• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What If We Paid Off The Debt? The Secret Government Report

well, we've had about what - 3.5 bad years now, and we've run massive deficits in each one. at what point, precisely, are our historically massive deficits supposed to - you know - actually stimulate the economy?

What makes you think they haven't?

yes, but then you would expect to see recovery.

Actually you would expect to see an improvement in economic conditions relative to a world in which there had been no stimulus. If you know of a way to objectively and accurately measure this I'm all ears.

huh. interesting you should say that.

how about this, if we were to look at the attempts at fiscal stimulus over the past few decades in each of the OECD countries, and it could be consistently demonstrated that the ones who had attempted to "stimulate" their economy through an increase in transfer payments had just as consistently failed to do so, while countries who had instead cut their business taxes had consistently succeeded in doing so... would you accept that as evidence?

No I wouldn't, since that is a completely different premise from what I am arguing. I stated that deficit spending (which can take the form of more spending OR more tax cuts) is stimulative to the economy...as opposed to "austerity" (i.e. cutting spending and/or raising taxes) which generally puts the brakes on the economy.

Huh, Would You Look At That...

But It's Interesting That You Should Mention Mankiw.

The first article is subscribers-only so unfortunately I cannot read it.

The second article shows Mankiw arguing forcefully for a Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy via deficit spending, which was exactly my point. He is merely arguing that we need to lean more toward tax cuts and less toward spending than we currently do. Among economists, there is very little support for austerity measures or reducing the deficit at the present time...anywhere across the ideological spectrum.
 
Last edited:
The second article shows Mankiw arguing forcefully for a Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy via deficit spending, which was exactly my point. He is merely arguing that we need to lean more toward tax cuts and less toward spending than we currently do. Among economists, there is very little support for austerity measures or reducing the deficit at the present time...anywhere across the ideological spectrum.

The bolded is a pretty absolute statement...Which economists are you speaking of? What disciplines do they ascribe to? Are they Keynesian, or Austrian? This is the type of broad statement that we are supposed to take at face value only when made in the popular approach. If a conservative made a similar broad statement without back up you would laugh them off the board.

j-mac
 
while I agree it's implausible, I certainly see no reason why a debt free government is impossible. Indiana, for example, is currently enjoying a big fat emergency fund, rather than the debt-struggle we see in the other states.

Indiana is a US state, not a country. Huge difference. Indiana lives within an economic monetary union where there is a federal part that takes on all debt needed to do day to day trading with other countries.

Also chances are that Indiana has an overdraft facility it can use to pay off debitors while waiting for taxes to be paid in. It most likely also owes money to people which is also debt. So in reality Indiana is not debt free on any level... it is just managing its debt.

You can simply not be debt free as a nation or company in today's world and it is damn hard as a normal consumer as well.
 
The bolded is a pretty absolute statement...Which economists are you speaking of?

I already mentioned four of the most prominent economists in America today: Two liberals (Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman) and two conservatives (N. Gregory Mankiw and Douglas Holtz-Eakin)...all of whom are strong supporters of economic stimulus measures and deficit spending.

What disciplines do they ascribe to?

They are all macroeconomists.

Are they Keynesian, or Austrian?

The overwhelming majority of economists today, from all sides of the political spectrum, are Keynesians. These four are no exception.
 
I already mentioned four of the most prominent economists in America today: Two liberals (Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman) and two conservatives (N. Gregory Mankiw and Douglas Holtz-Eakin)...all of whom are strong supporters of economic stimulus measures and deficit spending.



They are all macroeconomists.



The overwhelming majority of economists today, from all sides of the political spectrum, are Keynesians. These four are no exception.

Keynes model is currently failing on a huge scale. In fact, I would like to see where Keynes model for economics has succeeded.

I don't know a whole lot of the last two economists that you cited, however the first two in that Krugman, and Stiglitz are huge progressives, and touted even more stimulus that has so far failed to solve these problems that we face. How many more failed policies will we have to endure before we say "you know what? it doesn't work, and you Mr. Krugman, or Mr. Stiglitz are just dead wrong.."

j-mac

PS. Do four economists make up the entire group of economists in America?
 
Last edited:
Also Kandahar, you did it again...You just said

The overwhelming majority of economists today, from all sides of the political spectrum, are Keynesians. These four are no exception.

Now please prove this absolute statement.

j-mac
 
Also Kandahar, you did it again...You just said



Now please prove this absolute statement.

j-mac

The economist Robert Whaples surveys economists to see which topics generate the most consensus and the most controversy among them. According to Greg Mankiw's blog which quotes from this survey (unfortunately I don't have access to the original survey), 90% of economists agreed with the statement "Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." Furthermore, 85% of economists agreed with the statement "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly." Taking those two points together, I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus for economic stimulus among economists.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: News Flash: Economists Agree
 
It's book keeping. If you look at total expenditures vs total revenue there was no surplus. To get the surplussed claimed, they IIRC did not count SS. Either way, it was under Clinton that we came the closest to a balanced budget.

What's funny though is that people "lberals" and even some independants, heck even some republicans think that Clinton and the republican congress actaully ran surpluses..


Tim-
 
The economist Robert Whaples surveys economists to see which topics generate the most consensus and the most controversy among them. According to Greg Mankiw's blog which quotes from this survey (unfortunately I don't have access to the original survey), 90% of economists agreed with the statement "Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." Furthermore, 85% of economists agreed with the statement "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly." Taking those two points together, I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus for economic stimulus among economists.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: News Flash: Economists Agree

I think it is way too broad a scope to just throw out something like that, and I also think that you are cherry picking your conclusion about what he is saying here. He is certainly NOT advocating for more stimulus, rather making a very general statement about fiscal policy and whether or not it has an impact on an economy as a whole right? Otherwise, why would he have framed it so: "Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." Now to say that the 90% of those he says he surveys, you don't know if they agree with increased government expenditure, or tax cuts, or both, now do you? Because the question is too broad.

j-mac
 
What's funny though is that people "lberals" and even some independants, heck even some republicans think that Clinton and the republican congress actaully ran surpluses..


Tim-

Bush ran on a platform of of returning this phony surplus to the tax payers. the media did not bother to report on the truth.

So the really big question is why did the dems, repubs, and media all go along with this lie?
 
Last edited:
Bush ran on a platform of of returning this phony surplus to the tax payers. the media did not bother to report on the truth.

So the really big question is why did the dems, repubs, and media all go along with this lie?

Because we have turned into a "gimme" society. Politicians or media either are reluctant to buck the will of the populist voice.

j-mac
 
Now to say that the 90% of those he says he surveys, you don't know if they agree with increased government expenditure, or tax cuts, or both, now do you?

Correct. But we *do* know that they favor economic stimulus via deficit spending, which was my original point. There is probably a bit more disagreement over what the exact components of that stimulus should be, but Keynesian stimulus in itself is widely accepted by economists. Economists have very little appetite for austerity or budget-balancing measures in the middle of a recession.

Because the question is too broad.

It's not too broad, it just answers a different question than the one you want to focus on. Whether we should use tax cuts or spending increases to stimulate the economy, is a very different debate than whether we should stimulate the economy at all or introduce austerity measures.
 
Last edited:
Correct. But we *do* know that they favor economic stimulus via deficit spending, which was my original point. There is probably a bit more disagreement over what the exact components of that stimulus should be, but Keynesian stimulus in itself is widely accepted by economists. Economists have very little appetite for austerity or budget-balancing measures in the middle of a recession.

Although I will not dispute that Keynesian models of economics have been the norm for some time now, I think that trend is changing in the face of global failure due largely to the implementation of these so called remedies....Look at Japan, ten years lost with stimulus, after stimulus, and only when they started doing common sense things like austerity did they begin to pull out.

You are seemingly touting economists as though they are infallible. That I think is a mistake when we see with our own eyes, and feel in our own bank accounts the failure that dolts like Krugman promote as though we are just too stupid to see.

That economists have little appetite for common sense is no surprise. Ego, hubris, and pure blind adherence to what has over time helped kick the can down the road to this point only serve to have them say that, as libs often do, it is not that it didn't work, but that we weren't allowed to do enough of it.

No, I think it is time possibly to do both, but in order to keep liberals honest in their negotiations cuts first, then tax policy.

It's not too broad, it just answers a different question than the one you want to focus on. Whether we should use tax cuts or spending increases to stimulate the economy, is a very different debate than whether we should stimulate the economy at all or introduce austerity measures.

Oh but it is, it obviously includes tax cuts in the answer, and there is no way to determine how many of the participants answered in the positive to your argument based on tax cuts, rather than stimulus measures promoted by an out of control spending congress. What was the exact question? Wording matters.

j-mac
 
Although I will not dispute that Keynesian models of economics have been the norm for some time now, I think that trend is changing in the face of global failure due largely to the implementation of these so called remedies....Look at Japan, ten years lost with stimulus, after stimulus, and only when they started doing common sense things like austerity did they begin to pull out.

Japan had a lot of problems that the US doesn't have (and I would argue that they still haven't pulled out of their long-term decline). For one thing, they face a demographic catastrophe as their population is shrinking (and therefore their economy is shrinking). Additionally, they had a central bank that was absolutely terrified of inflation for many years, and so they had widespread deflation which made their already-high debts even worse.

You are seemingly touting economists as though they are infallible.

Not at all. But I do have a lot more confidence in economists than I do in politicians.

Oh but it is, it obviously includes tax cuts in the answer, and there is no way to determine how many of the participants answered in the positive to your argument based on tax cuts, rather than stimulus measures promoted by an out of control spending congress.

Tax cuts are a form of stimulus, just as increased spending is. Please keep in mind that the concept of using tax cuts to stimulate the economy is a very Keynesian idea, and is based on the same premise that increasing government spending is: By changing our fiscal and monetary policy, we can stimulate aggregate demand and grow the economy.

Now, whether tax cuts or government spending provide a better form of stimulus is a subject of much debate. I can see advantages and disadvantages to both, and I suspect that the answer depends on the specifics of the proposed tax cuts or proposed spending. But my point is that these things both increase the deficit...and that's OK. Deficit spending (because we're spending more than we're taxing) is exactly the position we should find ourselves in...and in fact we should be doing a lot more of it IMO. Economists largely agree that we need to provide economic stimulus during recessions (as opposed to austerity and budget-balancing), they simply disagree on the exact components of what the stimulus should be.

What was the exact question? Wording matters.

"Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." - 90% of economists agree
"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly." - 85% of economists agree
 
Back
Top Bottom