Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[ilia25]

Project much, know-it-all asshole?

If you think he "knows-it-all", you are doing a hell of a lot better at interpreting his ramblings than I am. He hasn't made a lick of sense since his opening post and I am very close to giving up coming to this thread hoping he will actually say something coherent. I certainly hope that English is his third language.

Immie

It's not incoherent...You're just to stupid to understand how brilliant it is!

Since you are incapable of discussing the real issues, what else you can do except whining about technocrats controlling your life.

Well, honey, somebody has to take care about you because your stupidity makes you a danger to yourself and others.

 

[Oddball]

If you think he "knows-it-all", you are doing a hell of a lot better at interpreting his ramblings than I am. He hasn't made a lick of sense since his opening post and I am very close to giving up coming to this thread hoping he will actually say something coherent. I certainly hope that English is his third language.

Immie

It's not incoherent...You're just to stupid to understand how brilliant it is!

Since you are incapable of discussing the real issues, what else you can do except whining about technocrats controlling your life.

Well, honey, somebody has to take care about you because your stupidity makes you a danger to yourself and others.

I'm perfectly capable of pointing out, as have a number of others on this thread, that none of your claims are quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable or provable in any objective way....Something that you can't seem to wrap your pointy little head around.

IOW, you're just a know-it-all college boy, who regurgitated some crap onto some paper to get a good grade, and now are seeking to pass yourself off as the forum's version of Paul Krugman...Who himself is a shameless know-it-all Marxist technocrat hack.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not really -- most of the savings were hoarded, so the effect on the economy was very small.

Ah yes. Hoarding of money. Another liberal attack word.
Hey busy body, since when is it any of your fucking business what a person does with THEIR money?

Since we've learned about the paradox of thrift:
Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are going to come on here supporting Keynesian economics, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Newsflash.....It doesn't work. It benefits only the takers and punishes the producers.
The matter is not open for discussion.

 

[ilia25]

It's not incoherent...You're just to stupid to understand how brilliant it is!

Since you are incapable of discussing the real issues, what else you can do except whining about technocrats controlling your life.

Well, honey, somebody has to take care about you because your stupidity makes you a danger to yourself and others.

I'm perfectly capable of pointing out, as have a number of others on this thread, that none of your claims are quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable or provable in any objective way..

Yup, here is an example:
"If you are going to come on here supporting Keynesian economics, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Newsflash.....It doesn't work."

Like I said, repeating bumper stickers is the only thing you and your fellows in misery are capable of.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't say that, Gomer.

What I did say is that the paleo-Marxist neo-Keyensian crapola that you've been spewing for at least the last week has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner....A fact which you cannot refute, no matter how hard you try to deflect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your face is fake. The US has been increasing the money supply since 1789. Yet the US dollar remains the the world most trusted currency.

Really? YOU have just exposed yourself as a total imbecile.
It's a simple process of supply and demand.
Increase the amount of bills( currency) put them into circulation and the value of that currency falls.

Did it ever come to you that the demand for money has been growing as well?

Holy shit. Are you really that uninformed?
How on Earth can ask a question like that?
First....Supply and demand is in the context of commodities. Currencies are traded on open markets just like oil, gold and cattle. The value of currency is determined on that market. The supply of currency is defined by the amount of physical bills in circulation as well as the economic condition of the nation circulating said currency.
Demand for US Dollars would drive up the value. Such is NOT the case. If it were, the US Dollar would be gaining value vs other major currencies. It is not.
For example....It takes about 80 JPY to buy one USD. 10 years ago it took 105 Yen.
The last time I was in Montreal( 2002) the exchange rate was $1.60 CDN to $1US.
Today these currencies are about equal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Since you are incapable of discussing the real issues, what else you can do except whining about technocrats controlling your life.

Well, honey, somebody has to take care about you because your stupidity makes you a danger to yourself and others.

I'm perfectly capable of pointing out, as have a number of others on this thread, that none of your claims are quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable or provable in any objective way..

Yup, here is an example:
"If you are going to come on here supporting Keynesian economics, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Newsflash.....It doesn't work."

Like I said, repeating bumper stickers is the only thing you and your fellows in misery are capable of.

Bumper stickers?...What the fuck are you....Never mind. It doesn't matter. Trying reason with an unreasonable person is like fighting in a burning house.
Did it ever dawn you to take stock and examine your self. 90% of the people on here either disagree with you or think you are an imbecile.

 

[ilia25]

What I did say is that the paleo-Marxist neo-Keyensian crapola that you've been spewing for at least the last week has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner....A fact which you cannot refute, no matter how hard you try to deflect.

Do you think this has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner?

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery.

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

 

[Oddball]

All employing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and/or claiming that you can push strings.

I suppose your college econ prof didn't go over those fallacies with you.

 

[ilia25]

All employing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and/or claiming that you can push strings.

Why? Do you think, for instance, that falling consumer spending cannot cause the sales to fall?

 

[Oddball]

What makes you think that just printing up a bunch of money and throwing it around like the Joker is, as a matter of course, going to spur sales?

I guess your prof also failed to go over Japan's "lost decade" too, huh?

No, let me guess...The Japanese just didn't spend enough.

 

[ilia25]

What makes you think that just printing up a bunch of money and throwing it around like the Joker is, as a matter of course, going to spur sales?

I guess your prof also failed to go over Japan's "lost decade" too, huh?

No, let me guess...The Japanese just didn't spend enough.

There is a reason you don't quote my replies.

Where in this post, which you labeled as "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy", did you find me saying anything about printing money?

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery.

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

You claimed that you are capable to argue my points. I don't thinks so, but I am willing to see you try. So far you have labeled a simple scenario a fallacy and mocked statements that I never made. In other words, so far you have been confirming my original view -- that you are a simple asshole, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Oddball]

"Stimulus" relies upon either printing up money (inflation) or breaking windows (destroying prosperity in order to "create" it)...There is no other way.

In any case, you have to surmise that those actions will be the motivation behind scores of millions of people suddenly going out and spending (i.e. pushing strings).

Then, if things don't get better, you claim that you didn't inflate enough or bust enough windows...If things somehow get better, you claim all the credit..Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You're welcome.

 

[ilia25]

This concludes my attempts to get your explanation on why you have labeled the deflation spiral scenario I described a "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". No surprises here.

"Stimulus" relies upon either printing up money (inflation) or breaking windows (destroying prosperity in order to "create" it)...There is no other way.

Yes there is, and I mentioned it many many times for anyone who can read. Stimulus relies on borrowing money from the private sector -- the idle money that consumers and business want neither to spend, nor invest. So the private sector is happy to lend them to the government, which explains the ultra low interest rates the government can borrow at.

This way the government can finance the stimulus w/o printing new money or breaking windows.

In any case, you have to surmise that those actions will be the motivation behind scores of millions of people suddenly going out and spending (i.e. pushing strings).

Businesses would have to hire new workers in order to fulfill the government orders. That lowers unemployment -- do you think that having plenty of jobs around can motivate millions of people to go out and spend?

Of course the stimulus has to be large enough make a dent on unemployment. And it was clear from the start that Obama stimulus was too small (700 billions over two years was nowhere near enough to close the 2 trillion gap between the actual and potential GDP).

 

[thereisnospoon]

What I did say is that the paleo-Marxist neo-Keyensian crapola that you've been spewing for at least the last week has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner....A fact which you cannot refute, no matter how hard you try to deflect.

Do you think this has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner?

Here is a novel approach, how about letting the market function as it was designed. Yes this recession continues, it's rough on everyone, but allowing the government to meddle in the market further will only prolong the misery.

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

Your insistence that all economic activity begins and ends with government is laughable.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This concludes my attempts to get your explanation on why you have labeled the deflation spiral scenario I described a "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". No surprises here.

"Stimulus" relies upon either printing up money (inflation) or breaking windows (destroying prosperity in order to "create" it)...There is no other way.

Yes there is, and I mentioned it many many times for anyone who can read. Stimulus relies on borrowing money from the private sector -- the idle money that consumers and business want neither to spend, nor invest. So the private sector is happy to lend them to the government, which explains the ultra low interest rates the government can borrow at.

This way the government can finance the stimulus w/o printing new money or breaking windows.

In any case, you have to surmise that those actions will be the motivation behind scores of millions of people suddenly going out and spending (i.e. pushing strings).

Businesses would have to hire new workers in order to fulfill the government orders. That lowers unemployment -- do you think that having plenty of jobs around can motivate millions of people to go out and spend?

Of course the stimulus has to be large enough make a dent on unemployment. And it was clear from the start that Obama stimulus was too small (700 billions over two years was nowhere near enough to close the 2 trillion gap between the actual and potential GDP).

"Borrow"....to accept with the intent of returning.
Stimulus money will NEVER be returned to the rightful owner.

 

[Oddball]

This concludes my attempts to get your explanation on why you have labeled the deflation spiral scenario I described a "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". No surprises here.

"Stimulus" relies upon either printing up money (inflation) or breaking windows (destroying prosperity in order to "create" it)...There is no other way.

Yes there is, and I mentioned it many many times for anyone who can read. Stimulus relies on borrowing money from the private sector -- the idle money that consumers and business want neither to spend, nor invest. So the private sector is happy to lend them to the government, which explains the ultra low interest rates the government can borrow at.

