|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2013 09:09 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing. Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Obama predicted that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment was above 8% for virtually all of his presidency. The stimulus failed on Obama's own terms. If you point is that it did something then I guess it's hard to argue with that. That's not the same as succeeding.
First of all, analysts underestimated how bad the crisis would be. Second, your claim was that Paul Krugman was "a huge cheerleader" for the stimuli. Considering the stimuli helped save millions of jobs, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
On March 16 2013 09:09 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing. Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Where did you get your alternate reality creation machine to test this? I'd love to have one.
It's called reading non-partisan economic studies. You should try it sometimes.
On March 16 2013 09:11 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing. Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Lol no it isn't a fact, you can never prove any "stimuli" (loaded term assuming that the fiscal expansion actually works) has worked because the economy isn't static its always dynamic always changing. Just because the government spent X amount of money and some jobs didn't disappear doesn't mean the spending stopped the jobs from disappearing it could be any number of other factors because the economy is always changing always moving.
I'm not sure what your reasoning is here - ever heard of this?
|
U said its a fact my point is its not a fact
|
Unless you have a definition of "fact" that I'm not aware of, yes it is.
|
On March 16 2013 09:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:09 ziggurat wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:[quote] Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Obama predicted that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment was above 8% for virtually all of his presidency. The stimulus failed on Obama's own terms. If you point is that it did something then I guess it's hard to argue with that. That's not the same as succeeding. First of all, analysts underestimated how bad the crisis would be. Second, your claim was that Paul Krugman was "a huge cheerleader" for the stimuli. Considering the stimuli helped save millions of jobs, I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:09 Romantic wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:[quote] Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Where did you get your alternate reality creation machine to test this? I'd love to have one. It's called reading non-partisan economic studies. You should try it sometimes. Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:11 Zaros wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:[quote] Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Lol no it isn't a fact, you can never prove any "stimuli" (loaded term assuming that the fiscal expansion actually works) has worked because the economy isn't static its always dynamic always changing. Just because the government spent X amount of money and some jobs didn't disappear doesn't mean the spending stopped the jobs from disappearing it could be any number of other factors because the economy is always changing always moving. I'm not sure what your reasoning is here - ever heard of this?
Because there is a cost/benefit analysis. Obviously if you're willing to spend trillions of dollars then you will save some jobs. But if you're spending $300,000 per job saved then it's not worthwhile. There are various estimates of how much was spent to save each job, and it's hotly disputed of course. Google "stimulus jobs saved dollars spent" or something like that for hundreds of examples. But I've never seen any estimate that made the stimulus look worthwhile.
|
On March 16 2013 10:04 kwizach wrote:
Unless you have a definition of "fact" that I'm not aware of, yes it is.
I think his point is that we don't have the counterfactual and so we cannot know what the stimulus did, only estimate it.
I can't tell you how much faith you should put in the estimates. On one hand what we've got is what we've got so let's go with that. On the other hand our estimates don't have the best track record, so...
Edit:
On March 16 2013 10:22 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:37 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 09:09 ziggurat wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Obama predicted that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment was above 8% for virtually all of his presidency. The stimulus failed on Obama's own terms. If you point is that it did something then I guess it's hard to argue with that. That's not the same as succeeding. First of all, analysts underestimated how bad the crisis would be. Second, your claim was that Paul Krugman was "a huge cheerleader" for the stimuli. Considering the stimuli helped save millions of jobs, I fail to see how that's a bad thing. On March 16 2013 09:09 Romantic wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Where did you get your alternate reality creation machine to test this? I'd love to have one. It's called reading non-partisan economic studies. You should try it sometimes. On March 16 2013 09:11 Zaros wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Lol no it isn't a fact, you can never prove any "stimuli" (loaded term assuming that the fiscal expansion actually works) has worked because the economy isn't static its always dynamic always changing. Just because the government spent X amount of money and some jobs didn't disappear doesn't mean the spending stopped the jobs from disappearing it could be any number of other factors because the economy is always changing always moving. I'm not sure what your reasoning is here - ever heard of this? Because there is a cost/benefit analysis. Obviously if you're willing to spend trillions of dollars then you will save some jobs. But if you're spending $300,000 per job saved then it's not worthwhile. There are various estimates of how much was spent to save each job, and it's hotly disputed of course. Google "stimulus jobs saved dollars spent" or something like that for hundreds of examples. But I've never seen any estimate that made the stimulus look worthwhile.
It depends 
(not a bad point though)
|
Hooray! Too bad the Obama Administration is pretty effing quick to launch appeals, sometimes in a matter of hours.
NEW YORK -- Concluding that they suffer from "significant constitutional infirmities," a federal district court judge in San Francisco on Thursday struck down sections of federal law that allow the FBI to warrantlessly obtain private information under a gag order in the name of national security.
But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston temporarily put her order on hold to allow the government to appeal her decision, recognizing that a higher court should first be able to "consider the weighty questions of national security and First Amendment rights" at issue in the case. The authority of national security letters, government orders to communications providers to reveal user information, was vastly expanded in the post-9/11 Patriot Act. The federal government has made wide use of them in the name of the fight against terrorism.
In May 2011, the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation brought a lawsuit against the national security letter statutes on behalf of an unnamed telephone service provider, arguing that placing the company under a gag order violated its First Amendment rights. EFF also argued that the 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act provided too little judicial review for the secret letters.
Illston's ruling vindicated EFF's arguments.
"Basically the court declared the national security letter statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it improperly gagged the recipients," said Cindy Cohn, the group's legal director. "Nothing changes in the short term, but it's a very strong ruling."
Because the government still has 90 days to appeal the ruling while it is on hold, Cohn is still not able to reveal her client's name. Reporting by The Wall Street Journal has suggested, however, that it may be the progressive phone provider Credo.
"The recipients of the national security letters, there's only been a couple that have been willing to challenge it," Cohn said. "It's sad for me that my client can't talk about this, because I think they're the heroes."
Source
|
On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty."
Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing. Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. I think the reason he's willing to argue these things is that he's a big government liberal and he has no problem with high taxes. So even if he's wrong (he certainly has been so far), and massive government spending leads to massive deficits, he's okay with that result because it means an expansion of government and ultimately, inevitably higher taxes on everybody.
Wait, so you honestly believe "big government liberals" want big government even when they don't believe it's better because...it's big? They want high taxes...because they're high? Big/high! Big/high! Big/high! Do you think Paul Krugman has an orgasm if he says or hears "big/high" or something?
|
On March 16 2013 10:22 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 09:37 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 09:09 ziggurat wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Obama predicted that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment was above 8% for virtually all of his presidency. The stimulus failed on Obama's own terms. If you point is that it did something then I guess it's hard to argue with that. That's not the same as succeeding. First of all, analysts underestimated how bad the crisis would be. Second, your claim was that Paul Krugman was "a huge cheerleader" for the stimuli. Considering the stimuli helped save millions of jobs, I fail to see how that's a bad thing. On March 16 2013 09:09 Romantic wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Where did you get your alternate reality creation machine to test this? I'd love to have one. It's called reading non-partisan economic studies. You should try it sometimes. On March 16 2013 09:11 Zaros wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Lol no it isn't a fact, you can never prove any "stimuli" (loaded term assuming that the fiscal expansion actually works) has worked because the economy isn't static its always dynamic always changing. Just because the government spent X amount of money and some jobs didn't disappear doesn't mean the spending stopped the jobs from disappearing it could be any number of other factors because the economy is always changing always moving. I'm not sure what your reasoning is here - ever heard of this? Because there is a cost/benefit analysis. Obviously if you're willing to spend trillions of dollars then you will save some jobs. But if you're spending $300,000 per job saved then it's not worthwhile. There are various estimates of how much was spent to save each job, and it's hotly disputed of course. Google "stimulus jobs saved dollars spent" or something like that for hundreds of examples. But I've never seen any estimate that made the stimulus look worthwhile.
There are plenty of estimates that make the stimulus look worthwhile, namely the non-partisan economic studies that show it saved millions of jobs. What you mention is an idiotic way of measuring the impact of any stimulus, as anyone familiar with economics (and not interested in defending an ideological position) knows.
|
On March 17 2013 00:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 10:22 ziggurat wrote:On March 16 2013 09:37 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 09:09 ziggurat wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Obama predicted that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment was above 8% for virtually all of his presidency. The stimulus failed on Obama's own terms. If you point is that it did something then I guess it's hard to argue with that. That's not the same as succeeding. First of all, analysts underestimated how bad the crisis would be. Second, your claim was that Paul Krugman was "a huge cheerleader" for the stimuli. Considering the stimuli helped save millions of jobs, I fail to see how that's a bad thing. On March 16 2013 09:09 Romantic wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Where did you get your alternate reality creation machine to test this? I'd love to have one. It's called reading non-partisan economic studies. You should try it sometimes. On March 16 2013 09:11 Zaros wrote:On March 16 2013 09:06 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2013 08:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 21:51 DisneylandSC wrote:On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be. This is a topic that has been treated before in this thread. Long story short, a national debt is not the same as a household debt. This observation affect a lot of your statements in this post. So if you have the above opinion you will need to do more to convince someone. In particular your statement that the longer you wait the more painful it [paying of the national debt] is problematic. For a good introduction to the national debt I think the following article in the New York Times is useful. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0 The fact that you consider a NYT op-ed a "good introduction" to an issue says a lot more than you probably realize... Look, I've been reading Paul Krugman for years. He's been a huge cheerleader for all the failed stimuli going back to 2008. Surely by "failed stimuli", you mean "not big enough"? You're entitled to your opinion on expansionary fiscal policy, but it is a fact - not an opinion - that the stimulus saved millions of jobs. Lol no it isn't a fact, you can never prove any "stimuli" (loaded term assuming that the fiscal expansion actually works) has worked because the economy isn't static its always dynamic always changing. Just because the government spent X amount of money and some jobs didn't disappear doesn't mean the spending stopped the jobs from disappearing it could be any number of other factors because the economy is always changing always moving. I'm not sure what your reasoning is here - ever heard of this? Because there is a cost/benefit analysis. Obviously if you're willing to spend trillions of dollars then you will save some jobs. But if you're spending $300,000 per job saved then it's not worthwhile. There are various estimates of how much was spent to save each job, and it's hotly disputed of course. Google "stimulus jobs saved dollars spent" or something like that for hundreds of examples. But I've never seen any estimate that made the stimulus look worthwhile. There are plenty of estimates that make the stimulus look worthwhile, namely the non-partisan economic studies that show it saved millions of jobs. What you mention is an idiotic way of measuring the impact of any stimulus, as anyone familiar with economics (and not interested in defending an ideological position) knows.
If you look at a CBO report the stimulus created / saved jobs. But it also will reduce long-run growth (p.8 "ARRA's long run effects"). So there's a tradeoff - both a cost and a benefit - and little discussion over how they net out or where the bar for "worthwhile" should be set. You kinda need to bring your own standards to the table.
If you have something that does a better job of netting out the costs and benefits please share, I'd love to take a look.
|
On March 17 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:If you look at a CBO report the stimulus created / saved jobs. But it also will reduce long-run growth (p.8 "ARRA's long run effects"). So there's a tradeoff - both a cost and a benefit - and little discussion over how they net out or where the bar for "worthwhile" should be set. You kinda need to bring your own standards to the table. If you have something that does a better job of netting out the costs and benefits please share, I'd love to take a look.
It's actually depressing to read this kind of stuff. The CBO looks at the impact of the stimulus purely on employment and economic output. I would have thought that spending trillions of dollars should have a clear positive impact in these areas, which would then have to be weighed against the down side of being trillions of extra dollars in debt. But the CBO finds that even the long-term benefits in these areas are in doubt. I'd love to hear the pro-stimulus spin on this kind of information.
|
Hm, so going through some financial data for another reason, I stumbled upon some information about Jonny's "double taxation" obsession. I got this information from comparing pre-tax and after-tax income on Google Finance. Some effective tax rates of top corporations in the US:
Apple: 25.16%
Google: 19.41%
Bank of America: -36.33%
GE: 14.39%
Exxon Mobile: 39.43%
Pfizer: 21.21%
Verizon: -6.67%
Lockhead Martin: 32.59%
Any effective tax rate below 23.53% makes double taxation still below the (old) top income tax rate of 35% when factored with capital gains. Seeing how some businesses apparently make more income after taxes (negative tax rate), this seems like welfare for those that get their income from capital gains.
|
On March 17 2013 04:07 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:If you look at a CBO report the stimulus created / saved jobs. But it also will reduce long-run growth (p.8 "ARRA's long run effects"). So there's a tradeoff - both a cost and a benefit - and little discussion over how they net out or where the bar for "worthwhile" should be set. You kinda need to bring your own standards to the table. If you have something that does a better job of netting out the costs and benefits please share, I'd love to take a look. It's actually depressing to read this kind of stuff. The CBO looks at the impact of the stimulus purely on employment and economic output. I would have thought that spending trillions of dollars should have a clear positive impact in these areas, which would then have to be weighed against the down side of being trillions of extra dollars in debt. But the CBO finds that even the long-term benefits in these areas are in doubt. I'd love to hear the pro-stimulus spin on this kind of information.
Two reasons, overhead and offsets. The infrastructure and bureaucracy isn't in place to make this kind of stimulus as effective as it could be, funding many new private startups and new government programs. At the same time, shortly after the stimulus died out, massive belt tightening by local and federal government occurred due to huge loss of revenues and incredible usage of stabilizers (unemployment, EBT, etc.), forcing even more job losses in areas of public services, where infrastructure and bureaucracy is already in place.
|
I would love to see the effective tax rates of the major banks. If BoA's numbers are any indication, I think the picture of top- heavy agglomeration of capital amongst financial institutions becomes even more troubling.
|
President Obama’s administration has been granted the opportunity to argue to the US Supreme Court that California’s Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
In an order earlier today, Supreme Court justice ruled that US Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli will be given speaking time during the oral court sessions held on March 26th 2013.
Source
|
On March 17 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:
I would love to see the effective tax rates of the major banks. If BoA's numbers are any indication, I think the picture of top- heavy agglomeration of capital amongst financial institutions becomes even more troubling.
It varies. JP Morgan Chase is about 25%, as is Goldman Sachs, but Citigroup and Wells Fargo are around the 0% range. It probably hinges on investment strategies, but it's stupid that it varies so much.
|
On March 17 2013 04:37 aksfjh wrote:
Hm, so going through some financial data for another reason, I stumbled upon some information about Jonny's "double taxation" obsession. I got this information from comparing pre-tax and after-tax income on Google Finance. Some effective tax rates of top corporations in the US:
Apple: 25.16%
Google: 19.41%
Bank of America: -36.33%
GE: 14.39%
Exxon Mobile: 39.43%
Pfizer: 21.21%
Verizon: -6.67%
Lockhead Martin: 32.59%
Any effective tax rate below 23.53% makes double taxation still below the (old) top income tax rate of 35% when factored with capital gains. Seeing how some businesses apparently make more income after taxes (negative tax rate), this seems like welfare for those that get their income from capital gains.
A couple things to keep in mind.
1) About half of S&P 500 earnings come from overseas. If the foreign country has a tax rate lower than the US the company still owes US taxes but can defer payment until the earnings are repatriated. The deferment lowers the effective tax rate temporarily - though the deferment itself carries value.
2) Corporate earnings can be volatile. A loss in one year and the associated negative tax can be carried forward to the next year. This causes the effective tax rate to appear lower than it really is.
A few additional notes: income on an income statement is not cash income, that is, a negative tax liability will increase income but the IRS isn't writing the companies a check. Individuals also have tax deferments and other provisions that reduce effective tax rates below marginal rates.
Edit: For companies like Verizon there could also be issues with subsidiaries (VZ only owns 55% of VZ wireless) and how the consolidated incomes statements are calculated vs which owner pays what taxes. I'm not exactly sure about how this works, though it's listed on their 10-K.
|
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, marking an early indicator of conservative support ahead of the next presidential election in 2016.
Paul topped the list and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) came in second, according to Ian Bishop.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) came in third place this year, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- who was notably not invited to this year's conference -- coming in fourth.
Paul received 25 percent of the vote, with Rubio in a close second with 23 percent. Santorum received eight percent, and Christie took seven percent of the vote.
The Hill's Alexandra Jaffe reports 2,930 registrants participated in the straw poll this year.
Source
|
Well now Rand Paul's filibuster makes even more sense. Nothing like some strong numbers in a meaningless straw poll to ride on in to the pre-pre-pre-election cycle.
|
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate.
|
I have to ask why everyone is Senator Rob Portman praise for backing marriage due to his Son being gay. For two years he knew his son was gay and for two years he kept up the bigoted dialogue in order to be more politically positioned especially when it was regarding his possible pick as a VP candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
