Anyone willing to make a friendly wager?

[JP Hochbaum]

I am willing to make a non monetary bet with anyone on this forum who believes that reduced spending will lead to a healthier economy. I do believe that we will see massive spending decreases in the year to come, unless somehow ACA spends enough to make up for it.

The terms of the bet. We would measure austerity by government spending per capita, and not the size of the deficit (because austerity typically increases the deficit).

We would measure the economy by labor participation rate, wealth and income inequality, and the growth or reduction in private sector savings and credit.

I think the loser of the bet should be require to switch their lean for an entire year, and argue as that lean.

Any takers?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

And if you wish to join this bet with my current please state it in this thread so there is a record of it.

 

[WCH]

I don't bet but, what we need for a healthy economy is private sector spending and hiring.

Unfotunately with onerous FedGov regs, taxes and stupid programs that won't llkeli happen.

 

[CalGun]

How can you have such a bet when you can't produce the elements of it? You suggest we will have elements of austerity, but yet you even acknowledge the obamfarce care act might eliminate any cuts in spending?

How does austerity increase the deficit? I thought "austerity measures" meant reduction in spending; if you believe that increases the deficit you have created an adjunct conclusion based on your politics and beliefs. One that I can't agree with - which again makes your premise of a "bet" quite flawed.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I am willing to make a non monetary bet with anyone on this forum who believes that reduced spending will lead to a healthier economy. I do believe that we will see massive spending decreases in the year to come, unless somehow ACA spends enough to make up for it.

The terms of the bet. We would measure austerity by government spending per capita, and not the size of the deficit (because austerity typically increases the deficit).

We would measure the economy by labor participation rate, wealth and income inequality, and the growth or reduction in private sector savings and credit.

I think the loser of the bet should be require to switch their lean for an entire year, and argue as that lean.

Any takers?

I'd consider it, but I can't take the bet because the conditions won't happen. Our government has no intention of reducing spending, and even if it did, hardcore austerity is nearly as bad as the QE; it just produces more immediate results instead of long and drawn out results.

I like to equate our economy with a heroine addict. Giving the addict more heroine (QE) makes him feel good for now, but it simply does more damage and will make the eventual come-down worse. Likewise, making a heroine addict go cold turkey (austerity) is also very dangerous. An addict needs to be weened off the substance he's addicted to.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I'd consider it, but I can't take the bet because the conditions won't happen. Our government has no intention of reducing spending, and even if it did, hardcore austerity is nearly as bad as the QE; it just produces more immediate results instead of long and drawn out results.

I like to equate our economy with a heroine addict. Giving the addict more heroine (QE) makes him feel good for now, but it simply does more damage and will make the eventual come-down worse. Likewise, making a heroine addict go cold turkey (austerity) is also very dangerous. An addict needs to be weened off the substance he's addicted to.

Well we have already reduced spending:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Well we have already reduced spending:

View attachment 67154549

I don't believe that's the case. If it were, we wouldn't have added to our national debt at a rate higher than we've ever seen before. Our debt has almost doubled in the past 4 years.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I don't believe that's the case. If it were, we wouldn't have added to our national debt at a rate higher than we've ever seen before. Our debt has almost doubled in the past 4 years.

That is because tax revenues have decreased. You can't measure spending by how much debt you have, for that leaves out how much revenue you are getting.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That is because tax revenues have decreased. You can't measure spending by how much debt you have, for that leaves out how much revenue you are getting.

View attachment 67154551

Let's do the math on this:

Let
Δn = Change in national debt
Δt = Change in time in years

Δn / Δt = 9.8 trillion - 5.7 trillion / 2008 - 2000 = ~ 513 billion / year added to the national debt under Bush.

Δn / Δt = 17 trillion - 9.8 trillion / 2013 - 2008 = ~ 1.44 trillion / year added to the national debt under Obama.

Source

Your statement doesn't match the actual math. The rate at which our government has added to our debt under Obama is almost 3 times the rate under Bush. How much can be attributed to the president himself is up for debate, but that the current rate is substantially higher is not. You can't sit there and try with a straight face to tell me our tax revenue has decreased 3 fold in the past 5 years.

Even looking at your chart it's obvious the government's income didn't have a 3 fold reduction, therefore it IS a higher rate of spending today. Not to mention, 2011 is almost as high as it ever was under Bush, and your graph is incomplete as it doesn't contain the last 2 years of data.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm curious - you say the loser of the bet agrees to switch their lean for a year and advocate on behalf of that new lean. Since you self-identify as "independent" what happens if you lose and how does anyone know you've actually switched and not just taken up the position you've always supported?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I'm curious - you say the loser of the bet agrees to switch their lean for a year and advocate on behalf of that new lean. Since you self-identify as "independent" what happens if you lose and how does anyone know you've actually switched and not just taken up the position you've always supported?

The winner gets to choose my lean.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Let's do the math on this:

Let
Δn = Change in national debt
Δt = Change in time in years

Δn / Δt = 9.8 trillion - 5.7 trillion / 2008 - 2000 = ~ 513 billion / year added to the national debt under Bush.

Δn / Δt = 17 trillion - 9.8 trillion / 2013 - 2008 = ~ 1.44 trillion / year added to the national debt under Obama.

Source

Your statement doesn't match the actual math. The rate at which our government has added to our debt under Obama is almost 3 times the rate under Bush. How much can be attributed to the president himself is up for debate, but that the current rate is substantially higher is not. You can't sit there and try with a straight face to tell me our tax revenue has decreased 3 fold in the past 5 years.

Even looking at your chart it's obvious the government's income didn't have a 3 fold reduction, therefore it IS a higher rate of spending today. Not to mention, 2011 is almost as high as it ever was under Bush, and your graph is incomplete as it doesn't contain the last 2 years of data.

Your totals are using aggregates, mine are using "per capita". So your doesn't take into effect population growth, and the fact that when a recession hits governement spending automatically increases and revenues massive decrease.

There is no better measurement to correct for this than "per capita" measurements.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Your totals are using aggregates, mine are using "per capita". So your doesn't take into effect population growth, and the fact that when a recession hits governement spending automatically increases and revenues massive decrease.

There is no better measurement to correct for this than "per capita" measurements.

Ha, over the past 5 years the US has had about a 3.2% population increase, [1] and you want to blame the 300% increase in the government spending rate on that? As if a 3.2% change on a per-capita adjusted chart would mean a damn thing against 300%?

You haven't thought the math through on this. You seem to be the only one who can't figure out that our government is spending more now than they ever have.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Ha, over the past 5 years the US has had about a 3.2% population increase, [1] and you want to blame the 300% increase in the government spending rate on that? As if a 3.2% change on a per-capita adjusted chart would mean a damn thing against 300%?

No i didn't claim population growth of 3% equated to 300% increase in spending. I also said this: "and the fact that when a recession hits government spending automatically increases and revenues massive decrease."

My math is just fine and I am using per capita government spending, and I am also not taking people out of context like you just did.

If you don't want to make the bet based on my parameters then you can move along, because you are obviously choosing dishonesty and I prefer not to make a deal with a dishonest person.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No i didn't claim population growth of 3% equated to 300% increase in spending. I also said this: "and the fact that when a recession hits government spending automatically increases and revenues massive decrease."

My math is just fine and I am using per capita government spending, and I am also not taking people out of context like you just did.

If you don't want to make the bet based on my parameters then you can move along, because you are obviously choosing dishonesty and I prefer not to make a deal with a dishonest person.

Ok, so that massive increase in debt was all the recession's fault and not the management's, therefore we can not count it under a loss. All I did was point out that I would take the bet if the conditions you set would ever happen, but they won't. You're the one who decided to throw in absurd conclusions like that Obama has cut spending.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Ok, so that massive increase in debt was all the recession's fault and not the management's, therefore we can not count it under a loss. All I did was point out that I would take the bet if the conditions you set would ever happen, but they won't. You're the one who decided to throw in absurd conclusions like that Obama has cut spending.

You are still using debt, which doesn't isolate government spending.

actually I do blame management for spending:
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010"

If you include 2009, that is a previous budget that was enacted 4 months before Obama even took an oath.

Now if you measure Obama's budgets here they are:
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion."

So you see an increase in spending in 2011 (the only year spending growth outpaced population growth) and some in 2012, which actually is slower than population growth. Hence why my graphs show decreased spending per capita.

And by all estimates and claims from Obama and those on the right as well, we are definitely seeing a decrease in spending this year.

So if you isolate spending under Obama, you see in every way, that spending has definitely reduced.

 

[austrianecon]

I am willing to make a non monetary bet with anyone on this forum who believes that reduced spending will lead to a healthier economy. I do believe that we will see massive spending decreases in the year to come, unless somehow ACA spends enough to make up for it.

The terms of the bet. We would measure austerity by government spending per capita, and not the size of the deficit (because austerity typically increases the deficit).

We would measure the economy by labor participation rate, wealth and income inequality, and the growth or reduction in private sector savings and credit.

I think the loser of the bet should be require to switch their lean for an entire year, and argue as that lean.

Any takers?

How do you see a massive cut when there are mandatory budget increases build into the budget. Discretionary Spending versus Mandatory Spending Chart

 

[head of joaquin]

I don't bet but, what we need for a healthy economy is private sector spending and hiring.

Unfotunately with onerous FedGov regs, taxes and stupid programs that won't llkeli happen.

Oh dear God, this meme.

Regulations have a burden and a benefit. You're only counting the costs. Learn to count. We regulate (after a very long and complex process with lots of public input) only when somebody complains about the burdens of NOT regulating. There's a problem that cause financial or physicial harm, and regulation is the answer.

So when you don't have traffic lights, you get long unpredictable waits and accidents. Traffic lights solve the problem but they cost money and it require everybody have the burden of waiting when they get a red light.

You're like the guy who blames traffic lights for traffic.

 

[head of joaquin]

Ha, over the past 5 years the US has had about a 3.2% population increase, [1] and you want to blame the 300% increase in the government spending rate on that? As if a 3.2% change on a per-capita adjusted chart would mean a damn thing against 300%?

You haven't thought the math through on this. You seem to be the only one who can't figure out that our government is spending more now than they ever have.

I wonder if any macroeconomic event in late 2007 early 2008 had anything to do with that. I guess if it had, economists would have discovered such an event by now, is that what you're saying?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I wonder if any macroeconomic event in late 2007 early 2008 had anything to do with that. I guess if it had, economists would have discovered such an event by now, is that what you're saying?

LOL, so that's the reason for the 300%+ deficit increase? The 2007-2008 crisis? Man, Obama just can't get a break, huh? He's slashing spending everywhere! Ha.

 

[WCH]

Oh dear God, this meme.

Regulations have a burden and a benefit. You're only counting the costs. Learn to count. We regulate (after a very long and complex process with lots of public input) only when somebody complains about the burdens of NOT regulating. There's a problem that cause financial or physicial harm, and regulation is the answer.

So when you don't have traffic lights, you get long unpredictable waits and accidents. Traffic lights solve the problem but they cost money and it require everybody have the burden of waiting when they get a red light.

You're like the guy who blames traffic lights for traffic.

You obviously have no sense of excess. Learn to know when to stop.

 

[head of joaquin]

You obviously have no sense of excess. Learn to know when to stop.

So you have a sense of it. Give us some numbers. Do you have a study of the benefits of regulation against which we can calculate your dreary fabrications about the costs?

You've been called out. Produce or surrender.

BWHHAHAHHAHHAH! God this is funny.

 

[WCH]

So you have a sense of it. Give us some numbers. Do you have a study of the benefits of regulation against which we can calculate your dreary fabrications about the costs?

You've been called out. Produce or surrender.

BWHHAHAHHAHHAH! God this is funny.

Not sure taunting is allowed here but....realizing you're a troll anyway...

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371.pdf

 

[head of joaquin]

Not sure taunting is allowed here but....realizing you're a troll anyway...

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371.pdf

Jesus man, you've totally surrendered.

Where are the figures for the BENEFITS of regulation? We know the silly figures on the cost ginned up by rightiwng think tanks. Regulations BENEFIT people, and those BENEFITS have a value. Thus traffic lights prevent accidents, which is a BENEFIT that has a monetary value. That's why we have traffic lights. You weight the BENEFITS against the cost. Otherwise you're just spouting gibberish if you criticize regulations based on cost.

So do you have figures on the value of the BENEFITS or not?

I'm happy to accept your total surrender now and spare you further embarrassment.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I am willing to make a non monetary bet with anyone on this forum who believes that reduced spending will lead to a healthier economy. I do believe that we will see massive spending decreases in the year to come, unless somehow ACA spends enough to make up for it.

The terms of the bet. We would measure austerity by government spending per capita, and not the size of the deficit (because austerity typically increases the deficit).

We would measure the economy by labor participation rate, wealth and income inequality, and the growth or reduction in private sector savings and credit.

I think the loser of the bet should be require to switch their lean for an entire year, and argue as that lean.

Any takers?

Debt has been increasing, and the Government has been pumping money into the economy, and where has that gotten us?......