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

[itfitzme]

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.

And monkeys are amazed by glittery objects.

You point being that you don't have a reference then?

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan tried austerity, but it didn't work.

 

[itfitzme]

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

Nope, just learned from reading Coulter, that the source has to be checked. *

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

And monkeys are amazed by glittery objects.

You point being that you don't have a reference then?

John Lott, "At The Brink, " p.101.


Don't be afraid of books.

They're not what you've heard.

 

[itfitzme]

Amazed that you know that you have a local library.

Amazed you support socialism.

 

[itfitzme]

"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.

And monkeys are amazed by glittery objects.

You point being that you don't have a reference then?

John Lott, "At The Brink, " p.101.

Don't be afraid of books.

They're not what you've heard.

Okay, let me explain. According to your OP, in John Lott's book, he refers to an OEDC paper. *If you look at the thing called the "bibliography", he lists his references. *Sometimes, the book lists the reference at the bottom. *You do know what a bibliograpy is?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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?

1. "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."

Of course it is.

You denying reality changes nothing except your credibility.


2. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

3. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

4. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

a.. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.
Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter four.


And, back to the OP....this apocryphal search for 'equality' is given cover by Keynesian theory, and allows Liberal politicians to punish success and use taxation as a weapon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

And monkeys are amazed by glittery objects.

You point being that you don't have a reference then?

The data that Krugman does not use, but Lott includes is here

EUROPA - PRESS RELEASES - Press Release - Provision of deficit and debt data for 2009 - first notification Euro area and EU27 government deficit at 6.3% and 6.8% of GDP respectively Government debt at 78.7% and 73.6%

Lott provides two pages of calculations and the regressing percentage point change in per capita GDP on Krugman's measure of Austerity.
P.261-262.

 

[PoliticalChic]

and monkeys are amazed by glittery objects.

You point being that you don't have a reference then?

john lott, "at the brink, " p.101.

Don't be afraid of books.

They're not what you've heard.

okay, let me explain. According to your op, in john lott's book, he refers to an oedc paper. *if you look at the thing called the "bibliography", he lists his references. *sometimes, the book lists the reference at the bottom. *you do know what a bibliograpy is?

"oecd"

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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?

Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

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.

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

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/global-economy-is-improving-but-europe-lags-behind.htm

The data that Krugman does not use, but Lott includes is here

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STAT-10-55_en.htm

Lott provides two pages of calculations and the regressing percentage point change in per capita GDP on Krugman's measure of Austerity.

I see, My oppologies. *I took it to mean an OECD study, like the examples I posted.

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

http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/31e2ff374b6377b2ddec04deaa6388b1/publication/566/

I kinda got to be happy with OldF's assesment and Herndon, Ash and Pollin where a 90% debt to GDP ratio was associated with a 2.2% GDP growth.

The*Herndon, Ash and Pollin study lists a p-value of 0.11 with r-squared at .04. * That is 4% of the varability in GDP growth relative to Debt/GDP ratio. *They get 4.2%, 3.1%, 3.2%, and 2.2% for four categories at 0-30, 30-60, 60-90, and 90+. The p-value is large and insignificant as well.

Thank you for the work and effort. *I've wondered what solid mechanism might account for declining growth on Debt to GDP ratio. *There doesn't seem to be any. *Lott's and Herndon's both show none. I take it by inference that Krugman shows none.*It's good to see studies published that show no effect. *

--------

Can that be? Lott's book has a study similar to Herndon, Ash and Pollin with both reporting the same r-squared and insignificant p-value?

 

[Spoonman]

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?

Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.

your head has weight. therefore it is full of rocks. seriously, what the hell are you babbling about now?

 

[oldfart]

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.



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?

1. "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."

Of course it is.

You denying reality changes nothing except your credibility.


2. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

3. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

4. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

a.. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.
Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter four.


And, back to the OP....this apocryphal search for 'equality' is given cover by Keynesian theory, and allows Liberal politicians to punish success and use taxation as a weapon.

Following is my reply to everything that is responsive in your post:




************************************

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.



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.

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?

1. "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."

Of course it is.

You denying reality changes nothing except your credibility.


2. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

3. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

4. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

a.. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.
Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter four.


And, back to the OP....this apocryphal search for 'equality' is given cover by Keynesian theory, and allows Liberal politicians to punish success and use taxation as a weapon.

Following is my reply to everything that is responsive in your post:




************************************

Actually a wise choice on your part.

You wrote, earlier,


"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."



Thus ended any credibility you have in any area.

 

[oldfart]

Actually a wise choice on your part.

You wrote, earlier,


"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."

Thus ended any credibility you have in any area.

If you refuse to advance your own arguments, don't expect me to reply. If you can't figure out what that means, your condition is certainly not anyone else's fault.

 

[Rshermr]

PC,
You are famous for creating more strings than anyone. And posting more responses than most anyone. Long, boring, conservative paste's. Always, in every case, in perfect step with the right wing bat shit crazy con tool web sites.
Question is, what do they pay you?? Hopefully more than ed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC,
You are famous for creating more strings than anyone. And posting more responses than most anyone. Long, boring, conservative paste's. Always, in every case, in perfect step with the right wing bat shit crazy con tool web sites.
Question is, what do they pay you?? Hopefully more than ed.

1. "You are famous for creating more strings than anyone."
False

2. "....posting more responses than most anyone."
False

3 . " Long, boring,...."
False by a degree of magnitude.

4. You're a slimy worm.
True

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I always find these employment stats interesting. Below are the employment rates, unemployment rates, and labor force participation ratios.

My preference is to use the first two as it avoids that whole demographic issue of people making a choice based of economic forces.

It should be noted that the absolute population of the US is six times that of the UK. *So a 1% change in a ratio is six times in absolute numbers. *This is, of course, why ratios are used, to make comparisons relevant as proportions.

Employment Rate

(note-fred data ends 1-1-2013 for uk)

Employmemt to Pop Ratio

(note-fred data ends 1-1-2012 for uk)

Labor Force Participation Rate, 2000 on

So what do we have?

The employment ratio for the US and UK fell, flattened, and rose. *The US had a much higher ratio to start, ending up about the same. The recession shows a distinct effect.

The unemployment rate for the US was initially better than the UK and rising higher. *The UK rate stopped and remained flat while the US rate fellmto the same level. *The FRED data ends so while the US rate makes a teeny decline, there isn't data for the UK to compare. *Again, the recession show a distinct effect.

Lastly, labor force participation rate is show from 2000 on. *The labor particilation rate is a curious thing, effected by socio-economic changes.

*The US labor force participation rate has been falling since before 2000 and continues onward through 2013. *The UK labour force participation rate showed a slight assencion from 2000 through 2012. *FRED data doesn't yet contain 2013 values.

What do we make of three measures of un/employment; for the US showing marked improvement, slight improvement, and a long downward trend that began decades ago; compared to the UK showing no significant change, slight improvement, and long and slight upward trend that began decades ago?

Well, the author's statement isn't consistent with the data unless we abandon two direct measures of un/enployment for a statistic that measures socio-economic changes that began decades ago.

If I knew nothing about what the graphs represented, except they were comparing two similar feedback system, my immediate impression would be that one is more unstable than the other. They both end up at the same place. *One just swings wildly as it seeks the steady state.

And I'd have to ask, "who's the idiot that adjusted the feedback parameters on the blue one?"

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Well put. Maximizing the multivariate equations. What if it were maximized on 90% of the population living in near poverty while 10% lived in opulance? Just wondering.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Well put. Maximizing the multivariate equations. What if it were maximized on 90% of the population living in near poverty while 10% lived in opulance? Just wondering.

"U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1979"
U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1979


Stimulus?
Die Hard in 1988, "Yippee-ki-yay,..."