nijato
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 198
- Location
- Charm City, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Well, that's somewhat of the same thing. If debt buyers didn't think the US could pay back its obligations, they wouldn't be buying our debt. They'd be going straight to durable commodities. While that's happening to a certain degree, it's not happening on a massive "the US is screwed" level. So IMO, they do believe that the US will pay back its obligations hence why the rate is somewhat of an indicator. There's no question that the US debt is a problem, but honestly it's pennies compared to the rest of the unfunded liabilities the US from the federal government to states has which are estimated to be from a low end of $50 trillion to $200 trillion.
That's not a bad idea. I just don't get how people think that major, immediate cuts won't spark a recession when growth is anemic. That sounds to me like they have no idea how the economy actually works, as if demand isn't even relevant. They keep harping on private investment yet ignore repetitively how private investment just isn't happening. Honestly, these people sound like they live in lala land where the economic data coming out of the past 200 years simply does not exist.
RTFT.
10 characters.
EDIT: It's in what you quoted. Still having reading comprehension problems eh?
Instead of sniping, how about you step to the plate that Cpwill and 1Perry are unwilling to answer?
Explain how dramatic immediate cuts to demand create new jobs.
What demand are you talking about?
You once again do it below.
I realize you are unable to see the vicous circle you are advocating but that is what it is. Take from one to pay for another and all you get is a wash.
It's been explained many times. You just reject it.
Government contractors can only be paid by the government taking the money from someone else.
That someone else quits spending because he knows the government is going to come looking for even more.
I posted in another thread where despite all the spending the government did in the 30's, the unemployment rate stayed right at 15%.
Government spent, unemployment was 15%. They spent some more, unemployment? 15%. The only thing that broke that cycle was the positive attitude of the country with winning the war and soldiers coming home and wanting to spend. People are never going to start spending as long as the government is doing the driving.
We tried a "luxury tax". It led to large layoffs to those in the industries taxed. It got so bad that the taxes were rescinded.
The Lesson Of Economic Damage From “Taxing The Rich” With The Punitive Luxury Tax In The 1990s
So yes, it does make people quit buying those items.
The point is you do not wait until the problem because a major problem before addressing it.
Again, it's been argued here countless times. I'm not going back to find it but I'm sure we have before.
If the natural level is somewhere below where we are now, it won't create jobs as you agree the economy is going to have to find that bottom before rising again.
Look ... "Obvious" ..... if government spending were the cure-all, with $14 T in debt, maybe we'd all be CEO's by now making the big bucks ?
Tax cuts alone are not going to get us out of our hole.
Somewhere today I stated that I would accept tax increases as long as they were combined with actual, real budget cuts.
Jobs "preservation" is an arguement for those who finally have to admit that the stimulus failed in adding jobs. And yet, even after admitting it failed, you call for more. :shrug:
I don't think one can say people were allowed to keep more of their money which they then spent on necessities is a failure.
I disagree with you about why US rates are low - or at least why they are as low as they are. If you have 100s of billions you need to invest every month, the US debt market is really the only game in town. Even a country as big as China doesn't have a matress big enough to stuff their money in.
Your other point about reductions in aggregate demand due to government spending cuts would seem to be more or less irrefutable however. You are correct that there is no answer available from the slash and burners.
Your opinion is that the net 1.5 trillion we are putting into the economy, at the federal level, through deficit spending is what's giving us anemic growth or 1-1.5% per quarter?
because (and this is important) that money comes from somewhere. You are proposing nothing but a broken window fallacy writ large.
He thinks that if you take $15 from a worker or investor, fritter $5 of it in government inefficiencies working it's way through the bureaucratic pipeline, and then give the remaining $10 to Solyndra, that you have put $10 into the economy and increased the demand in it.
Yeah. People freely investing money into US treasuries.
Or are you going to show me how the government is forcing people to buy debt at gun point?
Hint: It's time for you to flee.
Want to explain to me how someone freely investing money is taking money out of the economy when that money wouldn't be used as evident by large cash amounts piling up collectively on corporate and individual balance sheets?
I've pointed this out before and you just run. And spending on things like bridges is hardly the same as a loan guarantee.
Or do you not know what a loan guarantee is?
I find it amusing all you can do now is just snipe. I guess that's the expected outcome when I stripped you of your only argument before you could even make it.
Furthermore, that $5 in expenses (grossly overexaggerated btw)
should actually create more than $5 in eventual activity as the money gets spent over and over again.
Really, I seriously doubt after all your posts you have any idea what a spending multiplier actually is.
Btw: still cowardly ignoring that I see?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...proposal-supercommittee-5.html#post1059917348
This is what we do...we trumpet the notion that a 3 trillion dollar reduction in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is somehow a triumph (as long as that 3 trillion is accompanied by tax increases) whole ignoring the fact that we are deficit spending 1,3 trillion a YEAR. 13 trillion over 10 years, minus the 3 trillion in proposed 'savings' still results in a net DEBT of 10 trillion and a TOTAL national debt of 25 TRILLION. These arent CUTS. I just cannot see how people cannot (or will not) understand this. Our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are going to ahve to pay this debt...but screw them...right? As long as we can continue to be irresponsible and shove off debt to future generations...
Yay congress! Way to go! We should by all means continue to support those clowns.
yup. because they are available thanks to the fact that we engage in profligate deficit spending.
of course, if Treasuries weren't available, they would put it all in a giant tower and go swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck.
nope. are you going to show me the money silos in Canada from when that government started to reduce its' expenditures?
hint: you don't actually intimidate anyone.you have 'being an asshole' confused with 'being correct'.
that's a good point. the government is far more likely to waste the money in the construction process than the company is to go completely belly up - especially if the United States makes sure that the taxpayers get protected.... oh, wait, that last bit didn't happen, did it?
I brought up Solyndra because you are always insisting that if we just took money, ran it through government,and then let politicians allocate massive sums trying to pick out the winners in the alternative energies market that somehow that would lead us onward and upward into massive growth.
now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.
don't worry OC. I'm sure you make way much more money than the guys who used to pick on you in High School. they're probably convenience-store attendants, still reliving their glory days. and lots of women say it doesn't even matter what size your penis is.
:lamo
It's a simplification to be sure - but accounting for the entire collection, management, procurement, disbursement, and every single worker's paycheck, benefits, office supplies along the way? before we even start working on things like environmental impact studies? I wouldn't be surprised to find out I missed the mark low.
just like the Bush stimulus checks that saved us from an economic crash did. meanwhile, otherwise that money would have just sat in that ole money silo, being swam in.
oh i get the theory. I just happen to know that due to the fact that it ignores that the money comes from somewhere, that it is bull.
that's
where it is! good deal.
While that is true, admitting that does not help your argument. You just admitted people freely do so. There goes your crackpot argument that the government is taking people's money away from them.
Until you can prove that people are forced at gun point to buy US debt, your "Taking" argument is bunk.
It's sad that all you have now after I stripped you of your best argument is to make idiotic comments that are functionally irrelevant.
Considering I never argued that, I don't have to. I don't have to prove a fabricated argument you made. You however, have to prove that people are being forced to buy debt and therefore are having their monies taken from them.
Asshole and correct are not mutually exclusive
It must burn you up that I'm constantly right and constantly pointing out how you are wrong.
Its amusing you still don't know what a loan guarantee is.
Oh look. Cpwill deprived of his sole argument resorts to outright lying
My point to which you are once again cowardly avoiding is that direct immediate large cuts to spending will cause another recession which will lead to a worse outcome.
Your proposal, that cutting is the answer will make the situation worse.
cpwill said:now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.
Obvious Child said:Spain's problem is largely a housing issue. Their housing issue is arguably worse then ours on a per capita basis. That is severely dragging down its economy, and therefore tax revenues causing a growing deficit problem.
...Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created....
You know, you wouldn't lose so many arguments if you just bothered to educate yourself about the topic. Trying to cast all of the PIGS as coming from the same problem is extremely ignorant. Ireland stemmed from a single phrase offered by a Fianna Fail finance minster (who recently died of a heart attack) offering a blanket guarantee to banks. (This is a sign I know more then you do). Spain from massive housing bubble. Greece from a variety of issues, stemming from a culture of wholesale tax evasion, failure to curtail spending and backing banks' lending to increase exports. You can't use the same argument against all of them because their situations and causes are all different. You of all people should know that one size fits all doesn't work when you bash Obamacare. But here you have no problem doing that. That makes you a hypocrite.
So no, you don't. That's pretty sad Cpwill. You're down to sniping this early in the thread
Thanks for proving my point. It's amusing to watch you fall to pieces so fast when I killed you only argument.
That's because you have shown a severe lack of understanding of what a spending multiplier is.
The same reason you think that economic data isolated from each other are good ways to examining highly complex outcomes
TARP saved our butts.
So when are you going to prove that people buy debt because the government points guns at them?
You keep harping back to that, but you freely admit that people invest. Therefore that money is freely given. Meaning that it is NOT forcibly taken from better opportunities
So. Going to be a coward as usual. Got it.
I'm starting to question your capacity to read.
That's hardly a sentiment shared by the slash and burn crowd. I do agree that tax cuts alone will not get us out of the hole. We'd have to basically eviscerate the budget to basically nothing to pay off the debt. Cutting even just the entire discretionary won't erase the deficit. We have to raise taxes and cut services. Anyone who argues otherwise is delusional, incapable of doing math or exceptionally dishonest. What I don't get is how people think how dramatic immediate cuts to demand will increase spending when you take into account spending multipliers.
What happens when millions of people lose their jobs from those cuts? They spend less. Who suffers? Everyone dependent on their spending. So the second round of cuts start. Who suffers from the first level of indirect? People who rely on their spending. So on and so forth. People who think that massive cuts to demand won't cause domino effects are stupid. We see this right now with government cuts. DOD firms are cutting back as they see the coming defense cuts. Who suffers? Their suppliers. They cut back. Who suffers? Their employees and everyone who depends on their spending. Only idiots think the economy is simple and that changes don't flow through huge networks.
And did you get flak from that from the so called "right?"
Fiscally, it is conservative in light of our debt that we have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending. There is no other way to do it mathematically. Generally, those who have real critical thinking problems here, who have problems reading and doing math are those who are pushing the cuts only policy. I'd name names but I'd get warned.
Actually I always argued it failed in its original stated purpose of adding jobs. What I take offense to is the morons who said it did nothing.
Not because of their ideological views, but because of their sheer inability to critically think. Apparently they think that in the absence of the stimulus which kept demand relatively stable, demand would have stayed stable despite all indicators to the contrary. It's like they have no concept of how demand plays a central role in a modern economy.
Not all stimulus is the same. Spending on infrastructure which pays proverbial dividends over decades is hardly the same as a one time tax rebate. Furthermore, remember that a third of the stimulus wasn't actual spending per se. It was tax cuts. They were probably too small in the same light as Bush's. On top of that, much of the real spending happened well after it was needed. The stimulus failed partially because it was not targeted and it was not timely. It is not valid to argue all stimuluses are the same. We probably don't even need another stimulus at this rate (politics aside). But we do not need real dramatic immediate cuts. I have yet to see a reputable economist who thinks that dramatic immediate cuts will increase employment quickly.
Considering that both Bush's stimulus and Obama's were entirely debt financed, your argument only works if people were forced to buy debt at gun point. You cannot back that up. So stop using that argument.
So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
The obvious thing to do is become a little more honest and realistic. We cant sustain debt at this rate. We certainly SHOULDNT pass our irresponsibility off on our grandchildren. Reasoned and rational people would look at the entire system, top to bottom and revise everything. If we insist on 'reducing spending we can' we allow partisan politicians to defend their special projects as mandatory and never make cuts. Until there is a firm commitment to less than deficit spending with a plan to pay down the debt, taxes shouldnt be raised a dime...thats like throwing 15 fully loaded syringes at a heroin addict and then acting hurt and surprised that the heroin addict used them. We cannot sustain what the fed has become. Departments and programs MUST be cut. Once you have reached that as a realistic perspective, THEN target tax increases specifically designed to pay down the debt.So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
As I said, when someone actually proposes that, let me know.
nah. history shows us the path we must take. we cut spending, and then even though that is supposed to be disastrous "some other undefined but still apparently massively powerful impact" will come in and save us.
Okay, I'm letting you know. This is what Democrats have proposed over and over again. The current proposal from Democrats on the super committee includes 6:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.
The Repbulicans, OTOH, are proposing to reduce the deficit by eliminating $800 billion in revenue. They are completely divorced from reality.
Where does history show us this?
The UK? Where austerity programs have completely stalled out the economy?
UK economy slumps to 0.2% growth - HFFM Forum
not really - selling treasuries still accomplishes that. it just doesn't do it through coercion.
the POINT, which is that selling treasuries is removing money from the private market and turning it into public expenditures remains.
until you can prove that treasuries don't get sold and therefore the government is using magic money that would have had no alternate uses, your "broken window = riches" argument is bunk.
i can't decide whether it's sadder that you think this is my only argument, or that you think your pathetic strawman has somehow stripped it.
not at all; I am merely arguing that if they had not bought debt, they would have done something else with the money; whether savings, investment, or direct consumption. your argument is dependent upon the assumption that had they not bought treasuries that wealth would have not have been used for any other purpose. it assumes no cost-benefit for letting the government allocate those funds v letting the market allocate those funds - which requires that the market must not be able to allocate them. if you want to argue that the wealthy would have instead shoved it into mattresses, or set it on fire... :shrug: however it is that you think that it would have been completely pulled out, I am willing to hear it.
:shrug: nor are they synonymous, though often the first is indication that the second is not present. people tend to most aggressively defend the positions they feel are least supported.
1. it couldn't because I am not trying to compensate for RW weakness by being a cyber-jackoff
2. it doesn't because the more you argue the more I realize how deeply flawed your analysis is. you aren't even particularly good at defending your positions - you're just needy.
:lol:
a loan guarantee is just that. we basically give another entity our credit rating by agreeing to meet the remainder of the debt should they go belly up - and it costs us nothing... until they do. but i think it's funny how you have to insist that no one is capable of knowing this but you.
not at all - you have on many occasions called for massive public investment in alternative energies.
i haven't avoided it at all, i've pointed out the false assumptions in the claim you are making. namely:
1. if the government isn't spending the money, then that money will not exist.
2. massive government expenditure will not distort incentives and will not lead to less efficient allocation of resources
hence the flaw in your "reduction in government spending = reduction in demand" theory. there are plenty of reasons (and multiple historical examples) that indicate that in fact reducing the share of the economy that is taken up by the government will increase productivity and demand.
but, if you like, we could put this to a simple enough test. let us take a list of OECD nations broken down by the size of their government relative to GDP. and then let us list the same nations, but now in order of growth - and let's average for the last 10, 15, and 20 years or so so as to not have outlier years spoil the test. what do you want to bet that the developed nations with higher portions of government spending will grow faster?
no, it will not, because it will reudce the percentage of resources currently being allocated for reasons of politics and increase the percentage of resources being allocated for reasons of efficiency and return.
YAY! I Win my bet! :lamo you...just...can't....help....it, can you?
huh. and what does it make you for depending so desperately on strawmen? you haven't merely claimed that keynesian theory stands even though it has failed with regards to the recent fiscal crises, your argument is that it stands even though it's public spending proscription has failed consistently whenever it's been tried for the last 20 years.
HAH! youare accusing others of being insulting and dismissive? project much?
you do realize that constructing and then smashing a strawman doesn't actually count as defeating an argument?
no, i know how the theory works. I just also know that the theory is bunk because (again) it assumes that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis on having government v the market allocate those resources - that you can just pretend that those resources had no other possible use.
which is funny coming from the guy who insists that you can track the benefits of government spending independent of the alternate uses available to those funds.
fail again - I wasn't referencing Tarp but rather Bush's stupid keynesian "prime the pump by sending everyone a check/tax credit" idea.
I have never claimed so. your theory, however, depends upon the assumption that had they not purchased that debt, that the money would have been used in no other economic activity. and so that is what I am waiting for you to prove.
show me the money........... silos.
yes. i freely admit it because i have never argued otherwise. in fact, my argument is dependent upon the notion that people wish to buy treasuries, and will do so given the opportunity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?