|
On April 30 2013 05:00 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 04:58 XenOmega wrote:
If austerity is never a good thing, when we do repay our debts though? After the economy has recovered, of course. Or was your question rethorical?
The real answer is never.
Keynesians today don't believe in the second step of Keynes anymore. Paying down the principal on debt is a political bridge too far. There is never a time when increasing debt is not necessary. The economy is bad, we must increase our debt to make it good again. The economy is good, we must not pay off our debt because that might threaten the economy and governmental debt doesn't really matter anyway. That's modern model economic theory for you.
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s).
|
On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:00 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 30 2013 04:58 XenOmega wrote:
If austerity is never a good thing, when we do repay our debts though? After the economy has recovered, of course. Or was your question rethorical? The real answer is never. Keynesians today don't believe in the second step of Keynes anymore. Paying down the principal on debt is a political bridge too far. There is never a time when increasing debt is not necessary. The economy is bad, we must increase our debt to make it good again. The economy is good, we must not pay off our debt because that might threaten the economy and governmental debt doesn't really matter anyway. That's modern model economic theory for you. Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s).
Yes, the horror of the 1990s US economy was truly horrible. How did we all survive!
|
On April 30 2013 04:58 XenOmega wrote:
If austerity is never a good thing, when we do repay our debts though?
those 2 things arent the same.
|
On April 30 2013 05:15 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 30 2013 05:00 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 30 2013 04:58 XenOmega wrote:
If austerity is never a good thing, when we do repay our debts though? After the economy has recovered, of course. Or was your question rethorical? The real answer is never. Keynesians today don't believe in the second step of Keynes anymore. Paying down the principal on debt is a political bridge too far. There is never a time when increasing debt is not necessary. The economy is bad, we must increase our debt to make it good again. The economy is good, we must not pay off our debt because that might threaten the economy and governmental debt doesn't really matter anyway. That's modern model economic theory for you. Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). Yes, the horror of the 1990s US economy was truly horrible. How did we all survive!
I agree that the 97-00 bubble was truly horrifying since we have never actually recovered from its popping.
But you're not interested in an actual conversation, you're interested in red herrings about the 1990s. Do we live in the 1990s? Is 2013 Paul Krugman the same as 2002 Paul Krugman, who was very concerned about inflation (oops, he was wrong)? Is the 2013 Democratic Party the same as the 1996 Democratic Party? 2013 GOP same as 1996 GOP? These are very simple questions and when you have trouble with answering them please make sure to throw out a sarcastic red herring.
|
Since the US can't default because it can print money to service its debt, what's preventing them from printing enough money to pay off the entire debt?
|
On April 30 2013 05:23 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Since the US can't default because it can print money to service its debt, what's preventing them from printing enough money to pay off the entire debt?
Eventual loss of the dollar's status as world reserve currency. Which would then make it a lot harder to just print (they don't do that anymore anyway, they just type into a computer and bam 300 billion more dollars is added to the money supply) money until enough has been printed to pay off debt.
Why didn't say Argentina just print money to prevent it's default?
|
On April 30 2013 04:35 Rassy wrote:
As long as the gdp growth has a higher percentage then the interest percentage paid on debt times debt/gdp there is no problem. This is a mathematical indisputable fact.
edit: eh nevermind, i think i'm just not understanding.
|
On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s).
I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy.
Now where's that bridge?
|
On April 30 2013 05:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:23 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Since the US can't default because it can print money to service its debt, what's preventing them from printing enough money to pay off the entire debt? Eventual loss of the dollar's status as world reserve currency. Which would then make it a lot harder to just print (they don't do that anymore anyway, they just type into a computer and bam 300 billion more dollars is added to the money supply) money until enough has been printed to pay off debt. Why didn't say Argentina just print money to prevent it's default?
Because their debt was heavily in dollars. But yes, monetizing the debt would implicate in future inflation, which could very well endanger the dollar's position as the world reserve currency.
On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:00 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 30 2013 04:58 XenOmega wrote:
If austerity is never a good thing, when we do repay our debts though? After the economy has recovered, of course. Or was your question rethorical? The real answer is never. Keynesians today don't believe in the second step of Keynes anymore. Paying down the principal on debt is a political bridge too far. There is never a time when increasing debt is not necessary. The economy is bad, we must increase our debt to make it good again. The economy is good, we must not pay off our debt because that might threaten the economy and governmental debt doesn't really matter anyway. That's modern model economic theory for you. Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s).
I agree that paying off the principal of the debt is not gonna happen, but because it is largely unecessary and in fact in a way harmful since monetary policy (in practical terms) hinges on the control of the interest rate through buying and selling of government bonds. But that doesn't mean debt levels have to be unstable and always rising. No sane economist would advise to that.
What seems to be the case, though, is that you're cynical not only in relation to (liberal) politicians and pundits, but to the economics profession itself. There's really no discussion to be had when you envision that those who advocate for stimulus are in fact lying about their intents of reducing the debt in the future and that those economists that agree with them using economic theory are also deceivers.
|
On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge?
Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space.
Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views.
|
On April 30 2013 06:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge? Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space. Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views.
Have you read any of his actual books?
Also, the word is "detached".
|
On April 30 2013 06:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:20 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge? Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space. Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views. Have you read any of his actual books? Also, the word is "detached".
I'm not partisan enough to say that hes detached though. I admit what he says has academic groundings but they're completly dejected from common sense.
Papa no tought me the reads good so no.
|
I really don't understand that much of economics, but that sounds like a big mistake :D
|
On April 30 2013 05:23 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Since the US can't default because it can print money to service its debt, what's preventing them from printing enough money to pay off the entire debt?
Well, this is mostly a matter of semantic, but printing money does not actually reduce the public debt. The gov becomes increasingly more indebted to it's central bank, but how much public debt the central bank buys doesn't change the level of public indebtedness.
Government cannot default on it's debt obligations, even to it's own central bank, but naturally, the central bank deposits it's "winnings" into the treasury's pocket, thereby lessening the burden of being in debt for the government.
On the other hand, a central bank cannot just print as much money it likes, because printing lots of money means increasing expectations of inflation. High inflation has traditionally been a big problem caused by central banks financing wars and other reckless government spending. And that's basically how central banking works: You slowly increase the money supply in the economy to serve it's best interest (and the interest of the government to some limited extent), but you have to be careful how fast you go, since if you go too fast, the value of the money you are releasing into the economy will begin to fall too quickly (inflation).
These last few decades(from around the 1980s), central banks (including the fed) have mainly been charged with maintaining an expanding money supply, while keeping inflation to manageable levels, typically 1-3%.
|
I think this is a great example as to why economics can't be taken seriously as a scientific discipline until it actually gets a reliable peer review system.
This entire situation seems like a lack of oversight and review. The sad part is that the paper was used politically before it was shown to be wrong.
|
On April 30 2013 06:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:26 farvacola wrote:On April 30 2013 06:20 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge? Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space. Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views. Have you read any of his actual books? Also, the word is "detached". I'm not partisan enough to say that hes detached though. I admit what he says has academic groundings but they're completly dejected from common sense. Papa no tought me the reads good so no.
What do you think dejected means?
|
On April 30 2013 06:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:26 farvacola wrote:On April 30 2013 06:20 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge? Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space. Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views. Have you read any of his actual books? Also, the word is "detached". I'm not partisan enough to say that hes detached though. I admit what he says has academic groundings but they're completly dejected from common sense. Papa no tought me the reads good so no.
Well, the whole point of having an academia around, is that you don't have to make important decisions based on common sense, but on serious thinking.
Krugman is an outspoken advocate of liberal economic policy, a position he maintains for ethical reasons.
This public position has actually cost him massively during these last few years, since he has been correct on damn near everything for a decade or more, but hasn't gained political influence anywhere near what the now infamous Reinhart-Rogoff-et-al have managed to claim. A shame, but unfortunately that's how politics works.. either you are all-in or out with the people in power. In a way he is the ultimate in not-pandering, unwilling to compromise his integrity to the extent that there are people in high places who hate him, having never met him, even with all lib-con bias set aside.
I would respectfully add that Krugman does a pretty good job of explaining his thinking.
|
On April 30 2013 06:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge? Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space. Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views.
Because the money spent on the military could be spent far more efficiently elsewhere. If you cut $10 from military spending and spend $5 of that on another department to employ people and save the rest, you're going to get a win-win. The only product created by the military is death or tools that lead to death, so there isn't a second (or third, etc.) cycle of productivity that is developed by a military-based job like there is in almost any other sector of the economy.
|
On April 30 2013 06:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:20 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2013 05:46 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Or do you really think that at some point in the future someone like Paul Krugman would actually support cutting spending? Even if it was 10$ of tax hikes for every 1$ cut? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. It's a guaranteed success for you according to model modern economic theory (of the 1930s). I believe that people like Krugman would have no objection to, most obviously, cutting the military budget by $1 for every $10 of tax increases in a healthy economy, sans a war with China. In fact, I have trouble thinking of liberals who would object to decreases in military spending right now, let alone in a healthy economy. Now where's that bridge? Military gives a lot of middle class level employment to poor people while training them into a middle class job idk why liberals are so keen on cutting it. Not to mention the technological advancements that the military research gives into the commercial space. Krugman Is 100% dejected from reality and is nothing more then a liberal hack that keeps feeding his people. Most of his stuff is just predatory on peoples populist views. Because the money spent on the military could be spent far more efficiently elsewhere. If you cut $10 from military spending and spend $5 of that on another department to employ people and save the rest, you're going to get a win-win. The only product created by the military is death or tools that lead to death, so there isn't a second (or third, etc.) cycle of productivity that is developed by a military-based job like there is in almost any other sector of the economy.
That is incorrect sir. The makers of military stuff still spend their income and it goes through the economy as with any other sector. We don't measure a unit of production's usefulness by how many people's hands it passes through, but rather by how much an agent (any agent!, so long as they have the necessary purchasing power) is willing to spend on it. That's what defines how needed something is.
Military stuff maybe anti-social, but it's not bad business on purely rational terms.
|
On April 30 2013 06:29 Sermokala wrote:
I'm not partisan enough to say that hes detached though. I admit what he says has academic groundings but they're completly dejected from common sense.
Papa no tought me the reads good so no.
FYI, just because something is common sense doesn't make it true. There's plenty of findings out there that go against intuition.
On April 30 2013 07:03 Kontys wrote:
That is incorrect sir. The makers of military stuff still spend their income and it goes through the economy as with any other sector. We don't measure a unit of production's usefulness by how many people's hands it passes through, but rather by how much an agent (any agent!, so long as they have the necessary purchasing power) is willing to spend on it. That's what defines how needed something is.
Military stuff maybe anti-social, but it's not bad business on purely rational terms.
Actually, he's generally correct; the parable of the broken windows comes to mind. Money spent on useless crap is money wasted relative to money spent on useful crap.
Otherwise there would be no difference in spending money on, say, shoveling holes in the ground compared to spending money on reducing drunk driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
