BoatShoes;1397479 wrote:I brought up the UK which has had ZERO investor imposed austerity as they're borrowing at record low rates. Try to follow along.

The more you post, the more I'm starting to think I've grossly overestimated your knowledge of economics.

Even your UK example is apples to oranges. Ignoring a more complicated argument about contagion and Eurozone overhang, the fact remains that the UK cuts, percentage wise, are multiples of the dreaded sequester. I'm not sure whether you're intentionally being obtuse or just incapable of constructing decent arguments. Likely the latter, as there's really no propping-up massive deficit spending at this point.

You can't spend your way to prosperity. What's going on in Europe is a DIRECT result of the policies you keep pimping.

gut;1397483 wrote:You've been bukkaked with keynesianism.

This should be a bumper sticker. I'll cut you in on the profits.

Cleveland Buck;1397140 wrote:Can you show me one instance of this in the history of the world?

Panic of 1837
Great Depression
Japan in the 1990s
Ireland in 2009

HitsRus;1397414 wrote:...but when Republicans do it, it's called 'grandstanding'.:laugh:

I mean this is false equivalence.

I would have considered Obama voting against the Debt ceiling or raling about the budget deficit as a center grandstanding for the way he behaved. Not in this instance. Grandstanding isn't the word. Maybe demagoguery for his use of firefighters as props? But it's not the same as the bad faith exhibited by trying to turn Benghazi into 1979 Iran.

queencitybuckeye;1397185 wrote:I hate euphemisms. He's lying.

In order for something to be a lie you have to know it is false. I don't think he knows it to be false when he says public employees will be fired and that the economy will be harmed. I'm sure he's relying on advice of people like the CBO who say these things will happen.

In the same way I don't think the Republicans are lying when they've said for the last half decade that we're going to face and imminent debt crisis because of our spending problem, etc. when that has turned out to be incorrect.

We have an unemployment problem and not a spending problem but people who say that aren't lying. At full employment our deficit would be 4% of GDP and consequently all of that "spending problem" that Gut for instance talks about when he says the stimulus got "built in" is erased as people stop relying on social insurance.

BoatShoes;1397649 wrote:In order for something to be a lie you have to know it is false. I don't think he knows it to be false when he says public employees will be fired and that the economy will be harmed. I'm sure he's relying on advice of people like the CBO who say these things will happen.

...

He also doesn't know this to be true and you don't now what he is relying upon.

It's ridiculoud for him to make these statements.

BoatShoes;1397649 wrote:...
We have an unemployment problem and not a spending problem but people who say that aren't lying. At full employment our deficit would be 4% of GDP and consequently all of that "spending problem" that Gut for instance talks about when he says the stimulus got "built in" is erased as people stop relying on social insurance.

When we are not at full employment for an extended period you have a responsibility to make reasonable cuts. We are not going to be at full employment for the same period that we have increased spending. We have a spending problem.

BoatShoes;1397649 wrote:In order for something to be a lie you have to know it is false.

So your defense to his dishonesty is to claim ignorance on his part?

gut;1397483 wrote:LMAO. Why not? You've been bukkaked with keynesianism.

Obamacare => +$6.4T added to future deficits. But, no, there have been any spending increases.

Still doesn't answer the question - $800B+ a year in higher spending and STILL we've had a subpar recovery, to put it mildly. Where are all these magical benefits of keynesianism you keep pontificating about?

Why Not?? Because it's an accounting identity. In the sectoral balances model The Government Sector, the Private Sector and the Foreign Sector cannot all be in surplus at the same time.

Look at what happened in the late 90's when the federal government was running a surplus...the domestic private sector balance was in deficit.




So if you're going to have huge capital account surpluses and domestic private sector surpluses and state governments in surplus a lot...there's going to have to be a federal deficit.

And yes, I did answer it...that $800 billion per year paid out in food stamps, etc. is ok because it at least supports demand but it's not even compensation for services rendered...We don't pay in exchange for production. But it is better than nothing. A better thing to do would be a full payroll tax holiday as it increases demand while also providing more compensation for people who are working.

Even though that seems like a lot the U.S. Economy is huge! It's just not enough to overcome the desired savings occuring in the state governments and the domestic private sector when you consider the size of our whole economy.

We can see the results clearly. the UK, a country with its own sovereign currency like us chose seeking a balanced budget from the get go...on their way to a 3rd recession. The U.S. has had deficits and a milder approach toward a balanced budget as the deficit has come down every year but not that greatly...a meager and slow recovery

Going more in the UK direction as we've done with the payroll tax raise, marginal tax rate raise on the rich and now with the sequester...is going to lead to an economy more like the UK's...shittier...

Going more in the opposite direction would lead to a better recovery.

Is there any doubt that if the payroll tax cut had been extended that the economy would be doing better?? The same holds true from spending cuts that take money out of people's pockets. (That is of course unless conservatives are right and spending cuts inspire other private sector actors to spend more. I'm anxious to see the response when this does not occur. If it does I will eat crow).

queencitybuckeye;1397656 wrote:So your defense to his dishonesty is to claim ignorance on his part?

It is true that the spending cuts will harm the economy. He is generally correct. If some of things don't happen that he's telling the public they will it will be because of ignorance of what exactly will occur, not deceit.

Con_Alma;1397655 wrote:When we are not at full employment for an extended period you have a responsibility to make reasonable cuts. We are not going to be at full employment for the same period that we have increased spending. We have a spending problem.

Why if spending cuts will make the employment problem worse? It defeats the purpose.

Why not just give every American $10,000 dollars? That would really stimulate the economy and make us all better off! :thumbup:

BoatShoes;1397670 wrote:Why if spending cuts will make the employment problem worse? It defeats the purpose.

...because of the additional problems created by spending without funding.

sleeper;1397673 wrote:Why not just give every American $10,000 dollars? That would really stimulate the economy and make us all better off! :thumbup:

Why $10,000? Why not whatever amount people are willing to spend? :thumbup:

BoatShoes;1397668 wrote:It is true that the spending cuts will harm the economy. He is generally correct. If some of things don't happen that he's telling the public they will it will be because of ignorance of what exactly will occur, not deceit.

He gave a specific example as opposed to a general comment.

gut;1397485 wrote:The more you post, the more I'm starting to think I've grossly overestimated your knowledge of economics.

Even your UK example is apples to oranges. Ignoring a more complicated argument about contagion and Eurozone overhang, the fact remains that the UK cuts, percentage wise, are multiples of the dreaded sequester. I'm not sure whether you're intentionally being obtuse or just incapable of constructing decent arguments. Likely the latter, as there's really no propping-up massive deficit spending at this point.

You can't spend your way to prosperity. What's going on in Europe is a DIRECT result of the policies you keep pimping.

Sure they are larger but the principle is the same. You're not going to find an example in a vaccuum and the UK is as close of a comparison to the United States we're going to get...a modern industrialized nation with its own fiat currency not convertible into a commodity with a free-floating exchange rate that has done a more hardcore version of the sequester. The UK hasn't had this imposed on them by the creditor nations of the Euro. It is not part of the Euro which has created the separate and distinct problems for the debtor nations which are tied with monetary union but not fiscal union.

Con_Alma;1397676 wrote:Why $10,000? Why not whatever amount people are willing to spend? :thumbup:

Well you couldn't do that because then there would be concern about inflation.

BoatShoes;1397684 wrote:Well you couldn't do that because then there would be concern about inflation.

Higher inflation = easier to pay off debt. This economy will be #1. :thumbup:

sleeper;1397673 wrote:Why not just give every American $10,000 dollars? That would really stimulate the economy and make us all better off! :thumbup:

Well, this is on the right track but it's probably too much money and would be inflationary. It would likely be a deficit beyond the amount necessary to get us back to full employment and that would actually cause the problems our conservative friends have been concerned about for the last several years.

sleeper;1397687 wrote:Higher inflation = easier to pay off debt. This economy will be #1. :thumbup:

Well, we could use above target rate inflation like say Ronald Reagan levels of inflation in the short run but beyond that it wouldn't be good.

So I guess we need to find out how much money we need for full employment; borrow that, and then divide by 308 million. Everyone will have jobs, everyone will have extra cash, and we will finally achieve economic nirvana. Where do I sign up? :laugh:

Con_Alma;1397678 wrote:He gave a specific example as opposed to a general comment.

If his specific examples don't come true it is ignorance.

BoatShoes;1397684 wrote:Well you couldn't do that because then there would be concern about inflation.

Why would inflation matter when we could continue to the process? It's a bad cycle.

BoatShoes;1397694 wrote:If his specific examples don't come true it is ignorance.

...and worng for him to communcate when he doesn't know the certainty of it.

BoatShoes;1397641 wrote:Panic of 1837
Great Depression
Japan in the 1990s
Ireland in 2009

So prices never stopped spiraling downward? In 1837 they didn't have a central bank or federal bailout spending. I guess prices just kept spiraling down to nothing and the people starved to death in the streets. Oh, they didn't. In the 1930s the government never let prices fall to market clearing levels, hence the 15 year depression. Are you just assuming periods of price deflation lead to these death spirals because that is what you were taught to believe would happen? It is a fairy tale. There is no spiral. When prices reach market clearing levels, they stop falling.