The Correct Economic Policy...or Obama's.

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Austerity measures" refers to government policy of keeping the fiscal reins tight, of controlling spending, and keeping debt down.

Keynesians, such as Obama, argue that austerity makes downturns worse:
"We have actually had a massive unethical human experiment in austerity doctrine. Here we have had this view that cutting government spending is going to be good for the economy even when the economy is deeply depressed and we have put it into effect in parts of Europe and we have put it into effect to a significant effect in the US . . . there has been a very depressing effect on the economy. Where is the evidence that this other view [austerity] is at all right?"
Paul Krugman, interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, May 18, 2012.

2. In his column attempting to disparage austerity, (Austerity And Growth, Again (Wonkish) - NYTimes.com), Krugman considers only data from 2009, and takes a small data set, European countries only. He finds that austerity has a very small effect on reducing deficit.

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

b. The simple truth is that governments cannot spend their way out of economic problems.
If you voted for Obama, you voted against this simple truth.





3. Ever the Keynesian, Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret its austerity program: "But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=0

a. But, Germany's labor force participation rose by 2% from June 2010, to August 2011. America's, in the opposite direction.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.111.






4. In June 2010, the British government promised to cut the budget an average of 25% (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23britain.html?pagewanted=all).

Guess what Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ... a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

a. But, Britain's job market has outperformed America's. While labor force participation in both Britain and the US dropped the same amount 2009-2010, once Britain announced spending cuts, a greater share of their labor force found work; the 'stimulated' US job market kept shrinking. Lott, Op.Cit., p. 112.




b. Lest one believe that Krugman's allegience was to his art....this is how he explained the British cuts:
"Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

In that statement one can see the Left's fervor for ever-bigger government, and higher taxes. Every other statement is simply camouflage for those desires.



To be clear, Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

If they would give up Utopian fairy tales and stick to using data to solve problems,....we might get somewhere.

 

[oldfart]

Since no one (correctly) has seen fit to tackle the rambling discourse of misinformation held together by illogic, I'll make a few comments.

1. "Austerity measures" refers to government policy of keeping the fiscal reins tight, of controlling spending, and keeping debt down.

Usually a non-accommodating monetary policy is added to the mix. While from a fiscal standpoint, tax increases are as good as spending cuts, PC like all neo-Ricardians refuses to examine this expression of fiscal conservatism because if they did so, Daddy would cut off their allowance and they would have to let the maid go, increasing unemployment in a bad way. So this is not true "austerity" or fiscal conservatism; it is cry-baby monopoly capitalist Ayn Rand redistributionism with a side of "Let them eat cake!" To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, PC's spiritual godmother, "Only the little people pay taxes or do austerity!"

Keynesians, such as Obama, argue that austerity makes downturns worse:
"We have actually had a massive unethical human experiment in austerity doctrine. Here we have had this view that cutting government spending is going to be good for the economy even when the economy is deeply depressed and we have put it into effect in parts of Europe and we have put it into effect to a significant effect in the US . . . there has been a very depressing effect on the economy. Where is the evidence that this other view [austerity] is at all right?"
Paul Krugman, interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, May 18, 2012.

Are we quoting Obama or Krugman here and which one is the Keynesian? In the real world of economic thought not everyone to the left of Andrew Mellon (Look it up PC, he was Hoover's Secretary of Treasury) is interchangeable. And what part of the quote do you disagree with?

2. In his column attempting to disparage austerity,

There is no need to disparage austerity. It's proponents have pretty well discredited it. Who are you quoting this week; A & A or R & R? Is there anyone other than poor Martin Feldman still shilling for this intellectual disaster?

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.

The OECD study is a pretty interesting read, I'm sorry you didn't bother to read it yourself. It states that the r-squared on that regression model is less than 0.04 and statistically insignificant. A further analysis of the same data shows that half of the time period studied growth and debt to be POSITIVELY related. And thirdly, all of the studies of causality to date show that high debt results from rather than causes low growth. In fact, nations with more than a 90% debt-to-GDP ratio (R & R's threshold) had the highest growth rates in the following five years of all groups. If you had bothered to read the report itself rather than some conservative hack blogger's take on it, you would have known these things.

b. The simple truth is that governments cannot spend their way out of economic problems.

Poppycock and balderdash. We did it seven times since WWII. Look it up under "fiscal policy". This is what we did when economic policy actually worked, like from 1947 until 2002.

3. Ever the Keynesian, Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret its austerity program: "But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity."
a. But, Germany's labor force participation rose by 2% from June 2010, to August 2011. America's, in the opposite direction.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.111.

All of which means what exactly?

4. In June 2010, the British government promised to cut the budget an average of 25%
Guess what Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ... a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further ..."
a. But, Britain's job market has outperformed America's. While labor force participation in both Britain and the US dropped the same amount 2009-2010, once Britain announced spending cuts, a greater share of their labor force found work; the 'stimulated' US job market kept shrinking. Lott, Op.Cit., p. 112.

You really need to stop quoting this kind of meaningless nonsense. Britain is in the throes of a triple dip recession. Unemployment is 7.8% and the growth rate of nominal GDP 0.6% making real GDP a -1.8%. Austerity has been a failure in Britain like everywhere else.

b. Lest one believe that Krugman's allegience was to his art....this is how he explained the British cuts:
"Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
In that statement one can see the Left's fervor for ever-bigger government, and higher taxes. Every other statement is simply camouflage for those desires.

Are you arguing that the Tories are NOT trying to "downsize the welfare state"? Have you read the Tory platform? You may be the only person on the face of the earth, including the Tory Party, that does not agree with Krugman here.

I would ask you what syllogism you used to get from Krugman's quote to your conclusion, but ......What the hell, What IS your reasoning here?

 

[itfitzme]

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.*
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

You got a title or link for that study, it sounds interesting.

There are quite a few working papers and articles. *The closest I can come to something resembling your writing is

United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

 

[itfitzme]

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.*
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

I found the Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff study, but that was was found to have spreadsheet calc errors, among other things.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogoff/files/growth_in_time_debt_aer.pdf

The follow up paper

PERI: : Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff

by*Herndon, Ash and Pollin. *They found that a 90% debt to GDP ratio was associated with a 2.2% GDP growth.

They point out that a search of papers finds over 500 reasearch papers that site*Reinhart and Rogoff.


I find:

OECD iLibrary: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

by Egert, B "Public Debt, Economic Growth and Nonlinear Effects" which sites*Reinhart and Rogoff.

"Nonlinear effects might be more complex and difficult to model than previously thought. Instability might be a result of nonlinear effects changing over time, across countries and economic conditions. Further research is certainly needed to fully understand the link between public debt and growth."

It appears to be just looking for the point non-linearity and not of actual growth rates.

I'm just not finding it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since no one (correctly) has seen fit to tackle the rambling discourse of misinformation held together by illogic, I'll make a few comments.

1. "Austerity measures" refers to government policy of keeping the fiscal reins tight, of controlling spending, and keeping debt down.

Usually a non-accommodating monetary policy is added to the mix. While from a fiscal standpoint, tax increases are as good as spending cuts, PC like all neo-Ricardians refuses to examine this expression of fiscal conservatism because if they did so, Daddy would cut off their allowance and they would have to let the maid go, increasing unemployment in a bad way. So this is not true "austerity" or fiscal conservatism; it is cry-baby monopoly capitalist Ayn Rand redistributionism with a side of "Let them eat cake!" To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, PC's spiritual godmother, "Only the little people pay taxes or do austerity!"

Keynesians, such as Obama, argue that austerity makes downturns worse:
"We have actually had a massive unethical human experiment in austerity doctrine. Here we have had this view that cutting government spending is going to be good for the economy even when the economy is deeply depressed and we have put it into effect in parts of Europe and we have put it into effect to a significant effect in the US . . . there has been a very depressing effect on the economy. Where is the evidence that this other view [austerity] is at all right?"
Paul Krugman, interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, May 18, 2012.

Are we quoting Obama or Krugman here and which one is the Keynesian? In the real world of economic thought not everyone to the left of Andrew Mellon (Look it up PC, he was Hoover's Secretary of Treasury) is interchangeable. And what part of the quote do you disagree with?


There is no need to disparage austerity. It's proponents have pretty well discredited it. Who are you quoting this week; A & A or R & R? Is there anyone other than poor Martin Feldman still shilling for this intellectual disaster?



The OECD study is a pretty interesting read, I'm sorry you didn't bother to read it yourself. It states that the r-squared on that regression model is less than 0.04 and statistically insignificant. A further analysis of the same data shows that half of the time period studied growth and debt to be POSITIVELY related. And thirdly, all of the studies of causality to date show that high debt results from rather than causes low growth. In fact, nations with more than a 90% debt-to-GDP ratio (R & R's threshold) had the highest growth rates in the following five years of all groups. If you had bothered to read the report itself rather than some conservative hack blogger's take on it, you would have known these things.



Poppycock and balderdash. We did it seven times since WWII. Look it up under "fiscal policy". This is what we did when economic policy actually worked, like from 1947 until 2002.



All of which means what exactly?

4. In June 2010, the British government promised to cut the budget an average of 25%
Guess what Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ... a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further ..."
a. But, Britain's job market has outperformed America's. While labor force participation in both Britain and the US dropped the same amount 2009-2010, once Britain announced spending cuts, a greater share of their labor force found work; the 'stimulated' US job market kept shrinking. Lott, Op.Cit., p. 112.

You really need to stop quoting this kind of meaningless nonsense. Britain is in the throes of a triple dip recession. Unemployment is 7.8% and the growth rate of nominal GDP 0.6% making real GDP a -1.8%. Austerity has been a failure in Britain like everywhere else.

b. Lest one believe that Krugman's allegience was to his art....this is how he explained the British cuts:
"Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
In that statement one can see the Left's fervor for ever-bigger government, and higher taxes. Every other statement is simply camouflage for those desires.

Are you arguing that the Tories are NOT trying to "downsize the welfare state"? Have you read the Tory platform? You may be the only person on the face of the earth, including the Tory Party, that does not agree with Krugman here.

I would ask you what syllogism you used to get from Krugman's quote to your conclusion, but ......What the hell, What IS your reasoning here?

1. "Since no one (correctly) has seen fit to tackle the rambling discourse of misinformation held together by illogic, I'll make a few comments."

I hope you don't mind if I don't address you by your name...I find it a bit vulgar. But as to your 'few comments'....I appreciate the effort. Nice post.....rep on the way.


Unfortunately, I'll have to eviscerate same.....

2. " tax increases are as good as spending cuts,..."
Only in support of ever increasing Liberal big government.
As I try to instruct, a major difference between Liberals and Conservatives is taxation. For the former, they serve the mythical march toward 'equality,' to punish the successful.
Conservatives see taxation as the way to pay for the legitimate role of governemt, i.e., the enumerated powers of Article 1, section 8. Excess is returned to the rightful owners as tax cut.





3. Then you went on to obfuscate..." Daddy would cut off their allowance..." and " let the maid go..." and "cry-baby monopoly capitalist..." and " Leona Helmsley, PC's spiritual godmother...."
Essentially, using the typical Liberal ad hominem when you cannot deal with facts.


4. "Are we quoting Obama or Krugman here and which one is the Keynesian?"
a. The quote is clearly labeled.
b. If you don't know that they are both Keynesians, you misunderstanding of economics is explained.

5. "Look it up PC, he was....blah blah blah."
Made you feel better to pretend that you know more than I?
Merely another of the Liberal ad hominems.





6. Let's cut to the chase.
I provided specific evidence that the Keynesian champ is wrong. The theory is incorrect.

a. " Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret....But, Germany's labor force participation rose...."

and

b. "Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ....... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy..."
Britain's job market has outperformed America's..."



7. What have we learned?
That, as is true of so many Leftists. reality doesn't enter into the equation....it is ad hominem and ideology.
And that is the point of the OP.

And, I proved that with Krugman's " ....using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
That's what it is really about...not economic solution, but, again: Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.




8. Mull this over: " Laudatory though the attempt is, the desire of the Liberal state to exorcise greed, poverty and unhappiness, the cure is worse than the disease: the radical view that it is the responsibility to protect anyone who may claim to be powerless. The consequence, usual with big government is that the attempt is neither restrained, nor moderated."
Prager, "Still The Best Hope," chapter 13






You've encouraged me....I believe I'll put up another OP of Keynesian failure...just to rub your face in it.

So sorry I have expose you for the Liberal robot that you seem, but....

Happy Father's Day.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's cute that you think Obama has his own Economic Policy like he sat down and actually thought about it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was the same with Bush by the way.

Our current Economic Condition is no accident, it was planned that way and it's gonna' get worse no matter WHO is in the White House.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's cute that you think Obama has his own Economic Policy like he sat down and actually thought about it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was the same with Bush by the way.

Our current Economic Condition is no accident, it was planned that way and it's gonna' get worse no matter WHO is in the White House.

Is it me that you are addressing?

If so,...I never said that 'Obama has his own economic policy.'


No...I say he pretends to endorse Keynes, as do progressives, socialists, Liberals, Democrats....and communists.



Have you seen this:

"Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son?
Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty



This reveals why the Leftists will never commit to exactly what one's 'fair share' is.

It's everything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.*
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

You got a title or link for that study, it sounds interesting.

There are quite a few working papers and articles. *The closest I can come to something resembling your writing is

United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

That's why I listed the source.

I'm certain that John Lott's book, his latest, is in your local library. Chapter two has the information and copious charts and graphs.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's cute that you think Obama has his own Economic Policy like he sat down and actually thought about it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was the same with Bush by the way.

Our current Economic Condition is no accident, it was planned that way and it's gonna' get worse no matter WHO is in the White House.

Is it me that you are addressing?

If so,...I never said that 'Obama has his own economic policy.'


No...I say he pretends to endorse Keynes, as do progressives, socialists, Liberals, Democrats....and communists.

"The Correct Economic Policy... OR Obama's" It's implied in the title of your thread.

Have you seen this:

"Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son?
Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty



This reveals why the Leftists will never commit to exactly what one's 'fair share' is.

It's everything.

It's more likely that Frank Marshal Davis, a self professed Communist who also refered to himself (on camera) not as "Bi-Sexual" but as a "Super-Sexual" is in all likelyhood Barack's real Father.

Look into him and you'll see where Barack got his ideas from.

But thankfully, Americans don't care about that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's cute that you think Obama has his own Economic Policy like he sat down and actually thought about it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was the same with Bush by the way.

Our current Economic Condition is no accident, it was planned that way and it's gonna' get worse no matter WHO is in the White House.

Is it me that you are addressing?

If so,...I never said that 'Obama has his own economic policy.'


No...I say he pretends to endorse Keynes, as do progressives, socialists, Liberals, Democrats....and communists.

"The Correct Economic Policy... OR Obama's" It's implied in the title of your thread.

Have you seen this:

"Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son?
Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty



This reveals why the Leftists will never commit to exactly what one's 'fair share' is.

It's everything.

It's more likely that Frank Marshal Davis, a self professed Communist who also refered to himself (on camera) not as "Bi-Sexual" but as a "Super-Sexual" is in all likelyhood Barack's real Father.

Look into him and you'll see where Barack got his ideas from.

But thankfully, Americans don't care about that.

"The Correct Economic Policy... OR Obama's" It's implied in the title of your thread."

Hey....you don't just read the titles....do you?

Line two: "Keynesians, such as Obama,...."



"Look into him and you'll see where Barack got his ideas from."

I've read, and written, about Davis.....but I don't want to get into the 'real father' thing that comes up with Davis.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. "Austerity measures" refers to government policy of keeping the fiscal reins tight, of controlling spending, and keeping debt down.

Keynesians, such as Obama, argue that austerity makes downturns worse:
"We have actually had a massive unethical human experiment in austerity doctrine. Here we have had this view that cutting government spending is going to be good for the economy even when the economy is deeply depressed and we have put it into effect in parts of Europe and we have put it into effect to a significant effect in the US . . . there has been a very depressing effect on the economy. Where is the evidence that this other view [austerity] is at all right?"
Paul Krugman, interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, May 18, 2012.

2. In his column attempting to disparage austerity, (Austerity And Growth, Again (Wonkish) - NYTimes.com), Krugman considers only data from 2009, and takes a small data set, European countries only. He finds that austerity has a very small effect on reducing deficit.

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

b. The simple truth is that governments cannot spend their way out of economic problems.
If you voted for Obama, you voted against this simple truth.





3. Ever the Keynesian, Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret its austerity program: "But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=0

a. But, Germany's labor force participation rose by 2% from June 2010, to August 2011. America's, in the opposite direction.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.111.






4. In June 2010, the British government promised to cut the budget an average of 25% (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23britain.html?pagewanted=all).

Guess what Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ... a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

a. But, Britain's job market has outperformed America's. While labor force participation in both Britain and the US dropped the same amount 2009-2010, once Britain announced spending cuts, a greater share of their labor force found work; the 'stimulated' US job market kept shrinking. Lott, Op.Cit., p. 112.




b. Lest one believe that Krugman's allegience was to his art....this is how he explained the British cuts:
"Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

In that statement one can see the Left's fervor for ever-bigger government, and higher taxes. Every other statement is simply camouflage for those desires.



To be clear, Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

If they would give up Utopian fairy tales and stick to using data to solve problems,....we might get somewhere.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
Mark Twain

"Lies by commission, and lies by omission, are both lies"
Wry Catcher

Ya see, PC, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth requires a comprehensive evaluation of a policy, one which considers not one or two outcomes but the entire range of outcomes of said policy. Austerity is not the panacea you hope; some outcomes which come to mind are the lose of safety nets, which will in fact impact local services, the loss of first responders, which may impact all of us, pot holes and of course major events such as earthquakes, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and infectious epidemics. All of which need to be planned for in advance and planning is part of budgeting.

Life and governance ain't as simple as you seem to believe, Only simpletons find you credible.

 

[oldfart]

I hope you don't mind if I don't address you by your name...I find it a bit vulgar.

Just use OF.

2. " tax increases are as good as spending cuts,..."
Only in support of ever increasing Liberal big government.

You should read more carefully. I said "FROM A FISCAL STANDPOINT, tax increases are as good as spending cuts". This is essentially an accounting identity. The deficit is defined as G - T. You can reduce it either by reducing government spending (G) or increasing tax receipts (T). Which one to use is what the debate is about.

My point is that be refusing to recognize this, you take one off the table, revealing that deficit reduction (and debt reduction) is not the actual goal, but rather something else, "starving the beast". I'm perfect happy having THAT debate, just don't act like you have any interest the economic effects of the deficit or debt.

