- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Says the OP in a rare moment of truth.
The author at your link is Larry Kudlow. Have you ever listened to Kudlow? He's a shit for brains raving jackass. He was one of Reagan's dumb ass "supply side" economists. We're currently trying to survive the results of how well that worked. :roll:
He was also the on-air partner of Jim Cramer, who is just as whack and far more manic.
This from wikipedia gives us some idea of the quality of his thinking:
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
[/quote]
I challenge anyone posting here to read every one of the thousands and thousands of pages of the "stimulus," "health care/(now known as) health insurance reform," or "cap and tax" bills and not be boggled.
I dare you to do so in four hours and then vote on your comprehensive understanding of the societal and economic impacts.
C'mon, I dare you.
Naaaah, you have to be a Congressman to achieve such prodigious feats.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Hmm, the leftish don't care for Kudlow. The voices of reason will not be stilled, however.
The Weak-Dollar Threat to Prosperity
The Weak-Dollar Threat to Prosperity
Measured in euros, U.S. per capita GDP is down 25% since 2000.
By DAVID MALPASS
Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 7, 2009
David Malpass is president of Encima Global LLC and former Chief Economist of Bear, Stearns. David Malpass is a top-ranked Wall Street economist and former senior Treasury and State Department official. He was ranked second in Economics by Institutional Investor's buyside polls in '05, '06, and '07. In Washington, David worked on major tax, trade and banking legislation, including the Brady Plan and the S&L bailout, giving him unusual insight into U.S. government policy-making processes. David co-authors the "Current Events" column in Forbes magazine, and his opinion pieces appear regularly in the Wall Street Journal.
If you want to know why the dollar has been falling this week and gold hit a new high, look no further than the weak jobs numbers last Friday and the weak communique issued over the weekend at the G-7 meeting in Istanbul. Deploring "excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates" isn't exactly a ringing defense of the greenback. And 9.8% unemployment convinced markets that monetary policy will remain loose regardless of dollar weakness.
Bond buyer Bill Gross of the Pimco fund summed up the situation nicely in a recent CNBC interview. Asked whether low interest rates will weaken the dollar, the influential allocator of global capital said: "I think that's part of the administration's plan. It's obviously not announced?the 'strong dollar' is always the policy, so to speak. One of the ways a country gets out from under its debt burden is to devalue."
On the surface, the weak dollar may not look so bad, especially for Wall Street. Gold, oil, the euro and equities are all rising as much as the dollar declines. They stay even in value terms and create lots of trading volume. And high unemployment keeps the Fed on hold, so anyone with extra dollars or the connections to borrow dollars wins by buying nondollar assets.
Investors have been playing this weak-dollar trade for years, diverting more and more dollars into commodities, foreign currencies and foreign stock markets. This is the Third-World way of asset allocation.
Corporations play this game for bigger stakes, borrowing billions in dollars to expand their foreign businesses. As the pound slid in the 1950s and '60s and the British Empire crumbled, the corporations that prospered were the ones that borrowed pounds aggressively in order to expand abroad. Though British equities rose in pound terms, they generally underperformed gold and foreign equities. At the end of empire, the giant sucking sound was from British capital and jobs moving offshore as the pound sank.
Some weak-dollar advocates believe that American workers will eventually get cheap enough in foreign-currency terms to win manufacturing jobs back. In practice, however, capital outflows overwhelm the trade flows, causing more job losses than cheap real wages create. This was the lesson of the British malaise, the Carter malaise, the Mexican malaise of the 1990s, Yeltsin's Russian malaise through 1999 and the rest. No countries have devalued their way into prosperity, while many?Hong Kong, China, Australia today?have used stable money to invite capital and jobs.
The more the dollar devalued against the yen in the 1970s and '80s, the more Japan gained share in valued-added manufacturing, using the capital from weak-currency countries to increase productivity. China is doing the same now. It watches in chagrin as the U.S. pleads with it to strengthen the yuan, adding productivity fast with the dollars rushing its way in search of currency stability.
If stocks double but the dollar loses half its value, who beyond Wall Street are the winners and losers? There's been a clear demonstration this decade. The S&P nearly doubled from 2003 through 2007. Those who borrowed to buy won big-time. Rich people got richer, seeing their equity bottom line double. At the same time, the dollar's value was cut nearly in half versus the euro and other stable measures. Capital fled, undercutting job growth. Rent, gasoline and food prices rose more than wages.
Equity gains provide cold comfort when currencies crash. From the euro perspective, the S&P peaked at 1700 in 2000, finally reattained 1100 in the 2007 bubble, fell below 600 in March and now stands at 700. With most of the market capitalization of U.S. stocks held by Americans, the dollar devaluation has caused a massive decline in the U.S. share of global wealth.
Measured in euros (a more stable ruler than the ever-weakening dollar), U.S. real per capita GDP is down 25% since 2000, while Germany's is up 4% and tops ours.
The solution is a strong U.S. jobs and wealth program. It has to include stable money, a flatter, more competitive tax structure, spending restraint, and common-sense bank regulation so small business lending can restart. Treasury has to rapidly lengthen the maturity of the national debt and take steps to protect the Fed from market losses on its long-term debt holdings.
Instead, Washington's current economic program pushes capital away by weakening the dollar, threatening higher tax rates, borrowing short (the Fed's near trillion-dollar overnight debt, Treasury's mounds of bill and note issuance) to lend long (mortgages, student loans, entitlements), doubling down on government subsidies, and rechanneling bank loans to governments and big businesses instead of the small business job-growth engine.
It's possible global bond vigilantes will call Washington's bluff, reducing their bond purchases until we stop devaluing and restart job growth, which is the ultimate source of tax revenues to repay our bond debt. This would create a Volcker moment when the U.S. might tighten even as the economy slowed (as then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did back in 1979).
But the accepted outlook is the almost-as-gloomy new norm. If all goes according to current plans, the dollar devalues slowly and bond buyers come back for more even as national debt heads toward $15 trillion. World living standards grow faster than ours, as does global wealth. The Fed chases inflation as the dollar sinks, but not so fast as to stop the recovery. More capital moves abroad, leaving U.S. unemployment too high too long.
A better approach would start with President Barack Obama rejecting the Bush administration's weak-dollar policy. This would invite capital and jobs to come back before interest rates have to rise.
The Weak-Dollar Threat to Prosperity
The Weak-Dollar Threat to Prosperity
Measured in euros, U.S. per capita GDP is down 25% since 2000.
By DAVID MALPASS
Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 7, 2009
David Malpass is president of Encima Global LLC and former Chief Economist of Bear, Stearns. David Malpass is a top-ranked Wall Street economist and former senior Treasury and State Department official. He was ranked second in Economics by Institutional Investor's buyside polls in '05, '06, and '07. In Washington, David worked on major tax, trade and banking legislation, including the Brady Plan and the S&L bailout, giving him unusual insight into U.S. government policy-making processes. David co-authors the "Current Events" column in Forbes magazine, and his opinion pieces appear regularly in the Wall Street Journal.
If you want to know why the dollar has been falling this week and gold hit a new high, look no further than the weak jobs numbers last Friday and the weak communique issued over the weekend at the G-7 meeting in Istanbul. Deploring "excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates" isn't exactly a ringing defense of the greenback. And 9.8% unemployment convinced markets that monetary policy will remain loose regardless of dollar weakness.
Bond buyer Bill Gross of the Pimco fund summed up the situation nicely in a recent CNBC interview. Asked whether low interest rates will weaken the dollar, the influential allocator of global capital said: "I think that's part of the administration's plan. It's obviously not announced?the 'strong dollar' is always the policy, so to speak. One of the ways a country gets out from under its debt burden is to devalue."
On the surface, the weak dollar may not look so bad, especially for Wall Street. Gold, oil, the euro and equities are all rising as much as the dollar declines. They stay even in value terms and create lots of trading volume. And high unemployment keeps the Fed on hold, so anyone with extra dollars or the connections to borrow dollars wins by buying nondollar assets.
Investors have been playing this weak-dollar trade for years, diverting more and more dollars into commodities, foreign currencies and foreign stock markets. This is the Third-World way of asset allocation.
Corporations play this game for bigger stakes, borrowing billions in dollars to expand their foreign businesses. As the pound slid in the 1950s and '60s and the British Empire crumbled, the corporations that prospered were the ones that borrowed pounds aggressively in order to expand abroad. Though British equities rose in pound terms, they generally underperformed gold and foreign equities. At the end of empire, the giant sucking sound was from British capital and jobs moving offshore as the pound sank.
Some weak-dollar advocates believe that American workers will eventually get cheap enough in foreign-currency terms to win manufacturing jobs back. In practice, however, capital outflows overwhelm the trade flows, causing more job losses than cheap real wages create. This was the lesson of the British malaise, the Carter malaise, the Mexican malaise of the 1990s, Yeltsin's Russian malaise through 1999 and the rest. No countries have devalued their way into prosperity, while many?Hong Kong, China, Australia today?have used stable money to invite capital and jobs.
The more the dollar devalued against the yen in the 1970s and '80s, the more Japan gained share in valued-added manufacturing, using the capital from weak-currency countries to increase productivity. China is doing the same now. It watches in chagrin as the U.S. pleads with it to strengthen the yuan, adding productivity fast with the dollars rushing its way in search of currency stability.
If stocks double but the dollar loses half its value, who beyond Wall Street are the winners and losers? There's been a clear demonstration this decade. The S&P nearly doubled from 2003 through 2007. Those who borrowed to buy won big-time. Rich people got richer, seeing their equity bottom line double. At the same time, the dollar's value was cut nearly in half versus the euro and other stable measures. Capital fled, undercutting job growth. Rent, gasoline and food prices rose more than wages.
Equity gains provide cold comfort when currencies crash. From the euro perspective, the S&P peaked at 1700 in 2000, finally reattained 1100 in the 2007 bubble, fell below 600 in March and now stands at 700. With most of the market capitalization of U.S. stocks held by Americans, the dollar devaluation has caused a massive decline in the U.S. share of global wealth.
Measured in euros (a more stable ruler than the ever-weakening dollar), U.S. real per capita GDP is down 25% since 2000, while Germany's is up 4% and tops ours.
The solution is a strong U.S. jobs and wealth program. It has to include stable money, a flatter, more competitive tax structure, spending restraint, and common-sense bank regulation so small business lending can restart. Treasury has to rapidly lengthen the maturity of the national debt and take steps to protect the Fed from market losses on its long-term debt holdings.
Instead, Washington's current economic program pushes capital away by weakening the dollar, threatening higher tax rates, borrowing short (the Fed's near trillion-dollar overnight debt, Treasury's mounds of bill and note issuance) to lend long (mortgages, student loans, entitlements), doubling down on government subsidies, and rechanneling bank loans to governments and big businesses instead of the small business job-growth engine.
It's possible global bond vigilantes will call Washington's bluff, reducing their bond purchases until we stop devaluing and restart job growth, which is the ultimate source of tax revenues to repay our bond debt. This would create a Volcker moment when the U.S. might tighten even as the economy slowed (as then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did back in 1979).
But the accepted outlook is the almost-as-gloomy new norm. If all goes according to current plans, the dollar devalues slowly and bond buyers come back for more even as national debt heads toward $15 trillion. World living standards grow faster than ours, as does global wealth. The Fed chases inflation as the dollar sinks, but not so fast as to stop the recovery. More capital moves abroad, leaving U.S. unemployment too high too long.
A better approach would start with President Barack Obama rejecting the Bush administration's weak-dollar policy. This would invite capital and jobs to come back before interest rates have to rise.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Now finally a moment of truth we can all agree on. Save the semi part, that is still up for debate.
What did we practice from the 30s through ~the early 80s? Even Nixon proclaimed we are all keynesians. How long does one have to stick with Keynsian economics before they can reject it?
Really? You like double digit inflation and near double digit unemployment at the same time or something?
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I enjoy the attention of everyone's ad hominem attacks, I really do, but there are some serious problems afoot and the blame game isn't going to solve them. Is there time enough to reverse the problem that is the solution that is the problem?
Stimulus scam
Stimulus scam
Look for comparative results
Dr. Richard W. Rahn
The Washington Times
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Dr. Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Dr. Rahn served for two terms (2002-2008) as the first non-Caymanian member of the Board of Directors of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, which regulates the world's largest offshore financial center. In the 1980s, Dr. Rahn served as Vice President and Chief Economist of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Executive Vice President and Board member of the National Chamber Foundation, and as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Economic Growth. Previously, he was the Executive Director of the American Council for Capital Formation. In 1990-1991, he served as the U.S. co-chairman of the Bulgarian Economic Growth and Transition Project. In 1982, President Reagan appointed Dr. Rahn as a member of the Quadrennial Social Security Advisory Council. During the 1988 Presidential campaign, he served as an economic advisor to President G.H.W. Bush.
In 1990, Dr. Rahn founded the Novecon companies, which included Sterling Semiconductor (now owned by Dow Corning). He continues to serve on boards of private companies.
Professor Rahn has taught at Florida State, George Mason, George Washington, and Rutgers Universities; and at the Polytechnic University of New York, where he served as head of the graduate Department of Management. He also was an instructor for the U.S. Air Force and the Washington economic advisor for New York Mercantile Exchange.
Dr. Rahn is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society. He serves as a member of the Board of: the American Council for Capital Formation, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation and as a member of the Board of Visitors of the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.
Dr. Rahn earned: a B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida, from which he received the "Distinguished Alumnus Award," an M.B.A. from Florida State University, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University.
Has the economic stimulus program helped or hurt? Administration officials keep saying the stimulus program has been beneficial, but where is the evidence?
There are several ways to see if it is working as advertised. First, what did the proponents say would happen when they were pushing the plan versus what has happened? Second, how has the United States fared compared to other nations that had smaller or no stimulus programs? Third, how have the results to date compared to what pro-stimulus, Keynesian-school economic theorists advocated versus what other theorists (principally Austrian-school) who largely opposed the stimulus plans said?
U.S. unemployment already has reached 9.8 percent, with 15.1 million Americans unemployed, and more than 7.1 million jobs have been eliminated since the beginning of the recession. President Obama's economic advisers said in the beginning of this year that the unemployment rate would rise to 9 percent with no stimulus package and would only rise to a maximum of 7.9 percent with the stimulus bill, peaking during this past summer. Stimulus proponents clearly have failed the first test (despite Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s revisionist statements) and there is zero evidence for their claims that more jobs would have been lost without the stimulus package.
One might argue that the stimulus had worked if the results in the United States were better than in other countries that had smaller or no stimulus packages. The recession has been global, and every country has been affected negatively. Only Great Britain attempted to put in a stimulus package that was relatively as large as the U.S. package. A crude measure of economic stimulus is the size of the deficit relative to gross domestic product. During recessions, tax revenues decline in all countries, so most will run a deficit whether they intend to or not. A stimulus package normally contains a mix of government spending increases and tax cuts, resulting in a deliberately larger deficit.
As you can see in the accompanying chart, the United States and Britain have by far and away run the largest deficits as a percentage of GDP (i.e. the most stimulus), yet the U.S. and Britain, along with Italy and Russia, had not bottomed out in second-quarter 2009, while the rest of the 10 largest economies were showing real growth in the second quarter. Russia's poor performance is largely a function of relying very heavily on the export of raw materials rather than developing a broad-based economy as all the others in the Big 10 have done.
The three countries with the smallest deficits (the least stimulus) - Brazil, China and Germany - have all turned the corner rather quickly and are growing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced she is going to push tax cuts, which should give the German economy an additional shot in the arm.
While the data set is too small with the top 10 countries (which collectively account for a large majority of the world's GDP) to draw definitive conclusions, the existing evidence indicates that a big stimulus package seems to delay recovery, while little stimulus leads to a quick return to economic growth.
Finally, what do the competing economic theorists say? The Keynesians say that if the government increases spending to stimulate demand and create jobs for those who do not have them, this should lead to a less painful downturn and a quicker recovery. The Austrian (aka Hayekians) free-market sorts say recoveries occur on their own once asset and labor prices fall from inflated levels of the previous boom and excess inventories are worked off. This usually happens within 16 months unless government attempts to mitigate these necessary price adjustments, which will delay the recovery. (Apologies to both my Austrian and Keynesian friends for trying to summarize their views in one short paragraph.)
The Keynesians never really get a fair test of their theory because politicians always take the Keynesian notion that it is OK to increase government spending as a license to spend the extra money on themselves and their friends rather than on those who might actually benefit. (This self-dealing process is well explained by the public-choice school of economics.) A few examples from the current stimulus program should suffice. Congress increased spending on itself last year by 10.9 percent and by another 5.8 percent this year for a grand total of $4.7 billion. (Remember, it was just 15 years ago when the Gingrich Republicans ran against the "billion dollar Congress.") Given that the number of members of Congress remains fixed at 535, why should their budget go up any faster than inflation?
Congress and the administration also have gotten into the venture capital business, which enables them to dump infinite quantities of money into their rich friends' pockets. Bill Frezza, a principled venture capitalist, using Fox News and other venues, has been blowing the whistle on these unsavory and destructive practices. Did you know that Al Gore and friends just received almost $600 million to develop another expensive ($88,000) hybrid electric sports car with your tax money? The chances of taxpayers getting their money back are less than of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler paying off all their loans, which is close to zero. Paradise defined: being politically well-connected when stimulus money is around.
The only things one can say for sure about stimulus money is that it will add to the deficit, ultimately driving up interest rates and taxes; and much of it will be wasted and/or stolen, neither of which benefits the unemployed. By any objective measure, the stimulus program has been and will continue to be a failure - but don't expect the Washington politicos ever to admit it.
Stimulus scam
Stimulus scam
Look for comparative results
Dr. Richard W. Rahn
The Washington Times
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Dr. Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Dr. Rahn served for two terms (2002-2008) as the first non-Caymanian member of the Board of Directors of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, which regulates the world's largest offshore financial center. In the 1980s, Dr. Rahn served as Vice President and Chief Economist of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Executive Vice President and Board member of the National Chamber Foundation, and as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Economic Growth. Previously, he was the Executive Director of the American Council for Capital Formation. In 1990-1991, he served as the U.S. co-chairman of the Bulgarian Economic Growth and Transition Project. In 1982, President Reagan appointed Dr. Rahn as a member of the Quadrennial Social Security Advisory Council. During the 1988 Presidential campaign, he served as an economic advisor to President G.H.W. Bush.
In 1990, Dr. Rahn founded the Novecon companies, which included Sterling Semiconductor (now owned by Dow Corning). He continues to serve on boards of private companies.
Professor Rahn has taught at Florida State, George Mason, George Washington, and Rutgers Universities; and at the Polytechnic University of New York, where he served as head of the graduate Department of Management. He also was an instructor for the U.S. Air Force and the Washington economic advisor for New York Mercantile Exchange.
Dr. Rahn is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society. He serves as a member of the Board of: the American Council for Capital Formation, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation and as a member of the Board of Visitors of the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.
Dr. Rahn earned: a B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida, from which he received the "Distinguished Alumnus Award," an M.B.A. from Florida State University, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University.
Has the economic stimulus program helped or hurt? Administration officials keep saying the stimulus program has been beneficial, but where is the evidence?
There are several ways to see if it is working as advertised. First, what did the proponents say would happen when they were pushing the plan versus what has happened? Second, how has the United States fared compared to other nations that had smaller or no stimulus programs? Third, how have the results to date compared to what pro-stimulus, Keynesian-school economic theorists advocated versus what other theorists (principally Austrian-school) who largely opposed the stimulus plans said?
U.S. unemployment already has reached 9.8 percent, with 15.1 million Americans unemployed, and more than 7.1 million jobs have been eliminated since the beginning of the recession. President Obama's economic advisers said in the beginning of this year that the unemployment rate would rise to 9 percent with no stimulus package and would only rise to a maximum of 7.9 percent with the stimulus bill, peaking during this past summer. Stimulus proponents clearly have failed the first test (despite Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s revisionist statements) and there is zero evidence for their claims that more jobs would have been lost without the stimulus package.
One might argue that the stimulus had worked if the results in the United States were better than in other countries that had smaller or no stimulus packages. The recession has been global, and every country has been affected negatively. Only Great Britain attempted to put in a stimulus package that was relatively as large as the U.S. package. A crude measure of economic stimulus is the size of the deficit relative to gross domestic product. During recessions, tax revenues decline in all countries, so most will run a deficit whether they intend to or not. A stimulus package normally contains a mix of government spending increases and tax cuts, resulting in a deliberately larger deficit.
As you can see in the accompanying chart, the United States and Britain have by far and away run the largest deficits as a percentage of GDP (i.e. the most stimulus), yet the U.S. and Britain, along with Italy and Russia, had not bottomed out in second-quarter 2009, while the rest of the 10 largest economies were showing real growth in the second quarter. Russia's poor performance is largely a function of relying very heavily on the export of raw materials rather than developing a broad-based economy as all the others in the Big 10 have done.
The three countries with the smallest deficits (the least stimulus) - Brazil, China and Germany - have all turned the corner rather quickly and are growing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced she is going to push tax cuts, which should give the German economy an additional shot in the arm.
While the data set is too small with the top 10 countries (which collectively account for a large majority of the world's GDP) to draw definitive conclusions, the existing evidence indicates that a big stimulus package seems to delay recovery, while little stimulus leads to a quick return to economic growth.
Finally, what do the competing economic theorists say? The Keynesians say that if the government increases spending to stimulate demand and create jobs for those who do not have them, this should lead to a less painful downturn and a quicker recovery. The Austrian (aka Hayekians) free-market sorts say recoveries occur on their own once asset and labor prices fall from inflated levels of the previous boom and excess inventories are worked off. This usually happens within 16 months unless government attempts to mitigate these necessary price adjustments, which will delay the recovery. (Apologies to both my Austrian and Keynesian friends for trying to summarize their views in one short paragraph.)
The Keynesians never really get a fair test of their theory because politicians always take the Keynesian notion that it is OK to increase government spending as a license to spend the extra money on themselves and their friends rather than on those who might actually benefit. (This self-dealing process is well explained by the public-choice school of economics.) A few examples from the current stimulus program should suffice. Congress increased spending on itself last year by 10.9 percent and by another 5.8 percent this year for a grand total of $4.7 billion. (Remember, it was just 15 years ago when the Gingrich Republicans ran against the "billion dollar Congress.") Given that the number of members of Congress remains fixed at 535, why should their budget go up any faster than inflation?
Congress and the administration also have gotten into the venture capital business, which enables them to dump infinite quantities of money into their rich friends' pockets. Bill Frezza, a principled venture capitalist, using Fox News and other venues, has been blowing the whistle on these unsavory and destructive practices. Did you know that Al Gore and friends just received almost $600 million to develop another expensive ($88,000) hybrid electric sports car with your tax money? The chances of taxpayers getting their money back are less than of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler paying off all their loans, which is close to zero. Paradise defined: being politically well-connected when stimulus money is around.
The only things one can say for sure about stimulus money is that it will add to the deficit, ultimately driving up interest rates and taxes; and much of it will be wasted and/or stolen, neither of which benefits the unemployed. By any objective measure, the stimulus program has been and will continue to be a failure - but don't expect the Washington politicos ever to admit it.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Dare to dream, PJ. The problem is your writing is boring: too pompous and self-indulgent, lacking the thoughtfulness and intellectual depth to be interesting and the sparkle and wit to be entertaining. As far as your favorite literary technique, copying the works of others, that tends to be frowned upon by publishers.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
While PJ continues to post new, duhversionary WoTs, I'd like to remind everyone of one of the many gaping holes in his OP ... ignored, of course, since he has no interest (or apparent ability) in actually supporting the tripe he pastes. He's like a verbose Riprorin.
it was milton friedman that said that.
confirming that keynesian economics were responsible for the oil crisises
unemployment rate
the end of the vietnam war and the oil shock did cause a large spike in unemployment in 74, but recovered well in 75-77. In 80 the fed spiked up interest rates to end stagflation, which they did. that was an intentional recession that worked
zero evidence only if you have your head in the sand. The boost from the stimulus is well support theoretically, anecdotal and empirically.
china had the largest stimulus as a percentage of its economy of any country in the world, and japans was just as large as the American or British variations. Germany has a very strong social safety net, and when you calculate its size is equilivent to a stimulus the size of anyone else. Of course american and britian are going to be in the worst shape, we where hit the hardest because it was largely a problem of our own creation.
only if you use misleading data/massaged data/lie, like this guy has
you post articles, they get debunked with ease, rinse/repeat.
at what point are you actually going to defend the content of your posts in any serious matter? One begins to wonder if you even comprehend what you post
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
:laugh: I fully comprehend what I post and I aim to provide both the occasional reference and quote from people experienced and knowledgeable in the intricacies for supportive comment. I also aim to entertain at a certain level, though the humor obviously hits a bit too close to allow you to enjoy it as fully as I do.
All I have seen of your replies is a nonsensical and egoistic expression of your personal unsupported and invalidated opinion and/or fantasy. No linked data, no references, no third party research, nada. Not even a knowledgeable counter argument such as might be found in any economic journal. Even Bowfinger at least offers some backing for his simplistic economic views, but you continue to offer a blowhardiness worth of your moniker.
Don't worry and don't be distressed! You and umbrella39 can still join hands and dance around in your personal Esbat even in a waning moon phase. Though I understand the joy is likely to be relatively minimal.
I could link all sort of empirical evidence i want (and i have cited evidence, in this very thread), yet you post someones baseless trumpeting of twisted fact and lies, and you are the expert.
If i wanted to, i could give you reams of evidence, but having to put a page of footnotes at the end of every link would be a waste of my time and yours, which i suspect is the reason you post no footnotes or evidence either. I on the other hand at least have a deep knowledge of economic theory and evidence. At times i'll teach atpn a model to support my statements or link fred. Digging through a pile of econ texts, entering data and running regressions, or hunting down any of the thousands of articles i've read and remember almost line by line is not worth the effort for casual posting on an internet forum. For pier reviewed research, thats fine, but thats not why i am here.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
La la la dee dah. You remind me of a child running around with fingers stuck deeply inside ears as red as plum tomatoes, ignoring truth while crying out for peer validation.
It is irrelevant to me how much you read; when you exposit nonsense you get the level of respect you so soundly deserve. You have been called on this many times, yet you continue to batter your pointy head against an unyielding wall while gnashing tiny teeth.
Once a partisan hack, always a partisan hack. And, dear God, learn to type...you are giving me eyestrain.
:laugh:
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sadly true, though the relevance to this thread was debunking the myth that Reagan's tax cuts caused prosperity. The trillions he added to our debt (and our children's debt) was key. Of course this raises the question, why aren't the Reagan faithful eagerly embracing Obama's spending since they were so fond of Ronnie's?Originally posted by: alchemize
Come back in 2 months, we'll have a new record for you
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter