That the state of our infrastructure is a determinant of our competitiveness is simply a matter of fact. The free-market is a term used to explain (in a simplistic way) macroeconomics. I am not the President, so it makes little sense to rant about him via proxy.
As was stated before, if it was such an issue, then why didn't Obama's 800B+ stimulus primarily go to fund Infrastructure? You keep simplistically calling or "Infrastructure Investment" when it is nothing more than Government Spending. You're really not saying much here that already hasn't been refuted 10 times over in this thread.
Nobody is "ranting" about the President. This is why it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You mischaracterize and objectify positions when you are unable to refute facts.
The research was provided; either refute it or move on. No amount of foot stomping will further your point.
You don't have a point. You're just claiming we need more Government Spending. We don't. Your points were refuted in the previous post, regardless of how much Socialist "research" you want to provide.
The sub-topic was infrastructure spending. You (of course) used CFC as a tangent because you cannot keep up with the discussion at hand. Too bad!
Dodging again. You can't refute facts so you obfuscate. /shrug it is what it is
No. Keynes was opposed to deficits during periods of low unemployment. Do try and keep up!
Keynes was against large and structural deficits. He believed they were a drag on the Economy. Do try and keep up!
You have not blown anything out of the water. The research has been presented and yet to be refuted. Mere sourcing of random articles does not suffice.
Of course I have. All you keep doing over and over is stating the Government needs to spend more money, engage in more Stimulus Spending. It's a joke.
Infrastructure spending that is in the neighborhood of the cross-country average, as a percentage of GDP. There was a
topic posted, and all
you provided was partisan drivel.
You just keep advocating more Government Spending. It didn't work before. It won't work now. Obama's Stimulus added to the deficit and created more debt. No new wealth was created. Pure waste. These are Infrastructure Projects that wouldn't sustain any jobs over the long term, and would be done anyways regardless, hence no net gain to the Economy in the long run. You're also not taking into account, (and surprise! I mentioned this in a previous thread and you were unable to refute it) high levels of job poaching and the negative externalities associated with that. Construction jobs are usually highly specialized jobs. It's a wash.
You also are unable to refute the massive cost overruns, fraud, corruption ect. usually associated with massive Government Spending Projects. There is also no point in repairing bridges in communities that aren't producing any goods and services. Using your logic we might as well rebuild Detroit from the ground up. Doesn't mean there will be sustained economic growth there at all, so in the long term, there would be very little value in rebuilding that infrastructure.
9 out of 10 Government projects go over budget, many at DOUBLE initial estimates -
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/JAPAFlyvbjerg05.pdf
I suggest you get up to speed -
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10229.pdf
You have yet to provide anything that supports causation, let alone statistically significant correlation. Do try again!
6 trillion added to the deficit over the last 4 years. An 800B Stimulus Package (Largest in American History). Economy just shrunk. You are not worth my time.
You have yet to refute anything! Government deficits add to economic output. This is simply a matter of fact. It would be beneficial not to confuse crowding out in your next response. :lol:
Government deficits add to economic output? 6 trillion spent over the last 4 years. The Economy just shrunk genius. Look you try and act like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. You keep trying to debate nonsense in a bubble. When that bubble is punctured by reality, you claim pesky facts that bring down your house of cards are not relevant. Clearly it's waste of time trying to even engage you. You are not an honest person.
An observation of your activity.
Projection noted :lol:
You mean debt to GDP; The deficit is at best 11% of GDP. The Reagan recession was an entirely different animal; high unemployment (caused by deliberate monetary policy via Volcker) and high inflation (expectation related). Perhaps it would be a good idea to at least get the terminology straight before making an argument.
Total Debt: $16,432,730,050,569.12; Debt To GDP: 103% | Zero Hedge
Under Reagan it was 51%. The Economy under Reagan grew by 1/3. Yes we get it. The Economy under Reagan was "Different" or something. /laugh
Which helped alleviate inflation and inflationary expectations.
Which caused massive economic growth actually. Something you admit you cannot dispute
Nonsense, just a simple observation of the facts.
You're repeating his talking points. Nothing more
Tax rates are lower under Obama than they are under Reagan. Or can you provide relevant data to refute my comment?
This strawman was refuted in the previous post. Claiming tax rates when Reagan took office is misleading. A better indicator of his tax policy would be when he left office. They were lower, especially for the poor and middle class. Tax rates under Carter were higher than Obama, but only because Obama chickened out on raising taxes. He's now calling for higher taxes. You're just bleeting a debunked article run by the NYT. Nothing more.
Effective tax rates are currently lower than during any other time in our post WWII history. Fact.
/yawn you're not very good at this
Obamacare = 20 new taxes coming down the pipe. Poor and Middle class will be hardest hit. Obama inherited low tax rates which he is now trying to raise. You don't even know the argument you are trying to make. You're just bleeting talking points in a vacuum (par for the course) without any context and not making any sense. We get it though, when your dishonesty is pointed out, you will quickly come up with excuses like "that isn't relevant to the discussion" because anything outside your limited knowledge of talking points must not be discussed. I know your game and it doesn't impress me.
Another fallacy? I was not aware that my political lean was in any way topic of discussion. Desperateness is beginning to set in i see. Try to stay on topic (a request for the nth time).
Not a fallacy at all. Just an observation of facts. You are not a libertarian. You are a socialist who bleets like a sheep the need for more and more Government Spending with every post.
You can't dispute it. You try and propagandize around it with lies and obfuscation, but unfortunately for you it blows whatever garbage point you are trying to make in this thread, ie Government Spending is the answer to all our economic problems or something.
Wealth losses in excess of 100% of GDP can have that lingering effect.
You mean
wealth stolen. Another dodge when you can't refute facts. We need to create a drinking game for your buffoonery.
Cumulative GDP GROWTH. Again, careful on the terminology in the future.
*drink*
Really? I have managed to stay on topic in a continuous manner where as you have been all over the place.
*drink*
This is your usual ploy. Not working. You're just bleeting what Keynesian fools like Krugman keep claiming. All as an excuse to increase Government Spending. These are the keynesians who were wrong about Obama's Stimulus. Current Monetary Policy is simply not working. Hell, they are heavily pumping into malinvestments yet again (MBS what could possibly go wrong?) which in the long term is only going to create another recession. We've just had a quarter of negative growth. We shall see what happens next quarter which is usually the slowest retail quarter of the year.
A liquidity trap has been our reality. Your low-brow article is not a means of refutation.
Another typical ploy of yours. Dismiss facts you don't like as "low brow". Krugman does the same thing. If you don't buy into his Keynesian Big Government nonsense, you're "dumb" ect. *drink*
I am not supporter of MMT; hence it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.
Oh it does, but like everything you try an argue, you can't step outside your simplistic little box.
That is kind of the point. Fiscal stimulus is enacted to create short term economic growth.
Too bad it hasn't created any short term economic growth. It has only added 6 trillion to the deficit while shrinking the Economy. Fail.
Your opinion, given the level of your of understanding simply does not cut it.
Projection noted. I've had these types of discussions with Big Government Spending types like you many times. Your premise is always the same. Government needs to spend spend spend, regardless of the actual Economic results. Unfortunately for your position on the subject, the facts are hilariously against you at this point.
This makes zero sense. A fiscal multiplier means that NO (zero) money that was appropriated was subsequently spent into the real economy. This of course is nonsense.
The fact that you believe it makes zero sense tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject. You're just spouting a bunch of BS. Obama's own economic team made predictions based entirely on the Fiscal Multiplier. All of those predictions were laughably not even close, all while while creating more debt and adding to the deficit. I get it though, your response in the past was "So what?". There really is nothing more to say on the subject. Obama's stimulus didn't create wealth. it created waste and hurt the Economy.
An overwhelming majority of the stimulus has been dispersed. Of course you lack the understanding and objectiveness necessary to discuss fiscal stimulus.
We talked about this in a previous thread and I repeated the point earlier which you ignored. Stimulus funds are maintaining less and less jobs, while the cost of these jobs continue to rise. It was a massive failure. You are also contradicting a previous claim you made in regards to stimulus funds which I had (like always) to correct you on.
For any further answers you need on the subject, feel free to read my previous posts. You have repeatedly lied and tried to pass off debunked nonsense as facts. It's not worth anyone's time to engage you, since you are incapable of having honest debate.
Have a great day :2wave: