http://www.fox19.com/story/21948452/rc-government-spending-per-household-exceeds-median-us-income

This includes govt spending at all levels (fed, state, local).

Luckily Bernanke can just print money whenever we need it!

justincredible;1423858 wrote:http://www.fox19.com/story/21948452/rc-government-spending-per-household-exceeds-median-us-income

This includes govt spending at all levels (fed, state, local).

Color me not surprised.

I like the breakdown that Tony Robbins fleshes out from the Iowa Hawk blog.

[video=youtube;jboTeS9Okak][/video]

But we do not spend nearly enough.


Sincerely,

Boatshoes

O-Trap;1423874 wrote:Color me not surprised.

I like the breakdown that Tony Robbins fleshes out from the Iowa Hawk blog.

[video=youtube;jboTeS9Okak][/video]

It took longer than a year to get into this mess it will take longer than a year to get out. Tony Robbins makes perfect sense and shows the numbers. It will take a combination of spending cuts and taxes and years to reduce our deficit.

^^^^^ As long as politicians keep the sheep bleeting about gun control, abortions, religion and what not, it will never happen. My political priorities start with the economy first, everything else second. Until we as a country come together and demand change, we will not see cutbacks on spending.

I liked the analogy of the seconds on comparing seconds in millions versus billions and trillions. Obama talks about trillions like I throw around pennies! lol

Zombaypirate;1424599 wrote: It will take a combination of spending cuts and taxes and years to reduce our deficit.

False. All it takes to balance the budget is to roll back the extra trillion we spent on Tarp and the Stimulus - each were to have been ONE-TIME expenditures - '09 and '10. Yet, somehow, that extra trillion has been spent again in '11 and '12. If we simply roll back what were supposed to have been ONE-TIME expenditures, we would be in balance at $2.6 in spending, and $2.6 in (record) tax revenues.

I cannot believe that the extra trillion has been allowed to continue ---- BULLSH!!!!!!!TTT

Zombaypirate;1424599 wrote:It took longer than a year to get into this mess it will take longer than a year to get out. Tony Robbins makes perfect sense and shows the numbers. It will take a combination of spending cuts and taxes and years to reduce our deficit.

The problem is that the Ds are not serious about any spending cuts and the Rs refuse to budge on higher taxes.

Oh wait, I forgot, the Rs agreed to a compromise of more taxes on the rich for future spending cuts which the Ds quickly reneged on.

Now the Ds want to compromise again, higher taxes for cuts in future spending.

Even GWB couldn't screw this one up, don't budge again until cuts actually happen.

jmog;1425021 wrote: Even GWB couldn't screw this one up, don't budge again until cuts actually happen.

That's pretty much it, the Repubs have to hold steady.

A "balanced" approach is really kind of obfuscation - I figure we need at least $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases (whether the wealthy can and should be the source of all tax increases is another debate). And in that respect, show me the cuts first - if you're not fixing the spending problem tax increases probably do more harm than good by choking off growth.

I worry people are becoming numb to deficits. Not that long ago, many people were concerned and alarmed over $200B+ deficits. Now if we get it down to $500B it's going to seem like "problem solved".

The sad part is, the bleeding hearts talk about compassion, the unfairness and suffering of the poor and middle class. But these reckless policies are poised to inflict more pain and damage on the poor and middle class than anything they pretend to be trying to fix.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-14/fed-is-the-villain-in-krugman-stockman-brawl.html

QuakerOats;1425967 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-14/fed-is-the-villain-in-krugman-stockman-brawl.html

See I don't think it's a case that Krugman doesn't see. That article is pretty much spot-on - you certainly don't need to be a nobel winner to see and understand how the fed can, and has, and will manufacture bubbles.

I think Krugman just doesn't care. Liberals aren't stupid, they are just hopeless idealogues. In his mind, the consequences and/or costs pale in comparison to the imagined benefits of this policy. They've written-off other options and courses as failures, so in their mind there is no downside to these policies.

gut;1426005 wrote:See I don't think it's a case that Krugman doesn't see. That article is pretty much spot-on - you certainly don't need to be a nobel winner to see and understand how the fed can, and has, and will manufacture bubbles.

I think Krugman just doesn't care. Liberals aren't stupid, they are just hopeless idealogues. In his mind, the consequences and/or costs pale in comparison to the imagined benefits of this policy. They've written-off other options and courses as failures, so in their mind there is no downside to these policies.

And yet krugman's views on monetary policy are basically the same as Milton Friedman's. In the absence of strong enough fiscal policy the fed absolutely is not doing enough and have not done enough. You can be sure that s what Friedman would be saying just ike he did with Japan...so youve got a leftist nobel prize winner and a conservative nobel prize winner vs. Stockman and the goldbugs who have been wrong for half a decade.

Once again...go look at japan. Theyve been doing what Stockman is horrified for years and his nightmare has not come rue...they still are fighting deflation and have extraordinarily low interest rates. Sooner or later you will see the light.

BoatShoes;1426513 wrote:And yet krugman's views on monetary policy are basically the same as Milton Friedman's

Put down the crack pipe.

The rest of your post...put down the crack pipe.

Linking Stockman to the gold bugs? Put down the crack pipe.

And I'm confused - are you advocating Japan as a model to aspire to? Wow, put down the crack pipe. But, actually, I think your post only serves to validate/illustrate precisely what I was saying with liberals being hopeless ideologues that ignore reality.

BoatShoes;1426513 wrote:In the absence of strong enough fiscal policy the fed absolutely is not doing enough and have not done enough. .

Just beyond moronic. Really, you should be ashamed but your are too blinded by the keynesian goo in your eye.

gut;1426517 wrote:Put down the crack pipe.

The rest of your post...put down the crack pipe.

Linking Stockman to the gold bugs? Put down the crack pipe.

And I'm confused - are you advocating Japan as a model to aspire to? Wow, put down the crack pipe. But, actually, I think your post only serves to validate/illustrate precisely what I was saying with liberals being hopeless ideologues that ignore reality.

No, you ought to look into what the post-Friedman monetarists have been saying about Japan and the United States. One particular idea that has caught on with Mark Carney, the former "star central banker" of the day from Canada who is heading to the Bank of England, is Nominal GDP targeting....meaning pretty much that Central Bank's would do much greater asset purchases in the face of the type of slump we're in today.

This is the evolution of Friedman's ideas. Really the only difference between Krugman and Friedman's montetarism today is that Krugman believes in both activist fiscal and monetary policy whereas Friedman and the other monetarists would put it all on the Central Bank and have been saying that Bernanke and others are failing hard.

So no, new monetarists like Scott Sumner (who was trained by Friedman) would say Japan hasn't done the worst but it has not done enough as they have let NGDP collapse, etc.

Bottom line; Both Monetarists and Keynesians believe that policy makers are failing and not doing enough and have been against the type of liquidationist nonsense being espoused by Stockman since the 1930's.

It's Koo style Post-Keynesians wanting only Fiscal Policy to the Left... Krugman and most New Keynesians to the right of them seeking more expansionary fiscal policy and monetary policy next....then New Keynesians who are Republicans and the Market Monetarists advocating only more expansionary Monetary policy....

To the right of all of them are the Austrian/Austerian/Mellonist/Goldbugs/Market Moralists who forgot that their ideas were refuted by the experience of the Great Depression. Unfortunately these people dominate most of the Republican Party (and even a lot of the Democratic party...they just prefer tax raises for their austerity...Obama is one of them) and most of Forbes, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Investor's Business Daily, etc.

gut;1426518 wrote:Just beyond moronic. Really, you should be ashamed but your are too blinded by the keynesian goo in your eye.

Monetarists believe the same thing except they say would say there should never be a need for activist fiscal policy if the central bank is competent.

So, if he were alive today, like his students, Friedman would probably support a grand bargain/approach to a balanced budget/spending cuts/Generally Small Government but on the other hand would be admonishing Ben Bernanke and the Central Bank's of the world for failing and not doing enough. He'd be about as dovish as it gets on monetary policy.

While I personally think Fiscal Policy can play a role at the zero bound and that we shouldn't just rely on activist and unconventional monetary policy, I can sympathize with what the new monetarists say.

What is amazing, are the people who are monetary hawks and deficit hawks as this is a prescription for certain depression i.e. Eurozone where the Euro is working like a Gold Standard on the periphery in addition to the austerity measures creating epic unemployment.

BoatShoes;1426611 wrote: To the right of all of them are the Austrian/Austerian/Mellonist/Goldbugs/Market Moralists who forgot that their ideas were refuted by the experience of the Great Depression.

The failure of Keynesian prescriptions during the Great Depression vindicated the Austrians then, just like they do today. You didn't forget that though, because you were never taught it.

Cleveland Buck;1426646 wrote:The failure of Keynesian prescriptions during the Great Depression vindicated the Austrians then, just like they do today. You didn't forget that though, because you were never taught it.

At the most basic level, unless you've asked your boss for a cut in your wages, the central descriptive insight of the Keynes/Friedman Descriptive Macro-Paradigm stands. In a monetary economy, prices are sticky, particularly wages and this can result in the labor market being in disequilibrium much more often than the classical theory predicts (as it thinks money is totally neutral) and depression results with diminished economic activity. As a side effect, costly and unnecessary human suffering and lost productive capacity is left in the wake while we wait. Simple solution is for the State which has the monopoly over that currency used to intervene...fiscally or monetarily depending on your inclination..and that is the prescriptive part whereupon the monetarists and new keynesians diverge.

Friedman's analogy to Daylight Saving's Time really is the best...if what the economy needed was for everyone to set their clocks forward an hour, would we wait over the long run for everyone to do it or would we simply impose Daylight Saving's Time?

Cleveland Buck;1426646 wrote:The failure of Keynesian prescriptions during the Great Depression vindicated the Austrians then, just like they do today. You didn't forget that though, because you were never taught it.

I don't think he's been taught anything. Jeez, its like reading a sophomore economics major off of his meds. Take more English classes BS.

Manhattan Buckeye;1426706 wrote:Take more English classes BS.

Oh come on. I don't think I agree with boatshoes on much politically but his grammar is perfectly fine and I think he does a great job of arguing his point and not resorting to name calling. That is a rare thing on the internet.

Excellent, then you can explain what he just said because I don't understand a word of it.

Play devil's advocate, nothing what he just posted above made any type of sense.

And also note, he edited some of his errors...that weren't even the crux of his argument.

Manhattan Buckeye;1426710 wrote:Excellent, then you can explain what he just said because I don't understand a word of it.

Play devil's advocate, nothing what he just posted above made any type of sense.

And also note, he edited some of his errors...that weren't even the crux of his argument.

Actually, You responded to Cleveland Buck's post in which he quoted post #15 of mine. That leads me to believe you do not think that post made sense. I made no edits to post #15. In the post that I did edit, I don't think I edited apparent grammatical errors in that particular post but instead expounded upon what I think Milton Friedman might argue for today with regard to monetary policy.

What is it that I can clear up for you? You'll have to forgive me if my writing is not clear enough for a man of your esteem.

Was it not clear to you that Milton Friedman would disagree with your complaining about Quantitative Easing and actually encourage more Asset Purchases by the World's Central Banks based upon his recommendations for the Japanese and the recommendations given by his students during the present crises? Is it not clear that Milton Friedman would have likely disagreed with David Stockman's goldbuggish screed in the New York Times??

EDIT: to your point, in the post I did edit, you'll see there is a grammatical error in the first sentence which I did not fix

EDIT: Also, in the post that Gut quoted where he called me a Moron there are indeed grammatical errors such as missing first letters in words. That happens when I post from my phone. Surely you can sympathize as you have explained several times about the complications with posting from a mobile device from time to time.

How about you speak in plain English? That would serve us all well. It isn't that difficult.

It also makes it easier to convey a point. And don't use words like "paradigm" or other buzzwords. If it is a duck, call it a duck.

Manhattan Buckeye;1426710 wrote:Excellent, then you can explain what he just said because I don't understand a word of it.

Play devil's advocate, nothing what he just posted above made any type of sense.

And also note, he edited some of his errors...that weren't even the crux of his argument.

Let me try to explain.

First he uses his typical justification for anything. Keynesian Democrat X and Monetarist Republican Y are both wild inflationists, so the idea must be valid.

Then he goes into the Keynesian sticky wages theory that had never been demonstrated in real life until the first depression in which the government actively intervened (1929), and every one since. Of course wages are sticky if the government props them up. Or pays people not to work. Or makes it illegal to work for less than a minimum amount.

Then he takes it for granted that because the government has the monopoly on money, that it should be that way, and they know better than we do what we need. Then he supports that with a ridiculous analogy similar to:

If people need to be clean, would we wait for everyone to take a shower or have a government agent wash every American?

"Or pays people not to work."

Well.....

Sounds like Soviet Union in the 80's.