This way the government can finance the stimulus w/o printing new money or breaking windows.

In any case, you have to surmise that those actions will be the motivation behind scores of millions of people suddenly going out and spending (i.e. pushing strings).

Businesses would have to hire new workers in order to fulfill the government orders. That lowers unemployment -- do you think that having plenty of jobs around can motivate millions of people to go out and spend?

Of course the stimulus has to be large enough make a dent on unemployment. And it was clear from the start that Obama stimulus was too small (700 billions over two years was nowhere near enough to close the 2 trillion gap between the actual and potential GDP).

All of which assumes (we all know how to spell that, don't we?) that those who get the money won't deposit it, pay down credit lines or turn around and dump it into commodities like metals, in order to maintain their buying power...All of which is happening right now.

But you g'head and keep telling us that you can push strings and keep trying to peddle the bullshit that all economic activity begins and ends with the monetarist technocrat.

 

[ilia25]

This concludes my attempts to get your explanation on why you have labeled the deflation spiral scenario I described a "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". No surprises here.

"Stimulus" relies upon either printing up money (inflation) or breaking windows (destroying prosperity in order to "create" it)...There is no other way.

Yes there is, and I mentioned it many many times for anyone who can read. Stimulus relies on borrowing money from the private sector -- the idle money that consumers and business want neither to spend, nor invest. So the private sector is happy to lend them to the government, which explains the ultra low interest rates the government can borrow at.

This way the government can finance the stimulus w/o printing new money or breaking windows.

In any case, you have to surmise that those actions will be the motivation behind scores of millions of people suddenly going out and spending (i.e. pushing strings).

Businesses would have to hire new workers in order to fulfill the government orders. That lowers unemployment -- do you think that having plenty of jobs around can motivate millions of people to go out and spend?

Of course the stimulus has to be large enough make a dent on unemployment. And it was clear from the start that Obama stimulus was too small (700 billions over two years was nowhere near enough to close the 2 trillion gap between the actual and potential GDP).

All of which assumes (we all know how to spell that, don't we?) that those who get the money won't deposit it, pay down credit lines or turn around and dump it into commodities like metals, in order to maintain their buying power...All of which is happening right now.

Yes, that is the reason for having stimulus, so things would be not like right now.

People seeing the unemployment coming down and the economy picking up would be less eager to deposit, pay down the credit or invest in gold. Why wouldn't they?

 

[ilia25]

What I did say is that the paleo-Marxist neo-Keyensian crapola that you've been spewing for at least the last week has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner....A fact which you cannot refute, no matter how hard you try to deflect.

Do you think this has zero ability to be proven in any objective manner?

On the contrary, its the hands off approach by the government that would lead to a disaster. It is very simple concept, really:
1) Something bad happens, consumers got scared and are trying to save
2) Companies see the sales and prices falling, start the layoffs
3) Consumers get even more scared, cut on spending even more
4) Companies respond with more layoffs, and so the vicious spiral continues.

In the end nobody works, nobody can sell nothing, nobody consumes anything and everyone starves to death. OK, it won't go that far, but we can end up in the stone age.

Your insistence that all economic activity begins and ends with government is laughable.

What is laughable is your reading comprehension.

 

[Oddball]

This concludes my attempts to get your explanation on why you have labeled the deflation spiral scenario I described a "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". No surprises here.



Yes there is, and I mentioned it many many times for anyone who can read. Stimulus relies on borrowing money from the private sector -- the idle money that consumers and business want neither to spend, nor invest. So the private sector is happy to lend them to the government, which explains the ultra low interest rates the government can borrow at.

This way the government can finance the stimulus w/o printing new money or breaking windows.



Businesses would have to hire new workers in order to fulfill the government orders. That lowers unemployment -- do you think that having plenty of jobs around can motivate millions of people to go out and spend?

Of course the stimulus has to be large enough make a dent on unemployment. And it was clear from the start that Obama stimulus was too small (700 billions over two years was nowhere near enough to close the 2 trillion gap between the actual and potential GDP).

All of which assumes (we all know how to spell that, don't we?) that those who get the money won't deposit it, pay down credit lines or turn around and dump it into commodities like metals, in order to maintain their buying power...All of which is happening right now.

Yes, that is the reason for having stimulus, so things would be not like right now.

Isn't circular reasoning wonderful?

People seeing the unemployment coming down and the economy picking up would be less eager to deposit, pay down the credit or invest in gold. Why wouldn't they?

Not when their buying power is being destroyed, as it is when you just print up money....As has been happening for the last four years.

You really are so arrogant to just think of people as nothing more than herd animals, aren't you?