jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (177 posts)

Economics - Less fun than a root canal but..

  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    In 20 years, the history books will call this the 2nd depression. We are in a liquidity trap, according to Paul Krugman, nobel-prize economist. That’s central to the problem.

    “The term liquidity trap is used in Keynesian economics to refer to a situation where monetary policy is unable to stimulate an economy, either through lowering interest rates or increasing the money supply.” Wikipedia

    Modest inflation in our economy is normal and healthy. Inflation means that – relative to goods –your money will be worth LESS tomorrow than it is today. To a capitalist, thats’s incentive to MOVE money because hoarded money is shrinkng money. Normally – not now.

    We are in a deflationary mode – the opposite condition. Money hoarded today will buy MORE widgets tomorrow than they did today. Even at 0% interest your money is growing, while the *stuff* you could buy might be worth less in the future. So big business is sitting on their capital - hoarding money in huge quantites.

    The overall economy is shrinking. Business has cut back and laid off, so fewer people have money, which causes sales to slump, which causes businesses to lay off and pull back even more. Which feeds a downward spiral.

    Which brings us back to the ‘liquidity trap’. In a normal economy, the Fed uses the twin controls of interest rates and money supply to hype the economy, but those controls are flat against the peg. Money that would ordinarily be spent or invested is being hoarded almost as fast as it can be put in circulation.

    How do we get out? In economic terms, it’s obvious. You put large amounts of money in the hands of people who will spend it all – namely the unemployed and the poor. You increase consumption. You’re baiting capitalists into increasing production (and hiring). Second, you penalize (heavily tax) businesses and individuals for ‘hoarding’ large amounts of capital, and provide economic incentives (tax breaks) for investing in funds that will ‘work’ that capital – and create jobs.

    The problem is that most people prefer a root canal without anesthesia to thinking about economics. The solution would be spun by conservatives as 'socialism' despite the fact it’s intent & result would be to preserve the free market system and restore a healthy economy quickly. But I see no way to ‘sell’ the solution to an electorate or Congress who won’t use sound economics to guide policy.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Very true. "Common sense" about the national debt doesn't  provide the correct answer in our current situation. Hysteria about the national debt is putting us in danger of a prolonged and deep recession or depression.

      1. livelonger profile image95
        livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        ...which can only foment more anti-incumbent feeling, which can only help the Republicans. Which is why the GOP is creating as much anger about the debt and incumbents as it possibly can.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Fear and ignorance are the fuels that drive the GOP.

          1. Paraglider profile image95
            Paragliderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Be that as it may, this thread had some kind of chance of developing into a discussion. How about it?

            Bottom-up bail-out has got to be at least as sensible as top down. At least then the money can rise through the system, passing through many hands en route. Whereas money added to the top stays at the top.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Tax cuts?

              1. Paraglider profile image95
                Paragliderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I don't see that working, but I suppose it depends which taxes.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  What type of bottom-up are you suggesting?

                  1. Paraglider profile image95
                    Paragliderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    None. I'm merely observing that since top down doesn't work, bottom up is worth considering. We don't know that it doesn't work because it has never been tried.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I like that term, "bottom-up bailout."  It's a short, accurate description that is easily understood.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                It sounds erotic.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  HA

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image64
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Yep.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        common sense is to stop spending money and stop spending money on stimulus, and to stop inflating ourselves into poverty.

        And... lo and behold, it's the correct answer: Obama's talking about another stimulus!

    2. Aya Katz profile image84
      Aya Katzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I wish we were in a deflationary economy! I'm living on savings and the interest on savings. My money buys less at the grocery store every day.

      You want to print more money and give it to other people so they can spend away what I have? How dare you!!

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I don't make this stuff up.

        "June 17, 2010
        On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U declined 0.2 percent in May after falling 0.1 percent in April."

        From http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ - the government web site that measures the Consumer Price Index. I'm not suggesting that the price of corn flakes may  have gone up at Safeway. But what I said about deflation is true and has been for several years now. 

        Economics requires objectivity - things aren't what you want - they are what they are. The economic circumstances have not been this bad in my lifetime. They aren't likely to get better  any time soon. They will get MUCH worse under conservative economic philosophy.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        deflation, from my current experiences, is actually what's happening - AND I LOVE IT!!!

        i just got a free 32 inch tv, free installation of internet, a BRAND NEW Sports car for $17k, and a huge discount on my new apartment.

        Deflation rocks!

        It won't last, however. The monetary base has tripled in the past 10 years or so - it's going to blow sometime.

    3. Jackson Riddle profile image53
      Jackson Riddleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like a true Keynesian. Increasing the Supply of Goods and Services by cutting costs of production should help. I'd then look to depreciate the currency to give you larger returns for your exports.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        god I hate keynes. His theory has been dead since Stagflation of the 70s -- Keynesians even admitted it.

        ... I believe the exact quote was "well, then we'd have to resign"

    4. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      this is absolute nonsense.

      not only is Economics NOT the "dismal" science, it is also not the dismal "science".

      Check out my "Evan's Easy economics" for a full refutation of this nonsense, and read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson to understand why Krugman doesn't deserve his Nobel Prize... or maybe it's that nobel prizes don't mean anything -- after all, Obama is still involved with 2 wars and got one for peace...

      Here is a slightly bastardized version of the Austrian argument against this COMPLETE nonsense in a nutshell (It is known as the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle):

      Printing money leads to the problem where people think they have more "wealth" than they really do - thus more people bid for limited resources. I.e. - If everyone in the world found $1,000,000 under their pillow from the "Krugman-Keynesian-Bernanke Fairy", then everyone would think "oh my god! I'm a millionaire!" ... Then they'd rush out and start buying things.

      Many people would put their money in the bank, thinking they could save it for the future: after all, they're millionaires!

      Then the banks' interest rates would PLUMMET! People would think "Hey, now's a great time to invest in building a Ski/Snowboard park in Central texas!! I could buy hundreds of snow machines for really cheap, shift all the land around and build mountains, and clear out enough land to make it awesome!" ... the bank has more money than it knows what to do with, so it lends out the money (also, if Chase Bank doesn't lend the money out, then surely PBC will! - then PBC will earn profits on the interest!).

      during this time, all the Keynesians and Krugmans, and Samuelsons quickly hand over their reports to the Obama (or whoever) administration and say "LOOK!!! investment and unemployment have plummeted!! Our plan worked!!", and they get nobel prizes.... ... ...

      Unfortunately, however, the DRAMATIC increase in money IN NO WAY MEANT THAT THERE WERE MORE RESOURCES TO BE HAD!!! -- Everyone was fighting over the same number of snow machines, the same amount of steel to make the trucks to plow the land, and there was no dramatic increase in employable-people. Thus, all that happens is ... you guessed it... PRICES SKYROCKET!!!

      Why would you sell steel to A when B could give you more, then A bids more, then B bids more, Then A... etc - finally a chunk of steel costs thousands of dollars!!!

      What ends up happening? Wages skyrocket, prices skyrocket, and the entire economy says "WHOOOOAAA!!! This can't continue!" and all those "good-for-the-economy" projects fail and go bankrupt.

      Then the Keynesians, Krugmans, Bernankes, and Samuelsons say "We needed to spend even more money!!! 0% interest rates were too high - We want BANKS to give investors money ON TOP OF the money that they lend out!"

      Then when people say "shut the hell up", Obama comes out and says "Yes, we spend over $787 billion on stimulus, and things are still bad. But they COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!"

      ... and all that happens is an increase in prices, a depreciation of the money, and a much poorer economy.

      ---

      More money is NOT what we need.

      Argh - I just noticed you used the word "hoarded"!!! You actually bought that "people are hoarding their money" line?

      Let me translate "hoarding" for you: When I hoard something, all that means is that I'm saving more money than YOU think I should be saving.

  2. Aya Katz profile image84
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    Why don't we agree to leave it alone? Let's not bail anybody out, rich or poor, debtors or creditors, let's treat all the same. The currency may retain its worth, and the economy may stabilize.

    1. livelonger profile image95
      livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Kind of like Japan? That's worked wonders for its economy over the past 20 years.

      1. Aya Katz profile image84
        Aya Katzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not familiar with the economy of Japan. Care to elaborate?

      2. Sab Oh profile image55
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Japan's economic woes aren't the result of doing too much or doing nothing. The prolonged weakness is the result of doing just enough to drag things out without either letting them fail and creating anew or making radical changes to reset the game.

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Japan is where it should be - it was riding an inflationary bubble for some 20 years, and then they finally stopped. Now they have a stifling government that thinks that giving everyone 70 bucks is more valuable than just giving out tax rebates.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like Herbert Hoover.

      (Google him if you don't know.)

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        FDR's new deal policies were NOTHING more than expansions of Herbert hoover's policies.

        Here's a brief discussion talking about how Hoover was NOT a free-marketeer, and that Krugman is a bone-head.

        http://mises.org/daily/4197

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image64
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not likely according to nearly all economists.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Most economists thought that the US would be crushed by USSR even up until 1989.

  3. MikeNV profile image81
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    Baffling there are still people who think that you can spend your way out of a depression.

    When you flood the market with currency you create inflation.  So you have 2 scenarios.

    1. Deflation as people realize the impending collapse and spend on nothing including the currency flood.

    2. Inflation as the ignorant borrow and spend more before the inevitable collapse.  You can not increase the value of currency by introducing more currency based on nothing.  That's just the way it is.

    Either way there is simply too much debt to revive the economy.

    Has anyone here been paying any attention at all to what is going on in Greece?

    Greece is the model for what is coming for the average American as the Wealthy Elite claim title to Americas Assets.

    1. livelonger profile image95
      livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Baffling that you think the time to rein in spending is during a recession, and the time to spend like crazy is during an economic expansion.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        A big part of the problems Greece is in were caused by a consevative legislature thet was not collecting taxes from the rich. A big part - not all. But connected business entities found it easy to build in tax loopholes from politicians in bed with the fat cats.

        That's a big part of the problem with our deficit problem - we are giving away about 4 Billion per year in subsidies and tax breaks to the Oil Industry alone - effectively corporate welfare that you don't hear the GOP screamng about. (But we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits.)

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      isn't it amazing? People with NOBEL PRIZES actually think that "hey, printing sheets of paper out of thin air can make society's ills go away!"

      I would laugh, if I didn't know that we're headed for a triple dip recession.

  4. Jim Hunter profile image61
    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago

    Isn't there a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress?

    I think you have a Democrat President.

    Democrats can pass any law they want, enough Democrats obviously don't want to extend benefits to the unemployed.

    Sounds like the Democrats are the ones to blame.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You don't understand the procedures of the Senate.

      Filibuster - google it

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Democrats are still to blame, introduce a bill that doesn't add to the deficit and it would pass!

        Thank God for the filibuster.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You backtrack very well..

          Congratulations.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Ditto?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Google?

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Nah, I'm trying to quit.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Texan?

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    What?

        2. Strophios profile image58
          Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Extending unemployment benefits could in fact lower the deficit, due to the negative effects of decreased consumer spending (i.e. decreased economic activity). See here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 … austerity/ and here: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/ … n-deficit/ .

          1. Jackson Riddle profile image53
            Jackson Riddleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Im not sure what size your CAD is but reducing your deficit doesn't get you out of a recession. Look at Australia, our current account has been in defecit for years but we aren't in a recession or is it our main target to reduce it.

            1. Strophios profile image58
              Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Oh, I have no delusions as to whether reducing the deficit gets you out of a recession. It's just that the usual argument against further spending (i.e. extending unemployment) is that it increases the deficit. So if further spending would both aid the economy and end up reducing the deficit (or debt), then there really isn't an argument against it.

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image64
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Not extending unemployment benefits would be likely to add more to the budget than will extending them because failing to extend the benefits or provide other stimulus may well lead to a double dip recession which would reduce tax revenues substantially.

          1. Sab Oh profile image55
            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sure! More and more unrestrained spending will reduce the deficit! That sounds like some standard obamanomics alright!  roll

            1. Strophios profile image58
              Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              No, it sounds like standard real economics, as in the kind espoused by actual professional, trained economists. It also sounds like common sense and logic. Extending unemployment benefits means more money in the economy, because it goes to people who will spend it. More money in the economy means an improving economy, which means increased revenue.

              1. Sab Oh profile image55
                Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "No, it sounds like standard real economics"

                "It also sounds like common sense and logic."

                roll


                Great news! I'm gonna go max out all my credit cards so my debt will go away! Why didn't someone tell me this sooner?

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  That is not remotely the same, to look at economics you have to get your mind out of your own wallet as a good start.

                2. Strophios profile image58
                  Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Your willful ignorance is impressive. You totally disregarded my point, did you even read what I wrote?

                  You are not a national economy/national government. What is true of those things is not true of you.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image55
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL! Math and common sense don't apply to governments I guess. LOL @ the lengths some will go to...

                3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  THANK YOU SAB!! YOU ARE MY HERO!!! Because you will murder yourself in debt, SPENDING HAS INCREASED!!!

                  C+I+G = HAPPINESS!!! Thank you!!

                  ... god I'm amazed that anyone can defend Krugman! (I may disagree with you on a lot of things Sab, but we seem to agree on economics!)

  5. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Maybe they are all the same person smile Maybe there are only 10 real people on the forums lol

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      He doesn't like me. Does that narrow it down?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately, no lol

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe you are all paranoid.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image74
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Watch it Jim, someone might write a hub and tell you not to read it! lol

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The thing is - wingnuts are the ones who write whiny hubs whenever they get suspended.  MadamX did - Buck (Texan) did - Arthur did.

          It's all a conspiracy - boo-hoo. Poor me. I have been suspended - twice. I know of other liberal hubbers who were. And they didn't write whiny hubs complaining.

          When wingnut hubbers go over the top and get permanently banned - they come back with a new name and the same message. And they loose it  again when confronted by liberals with facts, which are such inconvenient things.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain."
            Lily Tomlin

            "We are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others that in the end we become disguised to ourselves." 
            Francois de La Rochefoucauld

            I'm such a quote geek.  wink

          2. Flightkeeper profile image74
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You are so right, libtards just write hubs that so overwhelm you with their brilliance that the reader just chokes on the words...from laughter! lol lol lol

            1. profile image0
              china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              No that is not brilliance silly - those are facts, and the long sentences are usually reasoning !!!!

              1. Flightkeeper profile image74
                Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                But to everybody whose not a libtard they're delusions! big_smile

  6. Jim Hunter profile image61
    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago

    "When wingnut hubbers go over the top and get permanently banned - they come back with a new name and the same message. And they loose it  again when confronted by liberals with facts, which are such inconvenient things."


    Speaking of conspiracies.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ditto

  7. cindyvine profile image86
    cindyvineposted 7 years ago

    libtard, that's a new one!

  8. Jim Hunter profile image61
    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago

    Lets take a look at the Keynesian theory in its most simplistic form.

    Take twenty people and put them in a room, fill the right pocket with money and have them take half and put it in their left pocket.

    Are they richer for having done that?

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ditto

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You complete me.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jim - I DID study Keynesian theory in college. Macroeconomics was required - what you suggested was in no way, shape or form related to economics. Did you get that from Rush Limbaugh?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You went to college and yet know nothing about how the judicial system works?

        I'm going to have to call you on that.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        C+I+G=K

        ... i thin Jim summed up the Argument quite nicely, actually.

        "If you want to make life better, have the government take all your money and spend it for you without your direct consent" might be another way to do it.

    3. Strophios profile image58
      Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You and Sab Oh both, you both do this thing where you ignore the points made against you in favor of false "reductio ad absurdum," straw man arguments, and other fallacies as though they were legitimate arguments.

      On this specific point: I'll give you a more reasonable reduction of Keynesian economics, using the specific example of unemployment benefits:

      Let's say we have twenty people, 5 rich and well employed, 5 middle class, 5 lower class, and 5 unemployed. As it stands, the unemployed are spending nothing, because they have no money. The lower and middle class are both spending most/all of their incomes to meet their expenses. The rich, however, are spending comparatively little of their incomes, because it only takes a small portion to meet their needs and they're saving a fair part of the rest, because the economy sucks, so they don't want to spend now. The government comes in, taxes the rich and pays benefits to the unemployed. Suddenly, the money which was being held in reserve, out of the economy, is immediately infused into the economy by the unemployed, who have no choice but to either spend it or starve.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        "reductio ad absurdum,"

        Cool

      2. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        So, how is that stimulus working?

        1. Strophios profile image58
          Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Well done. I'm almost impressed at your stubbornness. Even as I point it out you continue to do what I accuse you of doing: ignoring my points by using a variety of invalid argument tactics. Well, in fairness, asking about the stimulus is semi-valid, since we were discussing Keynes, but it's also invalid insofar as you are completely ignoring my point about unemployment benefits.

          In any case, on the subject of the stimulus:

          "The Congressional Budget Office said in May that as of the end of the first quarter of 2010 the Recovery Act has “[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million,” raised inflation adjusted GDP “by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,” and lowered the unemployment rate." from: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/01/boe … s-one-job/

          and a nice graphic to go with it:

          http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4668683929_77773d55ff_b.jpg

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Well Said, Strophios.  But you left yourself wide open with a logical, well documented argument to be devastated by the wingnut counter-argument that always works - They will annihilate your facts with a photoshopped picture of Obama as King Tut or Che Guerva - which proves?....

            something, doesn't it.. because it's where they always go when facts fail these morons..

            1. Sab Oh profile image55
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Why do you feel the need to include insults like that?

              1. profile image0
                china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Most people do it because you invite the insults with your illiterate vague and pointless posts.

                1. Sab Oh profile image55
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe you (maybe everyone) could try to control yourself and refrain from personal insults regardless of what "invitation" you imagine.

              2. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Sag Oh - There have been several threads opened up which were venues for posting photoshopped pictures of Obama.  I haven't noticed that you object to those insults, or how they add nothing to the discussion.

                I am even handed here - I have seen photoshopped Palin posters that  add nothing to the discussion. This runs down the chance to actually exchange ideas, which my OP did.  A lot of people added to the discussion, and I observed how one astute comment would probably be rebutted since there was no rational counter-argument.

                What I was saying was not a personal insult - it was a general observation about where conservatives run when they can't deal with facts and evidence that are well assembled.

                1. Sab Oh profile image55
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  "There have been several threads opened up which were venues for posting photoshopped pictures of Obama."


                  None posted by me. I am not talking about insulting politicians and other public persons, I am talking about insulting each other here in our exchanges. Why not avoid that and improve the tone around here - if only a little?

            2. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Is that tactic similar to the one that is constantly used by you and the rest?

              Your a troll

              Your a sock puppet

              I understand the Keynesian theory well enough to know it isn't working.

              So put up a graph that proves your point and I will look at it and smile.

              1. Strophios profile image58
                Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I have never once said any of these things. So what's your excuse for consistently ignoring me?

                Although, in fairness, I will say that accusations of sock puppetry and trolling hardly contribute any more to the conversation than the very sock puppetry and trolling they accuse you of, arguably even less. On the other hand, when faced with an opponent who refuses to actually argue, I can at least understand resorting to the same level of tactics.



                No, you understand Keynesian theory well enough to, apparently, ignore every argument I've made in favor of empty platitudes like "I understand Keynesian theory well enough to know it isn't working."



                Wait, you mean a graph like this one:

                http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4668683929_77773d55ff_b.jpg

                Or how about a quotation? Maybe one like this:

                "The Congressional Budget Office said in May that as of the end of the first quarter of 2010 the Recovery Act has “[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million,” raised inflation adjusted GDP “by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,” and lowered the unemployment rate." from: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/01/boe … s-one-job/

                These, you may note, I posted earlier in this thread. You just ignored them both.

                Also, I think it's really amusing that you should be asking for evidence when you have not only provided none yourself for your own statements but, as far as I can tell, have never provided evidence for any of your arguments, ever. It's just sort of funny, is all.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I didn't ask for proof. I just said put up the graphic so I could smile.

                  Since links get you all excited I will give you some.

                  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/ … _bill.html

                  http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/201 … ulus-bill/

                  http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/014094.html

                  Have a wonderful day.

                  1. Strophios profile image58
                    Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    You actually believe that BS? Those links were a tour de force in political bias and ignorant arguing, in addition to simple lies. For instance, the American Thinker article cites unemployment which "continues to rise towards %10," which is just blatantly untrue, given that unemployment is in fact decreasing, for instance, I believe the most recent figure is %9.5, lower than their cited figure of 9.9. Then you have the fact that none of these cites any actual facts or figures, they just shout "More spending, oh no!" over and over again. Nor do any of the three engage the wider economic theory, they just assume Keynesian theory is wrong (with no backing evidence) and go on shouting some more about deficit spending. Now that I know that this is where you get your information/viewpoints/arguments/rhetorical tactics from, suddenly everything makes so much more sense.

              2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Not exactly.  We use the proper form of "you're". smile

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't usually make that mistake, you're very kind for pointing that out.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I also appreciate it when people catch my grammar/spelling mistakes.  It's an area we can all improve on....

                    (catch the mistake?) smile

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              hey doug,

              the same people (Austrian Economists) predicted Stagflation, the Great Depression, The stock bubble burst, the current housing mess, the next recession we get hit with (in ten or so years), the failure of the bretton-woods system, the abandonment of the gold standard, and many other economic disasters...

              You just called them all morons. Whereas the people you highly revere thought that the USSR would over take the US all the way up to 1989.

              ... I'm gonna go with history on this one and have to call you the moron.

              If you don't like being called a moron, don't call others the same thing.

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        your argument COMPLETELY ignores WHAT the people are buying - You say that the middle class people are spending their money "on expenses" - You CAN choose to reduce your expenses - we're not all mindless zombies.

        If you want to save money, You choose to spend less - like me and my fiancee did - and then you can choose to spend that money later - like me and my fiancee.

        It's called "investing" not "hoarding"

        Mises was much more thorough than Keynes was.

  9. salt profile image74
    saltposted 7 years ago

    youd like my trickle up effect...

    and its the velocity of money that creates growth, ... so how many times it changes hands.

  10. Paraglider profile image95
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    @Doug and/or Ralph - My question above was a genuine one, because while I agree with you on the best way to get the economy 'back on track', I'm really not sure that 'on track' is where wen should be going. Politically it makes sense because of such factors as the length of a term of office, but isn't perpetual growth unsustainable in a global economy?
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/47821?p … ost1098034
    Thanks for trying to hold a proper discussion

    1. Dave Barnett profile image55
      Dave Barnettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not an expert here, much of the preceeding is fairly well Greek to me, maybe that's part of the prob. Average folks gen. don't know a lot of the theoretical voodoo called "economics"  but my short laundry list would be  that over the past fifty years, and before, we in the U.S. let the unions hold us hostage to higher wages and benefits, forcing the government to raise minimum wage levels, so non-union workers would be able to survive because w/ the union raises (usually because of a gen. strike) caused across the board increases in the cost of goods and services. The raise in the wages of lower non-union jobs caused mose across the board raises, which caused more gen. strikes. A very vicious circle, which has forced us into an economic cul-de-sac. Now we are the highest paid workers in a declining marketplace. Why is the market declining? Our market is because we eliminated middle and lower level blue collar jobs, by allowing them to go to other MARKETS! Could be wrong, but it sounds like we've made our own bed here.

      1. Paraglider profile image95
        Paragliderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I'm from UK, not US, but I believe US salaries are quite a bit lower than European counterparts. Not that everything's rosy in Europe either of course!

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Keynesian economics is complete nonsense: "Saving money is bad!", "If you spend money you are creating wealth out of thin air - it matters not what you buy!", "printing sheets of green paper with a number on them will make everyone better off!"

        These are the idiotic lessons you learn from Keynesian economic (that which is taught in schools).

        Check out this one single book: "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Compare the lessons Hazlitt teaches with the lessons that Keynes teaches, and make your own decision.

        (For those with the limited attention span there is a light summary of the book on youtube - it's kind of long, but is divided into about 15 minute chunks, each chunk is a different topic that the one lesson is applied to.)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD28vNVovow

  11. Ben Evans profile image75
    Ben Evansposted 7 years ago

    Evan,

    How do you expect anyone to take  heart  to anything you say if you are condescending and trying to point to people and tell them they are stupid.  There is one problem with the arguments you present and you want no government yet you are trying to force your opinion on everyone.  If libertarianism is apolitical, why are you so political in the name of the aforementioned?

    Hazlitt has some good points but he is more of a philosopher than a economist.  I too do not believe that the government should spend to create an economy.  His theories are cyclical though and not mathematical and are more in support of a political scheme.

    Keynesian economics was right for the times in many peoples minds at the time of WWII.  I don't think we should spend ourselves out of the current economic blight.  I don't however think all his ideas are bunk. 

    Evan, you have very idealistic views.  The economy is a man made event.  It does not have a complete basis in science and mathematics because it is dynamic and it changes with the worlds mindset.  Some parts of the economy are cause and effect like our housing market driving the economy.  We see what happened.  Others are not.......Like theories on why and how we spend or save.

    You may think I am picking on you.  I am not.  I do admire your enthusiasm but what I don't like is that you are actually being nasty to a lot of people. You are trying to convince people by calling them stupid and talking to them very angrily.  That drives people away and accomplishes nothing. 

    You might feel that you have the better side of the argument but all you are doing is convincing people to take an opposite stance.  You are actually telling people not to listen to you.  You do have some good ideas and if you can learn to discuss them (that means to listen to what others are saying also) more people will listen to you.

 
working