- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
well, we've had about what - 3.5 bad years now, and we've run massive deficits in each one. at what point, precisely, are our historically massive deficits supposed to - you know - actually stimulate the economy?
yes, but then you would expect to see recovery.
huh. interesting you should say that.
how about this, if we were to look at the attempts at fiscal stimulus over the past few decades in each of the OECD countries, and it could be consistently demonstrated that the ones who had attempted to "stimulate" their economy through an increase in transfer payments had just as consistently failed to do so, while countries who had instead cut their business taxes had consistently succeeded in doing so... would you accept that as evidence?
Huh, Would You Look At That...
But It's Interesting That You Should Mention Mankiw.
The second article shows Mankiw arguing forcefully for a Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy via deficit spending, which was exactly my point. He is merely arguing that we need to lean more toward tax cuts and less toward spending than we currently do. Among economists, there is very little support for austerity measures or reducing the deficit at the present time...anywhere across the ideological spectrum.
while I agree it's implausible, I certainly see no reason why a debt free government is impossible. Indiana, for example, is currently enjoying a big fat emergency fund, rather than the debt-struggle we see in the other states.
The bolded is a pretty absolute statement...Which economists are you speaking of?
What disciplines do they ascribe to?
Are they Keynesian, or Austrian?
I already mentioned four of the most prominent economists in America today: Two liberals (Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman) and two conservatives (N. Gregory Mankiw and Douglas Holtz-Eakin)...all of whom are strong supporters of economic stimulus measures and deficit spending.
They are all macroeconomists.
The overwhelming majority of economists today, from all sides of the political spectrum, are Keynesians. These four are no exception.
The overwhelming majority of economists today, from all sides of the political spectrum, are Keynesians. These four are no exception.
Also Kandahar, you did it again...You just said
Now please prove this absolute statement.
j-mac
It's book keeping. If you look at total expenditures vs total revenue there was no surplus. To get the surplussed claimed, they IIRC did not count SS. Either way, it was under Clinton that we came the closest to a balanced budget.
The economist Robert Whaples surveys economists to see which topics generate the most consensus and the most controversy among them. According to Greg Mankiw's blog which quotes from this survey (unfortunately I don't have access to the original survey), 90% of economists agreed with the statement "Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." Furthermore, 85% of economists agreed with the statement "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly." Taking those two points together, I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus for economic stimulus among economists.
Greg Mankiw's Blog: News Flash: Economists Agree
What's funny though is that people "lberals" and even some independants, heck even some republicans think that Clinton and the republican congress actaully ran surpluses..
Tim-
Bush ran on a platform of of returning this phony surplus to the tax payers. the media did not bother to report on the truth.
So the really big question is why did the dems, repubs, and media all go along with this lie?
Now to say that the 90% of those he says he surveys, you don't know if they agree with increased government expenditure, or tax cuts, or both, now do you?
Because the question is too broad.
Correct. But we *do* know that they favor economic stimulus via deficit spending, which was my original point. There is probably a bit more disagreement over what the exact components of that stimulus should be, but Keynesian stimulus in itself is widely accepted by economists. Economists have very little appetite for austerity or budget-balancing measures in the middle of a recession.
It's not too broad, it just answers a different question than the one you want to focus on. Whether we should use tax cuts or spending increases to stimulate the economy, is a very different debate than whether we should stimulate the economy at all or introduce austerity measures.
Although I will not dispute that Keynesian models of economics have been the norm for some time now, I think that trend is changing in the face of global failure due largely to the implementation of these so called remedies....Look at Japan, ten years lost with stimulus, after stimulus, and only when they started doing common sense things like austerity did they begin to pull out.
You are seemingly touting economists as though they are infallible.
Oh but it is, it obviously includes tax cuts in the answer, and there is no way to determine how many of the participants answered in the positive to your argument based on tax cuts, rather than stimulus measures promoted by an out of control spending congress.
What was the exact question? Wording matters.
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?