3. Then you went on to obfuscate..." Daddy would cut off their allowance..." and " let the maid go..." and "cry-baby monopoly capitalist..." and " Leona Helmsley, PC's spiritual godmother...."
Essentially, using the typical Liberal ad hominem when you cannot deal with facts.

I scale my rhetoric to exactly the level you use. Drop the attitude and I'll follow suit. If you like trading insults, just keep it up. Your choice.

4. "Are we quoting Obama or Krugman here and which one is the Keynesian?"
a. The quote is clearly labeled.
b. If you don't know that they are both Keynesians, you misunderstanding of economics is explained.

If you want to debate Obama's policy, you should refer to it, not to Krugman. My criticism is that you treat authors as interchangeable when they are not. Krugman is part old-fashioned macro theorist and part New Keynesian; Obama is clearly not the latter, and most generally can be categorized as confused.

5. "Look it up PC, he was....blah blah blah."
Made you feel better to pretend that you know more than I?
Merely another of the Liberal ad hominems.

No, I read papers before I cite them whereas you read somebody's book or blog without checking the source. It comes with the territory; if you want to debate economics, you should learn to read economics.

I provided specific evidence that the Keynesian champ is wrong. The theory is incorrect.

a. " Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret....But, Germany's labor force participation rose...."

and

b. "Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ....... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy..."
Britain's job market has outperformed America's..."

You glommed onto one statistic, the labor force participation rate, which to the best of my knowledge has never been treated as a dependent variable this way (if it were it is a lagging indicator by two years or so, which would make it worthless for that purpose). Both Germany and Britain are in decline at the moment. Do you have an argument beyond the LFPR?

And, I proved that with Krugman's " ....using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
That's what it is really about...not economic solution, but, again: Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

I think you just contradicted the beginning of your post. Nice of you to agree with Krugman that the purpose of deficit hawks is to reduce the size of government rather than achieve any "economic solution".

8. Mull this over: " Laudatory though the attempt is, the desire of the Liberal state to exorcise greed, poverty and unhappiness, the cure is worse than the disease: the radical view that it is the responsibility to protect anyone who may claim to be powerless. The consequence, usual with big government is that the attempt is neither restrained, nor moderated."
Prager, "Still The Best Hope," chapter 13

I mull. Prager sets up a classic straw man which, surprise!, is easy to tear down. Find me a liberal economist who is trying to "exorcise greed, poverty, and unhappiness". Well, the second is in the liberal canon, but the other two?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Austerity measures" refers to government policy of keeping the fiscal reins tight, of controlling spending, and keeping debt down.

Keynesians, such as Obama, argue that austerity makes downturns worse:
"We have actually had a massive unethical human experiment in austerity doctrine. Here we have had this view that cutting government spending is going to be good for the economy even when the economy is deeply depressed and we have put it into effect in parts of Europe and we have put it into effect to a significant effect in the US . . . there has been a very depressing effect on the economy. Where is the evidence that this other view [austerity] is at all right?"
Paul Krugman, interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, May 18, 2012.

2. In his column attempting to disparage austerity, (Austerity And Growth, Again (Wonkish) - NYTimes.com), Krugman considers only data from 2009, and takes a small data set, European countries only. He finds that austerity has a very small effect on reducing deficit.

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

b. The simple truth is that governments cannot spend their way out of economic problems.
If you voted for Obama, you voted against this simple truth.





3. Ever the Keynesian, Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret its austerity program: "But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=0

a. But, Germany's labor force participation rose by 2% from June 2010, to August 2011. America's, in the opposite direction.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.111.






4. In June 2010, the British government promised to cut the budget an average of 25% (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23britain.html?pagewanted=all).

Guess what Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ... a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

a. But, Britain's job market has outperformed America's. While labor force participation in both Britain and the US dropped the same amount 2009-2010, once Britain announced spending cuts, a greater share of their labor force found work; the 'stimulated' US job market kept shrinking. Lott, Op.Cit., p. 112.




b. Lest one believe that Krugman's allegience was to his art....this is how he explained the British cuts:
"Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

In that statement one can see the Left's fervor for ever-bigger government, and higher taxes. Every other statement is simply camouflage for those desires.



To be clear, Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

If they would give up Utopian fairy tales and stick to using data to solve problems,....we might get somewhere.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
Mark Twain

"Lies by commission, and lies by omission, are both lies"
Wry Catcher

Ya see, PC, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth requires a comprehensive evaluation of a policy, one which considers not one or two outcomes but the entire range of outcomes of said policy. Austerity is not the panacea you hope; some outcomes which come to mind are the lose of safety nets, which will in fact impact local services, the loss of first responders, which may impact all of us, pot holes and of course major events such as earthquakes, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and infectious epidemics. All of which need to be planned for in advance and planning is part of budgeting.

Life and governance ain't as simple as you seem to believe, Only simpletons find you credible.

"Only simpletons find you credible."


So....now you're claiming to find be credible???


Better late than never.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I hope you don't mind if I don't address you by your name...I find it a bit vulgar.

Just use OF.

2. " tax increases are as good as spending cuts,..."
Only in support of ever increasing Liberal big government.

You should read more carefully. I said "FROM A FISCAL STANDPOINT, tax increases are as good as spending cuts". This is essentially an accounting identity. The deficit is defined as G - T. You can reduce it either by reducing government spending (G) or increasing tax receipts (T). Which one to use is what the debate is about.

My point is that be refusing to recognize this, you take one off the table, revealing that deficit reduction (and debt reduction) is not the actual goal, but rather something else, "starving the beast". I'm perfect happy having THAT debate, just don't act like you have any interest the economic effects of the deficit or debt.



I scale my rhetoric to exactly the level you use. Drop the attitude and I'll follow suit. If you like trading insults, just keep it up. Your choice.



If you want to debate Obama's policy, you should refer to it, not to Krugman. My criticism is that you treat authors as interchangeable when they are not. Krugman is part old-fashioned macro theorist and part New Keynesian; Obama is clearly not the latter, and most generally can be categorized as confused.


No, I read papers before I cite them whereas you read somebody's book or blog without checking the source. It comes with the territory; if you want to debate economics, you should learn to read economics.



You glommed onto one statistic, the labor force participation rate, which to the best of my knowledge has never been treated as a dependent variable this way (if it were it is a lagging indicator by two years or so, which would make it worthless for that purpose). Both Germany and Britain are in decline at the moment. Do you have an argument beyond the LFPR?

And, I proved that with Krugman's " ....using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
That's what it is really about...not economic solution, but, again: Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

I think you just contradicted the beginning of your post. Nice of you to agree with Krugman that the purpose of deficit hawks is to reduce the size of government rather than achieve any "economic solution".

8. Mull this over: " Laudatory though the attempt is, the desire of the Liberal state to exorcise greed, poverty and unhappiness, the cure is worse than the disease: the radical view that it is the responsibility to protect anyone who may claim to be powerless. The consequence, usual with big government is that the attempt is neither restrained, nor moderated."
Prager, "Still The Best Hope," chapter 13

I mull. Prager sets up a classic straw man which, surprise!, is easy to tear down. Find me a liberal economist who is trying to "exorcise greed, poverty, and unhappiness". Well, the second is in the liberal canon, but the other two?

"If you want to debate Obama's policy, you should refer to it, not to Krugman."

1. Let's go over the point again: Liberal economic theory is false from the get-go. It is designed to 'level the playing field,' to equalize material wealth.
That'll happen just after pigs fly.

And, I proved that with Krugman's " ....using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
That's what it is really about...not economic solution, but, again: Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics. [/quote]

I think you just contradicted the beginning of your post. Nice of you to agree with Krugman that the purpose of deficit hawks is to reduce the size of government rather than achieve any "economic solution".

No...what I did was show that Krugman, et. al., are less about economics and more about Liberalism.



2. Pleeeezze....don't try to pretend that Obama, and Krugman don't take their policies and their rhetoric from the same playbook.

That goes for other 'Liberal economists...' that may be redundant....such as Blinder as well.


Intrinsic in Keynesian theory is the idea of taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, based on the view that the poor will spend a greater fraction of their funds, and save less. One can see how this plan fuels Left-wing views.

For example, Princeton economist Alan Blinder proposed 'Cash for Clunkers' to stimulate the economy by having the folks driving older vehicles, i.e., the poor, get newer cars. "And also, importantly to me, one of its objectives was to assist poor people who tend to own the clunkers. The way the law was written, you could only get the cash for the clunker if you bought a new car. And a lot of poor people can't afford to buy a new car.." Why One Economist Pushed Cash For Clunkers : NPR





3. All of them, and you, pretend that raising taxes is as good as cutting spending.
Nonesense.

Taxes are used by Liberals, for Liberals, and hardly as economic solution.
They take money from the consumer, and are largely wasted by big government.

"Only 20% of each tax welfare dollar reaches the poor.” ... help is given privately, 70% or more of each charitable dollar gets to a worthy recipient. ..."
Is private charity more efficient than government welfare? | Libertarian Answers





4. You need to go back and see the way Harding cured recession.

"Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm



You Libs don't care about facts nor efficacy....only Utopian fairy tales.

 

[Rshermr]

I hope you don't mind if I don't address you by your name...I find it a bit vulgar.

Just use OF.

2. " tax increases are as good as spending cuts,..."
Only in support of ever increasing Liberal big government.

You should read more carefully. I said "FROM A FISCAL STANDPOINT, tax increases are as good as spending cuts". This is essentially an accounting identity. The deficit is defined as G - T. You can reduce it either by reducing government spending (G) or increasing tax receipts (T). Which one to use is what the debate is about.

My point is that be refusing to recognize this, you take one off the table, revealing that deficit reduction (and debt reduction) is not the actual goal, but rather something else, "starving the beast". I'm perfect happy having THAT debate, just don't act like you have any interest the economic effects of the deficit or debt.



I scale my rhetoric to exactly the level you use. Drop the attitude and I'll follow suit. If you like trading insults, just keep it up. Your choice.



If you want to debate Obama's policy, you should refer to it, not to Krugman. My criticism is that you treat authors as interchangeable when they are not. Krugman is part old-fashioned macro theorist and part New Keynesian; Obama is clearly not the latter, and most generally can be categorized as confused.


No, I read papers before I cite them whereas you read somebody's book or blog without checking the source. It comes with the territory; if you want to debate economics, you should learn to read economics.



You glommed onto one statistic, the labor force participation rate, which to the best of my knowledge has never been treated as a dependent variable this way (if it were it is a lagging indicator by two years or so, which would make it worthless for that purpose). Both Germany and Britain are in decline at the moment. Do you have an argument beyond the LFPR?

And, I proved that with Krugman's " ....using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state."
That's what it is really about...not economic solution, but, again: Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

I think you just contradicted the beginning of your post. Nice of you to agree with Krugman that the purpose of deficit hawks is to reduce the size of government rather than achieve any "economic solution".

8. Mull this over: " Laudatory though the attempt is, the desire of the Liberal state to exorcise greed, poverty and unhappiness, the cure is worse than the disease: the radical view that it is the responsibility to protect anyone who may claim to be powerless. The consequence, usual with big government is that the attempt is neither restrained, nor moderated."
Prager, "Still The Best Hope," chapter 13

I mull. Prager sets up a classic straw man which, surprise!, is easy to tear down. Find me a liberal economist who is trying to "exorcise greed, poverty, and unhappiness". Well, the second is in the liberal canon, but the other two?

Jesus, i actually thanked you. i NEVER do that. Find it rather childish. But the post was excellent, as I have come to expect from you. Your knowledge has obviously been accumulated the old fashioned way. Nice to see among this sea of conservative talking points and folks posting conservative dogma gathered the simple way: Go to your favorite dogmatic site and pick the quote you want. Hell, even modify the quote if you choose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. "Austerity measures" refers to government policy of keeping the fiscal reins tight, of controlling spending, and keeping debt down.

Keynesians, such as Obama, argue that austerity makes downturns worse:
"We have actually had a massive unethical human experiment in austerity doctrine. Here we have had this view that cutting government spending is going to be good for the economy even when the economy is deeply depressed and we have put it into effect in parts of Europe and we have put it into effect to a significant effect in the US . . . there has been a very depressing effect on the economy. Where is the evidence that this other view [austerity] is at all right?"
Paul Krugman, interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, May 18, 2012.

2. In his column attempting to disparage austerity, (Austerity And Growth, Again (Wonkish) - NYTimes.com), Krugman considers only data from 2009, and takes a small data set, European countries only. He finds that austerity has a very small effect on reducing deficit.

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

b. The simple truth is that governments cannot spend their way out of economic problems.
If you voted for Obama, you voted against this simple truth.





3. Ever the Keynesian, Krugman predicted in 2010 that Germany would regret its austerity program: "But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=0

a. But, Germany's labor force participation rose by 2% from June 2010, to August 2011. America's, in the opposite direction.
Lott, "At The Brink," p.111.






4. In June 2010, the British government promised to cut the budget an average of 25% (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23britain.html?pagewanted=all).

Guess what Krugman wrote: "...trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. ... a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.... Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

a. But, Britain's job market has outperformed America's. While labor force participation in both Britain and the US dropped the same amount 2009-2010, once Britain announced spending cuts, a greater share of their labor force found work; the 'stimulated' US job market kept shrinking. Lott, Op.Cit., p. 112.




b. Lest one believe that Krugman's allegience was to his art....this is how he explained the British cuts:
"Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

In that statement one can see the Left's fervor for ever-bigger government, and higher taxes. Every other statement is simply camouflage for those desires.



To be clear, Liberal economic policy is about Liberalism, hardly about economics.

If they would give up Utopian fairy tales and stick to using data to solve problems,....we might get somewhere.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
Mark Twain

"Lies by commission, and lies by omission, are both lies"
Wry Catcher

Ya see, PC, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth requires a comprehensive evaluation of a policy, one which considers not one or two outcomes but the entire range of outcomes of said policy. Austerity is not the panacea you hope; some outcomes which come to mind are the lose of safety nets, which will in fact impact local services, the loss of first responders, which may impact all of us, pot holes and of course major events such as earthquakes, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and infectious epidemics. All of which need to be planned for in advance and planning is part of budgeting.

Life and governance ain't as simple as you seem to believe, Only simpletons find you credible.

"Only simpletons find you credible."


So....now you're claiming to find be credible???


Better late than never.

Nice, a classic ad hominem. Not up to the task of refutation, can't defend your thread/post? We both know why.

 

[itfitzme]

a. But, when OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An organization that acts as a meeting ground for 30 countries) data set is used, and a bit longer (from 2007) timeframe is uses, each 1% increase in deficit was associated with about 0.3% decrease in growth per capita income, 2007-2010.*
Lott, "At The Brink," p.101.

You got a title or link for that study, it sounds interesting.

There are quite a few working papers and articles. *The closest I can come to something resembling your writing is

United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

That's why I listed the source.

I'm certain that John Lott's book, his latest, is in your local library. Chapter two has the information and copious charts and graphs.

I don't read hear say. Surely the ODEC is referenced

So you've been to my local library?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
Mark Twain

"Lies by commission, and lies by omission, are both lies"
Wry Catcher

Ya see, PC, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth requires a comprehensive evaluation of a policy, one which considers not one or two outcomes but the entire range of outcomes of said policy. Austerity is not the panacea you hope; some outcomes which come to mind are the lose of safety nets, which will in fact impact local services, the loss of first responders, which may impact all of us, pot holes and of course major events such as earthquakes, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and infectious epidemics. All of which need to be planned for in advance and planning is part of budgeting.

Life and governance ain't as simple as you seem to believe, Only simpletons find you credible.

"Only simpletons find you credible."


So....now you're claiming to find be credible???


Better late than never.

Nice, a classic ad hominem. Not up to the task of refutation, can't defend your thread/post? We both know why.

Because you're a simpleton?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You got a title or link for that study, it sounds interesting.

There are quite a few working papers and articles. *The closest I can come to something resembling your writing is

United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

That's why I listed the source.

I'm certain that John Lott's book, his latest, is in your local library. Chapter two has the information and copious charts and graphs.

I don't read hear say. Surely the ODEC is referenced

So you've been to my local library?

"I don't read hear say."

Good to know you've given up the main stream media.



"So you've been to my local library?"

Amazed that you know that you have a local library.

 

[oldfart]

"If you want to debate Obama's policy, you should refer to it, not to Krugman."

1. Let's go over the point again: Liberal economic theory is false from the get-go. It is designed to 'level the playing field,' to equalize material wealth.
That'll happen just after pigs fly.

First, I thought what economic policies work well is what we are discussing. Simply claiming success is not an answer to the opposing argument. If it were, we could all just go home and have a beer.

If your definition of liberal is one whose goal is to equalize wealth, then there are no liberal posters on this board. Again you are setting up a straw man. But I understand that it is a lot easier than dealing with real arguments.

My goal in economic policy is the highest rate of real growth consistent with price stability, environmental sustainability, and social cohesiveness as can be achieved over as long a period as possible. What's yours?

You persist in treating Obama and left economists as the same. You are flat out wrong on this one. Stiglitz and Krugman, along with the rest of New Keynesian economists have been pretty hard on Obama. Some like Christine Romer left the administration over it. If you want a New Keynesian attack on Obama's policies, I have one in the can from another board. But I think you enjoy straw man arguments too much to consider real positions. Prove me wrong.

4. You need to go back and see the way Harding cured recession.

"Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history."

You really want to rehash he Depression of 1920 (which incidentally ended in 1921, not 1923 the year Harding died)?

Wikipedia has a good overview.

Kuehn argues that the most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920-21 recession. Kuehn notes that the Harding administration raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates. Kuehn also argues that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy and that, since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by a deficiency in aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. Economist Paul Krugman, who is critical of the Austrian interpretation, notes that the monetary base expanded significantly from 1922-1925, and that this expansion was accompanied by a reduction in commercial paper rates. Allan Metzger suggests that deflation and the flight of gold from hyper-inflationary Europe to the U.S. also contributed to the rising real money stock and economic recovery.

In short, the Depression of 1920 was mostly a monetary phenomena, brought on by bad Federal Reserve policies (7% Fed rates not seen again until Volker) an the adjustments that followed WWI. Ended quickly due to more appropriate monetary policy, industry adjustments to peacetime, and the recovery of European markets for American goods.

All of this is nice, but it doesn't replace a real debate on economic policy. That won't happen as long as you kept tilting at straw men and avoiding real issues.

Do you think Germany and Britain are having economic success due to austerity policies?

Where do you think austerity has worked?

What would have happened in the US if austerity had been tried in 2009?

What caused the 2008 crises in the US and Europe and what has been done to prevent them from occurring again?