Magox Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share Posted March 11, 2013 Just remember everyone, in a down economy, virtually just about all spending is good, doesn't matter how effective or where we spend it, the important thing to remember is that we spend. If your goal is to prevent unemployment from worsening in the short term, then that is a true statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 There is a predicate to the underlined part, if you understand english... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Now that there is some positive growth, the dollar value of the deficit is falling, as is the deficit/GDP ratio. As the economy continues to improve, the deficits continue to drop. If Congress just let things play out, the deficit/GDP ratio would fall below the rate of NGDP growth by 2014 and thd Debt/GDP ratio (what you are worried about) would stabilize and start to decline. Really funny stuff there. I'm sure your theory presumes economy will grow at historical rates, and not the celebration Krugman et al are throwing at 1% growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 That's just an ignorant interpretation of what i said. Spending is the short-run issue; long-run growth depends on capital and technology, education, infrastructure, and a few others. Don't forget roads and bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Really funny stuff there. I'm sure your theory presumes economy will grow at historical rates, and not the celebration Krugman et al are throwing at 1% growth. Wrt to deficits, you use NGDP growth, not real. Deficits are nominal values and taxes are paid out of nominal income. NGDP has averaged 4% the past 2 years. Once the deficit/NGDP ratio falls below 4%, then the Debt/NGDP ratio will start to decline. This is what Krugman was writing about--the CBO's projections--which sparked this latest attack by the haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Wrt to deficits, you use NGDP growth, not real. Deficits are nominal values and taxes are paid out of nominal income. NGDP has averaged 4% the past 2 years. Once the deficit/NGDP ratio falls below 4%, then the Debt/NGDP ratio will start to decline. This is what Krugman was writing about--the CBO's projections--which sparked this latest attack by the haters. When the economy doesn't behave the way you want it, it's time to invent a new acronym to justify new expectations of failed theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 When the economy doesn't behave the way you want it, it's time to invent a new acronym to justify new expectations of failed theories. Yes. Why the republicans keep trying to resurrect supply-side economics is a mystery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Yes. Why the republicans keep trying to resurrect supply-side economics is a mystery... Except that you had real growth following supply side. And when has that Keynesian multiplier worked (without the benefit of using supply side)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Except that you had real growth following supply side. And when has that Keynesian multiplier worked (without the benefit of using supply side)? Yes, too bad we can't get back to the Bush economy, big deficits and a housing bubble. Or Reagan's, big deficits and a commercial property bubble underlying the S&L crisis. Ahhh, the good ol' days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Yes, too bad we can't get back to the Bush economy, big deficits and a housing bubble. Or Reagan's, big deficits and a commercial property bubble underlying the S&L crisis. Ahhh, the good ol' days... There's a fine revisionist history. Was the Bush housing bubble caused by tax breaks to millionaires or by easy flow of credit? Same with S&Ls, was it the tax cuts or junk bond bonanza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Yes, too bad we can't get back to the Bush economy, big deficits and a housing bubble. Or Reagan's, big deficits and a commercial property bubble underlying the S&L crisis. Ahhh, the good ol' days... Which Bush policy caused the housing bubble, professor? Once again, the beauty of your stupidity is its simplicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 12, 2013 Author Share Posted March 12, 2013 So this is the garbage that is being taught today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I'm flattered I could gather all of my critics in one place. All it took was a little supply-side dig...hehehehe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Both parties bow before the altar of the Chicago Neoclassical Neoliberal school of economics. Krugman is merely a spoke in the wheel of this branch of economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I'm flattered I could gather all of my critics in one place. All it took was a little supply-side dig...hehehehe... You missed me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Yes, too bad we can't get back to the Bush economy, big deficits and a housing bubble. Or Reagan's, big deficits and a commercial property bubble underlying the S&L crisis. Ahhh, the good ol' days... The truly hilarious thing about that is the bigger deficits we're currently seeing, and the housing bubble we will be seeing in a few years. And "it's Bush's fault?" The "Great Man Theory" doesn't even work for history. For an economics perfesser to ascribe to it as an economic principle while ignoring the blatantly obvious social and structural issues that actually cause the problem is astoundingly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The truly hilarious thing about that is the bigger deficits we're currently seeing, and the housing bubble we will be seeing in a few years. And "it's Bush's fault?" The "Great Man Theory" doesn't even work for history. For an economics perfesser to ascribe to it as an economic principle while ignoring the blatantly obvious social and structural issues that actually cause the problem is astoundingly stupid. DC you are right to criticize this supposed economics professor's position on root causes but wrong in you ascertain that: this is really the fault of any President. The economists who saw this coming were ostracized by the leaders of the Chicago school of economics. If you want to criticize the Bush or Obama have at it but they are merely puppets to their financial handlers. These are the same Neoliberals economists who are hand picked by the Wall Street banks to run the Federal Reserve cartel. So some of the proper questions to ask TPS would be: are you a supply-sider, are you for socialism for big business and capitalism for the rest, do you support fiat currency, do banks create money, do you support finance as a means for industrial production, or rent seeking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) For the Keynsians: 80 years of "In the long run, we're all dead(teehee) " has led us to exactly where we are today. The question is: what will another 20 years of being the grasshopper do? If there is karma/justice/whatever? Right when Krugman needs his Medicare, it will be insolvent! Will it matter then, Paul? Oh, no, I forgot, Paul can probably afford private pay nursing/medical care, so it's not his problem. And, since Obamacare will have been around for 20 years, a panel of "experts" will decide that his continued existence is unneccesary, and hand him a ticket for Carousel: Edited March 13, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The truly hilarious thing about that is the bigger deficits we're currently seeing, and the housing bubble we will be seeing in a few years. And "it's Bush's fault?" The "Great Man Theory" doesn't even work for history. For an economics perfesser to ascribe to it as an economic principle while ignoring the blatantly obvious social and structural issues that actually cause the problem is astoundingly stupid. "You complete me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts