REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Thursday, December 23, 2021 01:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18280
PAGE 3 of 5

Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:30 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
The last time the national debt went down was 1957. I think there were periods since then when the economy was doing well. So apparently the debt doesn't get paid down.



That is because the government does not reduce spending during those times. That was explained to you before as well.



And it's the flaw in your reasoning. Once governments get the spending habit, it's darn near impossible to break. The last time spending went down (other than immediately after a war) was in the late 1920s.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:So you're saying that the government should have raised taxes at a time when government spending was going down, just so people would not have enough money to pay off their loans?

Maybe you and SignyM should discuss whether the flow of money is a good or bad thing.



Yes that is what I'm saying. During good economic times the government should reduce spending and raise taxes which take money out of the economy, or slows the flow of money. That will slow economic growth which helps prevent massive bubbles, sharply falling interest rates and other such things that can lead to recessions.



But as we've seen, once governments start spending, reducing that spending just doesn't happen.

Quote:

Keynesian economics is about using government spending as a counter weight to the economy. Government spending should go up when the economy enters a recession and it should go down when the economy is in a boom. Taxes should be lowered in a recession and rise in an boom.

This is not hard.

Yes money flowing is a good thing. To much flow can be bad as can to little.



Once again, perhaps you and SignyM should discuss this.


"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 5, 2014 12:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:


You're forgetting GDP again. Debt was steady as a proportion of GDP.


Nope.


I'm sorry my friend, but that is indisputable fact. Do I have to show the debt/GDP graph again?



Actually it was debt/GNP, and, as noted, it went from 18% in 1929 to 45% in 1939. Sure there's a big spike in the early 1940s that makes the 29-39 range look flatter, but that was WWII.

Quote:

Quote:

As noted, the only success story you can show for Keynes is WWII.

I sometimes forget how insulated American conservatives are from reality. Here's the CBO's verdict on Obama's ARRA stimulus:

"CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the second quarter of calendar year 2011 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

* They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 0.8 percent and 2.5 percent,
* Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points,
* Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million, and
* Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.4 million to 4.0 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers)."

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42216



Yeah. CBO. Saying that their plan worked. Got an independent analysis by an unbiased source?

Quote:

Another recent case, Japan's 2013 stimulus spending, which an IMF director commented on in October:

Quote:

As we have stressed in this year’s Article IV Report, we at the IMF believe that the new policy framework provides a unique opportunity for Japan to end decades-long deflation and sluggish growth, and reverse the rise of public debt.

Japan has already made progress in this direction. Here, I would like to list a few achievements:

The economy grew strongly in the first half of this year, driven by sizeable stimulus spending, robust private consumption and a rise in exports.

Headline inflation rose substantially in recent months, and several indicators also point to an in increase in long-term inflation expectations.



http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2013/102913.htm




Yep. IMF saying their plan worked. Any unbiased sources?




"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 5, 2014 1:15 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I never got a college degree, but two of my most enjoyable and fascinating subjects I studied outside of ANYTHING computers were Micro and Macro Economics.

All I can speak for is my own reactions to all of the asshole-ery around me.

1. When I don't need it, I don't buy it. This was just as much true when I made 55k a year as it is now when I make 11k a year. (Not bragging, but THIS is the ONLY reason a guy like me owns a house "free and clear", which in itself is a misnomer and an entirely different post altogether).

2. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Ditto.

3. If it is broke, have faith in yourself that you can do the job just as competently as a "professional". The caveat here is to also know your limits. You're not doing anybody any good if your local taxpayers have to pay for a cleanup crew to mop up your remains if you blow your house up while working on your furnace.

4. Just because you have good insurance doesn't mean you have to waste your doctor's time every single time your kid has a sneeze.


U.S. Government waste is largely just an extension of our own shortcomings. We've become almost ENTIRELY dependent on other people to do everything for us short of wiping our own asses.

No wonder people bitch about things here in these forums instead of holding our elected officials responsible for their idiocy.

I say, when it comes to the destruction of America, it's high time the "good guys" actually stand up and deliver.

Stop being a nation of overfed and undereducated cunts.

Honestly, it's just a word people. GTFU. No gender insults meant here. Most "men" I know these days look less like men in the 60s than the women of the 60's did.

That's right....

My 86 year old grandmother is more of a man than most of this lot....

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?




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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 1:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Keynesian spending might have started to reverse the Great Depression, after four to seven years, depending on if you consider Hoover's approach Keynesian (I do), but that reversal wasn't sustainable, because FDR couldn't sell the country on continued spending. Then again, Hayak and Rothbard believe that FDR's interventionist policy actually lengthened the depression by keeping the market from making necessary corrections.
"The country" was sold, it was Congress that wasn't. AFA "necessary corrections"... enlighten us: What WERE those corrections that were supposed to happen?
Quote:

Yet they don't elect representatives who will increase taxes on the wealthy - or much of anybody - to the extent needed to support the spending you think Keynesian recovery requires.
Our government has consistently represented the will of the wealthy few over the non-wealthy many. Consider it a flaw in the practice of democracy, that politics is so often dominated by money.

Quote:

But it's not all rich folks doing the speculation. Unions, pension funds, aggregations of individuals, etc.
Unions and pension funds don't generally invest in hedge funds and speculation because they're too risky. And the point is that there is a lot of money NOT being "invested", and therefore not being recycled into production and consumption. You failed to address that point, which is a major one.
Quote:

Then you have an issue of pretty much forcing folks to pay higher prices for domestic goods, but for several years don't have the domestic goods on the shelves yet. So how does money get spent to stay in circulation?
How does it not? Your question makes no sense, please rephrase.

Quote:

But Africa's resources can be obtained more cheaply than the same things here in the U.S. The kleptocracies there, often in cahoots with the Chinese, don't care about renewable resources, or environmental or worker safety. If the Chinese can get the raw materials cheaply from Africa and manufacture cheaply in China, they can undercut the U.S. on the world market - especially if we're dealing with governments of countries already stung by our tariffs.
So what? Why do we need to "compete" in the world market on every single commodity and product, if all we wind up doing is wrecking our environment and our economy?

Quote:

Take your mind off Mises or Keynes... signy

Guten tag, Herr Marx. - Geezer

Hmmm... Take your mind off Mises or Keynes or Marx or Hayek or Bernanke. Think about economies and how they work without resorting to (inaccurate) name-calling, if you can. Address the point, if at all possible.


Quote:

But the problem isn't the stuff, it's having the folks who are willing to take on the jobs we now send overseas - heavy manufacturing, component assembly, piecework sewing, and many more - have those jobs done in an environmentally responsible, labor-friendly manner, and still keep prices reasonably low.
It costs $50 or less to manufacture an iPhone, which sells for $500. I think we can manage to raise wages and still keep prices reasonably low. The only part of this equation which will take a hit is that companies will not take MAXIMUM profit. Again- so what?

Quote:

Could you specify against what foreign industries you would apply your selective tariffs? Autos? Clothes? Electronics? Rum?
This would require a committee to study our major imports, and which ones we can most quickly convert to USA manufacture. Off the top of my head, since assembly is probably easier to start up than manufacture, one option would be to start at the end of a product and work our way backwards towards raw materials. Another option would be to start with sectors that are the most strategic- electronics, solar cells, and power transmission (which is very loss-y) for example. Like I said, this would require a lot more information and study than I have time for, but a graduated re-industrialization is very do-able.

But whatever else is chosen, energy production and savings has to be consistently part of the process, beginning with the very first sector or product and continuing for the foreseeable future. Because it will take 10-15 years until we have the beginnings of sustainable, robust, independent energy sources. And there is no end of ideas on how to save energy, beginning with the most obvious: If we implement vehicle fuel economy standards NOW, and also reduce our constant military patrols around the world (which, BTW, use up an enormous amount of fuel: the US military is our nations' largest SINGLE consumer of oil) we will immediately save millions of barrels of oil per year. And there are no end of plans that very thoughtful people have devised on how to quickly start conserving energy and switching over to renewable fuels.

I'm going to point out that it's apparent that KPO, M52 and I have plenty of ideas about depressions and how to handle them. But so far, the conservative end of the spectrum seems unable to advance any ideas on what to do, and unable even to advance any rationale for responding (or not responding) to economic crises.

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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:35 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

Actually it was debt/GNP, and, as noted, it went from 18% in 1929 to 45% in 1939.


Ok, let's post the graph again.



Do you or don't you see a flat line from about the middle of 1933 onwards?

Now let's quote what I said when I initially posted the graph:

Quote:

This can all be seen from this graph, which shows that US debt was flat for most of the Great Depression

I should've said 'debt burden' instead of debt, but apart from that what I said is unquestionably correct. As for your quoting figures from 1929; I never said the debt burden was flat for the whole of the GD. But a couple of points about that early period:

1. Roosevelt was not in power until 1933 - when the debt burden stabilised
2. Debt automatically goes up in the early part of a recession/depression, because revenues crater.

What it comes down to is you have no case for there having been wild, unrestrained spending throughout the Great Depression. That didn't come until WWII, and when it did come the economy recovered.

Quote:

Yeah. CBO. Saying that their plan worked. Got an independent analysis by an unbiased source?

Quote:

Yep. IMF saying their plan worked. Any unbiased sources?

You're going into full-blown conspiracy mode here, aren't you? The non-partisan CBO crafted Obama's stimulus package? The IMF crafted Japanese economic policy? Got any cites to back this up?

Got any answer to the mountain of evidence of governments cutting back on spending during downturns, and hurting growth?

More on the ARRA - a survey of economists' views: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?Surv
eyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi


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

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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:51 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.


bump-tee-dee-bump for geezer

I'm curious if he has any relevant, accurate responses

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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 5:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I'm not.

No answer on what to do about recessions, just lots of attack on Keynesian economics.

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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 5:26 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.


Well, ahem, you got me there.

That is geezer's metier.

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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 5:55 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
And it's the flaw in your reasoning. Once governments get the spending habit, it's darn near impossible to break. The last time spending went down (other than immediately after a war) was in the late 1920s.



It's a flaw in the way government is run, not my reasoning.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:Once again, perhaps you and SignyM should discuss this.


Nothing to discuss.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not.

No answer on what to do about recessions, just lots of attack on Keynesian economics.




And liberal use of the "C" word....


Admit it MD.... I made a lot of sense, but there is NO WAY a woman would degrade herself to reply to my post because I used that word......

Sigh...

*shakes head*

Government Mind Control.....

I tip my hat to you, Master......... choke... tear......


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

Monday, January 6, 2014 10:24 AM

ELVISCHRIST





Meanwhile, Wall Street ended 2013 on record highs and huge profits.


So that must mean that the economy is "on fire", as AuRaptor would say.

