meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It's one thing to criticize the guy, but when one creates a strawman to tear down, that's another. His basic argument on Joe was, since DC seems to be able to focus on only one thing at a time, then focus on the immediate problem of high unemployment and tackle the medicare problem (that starts in 2024) later. There is no reason to hold the economy hostage over a problem that can be addressed a few years from now. Those who are pushing the line of having to cut a deal on entitlements now are the partisan hacks. There has been fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus with the clear incentive of tackling high unemployment. How's that holding up for you? The only reason US debt is not being sold off at periphery levels is because, as I said above, the US debt is the cleanest dirty shirt . As Magox has repeated over and over, the conservatives such as Romney did not want to cut benefits now but put in place a plan that addresses them in the future. As for, "addressing it later", yeah I hear the same thing from my nephews when I yell at them to do their homework. Btw, thought I posted a response to your healthcare question, but guess not. I think we have the system assbackwards in that we don't do preventative, rather we try to find a magic pill or operate when a festering issue finally explodes. I think so many health problems are related to the ****ty diet that pervades our culture. Obesity and diabetes are epidemics. Everyone knows the rising costs are not sustainable, and changes are being made, but more to do. Yes many health problems are related to a ****ty diet and lifestyle such as smoking and the ever increasing tendency for people to treat their bodies like a toilet bowl but health care costs always increase. Look at Canada, the government has been throwing money into that pit for the last 20 years and it is a mess. It is an unsolvable problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Because politics shouldn't interfere with his analysis. The people who are calling for entitlement cuts today are the ones who are letting their political bias interfere. We have a problem of high unemployment today; we have a medicare deficit projected to begin 10 years from now. Which one should we be more focused on today? There has been fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus with the clear incentive of tackling high unemployment. How's that holding up for you? The only reason US debt is not being sold off at periphery levels is because, as I said above, the US debt is the cleanest dirty shirt . As Magox has repeated over and over, the conservatives such as Romney did not want to cut benefits now but put in place a plan that addresses them in the future. As for, "addressing it later", yeah I hear the same thing from my nephews when I yell at them to do their homework. Yes many health problems are related to a ****ty diet and lifestyle such as smoking and the ever increasing tendency for people to treat their bodies like a toilet bowl but health care costs always increase. Look at Canada, the government has been throwing money into that pit for the last 20 years and it is a mess. It is an unsolvable problem. But the amount we spend as a % of GDP is twice what every other advanced country spends, and it's expected to double in 20 years. We have problems; you guys? Ha! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The people who are calling for entitlement cuts today are the ones who are letting their political bias interfere. We have a problem of high unemployment today; we have a medicare deficit projected to begin 10 years from now. Which one should we be more focused on today? If you reform a program now for a certain group of people under a certain age, it will probably go smoother than in 10 years where it will be draconian. Pot meet kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 If you reform a program now for a certain group of people under a certain age, it will probably go smoother than in 10 years where it will be draconian. Pot meet kettle. As to krugman's point, if you add spending cuts on top of the recent tax increases, the austerity will push a fragile economy back into recession. Magox wants to tout some piddly country like Latvia as the poster child of austerity. how's it working out for a serious economy like the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) If you reform a program now for a certain group of people under a certain age, it will probably go smoother than in 10 years where it will be draconian. Pot meet kettle. The question of urgency stands, which one should we burn more calories on today? The answer is obvious. The point is good. And Washington should listen. Especially since there is such gridlock over the future budget...that makes it all the more obvious that it's time to take a momentary break from the constant budget debate and talk bout immediate actions to spur growth... Edited January 31, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 As to krugman's point, if you add spending cuts on top of the recent tax increases, the austerity will push a fragile economy back into recession. Magox wants to tout some piddly country like Latvia as the poster child of austerity. how's it working out for a serious economy like the UK? How has high taxation and leftist policy fared in the rest of Europe? We could do this all day. Once again, no one (who should be taken seriously) is calling for austerity now but attempts at showing the world that America is at the very least serious in reforming their future entitlements that will be bankrupt within a decade will do a lot for confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 How has high taxation and leftist policy fared in the rest of Europe? We could do this all day. Once again, no one (who should be taken seriously) is calling for austerity now but attempts at showing the world that America is at the very least serious in reforming their future entitlements that will be bankrupt within a decade will do a lot for confidence. I agree, the republicans in congress should not be taken seriously... :-)gnite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 As to krugman's point, if you add spending cuts on top of the recent tax increases, the austerity will push a fragile economy back into recession. Magox wants to tout some piddly country like Latvia as the poster child of austerity. how's it working out for a serious economy like the UK? You have to be the worst kind of an idiot, an "educated" idiot. Not only can't you read, but you misrepresent your oppositions position. No one is talking about taking anything away from seniors now. The conversation is about many years down the road so that people can prepare for it. You are pathetic, and you call yourself a professor. Unphucking believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 As our favorite villian pointed out, the stimulus was too small, and I'll add that the focus was on bailouts more than stimulus. Yes, because employers are idiots and can't tell the difference between a temporary stimulus that funnels capital to unproductive & favored uses compared to maintaining a hostile attitude to the private sector, divisive class warfare rhetoric and uncertainty about future employment costs. It raises an interesting issue that I read about during the election, that the administration accelerated defense expenditures in Q3 to prop up the growth number (unexpected 3.1%) before the election--and these numbers confirm it. Surprised none of the wackas jumped on this? Possible, but doesn't mesh with the explanations I heard. Essentially big ticket orders in US hit a wall in late August/September. So where is this recovery that we've been promised? Why is the private sector still sitting on its hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Why is the private sector still sitting on its hands? Spite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Yes, because employers are idiots and can't tell the difference between a temporary stimulus that funnels capital to unproductive & favored uses compared to maintaining a hostile attitude to the private sector, divisive class warfare rhetoric and uncertainty about future employment costs. Possible, but doesn't mesh with the explanations I heard. Essentially big ticket orders in US hit a wall in late August/September. So where is this recovery that we've been promised? Why is the private sector still sitting on its hands? The Bloomberg piece on the GDP data stated that the drop in defense spending knocked off 1.1% from growth and was the largest drop since the early 1970s.As for the recovery, as I stated, we'll see it in the 2nd half of the year because the payroll tax hike will slow things down a bit; however, it will also depend on what spending cuts go into effect this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So where is this recovery that we've been promised? Why is the private sector still sitting on its hands? Uncertainty over the impact of the deluge of new government regulations forthcoming in 2013 and 2014. Smart people will wait and see before "investing" in anything. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Uncertainty over the impact of the deluge of new government regulations forthcoming in 2013 and 2014. Smart people will wait and see before "investing" in anything. . The recovery is mostly fine minus job growth, but Newsflash: The job market will be bad for a very long time no matter what the government does. Businesses simply don't need to hire more people to do the same type of work they used to hire for. It is a scary situation in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The recovery is mostly fine minus job growth, but Newsflash: The job market will be bad for a very long time no matter what the government does. Businesses simply don't need to hire more people to do the same type of work they used to hire for. It is a scary situation in the long run. I think you should give your economics degree back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Yes, Latvia, the country where people are pouring into to jump on their growth train...oops! Check that, it seems everyone is leaving... http://www.france24....n-drain-economy Talk about strawman's. So you have an economy that has been losing population for over two decades and this is all you can come up with? I'll take that as you ceding ground. From Meazza's link: The idea that one should just ignore all these problems and apply crude Keynesian stimulus is a dangerous one. It matters a great deal how the government taxes and spends, not just how much. The US debt level is a constraint. A growing number of empirical studies, including my own joint work with Carmen Reinhart, suggest that the US has already reached a debt level that has been associated with slower growth in advanced countries. The fact interest rates are low today does not necessarily mean the US is an exception to this rule – take one look at stagnant Japan’s rates. The dollar’s reserve currency status buys America more room, but how much and for how long? A high debt burden is a problem precisely because it reduces a country’s capacity to deal with future shocks. The US remains an incredible franchise with many remarkable strengths. The world’s overwhelming presumption is that Americans will find a path to budget sustainability. Nevertheless, it is hard for many in the US to escape the nagging feeling that just maybe this time we won’t. With more than $5tn of US Treasury debt, and memories of the huge inflation of the 1970s and default on gold clauses in the 1930s, foreigners would be right to worry a little. When it comes to Sovereign debt, any economist worth their salt understands that Ken Rogoff is vastly more qualified and knowledgeable than the hack Krugman. The argument that tweedle dee and tweedle dum are having a hard time understanding is that no one is advocating for immediate cuts to the entitlements. That what we are talking about is enacting growth policies with reforming the entitlement programs. Again reasonable people can disagree with how soon the credit markets will show stress because of our Fiscal picture, but there are many reasonable and important people who have a lot of influence who believe we need to take care of this sooner than later. Why risk it? This is what compromise is about. It's not about holding the economy "hostage" as parrots like to say. It's about trying to avert a national disaster, and why risk it? Credit agencies have cited concern, so has the business economy, and so have very intelligent people who understand the markets. Maybe there is more time than they let on, but again, why risk it? If you are going to address it eventually, why not now? Why not just avert the risk by making the reforms now? And again, in regards to this "hostage" argument, why should the American people trust another keynesian solution, when we've racked up $6 Trillion in debt and we have near record low job participation rates and flat lining growth? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. But that's a different topic, my point in this thread is regarding reforming the entitlements and partisan zealots such as Krugman are a destructive influence in the overall debate. Unfortunately he has a lot of looney lefty zombie disciples that follow what he spouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I think you should give your economics degree back. Nah, I'm good. But, what your outlook on the job market? It can't be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The Bloomberg piece on the GDP data stated that the drop in defense spending knocked off 1.1% from growth and was the largest drop since the early 1970s. As for the recovery, as I stated, we'll see it in the 2nd half of the year because the payroll tax hike will slow things down a bit; however, it will also depend on what spending cuts go into effect this year. I'm not disputing the drop in 4Q, as that's obvious. I'm questioning the rise in 3Q, as anecdotal evidence pointed to a slowdown that started in late summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Nah, I'm good. But, what your outlook on the job market? It can't be good. My view is similar to Mr Gecko's. The private sector is sitting on a lot of cash because of the uncertainty in Washington. All these added regulations such as Dodd-Frank and Basel III are making the smaller enterprises un-competitive and being swallowed up by the large banks. I'm not a fan of full on austerity since it will have negative consequences (protests, strikes) but if these issues don't get solved, then you and not the old blokes in this thread will eventually pay more taxes than you can imagine to pay off the explosion in liabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 how on earth can two people with such opposing views on economics as Krugman and Milton Friedman both win the nobel prize in economic sciences? they would seem to be complete contradictions of eachother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 how on earth can two people with such opposing views on economics as Krugman and Milton Friedman both win the nobel prize in economic sciences? they would seem to be complete contradictions of eachother. Don't look at Krugman's current work as defense of the Nobel. His economics work is near polar opposite of what he now spews at NYT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts