1929-1933.

Or none of the policies worked, which is my point. Spending goes down as part of standard conservative economic policy. Recession ends. Spending goes up as liberal response to recession. recession ends. Maybe recessions just end regardless of what happens.

Quote:
Quote:
But I don't accept that large stimulus packages work.

This is you earlier, conceding that large stimulus works:

Geezer: "...until WWII came along and bailed the Keynesians out."

And you're back to needing a world war to end a recession/depression. Great plan.

Quote:
Quote:
Just because a lot of extra money spent increases employment somewhat doesn't mean the package is working.

Increased employment, increased growth... these aren't good enough for you? You demand more in a stimulus package?

Depends on how much. also depends on if you can provide substantial evidence that the spending alone is responsible for enough growth to end the recession.

Quote:
Quote:
So since it's a politicized issue, should we accept these figures at all, considering the overwhelming support of liberal thinking in universities?

Economists voting 4:1 in favour of the ARRA. The result is even stronger if you weigh the respondents' answers according to their confidence.

Got a breakdown of which school these economists follow? Unless you can show that your cited figures don't come mainly from Keynesians and related schools, your data is suspect.

Quote:
Interesting that you pretend not to understand the context by leaving out the sentence that provides it.

Quote:
"Federal spending has done nothing but increase since shortly after the de-militarization decrease following WWII ."

You're backtracking, but I don't mind. The key thing is that there ARE examples of governments increasing spending in the short term, and then cutting back.

Not in the U.S. And the article you cited is about political groups in the U.S.

So once again...

My position is that, given the complexities of all the elements included in the economic state of the U.S., or the world, it's not possible to provide convincing evidence that any one particular economic theory ends recessions faster, with less negative economic fallout (government debt, loss of jobs, etc.), and with less risk of failure than any other.

Anyone proposing that any particular theory does meet these criteria should first provide a generally agreed to definition of that theory, and then show how the application of the theory, and no other factors, accomplished the end of several specific recessions, and did so meeting the criteria above (faster, less impact, less risk of failure).

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the one I've been quoting since the beginning of this thread.

Which idea is that? Whatever it is, you've undercut your own idea by saying it's impossible to have ANY ideas about the topic. If you have an idea and you think it's worthwhile, you should show us the reasoning why YOUR idea is worthwhile when all other ideas aren't.

Quote:
Okay. I can only assume you're purposefully being obtuse on this issue, since the whole point of the discussion is governments doing something different than business as usual in response to recessions.

Whether the government continues "business as usual" or does something different than usual, government is doing SOMETHING.

Let me give you a medical example: In the case of a raging infection we could do nothing ("stay the course") like we've done for most of our history. Since that has been our historical default, some would say that is the obvious and benign response. Or we could give an antibiotic. There are risks and benefits to consider when administering an antibiotic. But there are also risks and benefits to consider when NOT administering an antibiotic. When a person (or government) actually HAS a choice ... more than one course of action is realistically available... then "doing nothing" is, in fact, doing something. One actually has to defend the idea of "doing nothing different" as a course of action since other courses of action are available.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 11:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So geezer, as you might have figured out by now, I HAVE been responding to your idea, over and over (and over and over) again. Since you haven't been explicit about "your idea" and its logic, I'll have to interpret it for you.

What you seem to be saying is "When in doubt, do nothing". And since- according to you- everything is in doubt- by default we should freeze our actions 100% of the time. We should never try anything different. In other words, by analogy you're arguing for not administering an antibiotic (see above example).

But since there are choices, there really is no such thing as "doing nothing". You can choose to administer an antibiotic- which you will have to argue the benefits and risks. You can also choose to not administer an antibiotic, but that ALSO requires a risk-benefit analysis.

Either way, you're obligated to demonstrate that your choice is the preferable option. I don't expect an answer, because it seems to me that you've talked yourself into a corner by saying this is all unknowable and no ideas can be discussed (including yours). You're suggesting that we take the position "When in doubt, do nothing", but are unable to explain how this is a reasonable view. You're therefore unable to disprove the thread title.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
the one I've been quoting since the beginning of this thread.
Which idea is that? Whatever it is, you've undercut your own idea by saying it's impossible to have ANY ideas about the topic. If you have an idea and you think it's worthwhile, you should show us the reasoning why YOUR idea is worthwhile when all other ideas aren't.

So you're going to play KPO's game.

The idea, as stated in the original article, is this.

Quote:
That is, conservatives favor the same set of economic policies when the economy is weak and when it is strong; when unemployment is high and when it is low; when few homeowners are facing foreclosure and when many are. The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles.

----

Quote:
Whether the government continues "business as usual" or does something different than usual, government is doing SOMETHING.

But that's not the point of the article. Liberals have a specific plan as to what to do different during recessions. They will increase deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector, ease monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand, and make mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption. They will do (if not already being done) or increase, these things in response to recession.

Conservatives do not make any changes in their economic policy during a recession, believing that recessions will end without additional action or intervention.

The author of the article seems to be suggesting that since conservatives don't do anything different during a recession, they have no ideas what to do about it. I figure that conservatives think that not changing their economic policy is the best idea as to what to do about a recession.

Of course you already understand this, and are joining the KPO train of diversion, dissembling, and feigned lack of understanding.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Conservatives do not make any changes in their economic policy during a recession, believing that recessions will end without additional action or intervention.

What it seems to me is that conservatives (or you, at least) have a belief. If they have "an idea", they (or you, at least, since you're standing in for conservatives) seem unable to explain it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:13 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Conservatives do not make any changes in their economic policy during a recession, believing that recessions will end without additional action or intervention.
What it seems to me is that conservatives (or you, at least) have a belief. If they have "an idea", they (or you, at least, since you're standing in for conservatives) seem unable to explain it.

It's nice of you to provide your own troll sign. Saves me the trouble.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Conservatives do not make any changes in their economic policy during a recession, believing that recessions will end without additional action or intervention.- Geezer

What it seems to me is that conservatives (or you, at least) have a belief. If they have "an idea", they (or you, at least, since you're standing in for conservatives) seem unable to explain it.-signy

It's nice of you to provide your own troll sign. Saves me the trouble.-Geezer

Geezer, I'm using your own words. That doesn't make me the troll here. If you don't like the words you chose, that's your problem not mine. It's like KIKI said Oh, the HORROR of being quoted!

Now, if you think conservatives have an "idea", not a "belief" then let's come to a common definition of these two terms and then you can explain the "idea" part. I'm all ears. In fact, that's what I've been hoping for: an explanation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:48 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Geezer, I'm using your own words. That doesn't make me the troll here.

When you purposefully fail to understand them, it does.

From your take on "believe", am I to understand that liberals will follow their ideas and increase deficit spending during a recession without actually believing it will work?

More smoke, mirrors, and ambiguities on your part, since you have nothing of substance to add.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

ETA: and just to state it again...

(Not that I think it'll ever get discussed among all the distractions, deceptions, and small crimson fish KPO and SignyM deploy at every opportunity)

Quote:
My position is that, given the complexities of all the elements included in the economic state of the U.S., or the world, it's not possible to provide convincing evidence that any one particular economic theory ends recessions faster, with less negative economic fallout (government debt, loss of jobs, etc.), and with less risk of failure than any other.

Anyone proposing that any particular theory does meet these criteria should first provide a generally agreed to definition of that theory, and then show how the application of the theory, and no other factors, accomplished the end of several specific recessions, and did so meeting the criteria above (faster, less impact, less risk of failure).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 2:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Liberals and other economic activists have hypotheses and mechanisms by which they THINK it will work. There is feedback between what is suggested, what is done, and the effects of that action which informs future ideas and future actions.

Conservatives appear to have no explanation at all for why they choose one set of actions over another- in fact, conservatives (you, in any case) disavow even the possibility of reaching an understanding about how economies work. Since your proposed course of action is not supported by any kind of evidence- in fact, you think the evidence is too complicated to be understood- that is the very definition of a belief: an idea for which no evidence can be found.

To quote

Quote:
My position is that, given the complexities of all the elements included in the economic state of the U.S., or the world, it's not possible to provide convincing evidence that any one particular economic theory ends recessions faster, with less negative economic fallout (government debt, loss of jobs, etc.), and with less risk of failure than any other.

Anyone proposing that any particular theory does meet these criteria should first provide a generally agreed to definition of that theory, and then show how the application of the theory, and no other factors, accomplished the end of several specific recessions, and did so meeting the criteria above (faster, less impact, less risk of failure).

YOU have proposed a course of action, whether you accept it as a theory or not. YOUR theory is Do nothing different. What you cannot do, apparently, is show how the application of the theory, and no other factors, accomplished the end of several specific recessions. You can't show it in the data, and you can't even explain how it's supposed to work theoretically.

There is no such thing as government action or inaction having no effect on the economy one way or another. Whatever you propose- add more money or don't add more money or take money out of circulation, or decrease taxes or increase taxes or keep taxes the same, or increase spending or decrease spending or keep spending the same or do away with the government altogether - will have an effect on the economy. If you propose a course of action, even if that proposal is "Stay the course", you need to show that it is preferable to the myriad of other possible courses of action that might be taken. There is no such thing as being neutral, no matter WHAT you choose. It's possible that staying the course is indeed the best possible course of action, but you haven't demonstrated it, and you seem to be saying that NOTHING can be demonstrated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 2:14 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Liberals and other economic activists have hypotheses and mechanisms by which they THINK it will work. There is feedback between what is suggested, what is done, and the effects of that action which informs future ideas and future actions.

And I'm just supposed to take your word for this? Show some evidence. The article doesn't.

Oh. I forgot. You can't 'prove' anything.

Quote:
Conservatives appear to have no explanation at all for why they choose one set of actions over another

Seems quite an assumption on your part, considering there are any number of conservative schools of economic thought.

Quote:
Since your proposed course of action...

Interesting statement, since I've proposed no economic course of action.

Blow all the smoke you want. You apparently are unable to defend liberal ideas in response to recessions.

My position is that you can't show with a high degree of certainty that ANY economic reaction to recession works.

Your task should be simple, if liberals do have ideas they think will work..

First provide a generally agreed to definition of that theory, and then show how the application of the theory, and no other factors, accomplished the end of several specific recessions, and did so meeting the criteria above (faster, less impact, less risk of failure).

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 2:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seems quite an assumption on your part, considering there are any number of conservative schools of economic thought.

Which you have not only failed to explain, but have severely undercut the possibility of any "school of thought", since (according to you) the data is just too complex for anyone to parse, liberal and conservative alike.

Quote:
Since your proposed course of action...- signy

Interesting statement, since I've proposed no economic course of action. - geezer

Then you're either saying "stay the course" (which is an unsupported belief so far), or you have no ideas whatsoever (looping back to the point of the thread), or you have an idea but you just refuse to tell us what it is.

Maybe you're just a poor representative of conservative thought. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that GEEZER has no idea what to do about recessions?

Quote:
Blow all the smoke you want. You apparently are unable to defend liberal ideas in response to recessions. My position is that you can't show with a high degree of certainty that ANY economic reaction to recession works.

Hmmm. I think I can. But that wasn't the point of the thread, was it? so Blow all the smoke you want. You apparently are unable to defend conservative ideas in response to recessions particularly as you can't seem to come up with any.

Case closed, in your own words.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Seems quite an assumption on your part, considering there are any number of conservative schools of economic thought.
Which you have not only failed to explain, but have severely undercut the possibility of any "school of thought", since (according to you) the data is just too complex for anyone to parse, liberal and conservative alike.

Not my job to explain them. I'm not proposing them as ideas that work on recessions.

Quote:
Since your proposed course of action...- signy

Quote:
Interesting statement, since I've proposed no economic course of action. - geezer
Then you're either saying "stay the course" (which is an unsupported belief so far), or you have no ideas whatsoever (looping back to the point of the thread), or you have an idea but you just refuse to tell us what it is.

Maybe you're just a poor representative of conservative thought. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that GEEZER has no idea what to do about recessions?

Who says I'm trying to represent conservative economic thought? I note what it is, as described by the article KPO cited.

Quote:
Quote:
Blow all the smoke you want. You apparently are unable to defend liberal ideas in response to recessions. My position is that you can't show with a high degree of certainty that ANY economic reaction to recession works.
Hmmm. I think I can. But that wasn't the point of the thread, was it? so Blow all the smoke you want. You apparently are unable to defend conservative ideas in response to recessions particularly as you can't seem to come up with any.

Case closed, in your own words.

I hope you're still purposefully misunderstanding my point, because otherwise you have the attention span of a housefly.

Why should I defend conservative ideas as to what to do about a recession when my position is that it's not possible to show that any ideas, be they liberal or conservative, actually have any significant impact on the length, effects, or recovery from recessions?

Listen, SignyM.

It should be easy for you.

You apparently are convinced that a certain set of actions in response to a recession will reduce its length and impact, and make the recovery more successful.

All you have to do is enumerate this set of actions (although they should probably be similar to those described in the article, since that's my basis for the whole discussion), then show where the application of those actions, and no others, ended recessions under the conditions noted. Then you need to show that other actions, or no action at all, did not end recessions under the conditions noted.

You are convinced/think/trust/believe (take your pick, or provide your own word) that the liberal ideas work. Shouldn't be hard to explain why and provide examples.

Do that and I'll discuss it with you.

Try to make it look like I'm proposing something I'm not, go off on the "Can't Prove" route, drag more red herrings into the discussion, and I'll ignore you.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The point of the thread is that conservatives have NO IDEAS what to do about recessions. You're a conservative. You keep saying over and over again that you have NO IDEAS what to do about recessions. In fact, you just said so- again: Nothing the government can do will make a difference.* You keep proving the point of the thread with every post you make, and despite the fact that you keep trying to turn this into a thread about liberal ideas on recessions, this is one time when the topic is NOT all about me, it's all about you.

Also, if you insist that nothing the government does can make a difference, then the government is free do do anything it wants: print money, not print money, redistribute money- it's all the same. So "staying the course" is just an arbitrary choice which you have no defense for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:29 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The point of the thread is that conservatives have NO IDEAS what to do about recessions. You're a conservative. You keep saying over and over again that you have NO IDEAS what to do about recessions. In fact, you just said so- again. You keep proving the point of the thread with every post you make, and despite the fact that you keep trying to turn this into a thread about liberal ideas on recessions, this is one time when the topic is NOT all about me, it's all about you.

Try to make it look like I'm proposing something I'm not, go off on the "Can't Prove" route, drag more red herrings into the discussion, and I'll ignore you.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What you have proposed, geezer, very clearly, over and over again, is that it is not possible to demonstrate to your satisfaction that ANY policy shortens or reduces the severity of recessions. In your view, no proposals meet your level of proof, and therefore no proposals are likely to be effective. In fact, you've implied that not only is there lack of proof, but that government policies are in fact ineffective in shortening recessions or reducing recessions.

Quote:
Or one might ask if the government actually has anything to do with ending recessions.- geezer

But because you reject the idea that ANY policy makes a difference, you have completely undercut not only the Keynesian approach but also ANY OTHER approach, including the libertarian approach. This is something I've brought up several times.

Quote:
If this is the case- that government policies don't end recessions/ depressions one way or another- then clearly they can't initiate them either. Because, if you can't improve something, you've got no levers to make it worse either. In effect, what you're saying is that government policy has NO effect on economic performance whatsoever. Well, if that is the case, then it doesn't matter WHAT government does. Tax at 100%? Tax at 0%? Print money? Don't print money? Create jobs programs? Tariff imports? Hey, it's all good! Right?

Quote:
Also, if you insist that nothing the government does can make a difference, then the government is free do do anything it wants: print money, not print money, redistribute money- it's all the same. So "staying the course" is just an arbitrary choice which you have no defense for.

So as I've said more than once logically you can't advise to "stay the course"

Quote:
passive response- geezer

because you've got no justification for it, you can't advise to reduce the money supply because you've got no justification for it, you can't argue for

Quote:
lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation

and you can't argue against redistributing wealth you've got no justification for that either. By trying to argue Keynesianism into muteness by demanding "proof" of effectiveness, you've argued libertarianism into muteness as well.

Also, if the government can't in fact shorten recessions or make them less bad by any policy, as you've implied, then it can't make them worse either. Therefore, the government has NO EFFECT on the economy whatsoever- neither good nor bad. As a result, all of the libertarian arguments against government crumble, because the point of libertarianism is that government has a "bad effect" on economies. That means, to clarify the point, that everything which happens in an economy, all of the good plus all of the bad- depressions, unemployment, wealth inequality- is due solely to business. The job creators who failed to create jobs, and the economic movers who failed to move the economy can't blame the government for... anything.

So, since all approaches are unlikely to be able to be shown to have any effect (according to you) that means that YOUR favorite approach (whatever that is) won't have any effect either. Therefore, Keynesians could have a free hand with money-printing because you can't show otherwise.

Now, you COULD say that you haven't taken an approach, that you're not supporting libertarianism or arguing against Keynesianism (altho it seems clear to me that you are). You could revert back to your statement that it is impossible to demonstrate to your satisfaction that ANY policy makes a difference. But then that gets us back to Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions. Or possibly that conservatives Do have ideas, but that Geezer doesn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

bump for geezer. I have tried to make this as logically explicit as possible. It it seems that I'm beating a point to death, I am.

Also

Quote:
I might ask why we should care about Josh Barros' opinion, since he's just one guy. But I prefer to discuss the actual issue.

almost immediately followed by

Quote:
I'll drop it if SignyM does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 26, 2014 1:45 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you have proposed, geezer, very clearly, over and over again, is that it is not possible to demonstrate to your satisfaction that ANY policy shortens or reduces the severity of recessions. In your view, no proposals meet your level of proof, and therefore no proposals are likely to be effective.

No one has actually shown any evidence that a particular set of actions do, in fact, work. It's been mostly "Trust me. This works"

Once again, all you have to do is enumerate this set of actions (although they should probably be similar to those described in the article, since that's my basis for the whole discussion), then show where the application of those actions, and no others, ended recessions under the conditions noted. Then you need to show that other actions, or no action at all, did not end recessions under the conditions noted.

You are convinced/think/trust/believe (take your pick, or provide your own word) that the liberal ideas work. Shouldn't be hard to explain why and provide examples.

Do that and I'll discuss it with you.

Quote:
In fact, you've implied that not only is there lack of proof, but that government policies are in fact ineffective in shortening recessions or reducing recessions.
Quote:
Or one might ask if the government actually has anything to do with ending recessions.- geezer

I'm saying I'm not convinced that any particular actions shorten recessions. So convince me.

Quote:
But because you reject the idea that ANY policy makes a difference, you have completely undercut not only the Keynesian approach but also ANY OTHER approach, including the libertarian approach. This is something I've brought up several times.

No. I QUESTION whether any policy makes a difference. I haven't rejected anything, I'm just asking to be convinced.

SignyM, you're trying to argue with me about our different points of view as to what ends recessions. I don't have a point of view. I wonder if any ideas end them faster than any other (or none at all), be it liberal conservative libertarian, or whatever.

As noted above, and several other times, give me your ideas and evidence that they have worked, preferably with no other external events that might also have an effect.

You know what you believe. State it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, so we get back to GEEZER has no ideas what to do about recessions. You've made that abundantly plain.

As far as enumerating my ideas... I have already, but your required level of proof is ridiculously high. That is a well-characterized rhetorical device designed to quash the opponent, but with no basis in logic or fact.

But there is NO economic policy (either conservative or liberal) which has been applied in isolation, under the kind of controlled experimental conditions that you require. That is why the only way to understand what is going on with economies (and other complex systems which cannot be experimented with, such as star systems and global climate shift) is to propose various mechanisms... hypotheses about how things are linked together... and then test the evidence to see if the hypothesis is supported. But given that many factors are operating at any one time, the data is going to be scattered. One needs to be patient and perceptive to tease out the various causes. It doesn't help, tho, if bad information keeps getting tossed into the mix, such as The European government debt caused the meltdown when in fact it was the other way around.

Since you've also made it abundantly clear that unless you get PROOF POSITIVE about any particular proposals- there's no point in discussing this further. At least, not with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So KPO et al, since our local conservatives have admitted to having no ideas what to do about recessions, but we seem to have plenty, I think this deserves a new thread for discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 3, 2014 9:13 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, so we get back to GEEZER has no ideas what to do about recessions. You've made that abundantly plain.

You know, when you ask me a question, I at least have the courtesy to answer you directly, rather than with a "Obviously, SignyM thinks Marxist/Keynesian theory will set everything right, and rainbows will come out of our butts." snipe.

If you want to discuss this with me, address me.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 3, 2014 12:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know, when you ask me a question, I at least have the courtesy to answer you directly, rather than with a "Obviously, SignyM thinks Marxist/Keynesian theory will set everything right, and rainbows will come out of our butts." snipe. If you want to discuss this with me, address me- geezer

I did.

Quote:
Okay, so we get back to GEEZER has no ideas what to do about recessions. You've made that abundantly plain-signy.

You have said, over and over and over and over that you have no idea which policy, if any, would help an economy thru a recession. I have addressed that to you many times. The comment "GEEZER has no ideas what to do..." was quoting a post TO YOU about your position; it was one of several possibilities that might describe your position. As you yourself have made abundantly plain, it does in fact describe what you think.

I addressed you directly in that post, in this post, and in the post which prompted your comment. Other than addressing you as "you", what else can I do to make it more plain that I am talking TO YOU, and not about you??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Very good article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-have-no-idea-what-to-do-a
bout-recessions-2013-12#ixzz2ngv5fJ4P

Quote:
To be clear, conservatives absolutely do have an economic policy agenda. They favor lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery. They favor these policies now, they favored them in 2008, and they favored them in 2004.

That is, conservatives favor the same set of economic policies when the economy is weak and when it is strong; when unemployment is high and when it is low; when few homeowners are facing foreclosure and when many are. The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles.

Well conservatives, is it true?

You are trying to assume that government SHOULD do something to control economic cycles, or perhaps control the Health Care of private citizens.
These are not within the purview of National Defense, Immigration, or retaining Justice by curtailing the overreach of Big Government.
If your question considered that these goals are antithematic to true conservatives, it would show what little intellectual honesty you possess, or maybe just how dense you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:01 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
You are trying to assume that government SHOULD do something to control economic cycles

That's not an assumption, that's a moral and intellectual position. The point of the thread was to point out that conservatives don't have a specific policy answer to recessions. Imagine if we were to give total control of government to conservatives for 100 years - so that they could set the tax rate and the size of government and domestic energy production to exactly the levels they wanted. Eventually, at some point, a severe recession would hit. Companies would go under, millions would become unemployed... and what would the conservative government do? Shrug its shoulders.

I just find that interesting, and I wish more people knew that that's how modern conservatives think.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
You are trying to assume that government SHOULD do something to control economic cycles

That's not an assumption, that's a moral and intellectual position. The point of the thread was to point out that conservatives don't have a specific policy answer to recessions.

Incorrect. They do have a specific policy, but it is not different from their normal policy. Ignore and do the opposite of their policy, recession occurs. Conform to their policy, recession is resolved. Just because their policy is not followed does not mean the policy is faulty, it means the fault lies in not following the policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:40 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Incorrect. They do have a specific policy, but it is not different from their normal policy.

That's not a specific policy then, is it?

Quote:
Ignore and do the opposite of their policy, recession occurs. Conform to their policy, recession is resolved.

Funny.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The problem with the conservative approach to recessions ("stay the course") is that it is contradicted by the foundational assumption of conservative economic philosophy- that the invisible hand will make and keep markets well, and that supply, demand, prices, and employment will all reach a happy equilibrium which maximizes economic activity.

Conservative economic theory doesn't respond to economic depressions because, under conservative economic theory, depressions should never occur. Later economic theories which mathematically demonstrated that an economy could fall into PERMANENT depression... with no "invisible hand" being able to help it up... were greeted with great dread by conservative economists, who then promptly ignored it, because (of course) such a thing could "never occur".

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 20, 2014 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem with the conservative approach to recessions ("stay the course") is that it is contradicted by the foundational assumption of conservative economic philosophy- that the invisible hand will make and keep markets well, and that supply, demand, prices, and employment will all reach a happy equilibrium which maximizes economic activity.

Conservative economic theory doesn't respond to economic depressions because, under conservative economic theory, depressions should never occur. Later economic theories which mathematically demonstrated that an economy could fall into PERMANENT depression... with no "invisible hand" being able to help it up... were greeted with great dread by conservative economists, who then promptly ignored it, because (of course) such a thing could "never occur".

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

Stay the course is not the policy. Go back to the correct course is the policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 20, 2014 7:11 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I'm curious if you're parroting slogans or are speaking from a position of knowledge.

Which particular incorrect course(s) led to the Great Depression?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

EVEN IF IN THEORY the "correct course" were to be followed all the time, it has been mathematically demonstrated that this particular course can neither prevent nor cure depressions. End of story.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 21, 2014 6:51 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
it has been mathematically demonstrated that this particular course can neither prevent nor cure depressions.

Or create economic growth in general. Statistically economic growth has been significantly bigger under Democratic presidents than Republicans, and the times when the country has grown the strongest is when wealth distribution has been even, tax rates on the rich high, and opportunities for people to advance themselves have been good.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Basically, you have doubts that any theory works. That includes yours, correct?

Nope. Not correct.

I don't have a theory about what particular actions to take to end a recession. As I've noted again and again, I am doubtful that any of the actions proposed by various theories can be shown to have been the sole cure for recessions.

Your question is like asking me how many angels I believe can dance on the head of a pin, when I've said I don't believe in angels.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
it has been mathematically demonstrated that this particular course can neither prevent nor cure depressions.

Or create economic growth in general. Statistically economic growth has been significantly bigger under Democratic presidents than Republicans, and the times when the country has grown the strongest is when wealth distribution has been even, tax rates on the rich high, and opportunities for people to advance themselves have been good.

Are you talking about Britain again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 9, 2014 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm curious if you're parroting slogans or are speaking from a position of knowledge.

Which particular incorrect course(s) led to the Great Depression?

Allowing crooks to have too much sway in the Market, crashing the London Stock Market with the arrest of Clarence Hatry and cronies for fraud and forgery, thus weakening the New York Stock Market. Later, the Us Stock Market "crashed" by dropping a mere 36% in October 1929. (2001 had a drop from about 12,000 down about 40% IIRC, 2008 had a drop from about 14,000 down about 55% IIRC) This crash was also pushed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (AKA raising taxes), which Hoover was promising not to Veto. Tariff rates went up to 59% (1932), exceeded only by the 61.7% rate of 1830.
Then FDR put everything under government control. Work "projects" and such.

Raising taxes.
More government control, subsidy, regulation.
Sound familiar?
Granted, Hoover, Smoot, and Hawley were all claiming to be Republicans (clearly not conservatives), and should have known better - maybe they actually did know better. They all lost re-election in their next race.

Raising taxes and more government regulation are not the hallmarks of Conservatives, I expect you can agree on that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2021 11:29 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Biden USSR style shopping? Bidenflation ? ?

CNN on Supply Chain Crisis: Consumers Can’t Expect to Shop Like Pre-Pandemic ‘Before Times’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/12/cnn-on-supply-chain-cris
is-consumers-cant-expect-to-shop-like-pre-pandemic-before-times/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2021 12:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, the good ole days when we used to have logical, on-point discussions instead of endless name-calling, lies, libel, and ... more lies.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 23, 2021 1:06 AM