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

Monday, January 6, 2014 10:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"The country" was sold, it was Congress that wasn't. AFA "necessary corrections"... enlighten us: What WERE those corrections that were supposed to happen?
...
Our government has consistently represented the will of the wealthy few over the non-wealthy many. Consider it a flaw in the practice of democracy, that politics is so often dominated by money.



So the people aren't smart enough to elect representatives who will look out after their interests. No doubt that's why we need you to tell us what to do.

Quote:

Unions and pension funds don't generally invest in hedge funds and speculation because they're too risky.


Quote:

The primary investors are wealthy individuals and institutions.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/themarkets/f/Hedge_Investors.htm

Quote:

And the point is that there is a lot of money NOT being "invested", and therefore not being recycled into production and consumption. You failed to address that point, which is a major one.


But hedge funds invest into production, as below:

Quote:

Coatue Management, a hedge fund run by brothers Phillipe and Thomas Laffont, has invested $50 million in a Series C equity financing in Snapchat, the white-hot photo-messaging company run by 23 year-old Evan Spiegel and his cofounder, 25 year-old Bobby Murphy. Thomas Laffont, who runs private company investments for the firm, declined to comment on Snapchat’s valuation in the round, but recently released incorporation documents suggest up to $2 billion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2013/12/11/hedge-fund-invests-50-m
illion-into-snapchat
/


Quote:

Quote:

Then you have an issue of pretty much forcing folks to pay higher prices for domestic goods, but for several years don't have the domestic goods on the shelves yet. So how does money get spent to stay in circulation?
How does it not? Your question makes no sense, please rephrase.



The minimum wage, and wages in general, have gone up. I have more money in my pocket. I want to buy a new laptop (or clothes, or a TV, or pretty much anything not currently manufactured in the U.S.). Due to tariffs, the price of any of this stuff has gone up, and no one in the U.S. has ramped up production to make it yet. Even when they do, their costs are going to be a lot higher than manufacturing overseas (due to much higher minimum wage, costs of environmental and safety regulation, etc.), so my increased income won't be able to buy any more than before. Possibly less.


Quote:

So what? Why do we need to "compete" in the world market on every single commodity and product, if all we wind up doing is wrecking our environment and our economy?


So you're calling for economic isolationism?

Quote:

Guten tag, Herr Marx. - Geezer
Hmmm... Take your mind off Mises or Keynes or Marx or Hayek or Bernanke. Think about economies and how they work without resorting to (inaccurate) name-calling, if you can. Address the point, if at all possible.


When your criticism of capitalism is pretty much word for word Marx, it's hard not to draw a comparison.

Quote:

It costs $50 or less to manufacture an iPhone, which sells for $500. I think we can manage to raise wages and still keep prices reasonably low. The only part of this equation which will take a hit is that companies will not take MAXIMUM profit. Again- so what?


It costs $50(or up to $200 depending on who you ask and what you consider is involved in "make") to make an iPhone because the folks doing a lot of the work are paid less than $2.00 an hour with no benefits, the factories don't have to meet any environmental or worker safety standards, and the energy is provided by cheap but dirty coal-fired plants. That's sure not gonna fly here.

Quote:

Quote:

Could you specify against what foreign industries you would apply your selective tariffs? Autos? Clothes? Electronics? Rum?
This would require a committee to study our major imports, and which ones we can most quickly convert to USA manufacture. Off the top of my head, since assembly is probably easier to start up than manufacture, one option would be to start at the end of a product and work our way backwards towards raw materials. Another option would be to start with sectors that are the most strategic- electronics, solar cells, and power transmission (which is very loss-y) for example. Like I said, this would require a lot more information and study than I have time for, but a graduated re-industrialization is very do-able.

But whatever else is chosen, energy production and savings has to be consistently part of the process, beginning with the very first sector or product and continuing for the foreseeable future. Because it will take 10-15 years until we have the beginnings of sustainable, robust, independent energy sources. And there is no end of ideas on how to save energy, beginning with the most obvious: If we implement vehicle fuel economy standards NOW, and also reduce our constant military patrols around the world (which, BTW, use up an enormous amount of fuel: the US military is our nations' largest SINGLE consumer of oil) we will immediately save millions of barrels of oil per year. And there are no end of plans that very thoughtful people have devised on how to quickly start conserving energy and switching over to renewable fuels.



In other words, you have no idea how you're going to:

1. Sell the U.S. public, business sector, and government on how you're going to completely restructure the economy.
2. Decide which imports are to be subject to tariffs, and when.
3. Manufacture embargoed items in the U.S. with high labor, environmental, safety, and benefits costs without pricing them out of the market, and without shortages while production ramps up.
4. keep retailers that currently rely on imported products for sales in business when you cut off their supply of product.
5. etc.



Quote:

I'm going to point out that it's apparent that KPO, M52 and I have plenty of ideas about depressions and how to handle them. But so far, the conservative end of the spectrum seems unable to advance any ideas on what to do, and unable even to advance any rationale for responding (or not responding) to economic crises.



I could quote von Meises, Hayek, or Rothbard, but since you've drunk the Keynesian koolade, it probably wouldn't do much good.

What I can say is to repeat one of my first comments. Of the recent recessions, those ended during conservative administrations didn't seem to last any longer than those ended during liberal administrations.


"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 6, 2014 10:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Actually it was debt/GNP, and, as noted, it went from 18% in 1929 to 45% in 1939.


Ok, let's post the graph again.



Do you or don't you see a flat line from about the middle of 1933 onwards?



Yep.

Interesting in that per the graph on the cite below, federal spending, as a percent of GDP, pretty much tripled between 1929(<4%) and 1936(11%).

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1920_1940USp_15s1li011mc
n_F0f_US_Federal_Spending


If you use the controls on this site to look at Gross Public Debt for the 1920-1940 period as a percent of GDP, it goes from about 18% in 1929 to 44% in 1938.

Or you can pick the Federal Deficit as a percent of GDP and see it went from a 1% surplus in 1930 to a 4.5% deficit in 1936.

Not sure how these reconcile with your "flat line".

Quote:

What it comes down to is you have no case for there having been wild, unrestrained spending throughout the Great Depression. That didn't come until WWII, and when it did come the economy recovered.


So we're back to only a war, or spending at a rate that you can't sell to the country, can end a depression.

Dryer's buzzing, I'll get to the rest after clothesfolding.

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

Monday, January 6, 2014 11:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

or spending ON SOCIAL AND JOBS PROGRAMS at a rate that you can't sell to the WEALTHY
Fixed that for you.



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

Monday, January 6, 2014 12:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


I note that a couple of folks here have used phrases like "Its not hard" or "it's not rocket science" in relation to economic theory.

Would that it were rocket science.

Rocket science is just math and physics.

If you apply a given force to an object of given mass for a given time in a given gravity field, all rocket scientists will agree on how fast it ends up going.

Economics is not only math, but judgments as to what individuals, groups of individuals, governments, businesses, political parties, markets, exchanges, etc. will do in a particular situation, or in a whole series of constantly changing situations.

Unlike, rocket science, where everyone agrees about the rules of math and laws of physics as they apply to rockets, in economics there are many conflicting schools, each of which believes it has the answers and that the other schools are fools (Hey. I'm a poet (or alliterator) and don't know it). This applies even more when you get into macroeconomics.

When I read stuff like this:

Quote:

A 2002 International Monetary Fund study looked at "consensus forecasts" (the forecasts of large groups of economists) that were made in advance of 60 different national recessions in the 1990s: in 97% of the cases the economists did not predict the contraction a year in advance. On those rare occasions when economists did successfully predict recessions, they significantly underestimated their severity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

It does not encourage faith in any particular economic school. Guess I'm as agnostic about economic theories as religion, since I can see as little proof for one as the other.

Given that I have little faith in any economic school, if I'm forced to choose, I'd choose the one that offers the least chance of harm if it doesn't work, and reject the one that offers the most harm if it doesn't work. Keynesian economics, particularly its response to recession/depression, seems to offer the most harm if it fails, what with high taxes, high spending, massive deficits, unresolved problems of the original recession, and the cries from its proponents that it'll eventually work if we just spend a lot more.

Guess I just don't have the faith to be a Keynesian.





"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 6, 2014 12:04 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not.

No answer on what to do about recessions, just lots of attack on Keynesian economics.



I never claimed to have an answer.

Just asking if anyone had examples where recessions during conservative administrations took longer to end than those during liberal administrations.

And you can see my problem with Keynes in the post above.


"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 6, 2014 12:07 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
It's a flaw in the way government is run, not my reasoning.



But we live with the way the government is run, not your reasoning. If you propose solutions that will never be implemented, they do what good?


"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 6, 2014 12:12 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

or spending ON SOCIAL AND JOBS PROGRAMS at a rate that you can't sell to the WEALTHY
Fixed that for you.



No. You fixed it for you.

I understand why you like Keynes. He gives you permission to go out and take from every class and group you hate.


"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 6, 2014 12:33 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
But we live with the way the government is run, not your reasoning. If you propose solutions that will never be implemented, they do what good?



The way government runs can be changed, it is not a static thing. You turning this in to "well the government doesn't do this" is a massive cop out because conservatives and libertarians have no idea how to deal with recessions or how to prevent them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Monday, January 6, 2014 12:36 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Keynesian economics, particularly its response to recession/depression, seems to offer the most harm if it fails, what with high taxes, high spending, massive deficits, unresolved problems of the original recession, and the cries from its proponents that it'll eventually work if we just spend a lot more.

Guess I just don't have the faith to be a Keynesian.



You just ignore that larger picture and only focus on the parts you don't like. You also ignore the much greater harm recessions and depressions do to everyday people than government deficits ever do.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Monday, January 6, 2014 1:26 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not.

No answer on what to do about recessions, just lots of attack on Keynesian economics.



I never claimed to have an answer.

Just asking if anyone had examples where recessions during conservative administrations took longer to end than those during liberal administrations.




You provided just such examples yourself, way back on the first page of this thread. You listed four recessions (three under Republican administrations, one under a Republican and Democratic admin), and showed that the recession ended much more quickly once the Democrat took office.

I know you haven't faced that reality yet (you've been ignoring it ever since I pointed it out the first time), but it really is right there in your own data.

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

Monday, January 6, 2014 3:57 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.


"Guess I'm as agnostic about economic theories as religion, since I can see as little proof for one as the other."

Not true. You have a religious fervor for libertarian-capitalist dogma.

"... if I'm forced to choose, I'd choose the one that offers the least chance of harm if it doesn't work ..."

So you're in favor of continuing doing the EXACT same thing that caused the problem in the first place. And you assume that it will fix itself in the end. That's like running on a flat tire and assuming it will fix itself. Sounds like you're looking for a miracle from your religion.

BTW, YOUR economic school assumes people are +rational +independent +economic entities looking +only to +maximize their +economic standing. All of those +assumptions built in to YOUR economic model have been proven false. YOUR economic school of thought doesn't hold up in the face of facts and logic (and history).


As evidence of "rape mentality"

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is
whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

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

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I understand why you like Keynes. He gives you permission to go out and take from every class and group you hate.
GEEZER, is it possible, do you suppose, to address the point of the discussion without resorting to emotional personal attacks?

Here's a start: Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how economies function, and HOW libertarianism is supposed to make them work better. USE REAL DATA. Don't quote Mises and Hayek, who are fantasists who simply repeat the same mantra over and over again. Refer to the real world.

As far as classes that I "hate": How do you know WHAT "class" I belong to??? Oh, that's right- you don't, do you?

Do rich people really think they are superior?
Quote:

Consider Congress. Members’ median net worth, in 2011, was $966,000. “They’re quite wealthy individuals,” Kraus says. “And because they’re wealthy they’re likely to engage in not only these essentialistic [mental] processes, but these people actually have power to enact laws to maintain inequality.”

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/news-features/do-rich-peopl
e-really-think-they-are-superior-20140106-30cu0.html



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

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 10:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But we live with the way the government is run, not your reasoning. If you propose solutions that will never be implemented, they do what good?
By THAT logic, let's just shut down our observational and logic capabilities, and stop thinking about how we much change things. In fact, let's all just stop talking. Because change is bad, yanno.




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

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:22 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

But we live with the way the government is run, not your reasoning. If you propose solutions that will never be implemented, they do what good?



Aren't you someone who votes for third-party candidates and advocates for "libertarianism"?

It's ironic of you to bring up "solutions that will never be implemented" in light of those facts.

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

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:44 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

Interesting in that per the graph on the cite below, federal spending, as a percent of GDP, pretty much tripled between 1929(<4%) and 1936(11%).

This ignores sizeable revenues increases in the corresponding period.

Quote:

If you use the controls on this site to look at Gross Public Debt for the 1920-1940 period as a percent of GDP, it goes from about 18% in 1929 to 44% in 1938.

This matches my graph.

Quote:

Or you can pick the Federal Deficit as a percent of GDP and see it went from a 1% surplus in 1930 to a 4.5% deficit in 1936.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. We've already established that FDR ran deficits. The debt grew, but not faster than the economy grew. That's why debt/GDP stayed level.

And I don't know why you picked those two specific years, but they are quite illustrative. In 1930 the US ran a budget SURPLUS, the economy SHRANK, and the debt burden GREW. In 1936 the US ran a sizeable budget deficit, the economy GREW and the debt burden SHRANK. Everywhere we turn in this debate, we find more evidence proving Keynes right!

Quote:

Not sure how these reconcile with your "flat line".

Either accept the graph, or accept that you're in over your head. Because you're not going to disprove it.

Quote:

So we're back to only a war, or spending at a rate that you can't sell to the country, can end a depression.

This whole, 'you can never sell Keynesian spending on the size that's needed, so you may as well not do any of it at all' argument, I just find truly bizarre. "We can't spend enough to end the depression overnight, so we shouldn't bother with a smaller stimulus package that will only shorten the depression, and make its effects less severe..." Idiotic fatalism.

What you still haven't answered:

Quote:

The non-partisan CBO crafted Obama's stimulus package? The IMF crafted Japanese economic policy? Got any cites to back this up?

Quote:

Got any answer to the mountain of evidence of governments cutting back on spending during downturns, and hurting growth?


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

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 8:59 AM

KPO

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


Quote:

It does not encourage faith in any particular economic school. Guess I'm as agnostic about economic theories as religion, since I can see as little proof for one as the other.

Given that I have little faith in any economic school, if I'm forced to choose, I'd choose the one that offers the least chance of harm if it doesn't work, and reject the one that offers the most harm if it doesn't work. Keynesian economics, particularly its response to recession/depression, seems to offer the most harm if it fails, what with high taxes, high spending, massive deficits, unresolved problems of the original recession, and the cries from its proponents that it'll eventually work if we just spend a lot more.

Guess I just don't have the faith to be a Keynesian.


Massive parallels here with how Auraptor argues against the science of climate change. "The picture is complex, some of the evidence is murky, the scientists don't know everything perfectly - so let's just ignore everything they say." More abject fatalism.

Yes economics is complex and murky, and not everything is understood. But to dismiss all efforts to understand it as 'schools of religion', just because it suits your own laissez-faire ideology, is lazy and douchish.

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

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The way government runs can be changed, it is not a static thing. You turning this in to "well the government doesn't do this" is a massive cop out because conservatives and libertarians have no idea how to deal with recessions or how to prevent them.



Increasing deficits since 1957 seems to indicate that while governments can be changed, we haven't seen such a change so far, and have no idea how to accomplish it. If you have such an idea, that has a chance to work, please elucidate.

Quote:

You just ignore that larger picture and only focus on the parts you don't like. You also ignore the much greater harm recessions and depressions do to everyday people than government deficits ever do.


I focus on things I question. For example, I have grave doubts about SignyM and KPO's massive infrastructure projects, since they are going to take years to ramp up, what with developing the highly trained workers now needed for such projects and building the equipment needed to build the infrastructure. If you factor in SignyM's tariff idea, it gets even harder, since much constriction machinery is currently imported.



"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 8, 2014 10:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
You provided just such examples yourself, way back on the first page of this thread. You listed four recessions (three under Republican administrations, one under a Republican and Democratic admin), and showed that the recession ended much more quickly once the Democrat took office.



Or else Bush had already taken actions to end it and Obama reaped the benefit of those actions.

Or you could note that the 'recovery' has been called the weakest since the Great Depression.

Or that the U.S. continued in an 'economic malaise' through at least the second quarter of 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%93present_recession_in_the_Uni
ted_States


Quote:

I know you haven't faced that reality yet (you've been ignoring it ever since I pointed it out the first time), but it really is right there in your own data.


That's what's both interesting and troubling about this subject. You can propose most anything, and back it up with data spun by your particular economic theory, but there's no actual proof as to what caused what.


"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 8, 2014 10:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I focus on things I question. For example, I have grave doubts about SignyM and KPO's massive infrastructure projects, since they are going to take years to ramp up, what with developing the highly trained workers now needed for such projects and building the equipment needed to build the infrastructure. If you factor in SignyM's tariff idea, it gets even harder, since much constriction machinery is currently imported.
First of all, there are prolly dozens of ways to inject money into the bottom quintile of the economy in the form of jobs w/o being "infrastructural", starting with health and education (i.e. investments in future society)
Quote:

That's what's both interesting and troubling about this subject. You can propose most anything, and back it up with data spun by your particular economic theory, but there's no actual proof as to what caused what.
A hypothesis isn't just about correlation of facts, but also about developing a clear cause-effect relationship, and explicating the mechanisms by which a particular event leads to a particular outcome. That's how it works in ANY complex science.

When economics purports to be a science; it has to go through the same process of hypothesis formation and testing as ANY science.

I have written reams, it seems like, not only the the facts but also on the mechanisms... aggregate demand as a driver of economies. What about you? Aside from wringing your hands about the unknowableness of it all.


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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 10:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

I understand why you like Keynes. He gives you permission to go out and take from every class and group you hate.
GEEZER, is it possible, do you suppose, to address the point of the discussion without resorting to emotional personal attacks?



Like these?

"In other words, Geezer is agreeing with you, because a "passive response" is "do what you've been doing all along- i.e., don't respond" [/snicker]"

"Some believe the world is flat. And some say that Geezer is a dick."

"Are you as incapable of learning as rappy?"

"Geezer quite obviously doesn't know any real-world economic facts, so all he can do is what all libertarians do: quote some irrelevant libertarian fantasist who can only talk about how things "sh/w/could be" in some ideal libertarian world."

I could go on. I also note that most of your snark isn't addressed to me directly, but as an aisde to your buddies."

Quote:

Here's a start: Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how economies function, and HOW libertarianism is supposed to make them work better. USE REAL DATA. Don't quote Mises and Hayek, who are fantasists who simply repeat the same mantra over and over again. Refer to the real world.


Sure. I'm to explain economics, but I can't use any theories you disagree with.

[sarcasm] That's fair. [/sarcasm]

Quote:

As far as classes that I "hate": How do you know WHAT "class" I belong to??? Oh, that's right- you don't, do you?


Don't need to know that. Just need to observe how you write about "the rich", corporations and capitalists. We've had the discussion of your hatred for capitalists and capitalism several times.





"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 8, 2014 10:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Here's a start: Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how economies function, and HOW libertarianism is supposed to make them work better. USE REAL DATA. Don't quote Mises and Hayek, who are fantasists who simply repeat the same mantra over and over again . Refer to the real world.-signy

Sure. I'm to explain economics, but I can't use any theories you disagree with.-geezer

GEEZER: PLEASE READ WITH COMPREHENSION. I didn't say "don't use their theories". I said... again, slowly and with explanation.... to explain YOUR understanding using your own words. It not only tests YOUR understanding of those theories, it also makes clear where YOU might deviate from their formal theories. When addressing your (or their) theories, we can then address our questions or disagreements TO YOU, not Wikipedia.

Quote:

GEEZER, is it possible, do you suppose, to address the point of the discussion without resorting to emotional personal attacks? -signy
Because in addition to several lines of personal snark (and one example of bad rhetoric) I have written several hundred lines of explanation by now.

And you???

Have failed to propose any suggestions or explain your rationale, in your own words. In other words: have not addressed the topic of the thread.

I'm not going to let you divert me from the discussion from the theory of economic depressions to your own personal he said/she said. Address the topic. Or prove the point of the thread if you don't. It's that simple.


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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 10:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Interesting in that per the graph on the cite below, federal spending, as a percent of GDP, pretty much tripled between 1929(<4%) and 1936(11%).

This ignores sizeable revenues increases in the corresponding period.



No. It ignores that completely. It just shows that federal spending increased greatly.

Quote:

Quote:

Or you can pick the Federal Deficit as a percent of GDP and see it went from a 1% surplus in 1930 to a 4.5% deficit in 1936.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. We've already established that FDR ran deficits. The debt grew, but not faster than the economy grew. That's why debt/GDP stayed level.



Actually, spending as a percent of GDP increased quite a bit, as shown above.

And if debt/GDP stayed level, why'd the deficit go up?


Quote:

And I don't know why you picked those two specific years, but they are quite illustrative. In 1930 the US ran a budget SURPLUS, the economy SHRANK, and the debt burden GREW. In 1936 the US ran a sizeable budget deficit, the economy GREW and the debt burden SHRANK. Everywhere we turn in this debate, we find more evidence proving Keynes right!


Or that the economy turned around DESPITE what Roosevelt was doing, and would have recovered sooner with less intervention. So I could say that your data proves Hayek or Rothbard was right.

Who knows?

Quote:

This whole, 'you can never sell Keynesian spending on the size that's needed, so you may as well not do any of it at all' argument, I just find truly bizarre. "We can't spend enough to end the depression overnight, so we shouldn't bother with a smaller stimulus package that will only shorten the depression, and make its effects less severe..." Idiotic fatalism.


Once again, this is based on your belief that Keynes is the only solution.

As noted early in this thread, recessions appear to end in similar periods of time regardless of who is in office, or what actions they take.

Quote:

What you still haven't answered:




Yep.

Lots of stuff you and SignyM have ignored as well. You really want to go there?


"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 8, 2014 10:58 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Increasing deficits since 1957 seems to indicate that while governments can be changed, we haven't seen such a change so far, and have no idea how to accomplish it. If you have such an idea, that has a chance to work, please elucidate.



Sure we just need to start voting in educated people who think government can help solve problems instead of people who think government is the problem. Next we make sure those people can make the hard choices such as cutting spending to the military industry for things we don't need.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I focus on things I question. For example, I have grave doubts about SignyM and KPO's massive infrastructure projects, since they are going to take years to ramp up, what with developing the highly trained workers now needed for such projects and building the equipment needed to build the infrastructure. If you factor in SignyM's tariff idea, it gets even harder, since much constriction machinery is currently imported.



For one the US is a massive exporter of construction equipment. While massive projects will take time to ramp up smaller infrastructure projects can be started. Just helping small cities replace older water and sewer piping would be a huge boom. Those types of projects don't require much specilized workers or equipment. Basic things like road repair and repaving could be speed up with work crews already availible.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:00 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
And if debt/GDP stayed level, why'd the deficit go up?



...because GDP went up as well. Do you not understand how ratios work?


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Once again, this is based on your belief that Keynes is the only solution.

As noted early in this thread, recessions appear to end in similar periods of time regardless of who is in office, or what actions they take.



This is bullshit. I showed you already that regardless of who was in office the government always introduced some type of stimulas to the economy during recessions, even if it was not called that.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
to explain YOUR understanding using your own words. It not only tests YOUR understanding of those theories, it also makes clear where YOU might deviate from their formal theories. When addressing your (or their) theories, we can then address our questions or disagreements TO YOU, not Wikipedia.



As I tried to make clear in the religion analogy, I don't have theories on how macroeconomics (which seems to be the type of economics relating to curing recession/depression) should work. I have questions and doubts about all the schools.

Also as noted, the specific problem I have with Keynes is that if his theories don't work, you end up in a deeper hole that's even harder to get out of. Since (I know you'll hate it, but...) Keynes cure has not fully ended a recession/depression short of a wartime economic bubble, it puts me in mind of the first person to test a parachute, except you're throwing the whole country out of the plane.

I also note that recent recessions seem to have ended, regardless of who is in office, in generally the same time period.

Quote:

(and you) Have failed to propose any suggestions or explain your rationale, in your own words. In other words: have not addressed the topic of the thread.


The question I originally had was whether the current conservative response to recession (...lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation.) was any more or less successful than the current liberal response (Deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector, easy monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand, and mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption.)

I said, "Now if you could show that recessions didn't go away during conservative administrations, and did go away during liberal administrations, that might support the point of the cited article. However, that doesn't seem to be the case."

You and KPO dragged us off into the Great Depression and Keynes. I should have stayed on my topic, but got distracted.

I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.



"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 8, 2014 11:29 AM

ELVISCHRIST




Geezer, if you don't have any information that persuades you one way or the other, why is it that you specifically point out Keynesian economics as not being something you can believe in?

You don't seem to have any problem believing in Hayek or others, despite your own assertion that nobody knows and that all economic beliefs are akin to acts of faith.

So what is your underlying bias that prevents you from accepting that, in your own estimation, Keynes is every bit as valid as any other economic school of thought?

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:01 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.



Again the responces by both have been the same...stimulus.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:06 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

No. It ignores that completely. It just shows that federal spending increased greatly.

And so did revenue. Keynes doesn't call for tax and spend in recessions. He calls for deficit spend. But we've covered this already...

Quote:

Actually, spending as a percent of GDP increased quite a bit, as shown above.

Greater spending does not necessarily mean greater debt, and deficits. Deficit = Spending - Revenue.

Quote:

And if debt/GDP stayed level, why'd the deficit go up?

If debt goes up 10%, and GDP goes up 10%, debt/GDP stays the same. You can trust me on this, I'm a maths tutor.

Quote:

Or that the economy turned around DESPITE what Roosevelt was doing, and would have recovered sooner with less intervention. So I could say that your data proves Hayek or Rothbard was right.

Yeah, this tells me that you're not even looking at the data. How exactly could the data I provided back up Hayek or Rothbard?

Quote:

Who knows?

Graphs, number and data are not your thing, are they. That's fine, but why get into economics debates, insisting other people's conclusions are unreasonable, when you have no idea? Just because YOU don't understand doesn't mean other people can't.

Anyway, this is a graph showing how GDP growth (red line) tracked spending (blue line) during the GD:



I think any honest person who knows how to read a graph will conclude that there's probably a relationship there. An even better graph is this one, deficits vs GDP:



Early deficits are driven by the drop in GDP, and the collapse in revenues. But after that, the causal relationship is the other way around, and is undeniable - deficits are creating growth.

Quote:

Yep.

Lots of stuff you and SignyM have ignored as well. You really want to go there?


Look, I don't really expect you to answer my questions, because I know you can't (especially the first 2). But any question of yours that you want me to answer I will - or I'll tell you why I ignored it. I'll only answer one, so choose your best one.

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

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:15 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Geezer is literlly doing everything he can to stay willfully ignorant in this thread.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:17 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.


I would define conservative response as spending cuts, and liberal response as deficit spending. Is that ok? From there answering the question is easy.

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

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.
And you have been answered. More. Than. Once. You just refuse to accept the results.

Quote:

Yeah, this tells me that you're not even looking at the data. How exactly could the data I provided back up Hayek or Rothbard?
And I'll bet that Geezer can't possibly explain this in his own words because he doesn't know.




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

Thursday, January 9, 2014 12:54 AM

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 have questions and doubts about all the schools."

No. You blindly trust the libertarian-capitalist one. It's your religion.

"Also as noted, the specific problem I have with Keynes is that if his theories don't work, you end up in a deeper hole that's even harder to get out of."

Depends on what you assume is the hole. Lots of people out of work and some starving - in the Great Depression people were literally eating grass b/c they were starving - seems like a big hole that needs to be fixed. And fairly quickly b/c people perish in a short time. But maybe you don't see that as being a hole. All YOU'RE concerned about is the 'hole' between government spending and revenues - that apparently is the only 'hole' that counts.

But then, you've been shown over ... and over ... and over ... that even that doesn't happen with government spending during a depression/ recession. So why you're so fixated on that as being the 'hole' that everyone has to worry about, says a lot more about you than it does about the world out there.



RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is
whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

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

Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


KIKI: amen


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

Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:35 AM

KPO

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


Quote:

Depends on what you assume is the hole. Lots of people out of work and some starving - in the Great Depression people were literally eating grass b/c they were starving - seems like a big hole that needs to be fixed.

Compare that to the hole that the country was in after the massive Keynesian experiment of WWII. The country was able to reduce its debt/GDP no problem, while seeing the strongest period of economic growth in its history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expans
ion


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

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

Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:


Geezer, if you don't have any information that persuades you one way or the other, why is it that you specifically point out Keynesian economics as not being something you can believe in?

You don't seem to have any problem believing in Hayek or others, despite your own assertion that nobody knows and that all economic beliefs are akin to acts of faith.

So what is your underlying bias that prevents you from accepting that, in your own estimation, Keynes is every bit as valid as any other economic school of thought?



I don't particularly believe in Hayek or von Mises or anyone else. I just note that they are in pretty much direct opposition to Keynes.

As I said early in the thread, "If you look even shallowly into analysis of the Great Depression, you'll find out that pretty much every economist has his pet theory for the causes and solutions, and that they differ in many ways. Which one would you base your reaction on?"


As to why Keynes came up, that was KPO in the third post in this thread. SignyM also jumped on the Keynesian bandwagon.


"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 9, 2014 9:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.


I would define conservative response as spending cuts, and liberal response as deficit spending. Is that ok? From there answering the question is easy.

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



Use the definitions stated in the article you posted, as I described them above.

"The question I originally had was whether the current conservative response to recession (...lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation.) was any more or less successful than the current liberal response (Deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector, easy monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand, and mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption.)"

Be aware that if you claim that conservatives used stimulus, that pretty much invalidates the claim of the article you cited, and the title of this thread.



"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 9, 2014 9:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
How exactly could the data I provided back up Hayek or Rothbard?



Here's Rothbard's take.

http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/contents.asp

In summary...

Quote:

Conclusion: The Lessons of Mr. Hoover's Record

Mr. Hoover met the challenge of the Great Depression by acting quickly and decisively, indeed almost continuously throughout his term of office, putting into effect "the greatest program of offense and defense" against depression ever attempted in America. Bravely he used every modern economic "tool," every device of progressive and "enlightened" economics, every facet of government planning, to combat the depression. For the first time, laissez-faire was boldly thrown overboard and every governmental weapon thrown into the breach. America had awakened, and was now ready to use the State to the hilt, unhampered by the supposed shibboleths of laissez-faire. President Hoover was a bold and audacious leader in this awakening. By every "progressive" tenet of our day, he should have ended his term a conquering hero; instead he left America in utter and complete ruin—a ruin unprecedented in length and intensity.

What was the trouble? Economic theory demonstrates that only governmental inflation can generate a boom-and-bust cycle, and that the depression will be prolonged and aggravated by inflationist and other interventionary measures. In contrast to the myth of laissez-faire, we have shown in this book how government intervention generated the unsound boom of the 1920s, and how Hoover's new departure aggravated the Great Depression by massive measures of interference. The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of "enlightened" economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.





"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 9, 2014 9:46 AM

KPO

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


Quote:

Use the definitions stated in the article you posted


You mean this one?

"The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles."

Quote:

Be aware that if you claim that conservatives used stimulus, that pretty much invalidates the claim of the article you cited, and the title of this thread.

That's bad logic. It suggests that conservative policies can only be implemented by conservatives, and liberal policies implemented only by liberals. Obama is a liberal and his ARRA stimulus was approximately 1/3 tax cuts. So are tax cuts a liberal policy now?

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

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

Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:55 AM

KPO

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


Quote:

Here's Rothbard's take.

http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/contents.asp


That's nothing to do with the data that I was highlighting, which is strongly at odds with that piece of analysis.

In fact there's no data in that essay at all, only quotes - that might lead an innumerate person to get the wrong idea about exactly how much spending occurred.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1925_1935USb_15s2li111mc
n_F0f1lc


Do you see that dramatic increase in spending starting in 1929, up to the end of Hoover's presidency in 1932? No, me neither.

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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL