Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 253

Thread: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

  1. #131
    Sage Fishking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,317

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Incisor View Post
    Yes, because Conservatives wouldn't agree to revenue increases. Hard to see how cutting spending in any regard helps the economy.
    Which still does not refute my point.

    I think it's obvious he meant that Bush added $6T to the debt. And yes, he was handed trillion-dollar deficits and an economy that was falling apart. He recovered the economy without one single Republican vote. Why? Because Conservatives are party-before-country. Always.
    I know what was meant. I was merely pointing out that if someone doesn't know the difference between those two things, then it makes it hard to take the rest very seriously. As for your numbers, they are off.

    https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm

    As for the deficit...they were find under Bush until the recession hit and that wasn't something caused by Bush.

    US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

    It was $161 billion in 2007, $458 billion in 2008, and then $1,414 billion in 2009.
    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    There is no such thing as right to life...for any stage of human life.

  2. #132
    I'm not-low all the time



    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hyde Park
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,644

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    yet we are well away from full production.
    There isn't a true measurement of full production just as there isn't a definitive measure of full employment. I see you've become reliant on capacity utilization data to push your argument, but what does it really tell us? It provides a glimpse into how much (based on value) firms think they can produce given their existing capital structure, necessarily in manufacturing facilities. It does not however measure service capacity, which is extremely difficult to ascertain, and services make up the bulk of U.S. production. Furthermore, CU data is heavily dependent upon how firms value their production.

    As a side note, arguing that industry doesn't utilize total capacity is actually an argument against the economic efficiency of capitalism, such that, rent seeking through profit maximization principles account for malinvestment as well as foregone production.

    "taxation increases private sector demand by transferring money that would go into peoples savings and puts it back out into the economy in government wages, etc... that increase demand".
    It certainly is valid that taxing those with extremely high rates of savings, and then spending that money into the economy via redistribution nets a multiplier that far exceeds the economic impact of said savings.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 01-11-17 at 05:10 PM.
    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.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #133
    Professor Incisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Seen
    01-16-17 @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,925

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishking View Post
    As for the deficit...they were find under Bush until the recession hit and that wasn't something caused by Bush.
    Two things:

    1. Bush set four record deficits during his time in office, erasing a surplus and doubling the debt through trickle-down policies. In the first four years of his term, GDP growth was the worst since the Great Depression, 811,000 private sector jobs were lost, the surplus was erased, and two of those four record-breaking deficits appeared (2003: $377B deficit, 2004: $412B deficit). The only growth Bush had during his eight years was the result of the mortgage bubble he inflated beginning in 2004...which brings me to...

    2. Please take a look at the chart below, and you tell me how Bush wasn't responsible for the sudden and immediate increase in subprime lending beginning in 2004:

    BBB5_Subprime_Mortgage_origination.jpg

    Bonus points: 2003-2007 was the period that Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. Coincidence that it happened to be the same period of time of explosive subprime growth? I don't believe in coincidences. Bush's regulators stopped enforcing lending standards in 2004, which led to subprime loans that had "dramatically weakened" standards beginning in 2004. Regulators work for the Executive branch. Who runs the Executive branch? POTUS.


    It was $161 billion in 2007, $458 billion in 2008, and then $1,414 billion in 2009.
    Two of those were record-highs. And why don't you include 2001-2006?
    I'm the son of rage and love...The Jesus of Suburbia

  4. #134
    Guru
    JohnfrmClevelan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,487

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    currencies lose value when people don't have faith in the ability of those currencies to buy things. The whole confidence is completely true. Especially now that currency is not based on anything tangible and useful.
    You and a friend walk into WalMart with $20 each. You have confidence in the dollar, and he does not. Can you buy the same stuff with your $20 bills? Does WalMart raise it's prices when they see that your friend has no confidence in his twenty dollars?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    The "confidence fairy" as you call it is a REAL ECONOMIC FACTOR. In fact.. its what economics is about.... peoples behavior. Not.. accounting identities as you seem to think it is.

