Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 97

Thread: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommittee’

  1. #71
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    As I said, when someone actually proposes that, let me know.
    Okay, I'm letting you know. This is what Democrats have proposed over and over again. The current proposal from Democrats on the super committee includes 6:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.

    The Repbulicans, OTOH, are proposing to reduce the deficit by eliminating $800 billion in revenue. They are completely divorced from reality.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #72
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    nah. history shows us the path we must take. we cut spending, and then even though that is supposed to be disastrous "some other undefined but still apparently massively powerful impact" will come in and save us.
    Where does history show us this?

    The UK? Where austerity programs have completely stalled out the economy?
    UK economy slumps to 0.2% growth - HFFM Forum

    We all know how wall the Greek austerity program is working - doubled unemployment and shrinking the economy.

    Government Spending Chart in United States 1902-2015 - Federal State Local

    Government spending in relation to GDP is perfectly in line with where it has been historically. We should continue to reduce in areas, yes. Entitlement reform is necessary as we face the onslaught of Boomer retirements, for sure.

    Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

    Tax revenue as a share of GDP is approximately 14.6% - the lowest it's been in 60 years. Under Reagan, the average tax revenue to GDP ratio was 18.2%.

    This IS a revenue problem. Rates are too low and collection is hampered by a damaged economy - an economy that many more people are recognizing now - that was killed by staggering inequality and nearly all economic gains going to a very small portion of the population.

    Wealth And Inequality In America

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Okay, I'm letting you know. This is what Democrats have proposed over and over again. The current proposal from Democrats on the super committee includes 6:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.

    The Repbulicans, OTOH, are proposing to reduce the deficit by eliminating $800 billion in revenue. They are completely divorced from reality.
    No it doesn't. They want taxes now. Spending now. Promises of cuts later. That is never going to pass. No new spending. Cuts now and then we can consider taxes.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Where does history show us this?

    The UK? Where austerity programs have completely stalled out the economy?
    UK economy slumps to 0.2% growth - HFFM Forum
    Why must the economy grow faster than that?

  5. #75
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not really - selling treasuries still accomplishes that. it just doesn't do it through coercion.

    the POINT, which is that selling treasuries is removing money from the private market and turning it into public expenditures remains.
    Which only makes sense if there were investment choices that investors would pick otherwise. Which as I pointed out to 1perry is not the case. As usual, you are wrong. You again leave out key pieces of information in your one size fits all ideology. You never bother to examine the key points, you never bother to examine why things are different. Basically you take a IMF approach, one size fits all, ignore anything different. Hence why you constantly lose.

    until you can prove that treasuries don't get sold and therefore the government is using magic money that would have had no alternate uses, your "broken window = riches" argument is bunk.
    Come again? That makes no sense. A trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets and growing collective individual savings suggests, you are as usual, wrong. You of course will have no actual response to the actual conditions on the ground. They don't fit your one size fits all policies.

    i can't decide whether it's sadder that you think this is my only argument, or that you think your pathetic strawman has somehow stripped it.
    Considering you are down to sniping and reliance upon arguments that completely ignore how corporations and individuals are spending/savings their money, yes you don't have another real argument.

    not at all; I am merely arguing that if they had not bought debt, they would have done something else with the money; whether savings, investment, or direct consumption. your argument is dependent upon the assumption that had they not bought treasuries that wealth would have not have been used for any other purpose. it assumes no cost-benefit for letting the government allocate those funds v letting the market allocate those funds - which requires that the market must not be able to allocate them. if you want to argue that the wealthy would have instead shoved it into mattresses, or set it on fire... however it is that you think that it would have been completely pulled out, I am willing to hear it.
    Seriously, are you completely cut off from the market since the past 3 years? Corporations are literally sitting on a trillion dollars of cash. Individual consumption is way down compared to the boom years. Even luxury spending is considerably off compared to the mid-2000s. Large numbers of investors are buying gold and little else. It's not just the wealthy. Large institutional money artificially pumped oil up to record highs because there was little else to buy. Your argument is completely idiotic because you are assuming there are opportunities out there that are superior. If that was the case, we should not see treasuries with at times, negative yields. As for the savings arguments, the low rates of lending coupled with at times negative growth per inflation, savings is actually doing nothing.

    nor are they synonymous, though often the first is indication that the second is not present. people tend to most aggressively defend the positions they feel are least supported.
    *sigh* I've already argued this point a dozen times before. You and your kin's inability to actually learn anything is why I'm starting to become a real asshole to you. Failing to learn anything a dozen times tries my patience. I call you people cowards because you are. This argument has been hashed out so many times and you people always run away. I simply do not have the patience to deal with you nicely, not that it would matter, you don't learn anyways.

    1. it couldn't because I am not trying to compensate for RW weakness by being a cyber-jackoff
    2. it doesn't because the more you argue the more I realize how deeply flawed your analysis is. you aren't even particularly good at defending your positions - you're just needy.
    That coming from a guy who thinks that a trillion dollars sitting on corporate balance sheets doing nothing and huge amounts piling up collectively for individuals is a sign that money is being used.

    Really. My analysis is wrong that such income isn't being used...but your analysis that by doing nothing it's doing something is right?

    That is a sign of a crackpot belief.



    a loan guarantee is just that. we basically give another entity our credit rating by agreeing to meet the remainder of the debt should they go belly up - and it costs us nothing... until they do. but i think it's funny how you have to insist that no one is capable of knowing this but you.
    Considering how you had to look that up before replying to me, you are finally one of them.

    not at all - you have on many occasions called for massive public investment in alternative energies.
    Wow. Could you lie some more? What I argued for is not what you are claiming. Yes, we do need to invest in alternative energy. That is not the same thing as simply giving money out willy nilly as you are implying.

    i haven't avoided it at all, i've pointed out the false assumptions in the claim you are making. namely:

    1. if the government isn't spending the money, then that money will not exist.
    No one except you argued that. As evident by your constantly cowardly refusal to address the growing cash mountain, the private sector and private individuals are not spending the cash. And savings rates are so low that they frankly aren't going anywhere in relation to inflation. Effectively the money does nothing. It is not that the money does not exist, it is still in M1. It's just that the velocity is zero and multiplier is zero. Meaning, it is doing nothing. Therefore, that would if freely invested by individuals could do something if the government used it. Your asinine crackpot argument argues that money doing nothing is money doing something.

    2. massive government expenditure will not distort incentives and will not lead to less efficient allocation of resources
    Considering I never argued that was wrong, only that immediate spending cuts would lead to a recession that money sitting around doing nothing does nothing you are once again a liar. My argument is not at all based on such an assumption.

    hence the flaw in your "reduction in government spending = reduction in demand" theory. there are plenty of reasons (and multiple historical examples) that indicate that in fact reducing the share of the economy that is taken up by the government will increase productivity and demand.
    Over the long term. Which you as usual leave out because it harms your argument. Let's rehash. Your first point is bunk because it relies upon the stupid belief that money doing nothing is money doing something and your second argument which isn't even relevant.

    Can you fail a little less next time?

    but, if you like, we could put this to a simple enough test. let us take a list of OECD nations broken down by the size of their government relative to GDP. and then let us list the same nations, but now in order of growth - and let's average for the last 10, 15, and 20 years or so so as to not have outlier years spoil the test. what do you want to bet that the developed nations with higher portions of government spending will grow faster?
    You doing to run regression to eliminate other factors or going to a hack and pretend that only your factor is important? Bet I can guess!

    no, it will not, because it will reudce the percentage of resources currently being allocated for reasons of politics and increase the percentage of resources being allocated for reasons of efficiency and return.
    You mean like that trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets doing nothing efficiently? Oh wait. Why are you completely incapable of even acknowledging that? Oh, I know why. Because it hurts your beliefs. Got it.
    YAY! I Win my bet! you...just...can't....help....it, can you?
    You know, it's generally a bad idea to keep rehashing the same refuted argument. That study again assumes money would have automatically been used more efficiently. Want to tell me how spending on pet rocks is more efficient then spending on space research? Oh wait. You won't. Relying upon a study which assumes the basis of its argument without proving it is a classic failure. You are begging the question and you don't even get why it's a bad argument. Furthermore, the impact upon Spain from such an activity is relatively minor as a percent of its economy. The housing issue is far more of a concern. Which you of course cannot deal with.

    huh. and what does it make you for depending so desperately on strawmen? you haven't merely claimed that keynesian theory stands even though it has failed with regards to the recent fiscal crises, your argument is that it stands even though it's public spending proscription has failed consistently whenever it's been tried for the last 20 years.
    You really outta stop defining strawman as anything you can't refute. Care to post an actual study for a change? Not one that ignores monetary policy, oil, the internet and basically every piece of information out there?

    Btw, Bush used Keynesian theory to get us out of the 2001 recession. Whoops. WWIII was a Keynesian action. Germany's rise from WWI ashes was Keynesian. China's been riding double digit growth for ten years on Keynesian. Failed consistently eh? O'rly?

    HAH! youare accusing others of being insulting and dismissive? project much?
    Except that you are wrong. I'm not. Who's the one who's pretending that a trillion dollars doing nothing is doing something? You. Not me.

    you do realize that constructing and then smashing a strawman doesn't actually count as defeating an argument?
    Once again, defining strawman as anything you can't refute is a perversion of the English Language.

    no, i know how the theory works. I just also know that the theory is bunk because (again) it assumes that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis on having government v the market allocate those resources - that you can just pretend that those resources had no other possible use.
    Do you ever stop lying? In good economic times the government should cut spending as the market has returned to normal operations and allocates resources better. During bad times, such as now, when private sector spending significantly drops and money does literally nothing, the government should step in and spend on long term durable assets that the private sector will later use. You are being dishonest as usual by ignoring that key part. Your argument stems on the stupid belief that the private sector is spending like it did in 2006.

    which is funny coming from the guy who insists that you can track the benefits of government spending independent of the alternate uses available to those funds.
    Considering that the alternative uses in this case are essentially none, which you keep ignoring because you can't deal with it, in this case, we can do it. Your entire argument is predicated upon a condition that does not exist at the current moment. IF we were in a 2006 like spending craze, yes you would be right. We are not. It's just your argument hasn't accounted for the fact it's not 2006. Back to your one size fits all policy.

    fail again - I wasn't referencing Tarp but rather Bush's stupid keynesian "prime the pump by sending everyone a check/tax credit" idea.
    So tax cuts and supply side fails?

    I have never claimed so. your theory, however, depends upon the assumption that had they not purchased that debt, that the money would have been used in no other economic activity. and so that is what I am waiting for you to prove.

    show me the money........... silos.
    How about a trillion dollars in corporate books doing absolutely nothing?

    yes. i freely admit it because i have never argued otherwise. in fact, my argument is dependent upon the notion that people wish to buy treasuries, and will do so given the opportunity.
    Except that you argued that the government is taking peoples' money. If they were taking peoples' money away from them, it would imply that people had better choices with their money and would have otherwise invested in those choices. Therefore you as usual, are wrong.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #76
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Where does history show us this?
    It doesn't. He's relying upon a study which essentially picked its own parameters to get the result it wanted by explicitly ignoring monetary policy, natural resource finds and things like the internet. I took him to town twice on it, and twice he cowardly ran away. But he never learns his lesson.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #77
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I can provide links that show these "multipliers" are anything but. You'll just dismiss it as no one wanting to provide evidence against what you write.
    Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Unfortunately this will happen to a point because people do not want to address fraud and waste. That fraud and waste is going to campaign supporters in part. I believe we can make budget changing cuts by addressing fraud and waste. That is where I would start.
    Fraud and waste will not fix our deficit. We could cut the entire discretionary portion of our budget and we'd still be in the hole. And health care fraud is large no doubt, but hardly enough to hurt the deficit.

    The head of a program would be instructed to cut X amount without cutting employee's or services. If they are unable, they would be the one replaced. Nobody is argueing that the deficit will be eliminated overnight.
    You should hang around here more often. At best we can do is cutting it down in 10, maybe 20. The slash and burn crowd doesn't get the domino effect nor has any idea what demand is .

    Now if we just want to cut people, people are going to get even madder than they are now and sooner or later the deficit will have to be addressed. I'm not sure how you think we will get the economy going by taking more money from people.
    Who is pointing guns at debt buyers?

    Well, when someone proposes that let me know.
    The Simpson-Bowles Commission did.

    I think it's far more likely that they simply dismiss you because you call them morons.
    no, I call them morons because they think that in the absence of the spending, demand would have stayed the same. How can you not call them moron? It's like saying having a hole in the bucket leaking out a gallon a minute and not replacing that water means that the bucket will have the same level of water the next day. Those. people. Are. Stupid.

    It most certainly did something. It got us further into debt.
    Absolutely. It also maintained demand.

    The stimulus curbed demand. This is what you can not seem to understand and you want to call others a moron because you refuse to see the complete picture. People realized that the government borrowed $800 billion and frittered it away and that the bill is going to come due so we better get our finances in order for that day. The more the government spends, the less the tax providers are going to spend.
    Highly doubtful. US obligations on a county to federal level were already $50 trillion by then. Borrowing another $800 billion will not change the fact that we are already boned in that regard. If you cut spending because of the stimulus, you already were spending nothing anyways in light of total US obligations pre-stimulus. Furthermore, by that measure, Bush's tax cuts should have also curtailed spending as well as his tax cuts were almost entirely debt financed and the same logic applies. They didn't and you know it. What killed demand was a deleveraging recession. Which apparently only a handful of people understand.

    Your requirement is dismissable.
    Tell that to China. Their expansion says you are wrong.

    "dramatic" "immediate" "quickly". All dismissable arguements. Sorry, Obama had his shot at "stimulus". As you note he blew it. He's not getting another shot at it. With things like Solyndra and all the other examples of Obama enriching those who contribute to him, nobody is willingly going to entrust him with another penny.
    Are you seriously going with the idiotic argument that all stimulus spending is the same? Critical thinking here is becoming harder and harder to find.

    You are the one who said people used the money for "necessities". I simply said that allowing people to keep their money to buy "necessities" can not be completely deemed a failure.
    So you reply to a point refuting your argument about taking money with that....

    I also have no doubt in a short amount of time you'll once again argue that nobody will address any of your points.
    Hey, when you ignore points like the last one, it's hard not to.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #78
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Which only makes sense if there were investment choices that investors would pick otherwise
    exactly. now, given the continued the presence of state, municipal, and corporate bonds markets; the continued presence of money market accounts, and the continued presence of stock exchanges around the world, that argument is kinda stupid, isn't it?

    [quote]Which as I pointed out to 1perry is not the case. ]/quote]

    these things have all collapsed? show me the money silos.

    Come again? That makes no sense. A trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets and growing collective individual savings suggests, you are as usual, wrong.
    actually what it suggests is that American citizens are deleveraging (a good thing) and that corporations have high amounts of uncertainty. gosh I wonder if that uncertainty has anything to do with an overexpansive federal government lurching from one overreaction to another?

    but let's put your theory to the test. you want to increase demand. so, you borrow from individuals and companies who are looking to take their money and pour it into savings. then, in order to stimulate their demand, you give it back to them. what are they going to do with it? oh, that's right - they are going to put it back into savings, or use it to pay down on our massive levels of personal and corporate debt. just like we did with Bush's 2008 "stimulus".

    Considering you are down to sniping and reliance upon arguments that completely ignore how corporations and individuals are spending/savings their money
    see, it's funny how you say that, and then when I point out that individuals and companies in highly leveraged economies tend to pour windfalls into paying off debt and/or increasing savings you declare that the study must be flawed; as just because people are actually doing that doesn't mean that they would actually be doing that.

    Seriously, are you completely cut off from the market since the past 3 years? Corporations are literally sitting on a trillion dollars of cash.
    yes, see above about the implications of that.

    Individual consumption is way down compared to the boom years.
    and thank goodness. the sooner you stop digging, the less you have to work your way out of.

    Even luxury spending is considerably off compared to the mid-2000s. Large numbers of investors are buying gold and little else. It's not just the wealthy. Large institutional money artificially pumped oil up to record highs because there was little else to buy. Your argument is completely idiotic because you are assuming there are opportunities out there that are superior.
    this is incorrect - the treasury is a superior investment in many ways during periods of intense turbulence. hence it's status as a "flight to risk" investment. that's why we've seen treasuries go 'real' negative at points - as people move to value security over return.

    but none of this answers the basic point; what would they be doing with 1.5 Trillion if we weren't selling that much in treasuries.

    I've already argued this point a dozen times before
    yes, but you seem to have "you arguing a point" confused with "you demonstrating a point".

    I call you people cowards because you are.
    no, you call people cowards because you need to.

    That coming from a guy who thinks that a trillion dollars sitting on corporate balance sheets doing nothing and huge amounts piling up collectively for individuals is a sign that money is being used.
    certainly I would rather have it there than have government wasting it.

    Really. My analysis is wrong that such income isn't being used...but your analysis that by doing nothing it's doing something is right?
    question 1: the US does, or does not, have a fractional banking system that just went through a massive liquidity crises?
    question 2: the American private sector is or is not still highly leveraged?
    question 3: consumption is or is not the trading of earlier excess production?

    That is a sign of a crackpot belief.
    see, I would tend to interpret the obsessive focus on the next quarter, the insistence that bubbles be maintained post-pop no matter the cost, the refusal to allow the market to reallocate resources as indications of a crackpot belief.

    Considering how you had to look that up before replying to me, you are finally one of them.
    not really - as I didn't. but I'll chalk this up as example #1,298 how you have a weird need to declare yourself the smartest person in the room.

    Wow. Could you lie some more? What I argued for is not what you are claiming. Yes, we do need to invest in alternative energy. That is not the same thing as simply giving money out willy nilly as you are implying.
    if you are doing it through government then absolutely the economic effect is as if you had done it nily willy; because you are handing it out according to political incentives rather than economic ones.

    however, I find your repeated insistence that to disagree with you is to lie interesting.

    No one except you argued that. As evident by your constantly cowardly refusal to address the growing cash mountain, the private sector and private individuals are not spending the cash.
    they certainly aren't spending it all. which is fine. in fact, it's probably good. you can only consume what you haven't yet produced for so long, and the sooner you close the gap, the better.

    And savings rates are so low that they frankly aren't going anywhere in relation to inflation. Effectively the money does nothing. It is not that the money does not exist, it is still in M1. It's just that the velocity is zero and multiplier is zero.
    It goes to recapitalize the banks (good) or it goes to pay down debt (good); and in both instances it will enable future consumption and investment (also good).

    but remember that people tend most to save fully the perceived windfalls, while spending and investing at a more steady rate from regular income.

    in other words, BY TAKING MONEY FROM PEOPLE THAT CAME TO THEM IN THE FORM OF INCOME AND GIVING IT BACK TO THEM IN THE FORM OF A WINDFALL YOU ARE INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL TAKE PRECISELY THE KIND OF ACTION THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO AVOID.

  9. #79
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Meaning, it is doing nothing.
    not at all. the paradox of thrift is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of consumption.

    Therefore, that would if freely invested by individuals could do something if the government used it. Your asinine crackpot argument argues that money doing nothing is money doing something.
    no, my asininie crackpot theory argues that the market allocates resources more effectively than government does and that long term growth is better than trying to temporarily prop up a bubble.

    Considering I never argued that was wrong, only that immediate spending cuts would lead to a recession that money sitting around doing nothing does nothing you are once again a liar
    again this is incorrect on both counts. reducing government spending would simply allow a larger portion of our resources to be allocated by the more efficient market.

    My argument is not at all based on such an assumption.
    in fact it is. when resources are allocated badly, they can be effectively destroyed, when they are allocated efficiently, they can actually multiply.

    Over the long term.
    that is correct. which is odd, if you think about it. all that money the government isn't spending... it just sits in a money silo never ever ever doing anything, right?

    Which you as usual leave out because it harms your argument.
    on the contrary, that is my argument. that you want an actual healthy environment for growth. you want to train and build muscle to become strong, not try to keep pumping yourself full of ever increasing amounts of methamphetamine, especially when doing so will not actually even help in he short term.

    You doing to run regression to eliminate other factors or going to a hack and pretend that only your factor is important? Bet I can guess!
    you'd have to look at the study itself - however, that's why you have wide ranging data - all other factors being equal over time, the expression will still be discernable. it is you who are left arguing that every time something different comes along to ruin keynesianism whereas every time something comes around to benefit those who reject it. you seek to make your theory non-falsifiable to protect it from its' routine failures.

    You mean like that trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets doing nothing efficiently?
    on the contrary - if they re putting it there, it means that is the best place available for them to allocate resources.

    Oh wait. Why are you completely incapable of even acknowledging that?
    you are aware I reference that every time a discussion of the Obama regulatory regime comes up?

    You know, it's generally a bad idea to keep rehashing the same refuted argument
    it is. yet here you are.

    That study again assumes money would have automatically been used more efficiently
    I can think of a few safer bets (death, taxes), but not many. government inefficiency at allocating resources is just a fact of life, a matter of the comparable incentive structures. nor were the assumptions made in this study all that out of reasonableness - similar to the comparative studies that look at how much it takes government "investment" to "create" job v private sector investment in this country.

    Want to tell me how spending on pet rocks is more efficient then spending on space research
    as soon as you tell me how spending on a bridge to nowhere is more efficient than financing the next Apple.

    Furthermore, the impact upon Spain from such an activity is relatively minor as a percent of its economy.
    it is certainly less a factor than the housing crises - but hardly irrelevant. Spains' unemployment was... what, 7-8% before the bubble popped?

    You really outta stop defining strawman as anything you can't refute. Care to post an actual study for a change?
    you know, the one person whining about how nobody else's evidence doesn't count, while refusing to provide his own, probably doesn't want to bring the topic of conversation back to it.

    Btw, Bush used Keynesian theory to get us out of the 2001 recession.
    yup. that's why we didn't see much take-off until after he learned his lesson and went supply-side in 2003. then he was stupid and went back to Keynesian theory to avoid a reccesion in 2008. how'd that work out?

    WWIII was a Keynesian action
    and of course there was no rationing, or anything. hey, as a curiousity, after WWII, keynesians were unanimous that reductions in federal spending would lead to crash and recession if not a return to the 1930's. they were basically making the same argument than you are now. yet the federal government slashed it's budget by about 75% in about 2 years. how'd that work out, anywho?

    (now watch this, you're going to try to talk about pent up demand, and then I'm going to point out to you that you are the one who has been complaining about a trillion in company's balance books and people increasing their savings)

    Germany's rise from WWI ashes was Keynesian.
    the German economy was leaving a currency collapse, had just deleveraged herself, and during the war sustained itself through conquest. the rest of society was drained to feed military - related industries.

    if you want an actual study of a German economic miracle, you may want to read about West Germany post-WWII under the system set up by Ludwig Erhard.

    China's been riding double digit growth for ten years on Keynesian
    China has been riding (inflated) "double digit growth" for ten years based on market liberalization. And China is currently riding the mother of all real estate bubbles because of the keynesianism they have engaged in.

    Failed consistently eh? O'rly?
    oh yeah.



    Obama's 5 Million Green Jobs Falls 5 Million Jobs Short

    and so forth.

    Except that you are wrong. I'm not.
    no. I'm rubber you're glue.

    Do you ever stop lying?
    project much?

    In good economic times the government should cut spending as the market has returned to normal operations and allocates resources better.
    hmmm... trying to fit this square peg into the round hole that claims that government reductions in spending will lead to bad economic times....

    During bad times, such as now, when private sector spending significantly drops and money does literally nothing, the government should step in and spend on long term durable assets that the private sector will later use.
    not at all - when a bubble pops you need creative destruction to reallocate resources. trying to short that process to save [i]failed[/il] or inefficient assets only unnecessarily prolongs and deepens the pain.

    Your argument stems on the stupid belief that the private sector is spending like it did in 2006.
    whereas your argument stems from the stupid belief that the market should be spending like it did in 2006.

    Considering that the alternative uses in this case are essentially none,
    they go in the money silos!!! no banks, no savings, no debt reduction, no other safe investments, no emergency funds to allow corporations and individuals to survive an idiotic federal government swinging wildly from one piece of keynesian foolishness to another.... it all goes in the money silos and it never comes out.

    So tax cuts and supply side fails?
    no - tax credits are a keynesian idea - which you well know. because they function the same as government spending. had we met the recession with a reduction in government spending, tax code simplification and rate lowering, and seen worse results than we have over the past few years, then yes, that would have been a supply side failure.

    How about a trillion dollars in corporate books doing absolutely nothing what it should be doing, given our idiotic government
    fixed that for you.

    Except that you argued that the government is taking peoples' money
    and it is. that doesn't require that it is coercing them. the cashier at the supermarket takes your money as well; she requires no gun.

    If they were taking peoples' money away from them, it would imply that people had better choices with their money and would have otherwise invested in those choices.
    not at all. the fact that they are being sold implies that those people must have considered treasuries to be the best place for their money. but treasuries are hardly the only AAA (oh, excuse me, now that we've spent ourselves into oblivion in the idea that increasing the governments' share of the economy will make us rich we're AA, aren't we?) security, or safe zone, and as money flows into those, it will drive down returns to the point where they are unacceptable and then move on to something else. you are in effect not allowing capital to flee the market. when you up deficit spending, however, you are helping it to flee the market - you are creating the very conditions you are claiming to be trying to solve.

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Someone's textbook theory. Seems that we have already agreed with the Boeing example that it doesn't work in real life like it does in a classroom.

    Fraud and waste will not fix our deficit. We could cut the entire discretionary portion of our budget and we'd still be in the hole. And health care fraud is large no doubt, but hardly enough to hurt the deficit.
    It was a response to your hyperbole that there are people argueing that we need to completely get rid of the deficit right now. I have no idea how much we can cut in waste and fraud but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the 10 figure range.

    You should hang around here more often. At best we can do is cutting it down in 10, maybe 20. The slash and burn crowd doesn't get the domino effect nor has any idea what demand is .
    You should do more than simply make accusations.

    Who is pointing guns at debt buyers?
    Our problem is people not spending. Not a lack of idiots willing to help us get into more debt.

    The Simpson-Bowles Commission did.
    Yes, granted they did. Too bad Obama wasted the money we spent on that.

    no, I call them morons because they think that in the absence of the spending, demand would have stayed the same. How can you not call them moron? It's like saying having a hole in the bucket leaking out a gallon a minute and not replacing that water means that the bucket will have the same level of water the next day. Those. people. Are. Stupid.
    It's been explained to you. Everything may not have remained the same but that's because it CAN'T. The demand before the crash was largely a bubble and artificial. THat can not be maintained. THat's our problem. The government thinking they must lift Wall Street back to where it was before the crash.

    Absolutely. It also maintained demand.
    No, it simply created inflation making things appear better when it's actually worse.

    Highly doubtful. US obligations on a county to federal level were already $50 trillion by then. Borrowing another $800 billion will not change the fact that we are already boned in that regard. If you cut spending because of the stimulus, you already were spending nothing anyways in light of total US obligations pre-stimulus. Furthermore, by that measure, Bush's tax cuts should have also curtailed spending as well as his tax cuts were almost entirely debt financed and the same logic applies. They didn't and you know it. What killed demand was a deleveraging recession. Which apparently only a handful of people understand.
    Did you not see the latest numbers? Profits are well up but manufacturing is NOT. Businesses are taking in more money because of inflation but they are not making more things.

    Tell that to China. Their expansion says you are wrong.
    Pay more attention of what is going on in China right now.

    Are you seriously going with the idiotic argument that all stimulus spending is the same? Critical thinking here is becoming harder and harder to find.
    Done.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •