Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debt, Spending, & Keynesian Foolishness
#81
Yak, the problem now, is that this 'so called' economist has been gifted with a Nobel Prize, for something or other. Most likely it was an award of more than one person. I try not to keep up with him.

The only problem is that he now thinks he is a world wide authority, and so do other Collectivists, who adhere to all that Keynesian Bullshit.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#82
Yak, the problem now, is that this 'so called' economist has been gifted with a Nobel Prize, for something or other. Most likely it was an award of more than one person. I try not to keep up with him.

The only problem is that he now thinks he is a world wide authority, and so do other Collectivists, who adhere to all that Keynesian Bullshit.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#83
John L Wrote:Yak, the problem now, is that this 'so called' economist has been gifted with a Nobel Prize, for something or other. Most likely it was an award of more than one person. I try not to keep up with him.

The only problem is that he now thinks he is a world wide authority, and so do other Collectivists, who adhere to all that Keynesian Bullshit.

Krugman's nobel prize in trade theory is good economics.

You guys need to understand a few things about him and economists in general. One, he works for a liberal paper, so its in his own interests to say liberal things and support liberal ideas, even if he doesn't fully agree. Two, he is politically biased just like every other economist that you see on TV, newspapers, radio, ect. The unbiased economist won't appear on TV, because he won't have a definitive opinion on the issues that always seems to be the hot topic on TV. TV needs its guests to be definitive.

Example:

TV host - what effect does illegal immigration have on the economy?
Unbiased economist - Well, we don't really know for sure.

That's bad TV.

TV host - what effect does illegal immigration have on the economy?
Biased economist - It drives down wages for American workers.

Better TV.

One the topics you won't see economists talking about on TV is international trade theory - the field where Krugman won the Nobel Prize. The reason, you ask? Because among economists, liberal and conservative, free trade and international trade theory is pretty much agreed upon.
Reply
#84
John L Wrote:Yak, the problem now, is that this 'so called' economist has been gifted with a Nobel Prize, for something or other. Most likely it was an award of more than one person. I try not to keep up with him.

The only problem is that he now thinks he is a world wide authority, and so do other Collectivists, who adhere to all that Keynesian Bullshit.

Krugman's nobel prize in trade theory is good economics.

You guys need to understand a few things about him and economists in general. One, he works for a liberal paper, so its in his own interests to say liberal things and support liberal ideas, even if he doesn't fully agree. Two, he is politically biased just like every other economist that you see on TV, newspapers, radio, ect. The unbiased economist won't appear on TV, because he won't have a definitive opinion on the issues that always seems to be the hot topic on TV. TV needs its guests to be definitive.

Example:

TV host - what effect does illegal immigration have on the economy?
Unbiased economist - Well, we don't really know for sure.

That's bad TV.

TV host - what effect does illegal immigration have on the economy?
Biased economist - It drives down wages for American workers.

Better TV.

One the topics you won't see economists talking about on TV is international trade theory - the field where Krugman won the Nobel Prize. The reason, you ask? Because among economists, liberal and conservative, free trade and international trade theory is pretty much agreed upon.
Reply
#85
That's one way to look at it "B". However, what he is doing is being recorded for posterity. He should have better sense, if he is capable.

He's still a Collectivist Keynesian Kook. And he still looks like a little ferret. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#86
That's one way to look at it "B". However, what he is doing is being recorded for posterity. He should have better sense, if he is capable.

He's still a Collectivist Keynesian Kook. And he still looks like a little ferret. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#87
John L Wrote:Yak, the problem now, is that this 'so called' economist has been gifted with a Nobel Prize, for something or other. Most likely it was an award of more than one person. I try not to keep up with him.

The only problem is that he now thinks he is a world wide authority, and so do other Collectivists, who adhere to all that Keynesian Bullshit.

AlGore and Obama have both been awarded Nobel Prizes. Do you really, honestly think that still affords "world wide authority" ... let alone any shred of credibility? The Nobel Prize has become a symbol for the antithesis of validity. I rank it right up there with an "honorary degree" from the Acme Correspondence School of Amateur Podiatry.

Dr. _Rugman doesn't even really write about economics anymore. His gig is mostly opinion pieces for the rag he scribbles in. I can't remember the last time I actually saw so much as a graph in one of his articles.

He's an intellectually dishonest schmuck who will desperately find a way to blame somebody else when the uglier aspects of the crap he is espousing begins to kick in in earnest.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#88
i suggest you keep an eye on the uk, their new government budget cuts expenses by 20%, in particular social costs. the taxes are not lower, mind. it'll choke the economic activity, that's what it always does, increasing poverty, favouring the idle rich.
it's small neighbour's ireland economic miracle crashed, it's an emigration country again. Euro 50 bln bailout for the two largest banks, a small economy like that just can't afford it. people don't understand why they have to shoulder the bill, while the banks make $ billions in profits again.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#89
And speaking again about Keynesian economics, here is a nice essay, offers a refreshing analogy: the Cargo Cult fallacy. It's rather long, but I like this short part, which is illuminating.

Quote:Fast-forward several steps in civilization to John Maynard Keynes. There exists a misunderstanding about Keynes and his economic theories. These comprise no formula for gross evil or the undermining of democracy. In fact, they are serious attempts to create something on the order of a unified field theory for the economic universe. As such, they are marked by serious flaws, the most critical originating in a profound misunderstanding of human nature. As an upper-class Englishman, Keynes had little grasp of the concept that human beings will use any excuse to act badly, even if it's an abstruse economic theory. (The Keynes dictum that our current predicament is derived from, by the way, goes like this: "run surpluses in good times so that you can run deficits in bad times." Nobody but nobody ever pays attention to the first phrase. With modern "Keynesians," it's all deficits, all the time.)

So take these two concepts -- run surpluses and like begets like -- and mingle them. The product is cargo-cult Keynesianism -- the notion, promoted by such witch doctors as Benjamin Bernanke and Paul Krugman, that if you print or otherwise create vast amounts of false money, then the real money (like attracted to like!) will return to the economy, like cans of Spam magically winging their way toward remote Pacific islands.

Anyway, you will have to read the whole thing to get the entire picture, as to how this VooDoo Cargo Cult idea of Keynesian economics is about to again deliver a swift kick between the legs to the American citizen.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#90
Here we go folks, it's starting: US Treasuries hit by biggest sell-off in two years.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#91
Alas poor Ben, he meant so well.

Perhaps this sentiment is a tad premature, but there is a house of cards waiting to fall.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#92
A couple of times in the past several days, I have been at the computer, while listening to Fox Business behind me. Someone stated, on two occasions, that Berneke has never made a correct decision in his entire tenure with the Fed Board. I wish I had turned around and gotten this person's name, because I am beginning to think he may be on to something.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#93
Investors Business Daily, asks the question: What Stimulus?

A new report from Stanford University economists John Cogan and John Taylor says, "There was little if any net stimulus," resulting from President Obama's $862 billion package.

Worse, say the authors, the White House should have known it would not work. "The irony," they write, "is that basic economic theory and practical experience predicted this would happen."

But why the stimulus didn't work is a little more complex. The authors break down the three kinds of Keynesian stimulus packages.


Quote:In one, government gives money to consumers and hopes they spend it. In another, the federal government directly buys goods and services, ranging from computers to building infrastructure.
In the third, government hands money to state and local governments to spend.

The $862 billion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed into law by the president tried to do all three things. Unfortunately, none of them worked, says Investor's Business Daily.

Quote:- In the case of money handed over to consumers, "It went to pay down some debt or was simply saved rather than spent on consumption."

- At the federal level, the stimulus generated just $20 billion in added government purchases, about 3 present of the total spent;of that amount, only $4 billion was spent on infrastructure.

- Then there were the grants to state and local governments, which were expected to get local economies revving again, but were unsuccessful, according to Cogan and Taylor.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#94
It's simpler than that. The entire basis for the stimulus is found in a footnote in the back of the bills in which Christina Romer wrote that for every $1 taken out of the free market by the government and redistributed as stimulus, $1.50 of it is regenerated.

This is the factor that enabled the crafters of the bill to gin up any number they wanted - the bigger the better. Of course there is no economist except Romer who supporteds that statement. The general belief that is held by almost every single economist on Earth is that when you take $1 out of the economy and redistribute it - only about eighty cents is regenerated: a net loss of 20% at a minimum.
Reply
#95
I probably should have started a new thread on this, but since this is still about Keynesian Foolishness, I'll add to this one.

Jeff Jacoby has been listening to the chorus of Jackass Keynesians browbeat the half-hearted attempts, by the "Dumb-and-Dumber" Party to cut spending. And who is their 'cause célèbre' which the use as a classic example? It's Herbert Hoover, of all examples. And it shows clearly that these Jackass Keynesians are so brilliant they have even themselves fooled into thinking they are being factual about history. It's almost as factual as the "I need to drink myself sober", or "In order to stimulate a sagging bank account, one must spend like no tomorrow" routine. These Jackasses are smarter than their friends in the other wing of the Big Government party. Imagine that one, if you can wrap your fingers around Buzz's brain.

