Obamacare to make doctor shortage worse

[cpwill]

Obama said the application of Keynesian economic theory gave him that power. Was he correct? Or was he (and the theory) wrong?

 

[Boo Radley]

Obama said the application of Keynesian economic theory gave him that power. Was he correct? Or was he (and the theory) wrong?

If you think the government controls the economy, you have no choice but to admit you believe government is the answer.

 

[cpwill]

If you think the government controls the economy, you have no choice but to admit you believe government is the answer.

1. Was Obama correct when he made the argument that he could steer the economy, and that in particular he could steer it through a massive Keynesian stimulus program to keep us below 8% unemployment?

No, he was not.

Neither Presidents nor Government can "control" the economy.

2. Which is not to say that they cannot effect the economy - that they can do, though most of the ways they can effect it in are bad ones.

For economic growth, Government can only really set the preconditions and then let it occur. Most of what Government can do here is indirect, second and third order effects.

For economic loss, however, Government can move straight into the first order effects, and handle it directly.


Obama couldn't have guaranteed lower than 8% unemployment - and he was foolish to do so. But BECAUSE he couldn't guarantee lower than 8% unemployment, his assumptions about his ability to control the economy were wrong. Ergo when he grabbed the stick and started yanking it around he didn't know what he was doing and he made things worse, as all of his moves were based on false assumptions.





If you believe that Keynes was right, and the government can create growth and wealth, then you have no choice but to admit that Obama is an utter screwup at it. By his own standards he has failed.

 

[Boo Radley]

1. Was Obama correct when he made the argument that he could steer the economy, and that in particular he could steer it through a massive Keynesian stimulus program to keep us below 8% unemployment?

No, he was not.

Neither Presidents nor Government can "control" the economy.

2. Which is not to say that they cannot effect the economy - that they can do, though most of the ways they can effect it in are bad ones.

For economic growth, Government can only really set the preconditions and then let it occur. Most of what Government can do here is indirect, second and third order effects.

For economic loss, however, Government can move straight into the first order effects, and handle it directly.


Obama couldn't have guaranteed lower than 8% unemployment - and he was foolish to do so. But BECAUSE he couldn't guarantee lower than 8% unemployment, his assumptions about his ability to control the economy were wrong. Ergo when he grabbed the stick and started yanking it around he didn't know what he was doing and he made things worse, as all of his moves were based on false assumptions.





If you believe that Keynes was right, and the government can create growth and wealth, then you have no choice but to admit that Obama is an utter screwup at it. By his own standards he has failed.

Name me one president who didn't say they could fix the economy? For me, as they all lie and take credit and push blame, it isn't what they say that matters. It's that we believe them, them all. I said this very same thing concerning Bush. Can't remember if you were one of them, but many gave Bush credit, and tried to lay blame elsewhere. If we all agree the government can't control the economy, and you seem to be agreeing with me, then we should stop expecting them to. Maybe then they would all lie less about that.

 

[cpwill]

Name me one president who didn't say they could fix the economy?

you want me to go through every one of our President's speeches and find you which ones never promised objective particular results?

lots of Presidents have said "if we do X, the result will be better than what we have now". I can't recall any off hand that - prior to our current Administration - have stated that they could keep unemployment to a specified level. I can recall the President who told us that he knew how to pull an economy out of Recession, and whose reforms brought unemployment down to the lowest peacetime level in our history. Can you name any instances other than Obama where a President has given a particular figure and told us what unemployment would or would not be?

Can't remember if you were one of them, but many gave Bush credit, and tried to lay blame elsewhere.

:shrug: i gave him credit for the effect of the tax rate cuts (particularly with regards to capital), and ripped my hair out when he went over to the "I had to abandon capitalism to save capitalism" bit.

If we all agree the government can't control the economy, and you seem to be agreeing with me, then we should stop expecting them to. Maybe then they would all lie less about that.

I'm not expecting them to have control over the economy. I"m expecting them to engage in policies whose effects would be beneficial to the economy, and to stop engaging in policies whose effects harm the economy.

 

[Boo Radley]

you want me to go through every one of our President's speeches and find you which ones never promised objective particular results?

lots of Presidents have said "if we do X, the result will be better than what we have now". I can't recall any off hand that - prior to our current Administration - have stated that they could keep unemployment to a specified level. I can recall the President who told us that he knew how to pull an economy out of Recession, and whose reforms brought unemployment down to the lowest peacetime level in our history. Can you name any instances other than Obama where a President has given a particular figure and told us what unemployment would or would not be?

I don't think you have to go back and look at all, but if you did, you find a lot of specific numbers given for all kinds of things they can't control. It is not unusual in the least.

:shrug: i gave him credit for the effect of the tax rate cuts (particularly with regards to capital), and ripped my hair out when he went over to the "I had to abandon capitalism to save capitalism" bit.

yet, the economy did not stay strong under his watch. He could not control it. Tax cuts did not keep it strong. Let's not get to far away from the point.

I'm not expecting them to have control over the economy. I"m expecting them to engage in policies whose effects would be beneficial to the economy, and to stop engaging in policies whose effects harm the economy

Beneifical? There's room for debate there. But much of it, like tax cuts, has no real effect at all. And I would pay less attention to the rethoric than the actual actions. Capitalism is still here.

 

[cpwill]

I don't think you have to go back and look at all, but if you did, you find a lot of specific numbers given for all kinds of things they can't control. It is not unusual in the least.

:shrug: if you can find me a few I'd appreciate it. Be good knowledge under the belt.

yet, the economy did not stay strong under his watch. He could not control it. Tax cuts did not keep it strong. Let's not get to far away from the point.

that's correct - Bush tried to stimulate the economy through Keynesian Stimulus.

Beneifical? There's room for debate there.

there are plenty of policies that are beneficial for the economy. enforcing contracts and property rights. rule of law. transparent and simple tax and regulatory codes. sound money. low effective tax rates.

But much of it, like tax cuts, has no real effect at all.

this is incorrect. Even Keynesians agree that tax cuts have stimulative effects, and you will note I linked you the numbers comparing the effects of tax cuts with the effects of increased government spending.

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug: if you can find me a few I'd appreciate it. Be good knowledge under the belt.

Not sure I'm interested enough to look, but maybe if I have time later I will.

that's correct - Bush tried to stimulate the economy through Keynesian Stimulus.

Yeah, but it slide down hill before he did. Even with tax cuts in place.

there are plenty of policies that are beneficial for the economy. enforcing contracts and property rights. rule of law. transparent and simple tax and regulatory codes. sound money. low effective tax rates.

To a very limited degree. Not the magic some seem to claim. I try to stay away from absolutes, so I don't say no benefit. Only limited.

this is incorrect. Even Keynesians agree that tax cuts have stimulative effects, and you will note I linked you the numbers comparing the effects of tax cuts with the effects of increased government spending.

I just don't buy it. We had tax cuts, and we still went south. Someone argued that we then need more and more tax cuts. With that reasoning, we'd eventually get to zero taxes, and then what would we cut when it went bad? What I know is that we've had high tax rates a good economy and the reverse. And we've had low tax rates, and poor economy and the reverse. Seems to me that other factors mean more than taxes.

 

[cpwill]

Not sure I'm interested enough to look, but maybe if I have time later I will.

alrighty. be interesting to see what you could come up with vis-a-vie presidents saying what helps the economy v. making specific falsifiable predictions (remember the 500,000 jobs a month in the recovery summer?) under the assumption that they could control the economy.

Yeah, but it slide down hill before he did. Even with tax cuts in place.

tax cuts aren't some kind of magical elixer - low, flat, stable tax rates are only one piece of the puzzle. ruining an economy is easy. Like a Jenga puzzle, you just have to attack the right piece, be it taxes, or inflation, or spending, or regulation, so on an dso forth. Maintaining the situations that allow one to grow as best it can is more difficult.

To a very limited degree.

to an exceedingly amazing degree. the nations that have put these policies into practice have consistenly way outperformed those that do not.

I just don't buy it. We had tax cuts, and we still went south.

that is a strawman argument. no one ever said "put in place these lower tax rates and nothing bad will ever happen again". we only say "keep effective and nominal tax rates low and you will see more growth than you would have otherwise"

Someone argued that we then need more and more tax cuts. With that reasoning, we'd eventually get to zero taxes, and then what would we cut when it went bad? What I know is that we've had high tax rates a good economy and the reverse. And we've had low tax rates, and poor economy and the reverse. Seems to me that other factors mean more than taxes.

other factors CAN mean more than taxes. if your top tax rate is (say) 75%; then likely that is your problem. just as inflation at 2% annual isn't an issue, but inflation at 15% annual is.

far more likely is that you have multiple issues creating turmoil - we are in that situation currently, where we are devaluing our currency along with increasing government spending, the regulatory burden, taxes, and the risk of investment.





but you never said if you now agreed that you were wrong to support the claims made by those who preached and pushed the Stimulus?

 

[Boo Radley]

tax cuts aren't some kind of magical elixer - low, flat, stable tax rates are only one piece of the puzzle. ruining an economy is easy. Like a Jenga puzzle, you just have to attack the right piece, be it taxes, or inflation, or spending, or regulation, so on an dso forth. Maintaining the situations that allow one to grow as best it can is more difficult.

I don't completely disagree, only to the extent to which taxes matter to those things. Even done poorly or high, the effect is minor in comparison to other factors.

to an exceedingly amazing degree. the nations that have put these policies into practice have consistenly way outperformed those that do not.

No. Many other factors play a larger role, like resources, wealth, development and so on.

that is a strawman argument. no one ever said "put in place these lower tax rates and nothing bad will ever happen again". we only say "keep effective and nominal tax rates low and you will see more growth than you would have otherwise"

Only, not what I'm claiming. In the complete context, what I'm claiming is that tax cuts mean very little. We can't look at the problem and say, just cut taxes. it doesn't work that way, and that is my claim.

other factors CAN mean more than taxes. if your top tax rate is (say) 75%; then likely that is your problem. just as inflation at 2% annual isn't an issue, but inflation at 15% annual is.

far more likely is that you have multiple issues creating turmoil - we are in that situation currently, where we are devaluing our currency along with increasing government spending, the regulatory burden, taxes, and the risk of investment.

However, if the tax rate is say 35% and it is raised to 37 or 39? No, the effect would be small if noticable at all. And largely, we've been arguing about that type of change.

but you never said if you now agreed that you were wrong to support the claims made by those who preached and pushed the Stimulus?

Don't think I am. As I said, repeately, in the short term it may be a neccessary evil. Not something that will fix the economy, but maybe hold off the wolf at the door. I speak of short term and long term. But I support spending not to fix the economy, but as a short term measure. And trickle up has as much merit if not more than trickle down. Overall, I think government effects the economy very little, and have stated that often in our discussions for both presidents.