    When you are looking back at incidence of hyperinflation John... your are seeing the reasons that people LOST CONFIDENCE. Lack of confidence is what results in hyperinflation.
    Do you see the circularity in your argument? In the same breath, you claim that a loss of confidence is why hyperinflation happens, AND that their lost confidence is caused by the economic REASONS that I was talking about. Face it, people don't just up and decide that their currency is worthless WITHOUT A REASON. Loss of confidence is a reaction to real reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Thinking that economics is about accounting and not about human behavior.. is something used by people that well... either want to push and agenda.. or well have no clue about economics.
    And I suppose that thinking that economics is all about human behavior, and not about numbers, money, and debt - that's the way to go, and has no agenda? Your way is not severely lacking in any way because you can't explain the mechanics behind everything? The economy is great simply because people have confidence in it, and nothing - no shortage of resources, or skewed distribution of our means of conducting business - can alter that outcome?
    Last edited by JohnfrmClevelan; 01-11-17 at 05:27 PM.
    ___________________________________________

    Enchanted Necromancer Brings Life Back To Once-Dead Argument

  5. #135
    Sage Fishking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,317

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Incisor View Post
    Two things:

    1. Bush set four record deficits during his time in office, erasing a surplus and doubling the debt through trickle-down policies. In the first four years of his term, GDP growth was the worst since the Great Depression, 811,000 private sector jobs were lost, the surplus was erased, and two of those four record-breaking deficits appeared (2003: $377B deficit, 2004: $412B deficit). The only growth Bush had during his eight years was the result of the mortgage bubble he inflated beginning in 2004...which brings me to...?
    Don't have time to get into this further but not having context and ignoring other variables is a weak tactic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

    And, in case you missed it, we also had this as well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

    So...yeah...the point falls very flat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    There is no such thing as right to life...for any stage of human life.

  6. #136
    Professor Incisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Seen
    01-16-17 @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,925

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishking View Post
    Don't have time to get into this further but not having context and ignoring other variables is a weak tactic.
    So why are you employing it? The dotcom bubble burst before Bush was even inaugurated. The slight recession in 2001 didn't even result in negative growth for that year (1.9% growth in 2001). Furthermore, you know what caused the dotcom bubble? Take a wild guess...no idea? TAX CUTS!


    And, in case you missed it, we also had this as well.
    BS. 9/11 wasn't the reason Bush's growth during his first four years was so terrible. The stock market recovered all its losses by November of 2001. So you can't use 9/11 as an excuse. BTW - wasn't Bush the one saying that the best way to fight terrorists is to buy things in the consumer economy??? How exactly did 9/11 result in 4 years of poor economic growth when all the losses suffered on 9/11 were recovered less than two months later??


    So...yeah...the point falls very flat.
    Your point does, yes. Because you're trying to make excuses for 4 years of poor growth through things that had no bearing on it.
    I'm the son of rage and love...The Jesus of Suburbia

  7. #137
    Sage
    Vern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,160

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishking View Post
    That's not factually true. I mean, you're not even getting the difference between deficit and debt correct.
    first FK, thank you for pointing out that I used "deficit" incorrectly. Yes, I meant "debt". Now you say its "not factually true". Seems like a rather wordy alternative to "false" and "not true". So I'm a little curious if you have some "secret meaning" in there. Anyhoo, let me show you why what I've posted is "factually true". Lets look at the links you posted.
    Open the second link and scroll down to “recent federal deficits FY 2006 to FY 2016.” See that big scary jump in 2009. Quite a jump. You and yours were shown that quite regularly to prove “Obama bad” or “Obama spend too much”. Open the first link. That’s actually from the Treasury dept. To get that 1.4 trillion number you have to subtract the number on 9/30/2008 from the number on 9/30/2009. Yes, that 1.4 trillion dollar deficit started 10/1/2008. That’s why you are always shown the bar chart. It glosses over the fact that FY 2009 was Bush's last budget.

    Bush’s first budget started 10/1/2001 and his last ended one ended 9/30/2009 (that's where the 6 trillion added to the debt comes from). If you look at the CBO Budget Outlook from Jan 7 2009, you’ll see Bush’s last budget deficit was revised up to 1.2 trillion. Yes that’s before President Obama took over. Here’s a handy chart of Bush’s last fiscal year starting with his budget request and estimated revenues.
    FY 2009_______________
    Date of estimate___2/1/08___1/7/09___actuals
    Total Revenues___2,817___2,357__ 2,105
    Total Outlays____3,100___3,543___ 3,518

    You hold Bush blameless for a recession that started 7 years into his presidency but hold President Obama accountable for the trillion dollar deficits he inherited. How does that make sense to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by RetiredUSN View Post
    and I turn down more work than I accept to avoid hiring Americans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    What proof is there Qaddafi ordered or financed that bombing? ......Qaddafi had the integrity to fight with his military. I don't believe he used terrorists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You claim the economy was destroyed when Bush left office

  8. #138
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,545

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    There isn't a true measurement of full production just as there isn't a definitive measure of full employment. I see you've become reliant on capacity utilization data to push your argument, but what does it really tell us? It provides a glimpse into how much (based on value) firms think they can produce given their existing capital structure, necessarily in manufacturing facilities. It does not however measure service capacity, which is extremely difficult to ascertain, and services make up the bulk of U.S. production. Furthermore, CU data is heavily dependent upon how firms value their production.

    As a side note, arguing that industry doesn't utilize total capacity is actually an argument against the economic efficiency of capitalism, such that, rent seeking through profit maximization principles account for malinvestment as well as foregone production.



    It certainly is valid that taxing those with extremely high rates of savings, and then spending that money into the economy via redistribution nets a multiplier that far exceeds the economic impact of said savings.

    Oh come on. You just want to argue to argue. its an eqo thing with you.

    1. I use capacity utilization data because JOHN keeps arguing about full production. That's what he uses in his premise so its what I use to refute it. We aren't at full production capacity.. and yet we have inflation. His premise is done.

    now.. much of what you say regarding definitions of full employment and capacity utilization is true. Don't really care since its not my argument.

    Now.. if you want to argue that we ARE at full production capacity and could not produce any more... well then... I would be interested in hearing your rationale. But somehow.. I don't think that's your intent.

    It certainly is valid that taxing those with extremely high rates of savings, and then spending that money into the economy via redistribution nets a multiplier that far exceeds the economic impact of said savings.
    Depending on who you tax and where you spend that money in the economy then yes.

    If you tax 1000 people and take money out of what they would spend.. (even with high savings rate) and spend it say on a tax credit to one fellow with a high savings rate.. then there is no multiplier.

  9. #139
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,545

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnfrmClevelan View Post
    You and a friend walk into WalMart with $20 each. You have confidence in the dollar, and he does not. Can you buy the same stuff with your $20 bills? Does WalMart raise it's prices when they see that your friend has no confidence in his twenty dollars?
    ?
    See john.. this is why you don't get it. In your scenario.. Me and my friend aren't the ones that have to have confidence in that dollar. The owner of walmart is the one that has to have confidence in that dollar. and if he lacks confidence in the value of that dollar, we may find that we can only buy a stick of gum with the 20 dollars.

    Do you see the circularity in your argument? In the same breath, you claim that a loss of confidence is why hyperinflation happens, AND that their lost confidence is caused by the economic REASONS that I was talking about. Face it, people don't just up and decide that their currency is worthless WITHOUT A REASON. Loss of confidence is a reaction to real reasons.
    You don't seem to understand reality. People lose confidence in the economy and in dollars because of what they perceive. Heck... look at what happened to the market the night Trump got elected. Now.. that was a real event.. no doubt. BUT was it real in the sense that Trump actually did something to hurt the economy? No. but yet the market reacted rather strongly.. then the next day the market reacted almost as strongly in the reverse

    in fact.. We put protections on the markets that stop sudden losses in peoples confidence.. and on banks (like FDIC).

    Yes... to a considerable degree.. our economy is great because people have confidence in it. that's why things like "consumer confidence" are such a valued metric.

    Certainly things like shortage of resources etc.. have an effect on that confidence. but its what people FEEL about that shortage or surplus that matters a good deal.

  10. #140
    I'm not-low all the time



    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hyde Park
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,644

    Re: Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Oh come on. You just want to argue to argue. its an eqo thing with you.
    It is a matter of both accuracy and validity.

    I use capacity utilization data because JOHN keeps arguing about full production. That's what he uses in his premise so its what I use to refute it. We aren't at full production capacity.. and yet we have inflation. His premise is done.
    Capacity utilization is a subjective data set that fails to capture the entire economy. Inflation on the other hand occurs when income growth exceeds productivity growth.

    Now.. if you want to argue that we ARE at full production capacity and could not produce any more... well then... I would be interested in hearing your rationale. But somehow.. I don't think that's your intent.
    Productive capacity is better interpreted through movements in prices, employment, interest rates, and productivity. My intent is providing the rest of the forum with objective accuracy, while correcting for those who pursue anything less.

    Depending on who you tax and where you spend that money in the economy then yes.

    If you tax 1000 people and take money out of what they would spend.. (even with high savings rate) and spend it say on a tax credit to one fellow with a high savings rate.. then there is no multiplier.
    But this isn't representative of the statement you've chosen to reply, nor is it logically consistent. On the aggregate, high savings rates are a function of income. While it is certainly a possibility for people in lower income thresholds to save, it just isn't an accurate representation of the economy. Taxing those with high savings rates (high income earners) and redistributing it to lower income households is very much stimulative, as it doesn't cannabilize economic activity from taxation and is going to be spent, thereby leading to a significant multiplier. This is why food stamps provided the greatest fiscal multiplier.
    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.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •