| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Looks like a rehash of the Krugman article you already posted. My question still stands. Does government spending boost employment? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 07 2012 15:57 paralleluniverse wrote: A poll of of economists about their take on the slow recovery and Obama's performance: http://www.economist.com/node/21564175 I can already see tomorrows headline: SHOCKER! Poll of liberal people thinks Obama will do better! | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Does government spending boost employment? of course it does -- on a temporary basis. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Does government spending boost employment? It can. Regardless, I think you don't understand my question. Both the article you linked here and the Krugman article make an extremely weak case that Romney is advocating "military Keynesianism". | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:45 BluePanther wrote: I can already see tomorrows headline: SHOCKER! Poll of liberal people thinks Obama will do better! It's not Obama's fault that most economists are liberal. Only 7% of the economists were Republicans. But, I would not take serious economic advice from anyone who isn't an economist. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It can. Regardless, I think you don't understand my question. Both the article you linked here and the Krugman article make an extremely weak case that Romney is advocating "military Keynesianism". The article is not saying that Romney wants to stimulate the economy by more military spending. The article is saying that Romney is a hypocrite. If government spending can boost employment, and we have an unemployment problem, then the part of the solution is more government spending. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote: of course it does -- on a temporary basis. Of course it's meant to be on a temporary basis. So the government should use stimulus to permanently increase employment, even after the economy has recovered? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:53 paralleluniverse wrote: The article is not saying that Romney wants to stimulate the economy by more military spending. The article is saying that Romney is a hypocrite. If government spending can boost employment, and we have an unemployment problem, then the part of the solution is more government spending. The article makes an extremely weak case that Romney is being a hypocrite. Government spending can both help and hurt the economy. You need to make a better case than "it can (a possible outcome) so it will (a guaranteed outcome)." | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 07 2012 16:55 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course it's meant to be on a temporary basis. So the government should use stimulus to permanently increase employment, even after the economy has recovered? lol, no. because the market eventually tries to hit an equillibrium. this would be a disaster for an economy, since any attempt to pull back that funding would lead to a recession (or at least a hiccup). | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On October 07 2012 13:48 xDaunt wrote: ...and this is the big flaw in socialized medicine. It is rationed. The government can't give top quality care to everyone for every condition. Only a market-based healthcare system can do that. This is why so many Americans are resistant to socialized medicine. They have access to world class healthcare already through their private health insurance (generally employer-provided). Healthcare is rationed under a market system too, but money is more of a consideration in the rationing. There is no supernatural power either inherent in the market or imbued into it by a god or gods that gives it infinite resources to avoid rationing in healthcare or any other thing. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The article makes an extremely weak case that Romney is being a hypocrite. Government spending can both help and hurt the economy. You need to make a better case than "it can (a possible outcome) so it will (a guaranteed outcome)." The article basically argues that Romney is opposed to government spending to create jobs. But he is OK with government spending on military, because it will create jobs Romney thinks reducing the deficit will help the economy. But he is against hitting the fiscal cliff, which will reduce the deficit. How is that not hypocrisy? Romney does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:28 BluePanther wrote: lol, no. because the market eventually tries to hit an equillibrium. this would be a disaster for an economy, since any attempt to pull back that funding would lead to a recession (or at least a hiccup). I think you have no idea what you're talking about. The idea of stimulus is to provide a temporary increase in spending in an attempt to temporarily increase employment until the economy recovers. If the economy recovers, then fiscal policy (and monetary policy), should rightly be tightened (decrease government spending) to prevent the economy from overheating, which would lead to high inflation, i.e. it would not cause a recession, it would prevent high inflation. I have no idea what "equilibrium" you're talking about. I think you threw that word in to sound more sophisticated. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:44 paralleluniverse wrote: I think you have no idea what you're talking about. The idea of stimulus is to provide a temporary increase in spending in an attempt to temporarily increase employment until the economy recovers. If the economy recovers, then fiscal policy (and monetary policy), should rightly be tightened (decrease government spending) to prevent the economy from overheating, which would lead to high inflation, i.e. it would not cause a recession, it would prevent high inflation. I have no idea what "equilibrium" you're talking about. I think you threw that word in to sound more sophisticated. I think you're being super condescending for absolutely no reason at all. Of course it gets lowered. Because like I said, it's only a temporary fix. If you leave it inflated after the fact, then you're screwed, like I said -- "temporary basis". You didn't say a single thing different from me. You just dressed it up with terminology. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:52 BluePanther wrote: I think you're being super condescending for absolutely no reason at all. Of course it gets lowered. Because like I said, it's only a temporary fix. If you leave it inflated after the fact, then you're screwed, like I said -- "temporary basis". You didn't say a single thing different from me. You just dressed it up with terminology. What gets lowered? You say "temporary" as if it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a feature, not a bug. The recession is temporary. So to deal with it the government should temporarily increase spending on stimulus until the economy recovers. If that stimulus is withdrawn when the economy recovers, together with the help of the central bank, it would not cause the economy to fall back into recession. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:40 paralleluniverse wrote: The article basically argues that Romney is opposed to government spending to create jobs. But he is OK with government spending on military, because it will create jobs Romney thinks reducing the deficit will help the economy. But he is against hitting the fiscal cliff, which will reduce the deficit. How is that not hypocrisy? Romney does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him. Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that. The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this. Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him. | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 07 2012 18:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that. The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this. Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him. But Romney is running ads on the fact that cuts in defense spending will cut jobs. So this implies that increases in spending will increase jobs. Why doesn't Romney run ads saying that government should increase spending to create jobs? I understand, from Keynesian economics, why the fiscal cliff is a terrible thing. But what I don't understand is how someone who rejects Keynesian economics (sometimes, when it suits him to do so), comes to the same conclusion. Most Republicans believe cutting the deficit will lead to economic growth and a path out of the great recession. I don't understand how someone with these beliefs can conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:58 paralleluniverse wrote: What gets lowered? You say "temporary" as if it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a feature, not a bug. The recession is temporary. So to deal with it the government should temporarily increase spending on stimulus until the economy recovers. If that stimulus is withdrawn when the economy recovers, together with the help of the central bank, it would not cause the economy to fall back into recession. The idea that the temporary feature is a good thing is an opinion, not a fact. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On October 07 2012 18:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that. The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this. Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him. From what i have read the proposed spending on defence would be a complete waste of money, particular when the economy is such an important issue to be addressed. The fiscal cliff may reduce deficit but could result in another recession right? So I understand that one. You can't honestly support Romney in one sentence and then talk down about Obama's economic policy. Romney's is as patchworked and BS depending on what day you ask him. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 07 2012 17:58 paralleluniverse wrote: What gets lowered? You say "temporary" as if it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a feature, not a bug. The recession is temporary. So to deal with it the government should temporarily increase spending on stimulus until the economy recovers. If that stimulus is withdrawn when the economy recovers, together with the help of the central bank, it would not cause the economy to fall back into recession. Government spending/manipulation (whichever it chooses to engage in). But this all assumes that there isn't a more fundamental reason for unemployment. Throwing money at it only works if you're throwing money in the right places. Say we have full employment plus 50 construction workers who are unemployed. There is a demand for bakers. To fix this, we say "ok, we'll build a road. we need roads right now. this will fix the problem." Great. Problem fixed-- until the road is finished. We have 50 unemployed construction workers again. Companies are hiring bakers right now though -- they just cant find someone to do the job. Do you just build another road that you don't need? Simply spending doesn't work if there is another problem that goes beyond the business cycle. | ||
| ||
WardiTV European League
Playoffs Day 2
ShoWTimE vs ShamelessLIVE!
HeRoMaRinE vs SKillous
ByuN vs TBD
WardiTV967
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
Wardi Open
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.