Anyway, here is Jeff, with is factual rebuttal. And he is absolutely right too. Hoover was a big spending, high taxing, Progressive Republican. Anyone who doubts this should try studying some Real History for once.

And note how FDR castigated Hoover for his spending, and how he would stop that. Well, once in office, he proceeded to show Hoover how it was really done. Does this very thing remind you of another recent senator, from Illinois, who said the same thing about Junior, and then proceeded to show him how a real Pro does it?

Quote:The Myth of 'Herbert Hoover Economics'

Jeff Jacoby

To convey their disdain for the ongoing Republican pressure to reduce federal spending -- pressure that led to the recent agreement with President Obama for $38 billion in cuts in the current fiscal year -- critics have been reaching back eight decades for what they seem to regard as the ultimate in fiscal put-downs.

"Watching the debate in Washington," write Douglas Cohn and Eleanor Clift in a recent column, "it's like Herbert Hoover versus John Maynard Keynes, and sadly Hoover is winning." Hoover, they explain, "was curiously passive" in the face of the Great Depression and "he responded with a renewed focus on balancing the budget."

Populist Jim Hightower blasts Republicans for enabling Hoover to make "what looks to be a full comeback to power," complete with a return to Hoover's economic prescription: "Insist on reducing the size and spending of governments. . . . 'The deficit is the devil,' cry the New Hooverites, as they wildly slash spending and try to kill federal programs."

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asserts that "one of the most basic principles of economics is that when an economy is anemic, governments should use deficit spending as a fiscal stimulus." A lawmaker who "believes that the response to a weak economy is to slash spending," he says, "is embracing the approach that Herbert Hoover discredited 80 years ago." Last month, Kristof's colleague Paul Krugman scorned House Speaker John Boehner "for declaring that since families were suffering, the government should tighten its own belt." That, Krugman snorted, is "Herbert Hoover economics."

If there is one thing most people have learned about Herbert Hoover, it is that his timid response to the financial crisis of 1929 brought on the Great Depression. Instead of slashing federal spending and clinging to laissez-faire economics, the received wisdom goes, Hoover should have done just the opposite: plowed more money into the economy, relying on deficit spending to stimulate growth.

The only thing wrong with that narrative is that federal spending under Hoover didn't plummet. It went through the roof.

Hoover was sworn in as the 31st president of the United States on March 4, 1929. By the time his term ended four years later, federal outlays had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms; they had almost doubled when measured in purchasing power; and they had tripled as a fraction of national income. "If stimulus is the solution to high unemployment," remarks Santa Clara University economist and law professor David Friedman, "the Great Depression should have ended almost before it began."

Following the Wall Street crash of 1929, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Real federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, but over the next three years they rose, respectively, 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15.7 percent. Exclude military outlays, and spending under Hoover exploded by a phenomenal 259 percent. Looking back at the federal government's growth during the 1920s, economist Randall Holcombe points out that in percentage terms, expenditures grew more in the four Hoover years than they would during the first seven years of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency.

FDR is remembered today, of course, for the vast expansions of the New Deal. But as the Democratic standard-bearer in 1932, he lacerated Hoover as a big-spending Republican.

"For three long years," Roosevelt said in accepting his party's nomination, "I have been going up and down this country preaching that government . . . costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching."

Stop that preaching he didn't. He accused Hoover of presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all our history . . . an administration that has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission." He slammed the Republican's record of "reckless and extravagant" spending, and of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." He mocked those who thought "a huge expenditure of public funds" was the best way to grow the economy of succumbing "to the illusions of economic magic." His running mate, Texas Congressman John Nance Garner, even warned that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism."

For his own part, said FDR, "I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government." Indeed, he promised to enforce "absolute loyalty to the Democratic platform and especially to its economy plank." That plank called for "an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by . . . not less than 25 per cent."

In its zeal to cut today's multi-trillion-dollar budgets, the GOP is certainly fair game for critics. But those critics might want to think twice before blasting contemporary Republicans for their Hooverian impulses. Herbert Hoover can be fairly faulted for many things, but rolling back the federal budget isn't one of them.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#96
I probably should have started a new thread on this, but since this is still about Keynesian Foolishness, I'll add to this one.

Jeff Jacoby has been listening to the chorus of Jackass Keynesians browbeat the half-hearted attempts, by the "Dumb-and-Dumber" Party to cut spending. And who is their 'cause célèbre' which the use as a classic example? It's Herbert Hoover, of all examples. And it shows clearly that these Jackass Keynesians are so brilliant they have even themselves fooled into thinking they are being factual about history. It's almost as factual as the "I need to drink myself sober", or "In order to stimulate a sagging bank account, one must spend like no tomorrow" routine. These Jackasses are smarter than their friends in the other wing of the Big Government party. Imagine that one, if you can wrap your fingers around Buzz's brain.

Anyway, here is Jeff, with is factual rebuttal. And he is absolutely right too. Hoover was a big spending, high taxing, Progressive Republican. Anyone who doubts this should try studying some Real History for once.

And note how FDR castigated Hoover for his spending, and how he would stop that. Well, once in office, he proceeded to show Hoover how it was really done. Does this very thing remind you of another recent senator, from Illinois, who said the same thing about Junior, and then proceeded to show him how a real Pro does it?

Quote:The Myth of 'Herbert Hoover Economics'

Jeff Jacoby

To convey their disdain for the ongoing Republican pressure to reduce federal spending -- pressure that led to the recent agreement with President Obama for $38 billion in cuts in the current fiscal year -- critics have been reaching back eight decades for what they seem to regard as the ultimate in fiscal put-downs.

"Watching the debate in Washington," write Douglas Cohn and Eleanor Clift in a recent column, "it's like Herbert Hoover versus John Maynard Keynes, and sadly Hoover is winning." Hoover, they explain, "was curiously passive" in the face of the Great Depression and "he responded with a renewed focus on balancing the budget."

Populist Jim Hightower blasts Republicans for enabling Hoover to make "what looks to be a full comeback to power," complete with a return to Hoover's economic prescription: "Insist on reducing the size and spending of governments. . . . 'The deficit is the devil,' cry the New Hooverites, as they wildly slash spending and try to kill federal programs."

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asserts that "one of the most basic principles of economics is that when an economy is anemic, governments should use deficit spending as a fiscal stimulus." A lawmaker who "believes that the response to a weak economy is to slash spending," he says, "is embracing the approach that Herbert Hoover discredited 80 years ago." Last month, Kristof's colleague Paul Krugman scorned House Speaker John Boehner "for declaring that since families were suffering, the government should tighten its own belt." That, Krugman snorted, is "Herbert Hoover economics."

If there is one thing most people have learned about Herbert Hoover, it is that his timid response to the financial crisis of 1929 brought on the Great Depression. Instead of slashing federal spending and clinging to laissez-faire economics, the received wisdom goes, Hoover should have done just the opposite: plowed more money into the economy, relying on deficit spending to stimulate growth.

The only thing wrong with that narrative is that federal spending under Hoover didn't plummet. It went through the roof.

Hoover was sworn in as the 31st president of the United States on March 4, 1929. By the time his term ended four years later, federal outlays had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms; they had almost doubled when measured in purchasing power; and they had tripled as a fraction of national income. "If stimulus is the solution to high unemployment," remarks Santa Clara University economist and law professor David Friedman, "the Great Depression should have ended almost before it began."

Following the Wall Street crash of 1929, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Real federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, but over the next three years they rose, respectively, 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15.7 percent. Exclude military outlays, and spending under Hoover exploded by a phenomenal 259 percent. Looking back at the federal government's growth during the 1920s, economist Randall Holcombe points out that in percentage terms, expenditures grew more in the four Hoover years than they would during the first seven years of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency.

FDR is remembered today, of course, for the vast expansions of the New Deal. But as the Democratic standard-bearer in 1932, he lacerated Hoover as a big-spending Republican.

"For three long years," Roosevelt said in accepting his party's nomination, "I have been going up and down this country preaching that government . . . costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching."

Stop that preaching he didn't. He accused Hoover of presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all our history . . . an administration that has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission." He slammed the Republican's record of "reckless and extravagant" spending, and of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." He mocked those who thought "a huge expenditure of public funds" was the best way to grow the economy of succumbing "to the illusions of economic magic." His running mate, Texas Congressman John Nance Garner, even warned that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism."

For his own part, said FDR, "I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government." Indeed, he promised to enforce "absolute loyalty to the Democratic platform and especially to its economy plank." That plank called for "an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by . . . not less than 25 per cent."

In its zeal to cut today's multi-trillion-dollar budgets, the GOP is certainly fair game for critics. But those critics might want to think twice before blasting contemporary Republicans for their Hooverian impulses. Herbert Hoover can be fairly faulted for many things, but rolling back the federal budget isn't one of them.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#97
[Image: sbr041511dAPR20110413094555.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#98
[Image: gm11041020110412033125.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#99
[Image: belt-tight-no.jpg]
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
You must be getting happier by the day, Q. All those electric cars and windmills and the nationalization of oil companies across the world. The "big oil problem" will soon be solved.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why The Keynesian Superstition Doesn't Work John L 35 14,123 07-02-2013, 09:17 PM
Last Post: WmLambert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)