France to form new government

[dphantom]

so we see the level of discourse to which our statists rise.

 

[dank69]

so we see the level of discourse to which our statists rise.

Statist, lol. Anti-GOP makes me statist. :awe:

 

[Jhhnn]

That "mal-distribution of income" is what has prevented inflation. If the deficit spending had flowed to consumers rather than the wealthy, there would be inflation, negating the effect of that stimulus. Why is that so hard to understand?

If deficits had flowed to consumers, demand would have increased along with jobs, thus creating growth & removing the need for stimulus.

The liberal answer is always "people need to buy more shit." That's as much a failed economic policy as right wing economics, you idiots just haven't realized it yet.

Well, so long as we have an economy demanding growth for prosperity to be shared, we'll need more jobs and therefore more production, obviously. OTOH, if demand is weak, none of that will happen as well as it could.

It's hard to do that when the top 1% share of national income doubled & more since 1978. The only increase in demand there is for financial instruments.

Which is what's wrong with the way conservatives look at the world- they think it's still 1978. For a dwindling share of upper middle class people, it still is. You know, back when unions were strong, taxes were high, airlines were regulated & offshoring was just a gleam in the eye of American capitalists. When people actually received pensions. When housing was much, much less expensive. Automation was in its infancy, & financial wizards hadn't invented derivatives, gaussian cupolas & a few other spectacular flimflams.

Yet they've come to hate all the things that made 1978 into, you know, 1978. All of that New Deal stuff. They embraced all the things that made 2008 into 2008, and simply cannot question their own wisdom in going along with it.

How'd we get here? Same way we got to 1929. Take a look at what you believe to figure it out.

 

[Jhhnn]

so we see the level of discourse to which our statists rise.

As if using the term "statist" isn't just libertopian flame-bait.

I can play that too.

 

[First]

I like how you're trying to make your inability to use objective sources into anyone's fault but your own. That speaks volumes about you. Anyone interested in having a reasonable discussion wouldn't be citing the Heritage Foundation.

You know better than this.

Yeah, as an aside, I dealt with this exact situation as an undergrad in Economics. It was a discussion section in our Econ department about international economics and I literally saw a student laughed at in front of a class for using Heritage as a source (by students, not the prof). When he protested people's incredulity at the source, claiming that the conclusions Heritage came to were based on other non-partisan studies, the professor asked if the student had actually vetted the non-partisan studies' conclusions, or if they took Heritage's analysis of the studies at face value. The silence was deafening.

Overall, to even have to parse a source as partisan as Heritage is not worth the time or effort. If you were a betting man, you'd bet that a vast majority of Econ departments around the country take very little they say seriously. They're a great place for conservative ideas, but as an objective and sober source of analysis they simply fall way, way short. They used to be more credible, to some degree, albeit conservative. But they've been off the rails many years now.

EDIT: Here's their about page on Heritage.org:

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

....

The Heritage Foundation combines the three key elements necessary to achieve conservative policy successes -- effective research, superb communications, and first-rate advocacy. The Research, Strategic Communications, and Policy Promotion teams, supported by the Development Team and working with the leaders and advocates at Heritage Action for America and its team across the country, pursue conservative policies to help Americans build for themselves a better life.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is the IMF considered a biased source as well?

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/pdf/c3.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

Is the IMF considered a biased source as well?

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/pdf/c3.pdf

I'm so glad you mentioned that study:

Consolidation is more painful when it relies primarily on tax hikes; this occurs largely because central banks typically provide less monetary stimulus during such episodes, particularly when they involve indirect tax hikes that raise inflation.

ie: it has little to do with tax hikes themselves, it has to do with poor monetary policy choices by the central bank when tax hikes are involved. There is nothing inherent to tax hikes that make such a choice necessary.

Out of curiosity, I would think that as a credible and objective source that was not attempting to mislead its readers the Heritage Foundation would surely have mentioned the fact that the adverse effects from tax increases were largely due to central bankers being less willing to pursue looser monetary policy.

Can you point me to where this is in their work?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm so glad you mentioned that study:



ie: it has little to do with tax hikes themselves, it has to do with poor monetary policy choices by the central bank when tax hikes are involved. There is nothing inherent to tax hikes that make such a choice necessary.

Out of curiosity, I would think that as a credible and objective source that was not attempting to mislead its readers the Heritage Foundation would surely have mentioned the fact that the adverse effects from tax increases were largely due to central bankers being less willing to pursue looser monetary policy.

Can you point me to where this is in their work?

The subject was tax increase vs. spending cut austerity programs and their relative effectiveness. The IMF report clearly states that spending cut austerity programs are much more effective in reducing debt and keeping unemployment low.

 

[fskimospy]

The subject was tax increase vs. spending cut austerity programs and their relative effectiveness. The IMF report clearly states that spending cut austerity programs are much more effective in reducing debt and keeping unemployment low.

So you're then agreeing with me and the IMF's analysis that the difference is largely monetary policy driven and not from the actual effects of the tax increases themselves? If that's the case, shouldn't you be advocating for better monetary policy?

After that, can you explain how this pertains to France, considering that the ECB doesn't make policy based on France's choices? That's like saying the Fed would cut or increase rates based on New York State's fiscal policy choices.

 

[glenn1]

So you're then agreeing with me and the IMF's analysis that the difference is largely monetary policy driven and not from the actual effects of the tax increases themselves? If that's the case, shouldn't you be advocating for better monetary policy?

After that, can you explain how this pertains to France, considering that the ECB doesn't make policy based on France's choices? That's like saying the Fed would cut or increase rates based on New York State's fiscal policy choices.

IMF is talking about fiscal policy, not monetary. If you now favor monetary over fiscal policy I have mixed feelings - while I'm glad you're now recognizing the follies of the spending "stimulus" on unproductive economic sectors you support, on the downside it also means you support Greenspan's Qualitative Easing and other artificial measures which are severely distorting the economy.

 

[fskimospy]

IMF is talking about fiscal policy, not monetary. If you now favor monetary over fiscal policy I have mixed feelings - while I'm glad you're now recognizing the follies of the spending "stimulus" on unproductive economic sectors you support, on the downside it also means you support Greenspan's Qualitative Easing and other artificial measures which are severely distorting the economy.

Uhmm, you need to read better. IMF is talking about both and how they interact with one another, which is quite obvious from the piece. As for your interpretation of my position on the issue, it's approximately as good as your interpretation of the IMF piece. The evidence for the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus is overwhelming.

Also, it's quantitative easing, not qualitative easing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you're then agreeing with me and the IMF's analysis that the difference is largely monetary policy driven and not from the actual effects of the tax increases themselves? If that's the case, shouldn't you be advocating for better monetary policy?

After that, can you explain how this pertains to France, considering that the ECB doesn't make policy based on France's choices? That's like saying the Fed would cut or increase rates based on New York State's fiscal policy choices.

Firstly, are you agreeing that spending based austerity programs have demonstrated themselves in actual practice to be superior in comparison to tax based austerity programs...specifically in regards their effects on debt reduction and unemployment?

 

[fskimospy]

Firstly, are you agreeing that spending based austerity programs have demonstrated themselves in actual practice to be superior in comparison to tax based austerity programs...specifically in regards their effects on debt reduction and unemployment?

Sure!

Now that's out of the way, will you explain why that would cause you to advocate for spending cuts instead of better monetary policy? And secondly, would you explain why this is in any way relevant to a state that does not have a central bank to call its own?

 

[glenn1]

Sure!

Now that's out of the way, will you explain why that would cause you to advocate for spending cuts instead of better monetary policy? And secondly, would you explain why this is in any way relevant to a state that does not have a central bank to call its own?

Eskimospy, let's explore your perfect world where stimulus has induced every consumer to pull forward their spending to maximize current consumption. We'll presume for sake of argument that accomplishing this would relieve all consumer anxiety and desire to save. After they've drawn down all savings and maxed out all available credit, how exactly do you see that scenario as sustainable? What happens when the poor guy who spend all his money buying consumer goods loses his job and can't pay the mortgage?

 

[fskimospy]

Eskimospy, let's explore your perfect world where stimulus has induced every consumer to pull forward their spending to maximize current consumption. We'll presume for sake of argument that accomplishing this would relieve all consumer anxiety and desire to save. After they've drawn down all savings and maxed out all available credit, how exactly do you see that scenario as sustainable? What happens when the poor guy who spend all his money buying consumer goods loses his job and can't pay the mortgage?

That doesn't make any sense. Your spending is my income and my spending is your income. How did we all run out of money?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sure!

Now that's out of the way, will you explain why that would cause you to advocate for spending cuts instead of better monetary policy? And secondly, would you explain why this is in any way relevant to a state that does not have a central bank to call its own?

I'm glad to see that you agree with the Heritage Foundation's conclusion. Now that didn't hurt too much...did it? :biggrin:

 

[dphantom]

I'm glad to see that you agree with the Heritage Foundation's conclusion. Now that didn't hurt too much...did it? :biggrin:

:awe:

 

[fskimospy]

I'm glad to see that you agree with the Heritage Foundation's conclusion. Now that didn't hurt too much...did it? :biggrin:

Of course I don't. They conclude that the answer is then spending cuts over tax increases when the logical conclusion is for better and more consistent monetary policy. Doesn't it bother you that sources you look to for understanding are so dishonest with you? I mean, how many times can you be duped before you discount them?

All that aside, I'm still waiting for any reason why this is relevant to the French situation, considering their lack of a central bank to call their own.

 

[chucky2]

Heck, I'm still waiting on the $25k for every net taxpayer stimulus plan to happen. I mean if we're going to blow tons of money we don't have, at least let the people on the hook for the eventual bailout blow their own money we don't have ahead of time instead of on pet political handouts. How is that pitch going? No takers since the Politicians couldn't give to their targeted interests? Oh Bummer...

 

[dphantom]

Of course I don't. They conclude that the answer is then spending cuts over tax increases when the logical conclusion is for better and more consistent monetary policy. Doesn't it bother you that sources you look to for understanding are so dishonest with you? I mean, how many times can you be duped before you discount them?

All that aside, I'm still waiting for any reason why this is relevant to the French situation, considering their lack of a central bank to call their own.

describe for us then what you view a better and more consistent monetary policy would look like?

 

[chucky2]

His view is, Spend when things aren't going well, and, when things aren't going well, do that and say to reign in spending when things are going well and tax more, but then, obviously, when things go well, spending is not reigned in and tax rates aren't boosted like they should be because that costs votes.

Essentially his plan in Reality is: Spend more, always, always. I'm actually in favor of it now, I just want all net taxpayers to get the vote sellout money equally, and not it be directed by scumbags, i.e. Politicians and lawyers.

 

[fskimospy]

describe for us then what you view a better and more consistent monetary policy would look like?

Monetary policy that treats both forms of fiscal consolidation equally, assuming all other factors are also equal. Doesn't that just make sense?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Of course I don't. They conclude that the answer is then spending cuts over tax increases when the logical conclusion is for better and more consistent monetary policy. Doesn't it bother you that sources you look to for understanding are so dishonest with you? I mean, how many times can you be duped before you discount them?

All that aside, I'm still waiting for any reason why this is relevant to the French situation, considering their lack of a central bank to call their own.

See Post#76.

The only reason I linked the Heritage article and quoted portions in the first place was in answer to your question if I had evidence supporting my position that spending based austerity programs were superior to tax based programs. Heritage cited several studies supporting this point. I linked the IMF report which also supports this point. And you now agree with this point. All is good.

 

[dphantom]

So let's apply that statement to France. Since France implemented its version of austerity measures - tax increases and spending cuts - what would you do differently?

 

[fskimospy]

See Post#76.

The only reason I linked the Heritage article and quoted portions in the first place was in answer to your question if I had evidence supporting my position that spending based austerity programs were superior to tax based programs. Heritage cited several studies supporting this point. I linked the IMF report which also supports this point. And you now agree with this point. All is good.

This is not correct. What's the confusion? Bad monetary policy is not inherent to tax increases. Spending cuts are only superior if you assume that we must have bad monetary policy, which is nonsensical.

You were duped by Heritage. I sincerely hope you take the lessons of the IMF study to heart.