Krugman VS the market

[Jhhnn]

You ignore eskimospy's first chart, werepossum.

If state expenditures fall by $1T, and federal spending goes up by $500B, then total govt spending goes down, not up. Those numbers are fictitious, but they reflect reality.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

Might just as well spout pure gibberish, like "Cut spending to create Jobs!"

Hell, it'd probably make sense to the Tea Party base of the Republicans...

 

[rchiu]

No, you will dismiss the fact that the Bush tax cuts had little to do with helping employment because that fits your agenda.

As I recall, Krugman actually favored *a* tax cut to help the economy at the time - his objection was to weighting it for the rich as Bush did.

But we'll let Krugman answer the issue of the borrowed cuts and unemployment:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/

As it shows, the first cut was followed by higher unemployment, and the second, he explains, was followed by a drop in unemployment from the housing bubble.

But hey, let's compare the two parties' last president and ask who did jobs better:

So, you go ahead and keep twisting the facts. You say you are for lower unemployment; now look at the Clinton years chart, and you pick Republicans.

That's not 'proof' Democrats are better (but they are statistically far better over the last century), but you are for Republicans by twisting the facts.

Now who is twisting the fact here? 1st tax cut was in the middle of the recession so Krugman used the fact that unemployment rate wasn't doing too well during the recession to prove that it was not effective. Really? unemployment rate will always suck in a recession, how do you know the tax cut didn't help prevent the recession to get worse? And when the unemployment rate is doing great after 2nd cut, it's the house bubble.

I know you guys are blind to reason and logic as long as your agenda is getting pushed. But come on, your one sided partisan bash of Bush's tax cut is too obvious.

And for the record, I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. I know Bill Clinton did a good job with his centrist policies, I hoped Hillary Clinton used the same group of people that helped Bill Clinton's admin a success. What I am pissed about is Obama and his liberal leftist agenda, wasteful stimulus on programs for his democratic agenda, attempt to repeal Bush Tax cut really for wealth redistribution (another democrat agenda) masked as deficit cut move.

Obama's records speak for itself, these days Krugman just acts as a mouth piece to the admin. I just hope more people can see through all these speeches and blogs, be it hope or economic theories, to understand that beneath all that, are nothing but their personal agenda, and their leftist agenda has lousy track record in boosting economy, proven over and over around the world.

 

[rchiu]

You ignore eskimospy's first chart, werepossum.

If state expenditures fall by $1T, and federal spending goes up by $500B, then total govt spending goes down, not up. Those numbers are fictitious, but they reflect reality.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

Might just as well spout pure gibberish, like "Cut spending to create Jobs!"

Hell, it'd probably make sense to the Tea Party base of the Republicans...

Same thing goes for democrats, don't spout pure gibberish like "increase tax to create job".

Let's all be consistent. Do we want to deal with deficit or economy issue. I mean what kind of credibility democrats have when they chose to deal with deficit when it comes to upper class tax increase, and have a 180 when it comes to big programs and big spending (democrats' program by the way), it's for boosting economy. How difficult it is for anyone to see all are just excuses to push their agenda and nothing really get fixed?

 

[Jhhnn]

top tier incomes & taxes apparently have little or nothing to do with job creation in this country, rchiu. If they did, we wouldn't be in this situation, because our rich are the richest in the world, & their taxes are easily the lowest of any Rich in the first world.

There's a reason they're referred to as the lootocracy. Trickledown economics is a lie, supported only by deficits & regressive payroll taxes. The Job Creators meme is just the same whore, different lipstick. She didn't even change her dress.

 

[fskimospy]

Now who is twisting the fact here? 1st tax cut was in the middle of the recession so Krugman used the fact that unemployment rate wasn't doing too well during the recession to prove that it was not effective. Really? unemployment rate will always suck in a recession, how do you know the tax cut didn't help prevent the recession to get worse? And when the unemployment rate is doing great after 2nd cut, it's the house bubble.

I know you guys are blind to reason and logic as long as your agenda is getting pushed. But come on, your one sided partisan bash of Bush's tax cut is too obvious.

And for the record, I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. I know Bill Clinton did a good job with his centrist policies, I hoped Hillary Clinton used the same group of people that helped Bill Clinton's admin a success. What I am pissed about is Obama and his liberal leftist agenda, wasteful stimulus on programs for his democratic agenda, attempt to repeal Bush Tax cut really for wealth redistribution (another democrat agenda) masked as deficit cut move.

Obama's records speak for itself, these days Krugman just acts as a mouth piece to the admin. I just hope more people can see through all these speeches and blogs, be it hope or economic theories, to understand that beneath all that, are nothing but their personal agenda, and their leftist agenda has lousy track record in boosting economy, proven over and over around the world.

It's so clear that you have never read what Krugman writes that it's painful. Why don't you go do that before commenting on it? He constantly criticizes the administration and its economic policies. If he's a mouthpiece for them, he's a really terrible one.

 

[Genx87]

No, Bush did that in no way, shape, or form. Do you really not see that?

First, as mentioned several times previously, tax cuts are ineffective fiscal stimulus for job creation. As already said, Krugman's primary complaint against them was that they weren't going to do what Bush said they were going to do. He was correct in this.

Like I said earlier. If he can explain why people werent seeking jobs in the past decade in raw numbers. I would give him credit. As it was, he made a guess jobs wouldnt be created in raw numbers because of the bush tax cuts. Nobody knows why jobs werent created in raw numbers. He was right for the wrong reason.

Second, If you look at what really happened from the Bush tax cuts you will see large increases in the deficit immediately after their passage. The US's fiscal situation under Bush began to deteriorate immediately upon his entry into office. The only reason the deficit picture looked better from 2005-2007 was that government tax receipts were fueled by a huge speculative real estate boom, and we all know the results of that. Why would we count a brief windfall that contributed to massive economic collapse as an example of good Keynesian economics? That wasn't Bush implementing deficit reduction policies, it was Bush sitting on a time bomb that exploded.

I didnt say it was good keynesian economics. I pointed out the fact he ran a deficit to prod the economy into moving along. For that, the deficit grew and shrank once it hit full employment. I personally think it is silly and Obama is proving again it just doesnt work. But that wont stop him from trying again tonight.

So once again, no. Bush grew deficits in good economic times and saw no job creation for his trouble. Deficits aren't either good or bad, they are necessary or unnecessary. They were unnecessary in the early-mid 2000's, and necessary now. Does that clear it up?

EDIT: Oh, and also it seems a bit strange for Bush to have taken a budget projected to be trillions in surplus, and then reduce it to trillions in future deficits as a sign that he was pursuing deficit reducing fiscal policies in good economic times.

You are talking to somebody would rather we not run any deficits and doesnt buy into the idea a govt can drive an economy.

As for your edit, what do you want me to say? Big govt types thrive on growing govt to the point the people cant pay for it anymore. Bush was no different than any other big govt type. If we could only freeze our govt in 1998.

 

[Genx87]

So the US not counting people who aren't looking for a job now is the correct way to measure unemployment? If they wanted to be part of the employment market they would be looking for a job, right?

Wages were also stagnant during the 2000's, which shows that employers were not having to fight harder in order to acquire or retain talent, which clearly indicates that the job market was not worker constrained. There's really no way to excuse the job creation data from the 2000s, it was dismal by every metric.

That is how we and the EU calculate unemployment. If you arent looking for a job why would you be counted in the numbers?

Why would anybody need to excuse the numbers? People as a whole simply for what ever reason stopped seeking employment in the last decade in raw numbers. Nobody knows that answer. And until they do, I hardly think it is worth pointing at it as bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said earlier. If he can explain why people werent seeking jobs in the past decade in raw numbers. I would give him credit. As it was, he made a guess jobs wouldnt be created in raw numbers because of the bush tax cuts. Nobody knows why jobs werent created in raw numbers. He was right for the wrong reason.

Right for the wrong reason how? There was not significant wage growth, which implies that the job market was not worker constrained. The economy didn't create jobs, and there is no evidence that it didn't do so due to a dearth of workers to fill them. The fact that women left the workforce does not affect this simple economic reality in any way, shape, or form. If wages had gone way up while job numbers stayed flat, that would mean that companies wanted to hire but were having trouble finding workers. This did not happen.

Period.

I didnt say it was good keynesian economics. I pointed out the fact he ran a deficit to prod the economy into moving along. For that, the deficit grew and shrank once it hit full employment. I personally think it is silly and Obama is proving again it just doesnt work. But that wont stop him from trying again tonight.

So now you get why Krugman and other Keynesians opposed it? It wasn't good economics. He was running unnecessary deficits in good economic times, something Keynesianism explicitly rejects. (it doesn't argue that every time we drop a tiny bit below full employment that we start running huge deficits) That he did it in service of giving tons of cash to rich people is just the shit icing on the shit policy cake. Oh, and as to their efficacy, China implemented a massive Keynesian program at the outset of the recession. Seems like it worked pretty well for them.

You are talking to somebody would rather we not run any deficits and doesnt buy into the idea a govt can drive an economy.

As for your edit, what do you want me to say? Big govt types thrive on growing govt to the point the people cant pay for it anymore. Bush was no different than any other big govt type. If we could only freeze our govt in 1998.

You argued that Bush engaged in Keynesian economics, my edit and my other comments were to show you that he did not, he just cut taxes a lot and ran up deficits for no good reason.

 

[fskimospy]

That is how we and the EU calculate unemployment. If you arent looking for a job why would you be counted in the numbers?

Why would anybody need to excuse the numbers? People as a whole simply for what ever reason stopped seeking employment in the last decade in raw numbers. Nobody knows that answer. And until they do, I hardly think it is worth pointing at it as bad.

We actually calculate unemployment in a large number of different ways, many of which include people not actively looking for work.

 

[werepossum]

You ignore eskimospy's first chart, werepossum.

If state expenditures fall by $1T, and federal spending goes up by $500B, then total govt spending goes down, not up. Those numbers are fictitious, but they reflect reality.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

Might just as well spout pure gibberish, like "Cut spending to create Jobs!"

Hell, it'd probably make sense to the Tea Party base of the Republicans...

I actually didn't understand what that chart represented. Even if it represents total government spending, it's clearly an intentionally deceiving chart. It shows "Real Government Consumption Expenditures & Gross Investment, 1 decimal" dropping from +$50 billion to almost -$60 billion in just over two years. I'm still not sure if the chart is supposed to represent that the drop in total yearly government spending is over a trillion dollars (100 x $110 billion.) If so, I call bullshit.

Obviously this is a Mann chart. Either it intentionally takes a very small difference and tries to make it look like a very large difference, or it preferentially selects one small portion of government spending, declares it to be the important factor, and then shows how calamitously it has dropped.

 

[JSt0rm]

3. Printing lots of money. Results on display here

I love that nick had his own thread locked in that we figured out he is in fact a government worker who was complaining about not getting a raise. He was also complaining about paying more taxes.

How stupid can these people be. To think i actually believed that he owned his own it company in chicago. Fucking lol.

 

[momeNt]

I love that nick had his own thread locked in that we figured out he is in fact a government worker who was complaining about not getting a raise. He was also complaining about paying more taxes.

How stupid can these people be. To think i actually believed that he owned his own it company in chicago. Fucking lol.

You're derailing bro!

 

[JSt0rm]

You're derailing bro!

yeah shouldnt point out logical fallacy from poster in here regarding economics.

"im a government worker, cut taxes and give me a raise" 😱

why this person should be taken seriously is beyond me.

 

[werepossum]

yeah shouldnt point out logical fallacy from poster in here regarding economics.

"im a government worker, cut taxes and give me a raise" 😱

why this person should be taken seriously is beyond me.

Those two beliefs are an unlikely pair, but not necessarily incompatible. If one works for the government, one can believe himself underpaid, and could even be right if one assumes a right to be paid as well as non-government workers with equivalent requirements and responsibilities. (Using my criteria - that a job's correct pay is the intersection of what one party will pay and another will accept - he could not consider himself underpaid.)

It is also possible for that person to believe that government is doing too many things and therefore is taxing too much; the logical conclusion would be that government needs to discontinue some practices and/or outlays and thus require less tax money. Assuming that our hypothetical person believes himself to be employed in one of those things that government should be doing, he would not believe that his particular job should be cut. So under certain circumstances it is possible and even likely that a person can be a government employee who believes government should be smaller and taxes lower, but that he himself is underpaid. A belief that oneself is underpaid does not necessarily translate into a belief that everyone in that organization is underpaid or even necessary.

 

[JSt0rm]

Those two beliefs are an unlikely pair, but not necessarily incompatible.

For republicans its the norm.

 

[werepossum]

For republicans its the norm.

LOL It is simpler to be a Democrat.

You have more money than me? Gimme it!

You have less money than me? Go get some of this guy's money; I need all mine but he's got more than he needs.

 

[fskimospy]

Those two beliefs are an unlikely pair, but not necessarily incompatible. If one works for the government, one can believe himself underpaid, and could even be right if one assumes a right to be paid as well as non-government workers with equivalent requirements and responsibilities. (Using my criteria - that a job's correct pay is the intersection of what one party will pay and another will accept - he could not consider himself underpaid.)

It is also possible for that person to believe that government is doing too many things and therefore is taxing too much; the logical conclusion would be that government needs to discontinue some practices and/or outlays and thus require less tax money. Assuming that our hypothetical person believes himself to be employed in one of those things that government should be doing, he would not believe that his particular job should be cut. So under certain circumstances it is possible and even likely that a person can be a government employee who believes government should be smaller and taxes lower, but that he himself is underpaid. A belief that oneself is underpaid does not necessarily translate into a belief that everyone in that organization is underpaid or even necessary.

This is all very true.

Man, why is it that you can see the nuance and shades of grey in conservative opinion, but hold such a ridiculous, black and white, caricatured view of liberals?

 

[JSt0rm]

LOL It is simpler to be a Democrat.

You have more money than me? Gimme it!

You have less money than me? Go get some of this guy's money; I need all mine but he's got more than he needs.

No. Your simplistic world view stems from your inability to think.

We have a decade of proof that republicans cut taxes and spend. You have some view of democrats that you learned from am radio stations while driving your big rig.

I would say there are probably 2 of you republicans on this forum that have actual real interests in the republican party stance. The rest of you are useful manipulated idiots.

 

[werepossum]

This is all very true.

Man, why is it that you can see the nuance and shades of grey in conservative opinion, but hold such a ridiculous, black and white, caricatured view of liberals?

Because liberals have ridiculous, black and white, caricatured views, of course! 😀

Honestly, this isn't necessarily a conservative view. One could be a federally employed mental health counselor for the poor, feel severely underpaid, think we spend far too much on defense, and believe that taxes should be cut by slashing the defense budget. Granted, thinking that taxes are too high is typically much more associated with conservative thought, but I could make the case from either viewpoint. If nothing else, our hypothetical federally employed mental health counselor for the poor could believe that taxes should be radically raised on the rich but cut for poor people like himself. Why should someone like himself, doing vital yeoman work in the trenches with little support, have to pay for his own Social Security from his meager paycheck while others collect many times as much doing nothing? Or worse, for being CEOs? Or worst of all, for being part of the death cult of the military-industrial complex?

A belief that one's own taxes are too high does not necessarily imply a belief that government revenue is too high, merely that one's own importance is not properly nor fairly being recognized.

 

[werepossum]

No. Your simplistic world view stems from your inability to think.

We have a decade of proof that republicans cut taxes and spend. You have some view of democrats that you learned from am radio stations while driving your big rig.

I would say there are probably 2 of you republicans on this forum that have actual real interests in the republican party stance. The rest of you are useful manipulated idiots.

You are assuming that my interests are purely financial self-interest. Taking money for myself from others simply because they earn or have more may seem to be in my best interests in a strictly financial sense, but it is morally repugnant to me. It is akin to thinking that if my buddy has a beautiful wife and I can have sex with her without he or my wife finding out, then it is in my best interests to do so. Not everything without bad effects is good.

