Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 152

Thread: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

  1. #131
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60
    But my point was the New Deal DEFINITELY was - as you typed - 'an expansionary fiscal policy during periods of economic weakness'.
    The above quote is true. The leap that the New Deal was Keynesian in nature is not.

    Increased spending is not inherently Keynesian. Increased spending in a time of economic contraction is not inherently Keynesian. "Economic stimulus" is not inherently Keynesian.

    If running yearly deficits for almost a decade that averaged 3.5% of GDP to try and stimulate an economy is not Keynesian economics (or, part of it) then I do not know what it is.
    You're absolutely right: you don't.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 06-08-12 at 11:28 AM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    The above quote is true. The leap that the New Deal was Keynesian in nature is not.

    Increased spending is not inherently Keynesian. Increased spending in a time of economic contraction is not inherently Keynesian. "Economic stimulus" is not inherently Keynesian.



    You're absolutely right: you don't.
    Have I read the book you speak of? Nope.

    But I understand it fairly well, imo.



    I see you avoided answering my above question.

    I will ask it again...

    'You disagree with definitions from dozens of respected online publications (including the Financial Times, apparently) as to the simplified definition of Keynesian economics.

    They are respected (some more then others).

    You are not.

    Whom should we believe?

    You or them?'


    I see from some of your other posts that you seem to revel in misinformation, inexactitude and just looking to fight.

    I asked you a simple question - which you dodged.

    You refuse to deal with facts or providing links to unbiased sources to make your point.

    Imo, you are a juvenile poster and basically a troll.

    You do not debate - you misinterpret, rant and judge.

    I have better things to do then waste my time with people like you.


    When you learn to treat others with respect and to post links to back up your rants - then I will pay attention to you.

    Until then - why should I?


    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 06-08-12 at 11:43 AM.

  3. #133
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Have I read the book you speak of?
    Yes, actually I have studied Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics for quite some time so I know exactly what I am talking about, especially something so elementary as to what it actually is.

    But I understand it fairly well, imo.
    If you understood it fairly well then you wouldn't be appealing to incorrect dictionary definitions but rather arguing your point yourself. You're very clearly misinformed on what Keynes asserted.

    The fact that don and I are on the same side on this issue is pretty telling. It's because this is economics 101.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 06-08-12 at 11:45 AM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Yes, actually I have studied Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics for quite some time so I know exactly what I am talking about, especially something so elementary as to what it actually is.



    If you understood it fairly well then you wouldn't be appealing to incorrect dictionary definitions but rather arguing your point yourself. You're very clearly misinformed on what Keynes asserted.

    The fact that don and I are on the same side on this issue is pretty telling. It's because this is economics 101.
    I see you avoided answering my above question...again.

    I will ask it again...

    'You disagree with definitions from dozens of respected online publications (including the Financial Times, apparently) as to the simplified definition of Keynesian economics.

    They are respected (some more then others).

    You are not.

    Whom should we believe?

    You or them?'
    Last edited by DA60; 06-08-12 at 11:50 AM.

  5. #135
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    He didn't cause it, but he extended it, and created generations of Americans who have fed off the government teet since. It was the beginning of oversized government, which the Constitution was written to prevent.
    Wrong again. In fact FDR's pro-growth policies were working very well ... until conservatives talked him into going to austerity mode before the recovery was on solid ground. THAT caused the economy to backslide until it was bailed out by the biggest stimulus package of all time: WWII.
    "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

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Wrong again. In fact FDR's pro-growth policies were working very well ... until conservatives talked him into going to austerity mode before the recovery was on solid ground. THAT caused the economy to backslide until it was bailed out by the biggest stimulus package of all time: WWII.
    Ummm...he cut the budget for only one year.

    And because the economy had grown SO dependent on government stimulus - it fell back into a recession.

    All FDR did was artificially prop up the economy on debt.

    And as soon as the debt crutch was removed - it collapsed.

    Hardly a ringing endorsement for his Keynesianism-style polices.


    FDR took office in March, 1933.

    So how did the unemployment rate and the DOW from then until WW2 (for America)?

    He introduced the banking Act which caused a big (temporary) jump in the DOW.

    But after that - what happened?

    From mid '33 until mid '42, the DOW went down.

    Dow Jones Industrial Average (1900 - Present Monthly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

    And from 1933 until 1941, the unemployment rate averaged over 17%. Even in 1939 it was still 17.2%.


    The Great Depression Statistics


    And what happened during the 1920/21 Depression - which was handled by the government basically budding out and a slashing of the budget?

    Within 3 1/2 years both the unemployment rate AND the Dow were back to near pre-Depression levels.

    And the national debt actually went down.


    THAT is how you handle a recession/depression.


    BTW - if you look at Britain during the Great Depression; they also had mid-20% unemployment rate.

    But they spent FAR less then America did, yet they recovered FAR faster.


    The lesson - massive government spending does not work during a recession/depression.

    It gives a quick fix - but then it just ends up making things MUCH worse in the long run.
    Last edited by DA60; 06-08-12 at 12:29 PM.

  7. #137
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    And what happened during the 1920/21 Depression...
    The causes of the Great Depression and the causes of the 1920-21 contraction were different. The former had far more systemic and structural causes. The latter was largely the consequence of the post-WW I scale-down. If one looks at Pre-WW II U.S. history, one finds numerous significant economic downturns following the end of the nation's wars.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-08-12 at 12:44 PM.

  8. #138
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Have I read the book you speak of? Nope.

    But I understand it fairly well, imo.
    If you haven't read Keynes or studied Keynesian economics, how can you understand it well? Just because one hears about it, even if quoted accurately, does not mean one understands it well. Absent the context and details, one can have a superficial understanding.

    Finally, even as KC and I have disagreed on numerous issues, I strongly disagree with you that he is trolling. He is insisting on precision that is essential to discussing/debating Keynesian economics in a rigorous sense.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The causes of the Great Depression and the causes of the 1920-21 contraction were different. The former had far more systemic and structural causes. The latter was largely the consequence of the post-WW I scale-down. If one looks at Pre-WW II U.S. history, one finds numerous significant economic downturns following the end of the nation's wars.
    I have four comments to this:

    1) Were my statements about how quickly the DOW and the unemployment rate and the massive reduction of government spending during that time accurate?

    BTW - the answer is 'yes'.

    2) EVERY single recession/depression is different - no two are alike. They were both huge economic corrections (granted - the great Depression was definitely larger). And they were both handled MASSIVELY different.

    The result?

    The 1920/21 version ended quickly and actually saved the country money.

    The Great Depression dragged on and on and on and cost the country (in the form of a greater national debt) BIG time.


    3) Do you have links to unbiased, factual statistics that prove that the two were so dissimilar that to compare the two in the way I did is completely ineffective?

    Because if you cannot - i am really not interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion. Everyone in this forum has an opinion. I can get 500 different opinions on this if I ask enough people for it.

    That teaches me nothing.

    I am only truly interested in unbiased facts.

    If you have them - please present them and I will definitely view them.

    Otherwise - it's just more endless debate.

    I realize a ton of people on here seem to love that - I am NOT one of them.

    I am here to learn and teach and pass the time - not to chatter on infinitum (no offense).


    And, 4) as I typed, the fact that the British had mid-20's unemployment during the Great Depression as well, spend a fraction of what America did and yet, recovered FAR faster yet again shows that Keynesian-style policies (i.e. MASSIVE government spending to stimulate an economy) do not work.

    They are not working now. And they did not work during the Great Depression.
    Last edited by DA60; 06-08-12 at 01:14 PM.

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    If you haven't read Keynes or studied Keynesian economics, how can you understand it well? Just because one hears about it, even if quoted accurately, does not mean one understands it well. Absent the context and details, one can have a superficial understanding.
    I said 'fairly well' - not 'well'.

    Please do not misquote me.

    'Fairly well' means (to me) a basic understanding.

    'Well' means (to me) a thorough understanding.


    Besides - the definiton from the Financial Times disagrees with you and the other guy's opinions.

    You honestly think I should take two faceless, nameless people on a chat forum's word over the Financial Times?

    Not to mention noted economists I respect like Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff?

    No offense, but come on now.

    Finally, even as KC and I have disagreed on numerous issues, I strongly disagree with you that he is trolling. He is insisting on precision that is essential to discussing/debating Keynesian economics in a rigorous sense.
    Precision?

    I have seen him deal in in-exactitude on numerous occasions with myself and other posters he has dealt with - and I have only been here a few days.

    You seem a reasonable debater - he does not.

    I believe he is inexact, condescending, combative, closed-minded and far more interested in putting people down then dealing in an open dialogue.

    You disagree?

    Noted.

    Now can we please move on?
    Last edited by DA60; 06-08-12 at 01:24 PM.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 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
  •