Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit
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... :shrug: 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.
:shrug: 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.
:lol:
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! :lamo 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.