I can remember when we never locked our doors because people, at least around our area, were honest. Those who needed charity, took it humbly and with appreciation; those who had less but enough didn't try to take it from those who had more. Making a better life with more opportunities for one's children was a common and honorable personal goal, not something one expected the government to furnish and someone else to fund. A rich man would be respected or disdained not for being rich, but for his behavior - for how he made his money, but even more so for how he treated other people. Having money was like being tall or being attractive - nice to have, but not putting you into a class to admire or envy.

I don't have a lot, but what I have I have earned. That to me is worth more than the prospect of someone else's wealth/earnings being redistributed into my pocket. I have no envy; I have no sense of entitlement. And I'm happy.

 

[bfdd]

Point to me all the new industry and jobs our spending has created. I don't see them, if they existed would we be talking about extending more unemployment cuts? How bout them unemployment numbers they went down!(for white people) but it's only because they're no longer counting certain individuals any longer, like it has been for awhile.

Where is all the wealth generation from our stimulus spending? IT DOESN'T EXIST. the money simply went into the pockets of very few and we have next to nothing to show for it. GOVERNMENT JOBS DO NOT CREATE WEALTH, THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT THE BIGGER THE PRIVATE SECTOR REQUIRED TO SUPPORT IT(unless we're talking about a centrally planned economy of course). SPEND SPEND SPEND, idiots.

 

[JSt0rm]

Point to me all the new industry and jobs our spending has created. I don't see them, if they existed would we be talking about extending more unemployment cuts? How bout them unemployment numbers they went down!(for white people) but it's only because they're no longer counting certain individuals any longer, like it has been for awhile.

Where is all the wealth generation from our stimulus spending? IT DOESN'T EXIST. the money simply went into the pockets of very few and we have next to nothing to show for it. GOVERNMENT JOBS DO NOT CREATE WEALTH, THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT THE BIGGER THE PRIVATE SECTOR REQUIRED TO SUPPORT IT(unless we're talking about a centrally planned economy of course). SPEND SPEND SPEND, idiots.

didnt they fight the spending in 1936? It created 5 more years of depression. You neocons zig when you should zag.

 

[Jhhnn]

Point to me all the new industry and jobs our spending has created. I don't see them, if they existed would we be talking about extending more unemployment cuts? How bout them unemployment numbers they went down!(for white people) but it's only because they're no longer counting certain individuals any longer, like it has been for awhile.

Where is all the wealth generation from our stimulus spending? IT DOESN'T EXIST. the money simply went into the pockets of very few and we have next to nothing to show for it. GOVERNMENT JOBS DO NOT CREATE WEALTH, THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT THE BIGGER THE PRIVATE SECTOR REQUIRED TO SUPPORT IT(unless we're talking about a centrally planned economy of course). SPEND SPEND SPEND, idiots.

So, uhh, where did the interstate highway system come from, anyway? Air traffic control? Flood control & irrigation systems? Streets & sewers? Thousands of structures still standing created by the WPA?

There's a list of beneficial govt actions one helluva lot longer than that for anybody who's not a raving anti-gubmint nutjob...

 

[JSt0rm]

So, uhh, where did the interstate highway system come from, anyway? Air traffic control? Flood control & irrigation systems? Streets & sewers? Thousands of structures still standing created by the WPA?

There's a list of beneficial govt actions one helluva lot longer than that for anybody who's not a raving anti-gubmint nutjob...

These right wingers are unreal in their ignorance. No wonder they vote how they do. They are grade a dumbfucks.

 

[rchiu]

So, uhh, where did the interstate highway system come from, anyway? Air traffic control? Flood control & irrigation systems? Streets & sewers? Thousands of structures still standing created by the WPA?

There's a list of beneficial govt actions one helluva lot longer than that for anybody who's not a raving anti-gubmint nutjob...

uhh, you didn't answer the question. where are god damn jobs from all the stimulus since 2009?

You can't answer it. Because all the stimulus has been wasted on democrat agenda like non productive social programs and green energy companies that cannot compete with China.

there are real stimulus and stimulus that got feed into black hole with nothing to show for. Which one is more likely when you let politicians to decide how the stimulus will be spent on.