Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Public Government spending is not per se the problem. But mis-spending,
People were shocked when the nation didn't jump back in to a depression after the war because they put too much stock in the structural theories that were in vogue pre-war (and are coming back in to vogue today). That's they were wrong is a pretty positive sign. It means we engage in counter-cyclical spending to smooth demand without the need for an ever-rising debt.
And Taylor is a partisan hack. His own theory suggests interest rates should be negative right now, but he spends his days moaning that current rates are going to set off a wave of hyperinflation.
People were shocked there wasn't a depression after the war?
What the frack do you base that on?
Writings of economists from the time.
The problem with that paper is that his argument doesn't really show what he thinks it shows. His argument is that it didn't have much impact because it just shifted what state and local governments did. Fair enough, but it misses the point they would have massively cut services in absence of stimulus. That creates a very different multiplier than his assumption that state and local government would have remained the same in the absence of stimulus.
The purpose of a Keynesian stimulus is to create new spending, not to continue old spending. The purpose of the Obama stimulus was to continue old spending until the economy inevitably recovered so he could take credit for it.
Thanks for admitting that, under Keynes theories, the stimulus was a failure. Thanks for also proving that, under Obama's theory, it was more than a failure.
That's only true if you believe Keynes stands for the proposition that maintaining the spending level is worse than reducing the spending level.
i don't understand.
In the 1930s, poor people (in effect) borrowed from their country-men, who made them build infrastructure, in the US. Then, in the 1940s, they built war material (to destroy infrastructure, in Europe). Economically, spending on domestic infrastructure & military (re-)employed millions of Americans, perhaps on Publicly-funded contracts, to private firms.
But (Public) investment in infrastructure & military employs people to build new assets (roads, ships).
Except that state and local governments largely don't have the ability to find their budgets via borrowing. Hence why even more liberal states have been slashing budgets all over the place.
Funny thing, they are still slashing budgets even though revenue is up. Under your explanation they should be increasing spending.
That assumes revenue is the only constraint. States can also be driving by ideological factors and concerns about another rainy day.
People were shocked when the nation didn't jump back in to a depression after the war because they put too much stock in the structural theories that were in vogue pre-war (and are coming back in to vogue today). That's they were wrong is a pretty positive sign. It means we engage in counter-cyclical spending to smooth demand without the need for an ever-rising debt.
And Taylor is a partisan hack. His own theory suggests interest rates should be negative right now, but he spends his days moaning that current rates are going to set off a wave of hyperinflation.
People were shocked there wasn't a depression after the war?
What the frack do you base that on?
Writings of economists from the time.
Ed, me boy. You are a tool. Try thinking, for christ sakes.Bubbles don't necessarily start with any specific politics behind them, ed. For instance, the .com bubble
dear, that was a bubble in one industry, not a liberal federal bubble that depresses the whole economy!!!
The housing bubble was supported by politicians and financiers.
yes now thats a liberal bubble as most of the federal government was organized to subvert the free market by getting folks in houses the free market said they could not afford.
The purpose of a Keynesian stimulus is to create new spending, not to continue old spending. The purpose of the Obama stimulus was to continue old spending until the economy inevitably recovered so he could take credit for it.
Thanks for admitting that, under Keynes theories, the stimulus was a failure. Thanks for also proving that, under Obama's theory, it was more than a failure.
That's only true if you believe Keynes stands for the proposition that maintaining the spending level is worse than reducing the spending level.
What you said does not even make sense, especially when you know what Keynes actually stood for.
Any particular one, or all of them? Do you have a "standard basket of commodities on the world market" index?
Doesn't matter which one you use, take a look at the world and the effect of the tight money supply we currently have.
So at least you realize there isn't a danger of runaway inflation. That's positive. I'd also note rising commodity prices aren't necessarily evidence of inflation. It can also be a sign of real shocks in supply and/or demand for the goods in question.
The .com bubble was indeed a economy wide bubble.
Any particular one, or all of them? Do you have a "standard basket of commodities on the world market" index?
Doesn't matter which one you use, take a look at the world and the effect of the tight money supply we currently have.
Of course it matters. Otherwise it's just arbitrarily picking the one that suits ones bias.
So far, the idea just sounds like a load of carp.
Perhaps it might be easer to just look at the exchange rate.
But your claim is that these are artificial markets that wouldn't exist in the absence of Freddie and Fannie. Your own data shows that you can attribute a third of the market to them at best.
why don't you explain to us how the tight money supply we have right now is not an inflationary concern.
But your claim is that these are artificial markets that wouldn't exist in the absence of Freddie and Fannie. Your own data shows that you can attribute a third of the market to them at best.
How does that prove they did not create an artificial market?
That's only true if you believe Keynes stands for the proposition that maintaining the spending level is worse than reducing the spending level.
What you said does not even make sense, especially when you know what Keynes actually stood for.
Keynes wrote a book in which he argued that government manipulation could be used in a 100 ways to help an economy. He said nothing more specific than that I promise. So you don't need to read the General Theory
everyone wants to use his [Keynes] theory to justify all sorts of things he didn't believe in.
why don't you explain to us how the tight money supply we have right now is not an inflationary concern.
we have easy money now and it is not inflationary concern because few are spending the money
why don't you explain to us how the tight money supply we have right now is not an inflationary concern.
we have easy money now and it is not inflationary concern because few are spending the money
I think Milton Friedman might disagree. Low interest rates are a sign of extremely tight monetary policies.
The Invisibility of Market Monetarism - Forbes
IF you read "Reckless Endangerment" you'll see that it was 100%. THey defined subprime and Alt -a, and always downward to always expand .
Except those "subprime" loans that Freddie and Fannie were allegedly giving away were not actually subprime:
dear, if I said they were I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again.
