|
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
|
On December 10 2008 07:46 Clutch3 wrote:To give a full rebuttal to this, I'd have to give a duelling weblink... maybe to Robert Reich's blog or his website... or maybe Krugman (google them both, they are very smart) or maybe to another economist who's on board with a Keynesian-type stimulus. But I'd just like to point out that it's very unlikely that Obama's going to raise any tax rates in the coming year, so this argument he's making may very well be built on sand. I'd also like to point out that skyrocketing unemployment means the U.S. economic engine is being underutilized (excess capacity), and while business is free to hire some of those people to take up the slack, it really doesn't seem like they are going to. Therefore we have two choices... have government stay out of it, let millions of people continue to become unemployed and lose their homes, and hope that businesses eventually regain their confidence and pull us out (something that didn't happen the last time the economic signs looked like this in 1929). Or we can use government as a "spender of last resort" to get people employed, which will curb foreclosures and help to stabilize the housing market, and (if we spend the money wisely and choose priorities correctly) also improve long-term productivity by building infrastructure and spurring private sector growth in key emerging markets (e.g. alternative energy).
I typed a longer response, but I don't want to get into a debate as I have a couple finals to study for 
But:
I've read Krugman and I don't like him. Always came off as too biased and intellectually dishonest. I will subscribe to Reich's blog though.
You can't increase spending without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it's debt, a rise in tax revenues, or inflation.
You cannot just magically 'stabilize the economy' or 'improve long-term productivity' whatever that means. I think that first article addresses this issue well.
I'm glad you brought up the Great Depression, and the myth that it was caused by a 'do-nothing' Hoover, and ended by Roosevelt's Progessive expansion of government, which on it's face should seem faulty as the Depression lasted more than a decade. Hoover was the exact opposite of 'do nothing.'
Please, please, please read this (I know, I'm taking the easy way out and linking an article, but just trust me): http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html Or at least the section where it discusses Hoover.
Interesting quote on FDR's actions:
The national banking holiday ended the protracted banking crisis, began to restore the public’s confidence in banks and the economy, and initiated a recovery from April through September 1933. President Roosevelt came into office proposing a New Deal for Americans, but his advisers believed, mistakenly, that excessive competition had led to overproduction, causing the depression. The centerpieces of the New Deal were the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Recovery Administration (NRA), both of which were aimed at reducing production and raising wages and prices. Reduced production, of course, is what happens in depressions, and it never made sense to try to get the country out of depression by reduc ing production further. In its zeal, the administration apparently did not consider the elementary impossibility of raising all real wage rates and all real prices.
The AAA immediately set out to slaughter six million baby pigs and reduce breeding sows to reduce pork production and raise prices. Since cotton plantings were thought to be excessive, cotton farmers were paid to plow under one-quarter of the forty million acres of cotton to reduce marketed production to boost prices. Most of the payments went to the landowners, not the tenants, making conditions desperate for tenant farmers. Though landowners were supposed to share the payments with their tenant farmers, they were not legally obligated to do so and most did not. As a result, tenant farmers, and especially black tenants, who were more easily discriminated against, received none of the payments and less or no income from cotton production after large portions of the crop were plowed under. Where persuasion was ineffective in inducing the many independent farmers to reduce production, the federal government intended to mandate production cutbacks and purchase the product to take it off the market and raise prices.
That's right. Farmer's were paid to reduce production. During a depression.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wonderful, we have now isolated the whole idea of marxism
|
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote:
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
Thank you. Actually the extreme liberal leaning of this site is what makes it fun for me to post here. I'm not all about posting when everyone agrees with me.
|
You can't increase spending without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it's debt, a rise in tax revenues, or inflation.
Unless you run a ponzi scheme, and why not, with US's credibility.
|
On December 10 2008 07:55 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 07:50 Savio wrote:
The whole idea behind Marxism and the Soviet Union was that if the government made decisions instead of the market, it could invest more heavily in capital investments which would stimulate future economic growth so that they would win in the long run.
Its had its trial several times and it has never succeeded. The market makes better decisions than government does and leads to economic growth. The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
EDIT: The theories abound but the evidence supports the market and condemns government control when it comes to economic growth. That's not the idea behind Marxism at all.
Ok, Marxism is probably much more broad as it branches into philosophy, politics, etc.
What I mean is that Soviet economic policy was all about making heavy capital investments with the thinking that in the long run, they would beat the US because they were "buying for the future".
It didn't work. The market always leads to the more growth than government control.
|
On December 10 2008 08:51 shmay wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 07:46 Clutch3 wrote:To give a full rebuttal to this, I'd have to give a duelling weblink... maybe to Robert Reich's blog or his website... or maybe Krugman (google them both, they are very smart) or maybe to another economist who's on board with a Keynesian-type stimulus. But I'd just like to point out that it's very unlikely that Obama's going to raise any tax rates in the coming year, so this argument he's making may very well be built on sand. I'd also like to point out that skyrocketing unemployment means the U.S. economic engine is being underutilized (excess capacity), and while business is free to hire some of those people to take up the slack, it really doesn't seem like they are going to. Therefore we have two choices... have government stay out of it, let millions of people continue to become unemployed and lose their homes, and hope that businesses eventually regain their confidence and pull us out (something that didn't happen the last time the economic signs looked like this in 1929). Or we can use government as a "spender of last resort" to get people employed, which will curb foreclosures and help to stabilize the housing market, and (if we spend the money wisely and choose priorities correctly) also improve long-term productivity by building infrastructure and spurring private sector growth in key emerging markets (e.g. alternative energy). I typed a longer response, but I don't want to get into a debate as I have a couple finals to study for But: I've read Krugman and I don't like him. Always came off as too biased and intellectually dishonest. I will subscribe to Reich's blog though. You can't increase spending without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it's debt, a rise in tax revenues, or inflation. You cannot just magically 'stabilize the economy' or 'improve long-term productivity' whatever that means. I think that first article addresses this issue well. I'm glad you brought up the Great Depression, and the myth that it was caused by a 'do-nothing' Hoover, and ended by Roosevelt's Progessive expansion of government, which on it's face should seem faulty as the Depression lasted more than a decade. Hoover was the exact opposite of 'do nothing.' Please, please, please read this (I know, I'm taking the easy way out and linking an article, but just trust me): http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html Or at least the section where it discusses Hoover. Interesting quote on FDR's actions: Show nested quote +The national banking holiday ended the protracted banking crisis, began to restore the public’s confidence in banks and the economy, and initiated a recovery from April through September 1933. President Roosevelt came into office proposing a New Deal for Americans, but his advisers believed, mistakenly, that excessive competition had led to overproduction, causing the depression. The centerpieces of the New Deal were the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Recovery Administration (NRA), both of which were aimed at reducing production and raising wages and prices. Reduced production, of course, is what happens in depressions, and it never made sense to try to get the country out of depression by reduc ing production further. In its zeal, the administration apparently did not consider the elementary impossibility of raising all real wage rates and all real prices.
The AAA immediately set out to slaughter six million baby pigs and reduce breeding sows to reduce pork production and raise prices. Since cotton plantings were thought to be excessive, cotton farmers were paid to plow under one-quarter of the forty million acres of cotton to reduce marketed production to boost prices. Most of the payments went to the landowners, not the tenants, making conditions desperate for tenant farmers. Though landowners were supposed to share the payments with their tenant farmers, they were not legally obligated to do so and most did not. As a result, tenant farmers, and especially black tenants, who were more easily discriminated against, received none of the payments and less or no income from cotton production after large portions of the crop were plowed under. Where persuasion was ineffective in inducing the many independent farmers to reduce production, the federal government intended to mandate production cutbacks and purchase the product to take it off the market and raise prices. That's right. Farmer's were paid to reduce production. During a depression.
Well, I don't think it helps anyone to link insanely long articles without being very precise with what points you are intending to make. But I will add that even if you believe that Roosevelt's policies did nothing to bring us out of the Depression, I assume you will then agree with the idea that it was WWII that brought us out of it. In that case, it would be hard for you to argue that temporary government spending cannot bring the economy out of a recessionary period, since that's exactly what happened when America geared up its war production from 1939-1945.
You mentioned that "you can't magically stabilize the economy or improve long-term productivity" but you definitely can. If you don't have enough tax revenue, it will take deficit spending, which will have to be paid back later, but there are many clear examples of such a stimulus paying for itself in the long run. For example: The government's investments involved in fighting WWII dramatically improved the productivity and economic might of the nation, and not just for the war years. Similarly, it's hard to argue that the creation of the interstate highway system, for example, is a clear case of government funding which led to long-term productivity gains. There are many more examples from the US and other countries.
I'm not sure why I have to argue such a point when there are many points in history which demonstrate this phenomenon clearly. Now, you can argue that our current situation is not one of those times, but saying that this kind of Keynesian stimulus NEVER works is a bit short-sighted. I also think saying that Krugman is intellectually dishonest is a little much... biased, perhaps. But the guy's a freaking world-class economic mind. Maybe those bastards in Sweden who give the Nobel prizes are all biased liberals too, because there're plenty of Nobelists in economics who agree with him.
I'm not arguing that Hoover caused the Depression, but it's interesting to see that the income tax rates were lowered throughout the 1920's and yet we still ran into this problem (eerily similar to today). And yet there are still lots of conservatives who think we can tax-cut our way out of this problem (Boehner specifically mentioned this quite recently).
|
On December 10 2008 12:25 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 07:55 Mindcrime wrote:On December 10 2008 07:50 Savio wrote:
The whole idea behind Marxism and the Soviet Union was that if the government made decisions instead of the market, it could invest more heavily in capital investments which would stimulate future economic growth so that they would win in the long run.
Its had its trial several times and it has never succeeded. The market makes better decisions than government does and leads to economic growth. The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
EDIT: The theories abound but the evidence supports the market and condemns government control when it comes to economic growth. That's not the idea behind Marxism at all. Ok, Marxism is probably much more broad as it branches into philosophy, politics, etc. What I mean is that Soviet economic policy was all about making heavy capital investments with the thinking that in the long run, they would beat the US because they were "buying for the future". It didn't work. The market always leads to the more growth than government control.
Comparing the ideas of a Paul Krugman or Robert Reich, regarding a Keynesian stimulus package, to the policy of the Soviet Union, is like comparing the philosophy of today's conservative Republicans to a band of caveman who believe only in "might makes right" and pure Darwinism. It comes off as a little silly to me. I mean, this is a one-time proposal of 4% of GDP. It's not exactly a command economy we're talking about here.
If you want to have an argument about this idea of the benefits of government investment, here's some questions: Do you think the creation of the Interstate Highway system was akin to Soviet policy (i.e. are you against it?) Were you against the creation of the Internet by DARPA spending? What about the government spending that led to the creation of the world wide web? Do you see any examples here where government investment might have led to long-term economic growth?
|
I swore I wouldn't get involved here, but since I've seen Krugman's name at least four times in a page an a half, It's important that we get something clear:
Paulie Krugman has become a complete and utter partisan hack.
I understand that he hates Bush. Many people do. I don't have particularly fond feelings for the man, myself (far from it in fact). However, Paulie has decided to abandon any semblance of academic objectivity to plug his political positions. Krugman is, not unlike many these days, completely obsessed with Bush. As is the case with many self-proclaimed pundits, network news reporters and random assholes, the only "facts" or "data" worth reporting on are those which manage to ascribe every worldly ill to Dubya.
|
On December 10 2008 13:26 tttt wrote:
I swore I wouldn't get involved here, but since I've seen Krugman's name at least four times in a page an a half, It's important that we get something clear:
Paulie Krugman has become a complete and utter partisan hack.
I understand that he hates Bush. Many people do. I don't have particularly fond feelings for the man, myself (far from it in fact). However, Paulie has decided to abandon any semblance of academic objectivity to plug his political positions. Krugman is, not unlike many these days, completely obsessed with Bush. As is the case with many self-proclaimed pundits, network news reporters and random assholes, the only "facts" or "data" worth reporting on are those which manage to ascribe every worldly ill to Dubya.
So, your argument is that because Krugman's a partisan hack, we can't take his opinion seriously in terms of his economic proposals? Why would his partisan hackery change his views on economic theory?
I would argue first of all, that his opinions on this type of situation have not changed in many years. He has agreed with Keynesian theory on this type of stuff for at least a decade (see his advice on Japan's economic crisis), and probably much longer (it's harder to know exactly what he felt earlier than that because his views were less publicized). Do you think he's been a partisan hack his whole life? If not, why would becoming a partisan hack change the validity of his views, which in all likelihood have remained the same since he was doing Nobel prize-winning work in the 1970s and 1980s. Please respond to these issues, I want to understand your argument more clearly.
Secondly, you're blaming the messenger while ignoring a few other issues.
1. First of all, plenty of prominent economists also agree with the idea of a Keynesian stimulus.
2. Secondly, the idea of hating Bush and the idea of this stimulus package aren't really connected in any serious way. Nikola Tesla was a rather crazy man, and he had his share of personal and professional "imbalances". Yet his ideas in physics should not be disregarded because of that. Wagner was a crazy nationalist, but his music can be appreciated apart from this.
3. Most importantly, you haven't argued at all against the idea of the stimulus itself. So, since you seem to object to Krugman, just pretend he never mentioned the idea, and pretend it was my idea alone. Now, what are your arguments against it?
|
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote:
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
This thread wasn't about economics until about page 27. Based on just that fact alone, your sweeping conclusions seem rather silly. I took the liberty of making your post truly silly, though, because it seemed like you held back a bit:
"Man, fuck Krugman. He wins a Nobel prize and all the sudden everyone thinks he's a genius. Don't these asshole college kids know that economics ended with Adam Smith? God damn.
And all this socialist stuff! What is this, an international community or something? I never have to read crap like this at the American Conservative, that's for sure.
This website is really fun when we're talking about starcraft and getting drunk, but a lot of these guys act like they care about the poor and stuff, wtf. Well, I'm at least going to distance myself from Bill O'Reilly before they think I'm some crazy right-wing whackjob or something. Yeesh, the backlash you get for worshiping the free market these days..."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i thought naive market rhetoric typified the econ 101 types?
|
The thing about market economics is that it's basically all theory. We've never really done it any other way, so there's no proof that anything actually works. We should give some of it a shot, though.
I posted this earlier, but it's funny enough for a repost.
|
On December 10 2008 16:59 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote:
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush. This thread wasn't about economics until about page 27. Based on just that fact alone, your sweeping conclusions seem rather silly. I took the liberty of making your post truly silly, though, because it seemed like you held back a bit: "Man, fuck Krugman. He wins a Nobel prize and all the sudden everyone thinks he's a genius. Don't these asshole college kids know that economics ended with Adam Smith? God damn. And all this socialist stuff! What is this, an international community or something? I never have to read crap like this at the American Conservative, that's for sure. This website is really fun when we're talking about starcraft and getting drunk, but a lot of these guys act like they care about the poor and stuff, wtf. Well, I'm at least going to distance myself from Bill O'Reilly before they think I'm some crazy right-wing whackjob or something. Yeesh, the backlash you get for worshiping the free market these days..."
Somehow, I don't imagine you'll ever be mistaken for Jonathon Swift.
|
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote:
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
Yes, because we know what a paragon of fact and reason Mr O'Reilly is....
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On December 19 2008 01:07 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote:
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush. Yes, because we know what a paragon of fact and reason Mr O'Reilly is....
did you even read that last line ? or is this just some troll attempt ?
|
10 pages of discussion with a mormon?, seriously guys what the fuck?
Do you guys also enjoy racing against cripples?
|
Extreme left? TL? Man, it goes to show how skewed/atypical the US definition of "center" is, if Savio is supposed to be any indication of balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3377/fiscalconservativesaz5.jpg)
