Page 129 of 149 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130131139 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 1482

Thread: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

  1. #1281
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Keynes generally quantified it in terms of full employment, i.e. when there is full employment government should not engage in deficit spending. When unemployment rises then government may engage in deficit spending -- which he called investment (in education, R&D, infrastructure) to boost aggregate demand and set the stage for a return to full employment. It is in the General Theory but I couldn't give you a page number right now. It's been a long time since I read it.
    There wasn't full employment under Bush. How much more debt (beyond the $5 Trillion) should Bush have spent to get us there, according to Keynes? According to you earlier, Bush should have raised taxes and balanced the debt because the economy was "decent", now that you've proven yourself wrong by bending your own argument over and breech-loading it, how much more debt should Bush have run up?

  2. #1282
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    There wasn't full employment under Bush. How much more debt (beyond the $5 Trillion) should Bush have spent to get us there, according to Keynes? According to you earlier, Bush should have raised taxes and balanced the debt because the economy was "decent", now that you've proven yourself wrong by bending your own argument over and breech-loading it, how much more debt should Bush have run up?
    Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment.

    Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.
    "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

  3. #1283
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment.

    Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.
    Im pretty sure static/transitional unemployment is always considered to be under 5%. 7% seems way to high to be accurate. I kind of remember reading 4.5% as the number but its been a number of years since I took macro or micro.

  4. #1284
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Im pretty sure static/transitional unemployment is always considered to be under 5%. 7% seems way to high to be accurate. I kind of remember reading 4.5% as the number but its been a number of years since I took macro or micro.
    Many economists have estimated the amount of frictional unemployment, with the number ranging from 2-7% of the labor force.

    Read more: Full Employment Definition | Investopedia

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #1285
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Many economists have estimated the amount of frictional unemployment, with the number ranging from 2-7% of the labor force.

    Read more: Full Employment Definition | Investopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment.

    Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.
    Oh, you two! Just like Keynes and Duncan Grant!

    What you lovebirds failed to mention about those "many" economists and "economists generally" is that they are neoclassical. I suggest googeling NAIRU, and read who in particular developed it. Keynes then--just as Tobin does now--argued for a zero unemployment rate.

  6. #1286
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Oh, you two! Just like Keynes and Duncan Grant!

    What you lovebirds failed to mention about those "many" economists and "economists generally" is that they are neoclassical. I suggest googeling NAIRU, and read who in particular developed it. Keynes then--just as Tobin does now--argued for a zero unemployment rate.
    You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
    "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

  7. #1287
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).

    What has proven IMPOSSIBLE is Obama keeping his promises unemployment (and Gitmo, and Bush tax cuts, and the deficit, and...)

    But then everyone knows that Obama is a pathological liar and fundamentally corrupt.

  8. #1288
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
    I don't always agree with Mr T but on this one I have to. Full employment is ually considered in the 3-4% range.

  9. #1289
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
    Like Marx, who was too busy describing the evils of capitalism to describe how socialism would actually work, leaving it to Stalin and Mao to work out the details. Keynes never defines full employment, which is why every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. Astrologists such as yourself can throw your bones and decipher the arbitrary predictions in any way that pleases your preconceived notions, because those predictions are vague and undefined.

  10. #1290
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    I don't always agree with Mr T but on this one I have to. Full employment is ually considered in the 3-4% range.
    By Milton Friedman, not Keynes.

Posting Permissions

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