Aggregate Demand is an Expectation

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

 

[TC_Triple3]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

The premise of Keynes argument is based on a distortion of Say's Law that supply creates it's own demand. What Say's Law actually says is that supply adjusts to it's demand. The restoration of Say's law can't happen soon enough. Then and only then can we put the notion of aggregate demand in the scrap bin where it belongs, right next to the Paradox of Thrift.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

The premise of Keynes argument is based on a distortion of Say's Law that supply creates it's own demand. What Say's Law actually says is that supply adjusts to it's demand. The restoration of Say's law can't happen soon enough. Then and only then can we put the notion of aggregate demand in the scrap bin where it belongs, right next to the Paradox of Thrift.

- Say wrote no law at all, but argued that things would adjust so that all factors of production would be fully employed. Mill re-stated that as "supply creates its own demand".

Here is Keynes' formulation of Say's Law, which you have mis-stated: "Say’s law, that the aggregate demand price of output as a whole is equal to its aggregate supply price for all volumes of output"

Keynes did not get Say's Law wrong - people who never read Keynes but did not like him made up a formulation which they claimed Keynes used, which he did not.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

The premise of Keynes argument is based on a distortion of Say's Law that supply creates it's own demand. What Say's Law actually says is that supply adjusts to it's demand. The restoration of Say's law can't happen soon enough. Then and only then can we put the notion of aggregate demand in the scrap bin where it belongs, right next to the Paradox of Thrift.

- I'm actually pretty certain that other than my posting it above, you would be unable to define the term aggregate demand.

Say's Law is not something you "get back to". It either works, or it doesn't. Evidence over the last hundred years or so indicate empirically that it doesn't. At best, it does not acknowledge human nature or why people participate in markets - in particular, it does not recognize people as profit-maximizing in their market behavior.

Whatever germ of validity Say's Law may have had in Say's day does not apply to an industrial economy. Industrialization changes a number of things (which Keynes recognized). The classics, of course, did not really deal with this issue, because it arose after their zenith. Neoclassicals don't acknowledge this issue, because it leads to places their ideology doesn't allow them to go.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

The premise of Keynes argument is based on a distortion of Say's Law that supply creates it's own demand. What Say's Law actually says is that supply adjusts to it's demand. The restoration of Say's law can't happen soon enough. Then and only then can we put the notion of aggregate demand in the scrap bin where it belongs, right next to the Paradox of Thrift.

- Feel free to point out any logical flaw in the paradox of thrift.

I'll wait while you ponder that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Keynes: It's[demand] an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes: It's[demand] an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Keynes: It's[demand] an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

Dear ,not wanting to tax and wanting to stimulus spend is impossible. Do you understand??

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes: It's[demand] an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

Dear ,not wanting to tax and wanting to stimulus spend is impossible. Do you understand??

- Somebody never heard of deficit spending.

tsk tsk

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Keynes: It's[demand] an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

Dear ,not wanting to tax and wanting to stimulus spend is impossible. Do you understand??

- Somebody never heard of deficit spending.

tsk tsk

Dear, deficits are paid for with taxes. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[TC_Triple3]

I'm actually pretty certain that other than my posting it above, you would be unable to define the term aggregate demand.

So much for certainty.

Say's Law is not something you "get back to". It either works, or it doesn't. Evidence over the last hundred years or so indicate empirically that it doesn't.

By restoration I meant in developing economic theory. Say's Law does work, it is aggregate demand that is flawed, and history bears this out. It does nothing to correct the imbalances that occur during a market boom. Demand management policies simply distort market prices and destroy production incentives.

Hayak destroyed Keynes once, but sadly (for us) he didn't repeat it when Keynes published his General Theory. His reason? He didn't think anyone would take Keynes seriously.

Whatever germ of validity Say's Law may have had in Say's day does not apply to an industrial economy. Industrialization changes a number of things

Complete nonsense.

The classics, of course, did not really deal with this issue, because it arose after their zenith. Neoclassicals don't acknowledge this issue, because it leads to places their ideology doesn't allow them to go.

The only place it leads is completely off the rails. It is the economics of intervention. Give politicians a tool with they can promise to 'do something' about the economy and SPEND MONEY and you have a winner!

 

[oldfart]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

The premise of Keynes argument is based on a distortion of Say's Law that supply creates it's own demand. What Say's Law actually says is that supply adjusts to it's demand. The restoration of Say's law can't happen soon enough. Then and only then can we put the notion of aggregate demand in the scrap bin where it belongs, right next to the Paradox of Thrift.

- I'm actually pretty certain that other than my posting it above, you would be unable to define the term aggregate demand.

Say's Law is not something you "get back to". It either works, or it doesn't. Evidence over the last hundred years or so indicate empirically that it doesn't. At best, it does not acknowledge human nature or why people participate in markets - in particular, it does not recognize people as profit-maximizing in their market behavior.

Whatever germ of validity Say's Law may have had in Say's day does not apply to an industrial economy. Industrialization changes a number of things (which Keynes recognized). The classics, of course, did not really deal with this issue, because it arose after their zenith. Neoclassicals don't acknowledge this issue, because it leads to places their ideology doesn't allow them to go.

It seems to me that this is another example of people who cannot differentiate between a function and an identity. Some things, like accounting identities, are true by definition. In national income accounts, output is equal to the sum of consumption, investment, net government spending, and net exports by definition. Add an assumption of equality of imports and exports, and a further definition of saving and consumption in consumer behavior and you get by simple algabraic manipulation that savings must equal investment. This led a lot of people to the "crowding out" theory that increased net government spending must result in lower investment. But all of this is a magic trick where the fingers never leave the hand. There is no theory or function of anything involved; it's all definitional. This is the gross version of Say's Law so popular in the financial press today.

Of course at the end of the day when equilibria are determined in all markets these definitions hold true. The quantity of net savings will equal the sum of net investment, net exports, and net government spending. This says nothing about how markets arrive at that set of equilibria, or what those equilibria are. It takes a theory with a demand function for each component (exports, government spending, investment, and consumption) and supply functions to determine what the equilibria will be.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production,

Actually Keynes was standard lib commie. So then, did Keynes propose to end the Great Depression by, say, tax credits for entrepreneurs, elimination of cap. gain tax on entrepreneurial activity? What exactly??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and supply functions to determine what the equilibria will be.

Yes, supply is very important. In fact it is the supply of new goods and services that got us from the stone age to here. Demand( a free thing like air and water) got to be important only because economists were not able to supply new goods and services.

Do you understand?

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes: It's[demand] an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

Dear ,not wanting to tax and wanting to stimulus spend is impossible. Do you understand??

- Somebody never heard of deficit spending.

tsk tsk

Dear, deficits are paid for with taxes. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

- I see. Except for at any time ever.

You do realize that the national debt represents all of those deficits, right?

Nobody got taxed...dear.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Keynes may be the most misquoted, misunderstood economist of all time - partly because his name was hijacked by neoclassical economists who believed themselves to be Keynesian, without ever actually reading what Keynes wrote. They adopted some of his words, ignored most of his concepts, and most of what people think of today as Keynesian economics.....isn't.

Nothing is more basic a "Keynesian" concept than aggregate demand. It is generally described as being the willingness and ability of consumers to spend money on stuff. Conservatives whine that demand is not a driver of anything. However, they basically miss the entire concept of aggregate demand.

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production, and that consumers responded by validating or invalidating the guesses that entrepreneurs made about what would sell.

To Keynes, everything is about a guessing game in which humans, who have no certain knowledge of the future, make decisions now based on their guesses about what will happen in the future. Humans are individuals, and we have no idea what any individual will decide to do, or how they look at things. We can look in the rear view mirror and see what happened, but are hard-pressed to figure out what will happen next. The future is not a mirror of the past. The past and the present give us clues, but the future is as murky for us, always, as it is for the entrepreneurs and consumers which we think about when we do economics.

So for your viewing pleasure, without further ado, the driver of economic activity, aggregate demand, live, and in person:

"let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being written D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function."

Aggregate demand is "the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men".

It's an expectation held by entrepreneurs, not a willingness of consumers to buy stuff.

The premise of Keynes argument is based on a distortion of Say's Law that supply creates it's own demand. What Say's Law actually says is that supply adjusts to it's demand. The restoration of Say's law can't happen soon enough. Then and only then can we put the notion of aggregate demand in the scrap bin where it belongs, right next to the Paradox of Thrift.

- I'm actually pretty certain that other than my posting it above, you would be unable to define the term aggregate demand.

Say's Law is not something you "get back to". It either works, or it doesn't. Evidence over the last hundred years or so indicate empirically that it doesn't. At best, it does not acknowledge human nature or why people participate in markets - in particular, it does not recognize people as profit-maximizing in their market behavior.

Whatever germ of validity Say's Law may have had in Say's day does not apply to an industrial economy. Industrialization changes a number of things (which Keynes recognized). The classics, of course, did not really deal with this issue, because it arose after their zenith. Neoclassicals don't acknowledge this issue, because it leads to places their ideology doesn't allow them to go.

It seems to me that this is another example of people who cannot differentiate between a function and an identity. Some things, like accounting identities, are true by definition. In national income accounts, output is equal to the sum of consumption, investment, net government spending, and net exports by definition. Add an assumption of equality of imports and exports, and a further definition of saving and consumption in consumer behavior and you get by simple algabraic manipulation that savings must equal investment. This led a lot of people to the "crowding out" theory that increased net government spending must result in lower investment. But all of this is a magic trick where the fingers never leave the hand. There is no theory or function of anything involved; it's all definitional. This is the gross version of Say's Law so popular in the financial press today.

Of course at the end of the day when equilibria are determined in all markets these definitions hold true. The quantity of net savings will equal the sum of net investment, net exports, and net government spending. This says nothing about how markets arrive at that set of equilibria, or what those equilibria are. It takes a theory with a demand function for each component (exports, government spending, investment, and consumption) and supply functions to determine what the equilibria will be.

Yup. Investment = savings is my favorite.

People confuse the accounting identity, which is based on a substitution between two equations based on the equalities of income and consumption, all based on completely arbitrary definitions, with causal argument.

If income ends up being saved by reducing consumption, that results in a buildup of inventories of goods already produced, and unsold inventories are investment.

In this case, the potential causal relationship between savings and investment is contractionary. More savings in this case means greater investment in unsold inventories, which is likely to result in a reduction of production.

So does savings make the economy grow as a result of this equality? Obviously not. It's just an accounting identity.

 

[Pksimon2007]

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production,

Actually Keynes was standard lib commie. So then, did Keynes propose to end the Great Depression by, say, tax credits for entrepreneurs, elimination of cap. gain tax on entrepreneurial activity? What exactly??

Deficit spending by government: high spending and lower taxes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To understand Keynes, one has to understand that he believed that entrepreneurship drove economic production,

Actually Keynes was standard lib commie. So then, did Keynes propose to end the Great Depression by, say, tax credits for entrepreneurs, elimination of cap. gain tax on entrepreneurial activity? What exactly??

Deficit spending by government: high spending and lower taxes.

Very stupid right since you don't know the timing. Did FDR/Keynes know Depression would go on for 15 years or did Obama/Keynes know his recession would never end? Maybe you meant low taxes forever?? GDP was 0 first quarter. So is it time for a new cash for clunkers program to stimulate the economy and stimulate the transition to the new green economy?

A liberal is too stupid to know what a recession is. Its the time it takes for the free market to adjust to lib commie interventions. Cash for clunkers was just another lib commie intervention, not a stimulus.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

100% gibberish as always!!! You're new here but are you smart enough to be here?
Keynes wanted to end the depression by stimulating demand with govt spending, just as FDR and Obama did. He didn't understand that taxing destimulates the economy so that a net benefit is impossible. Nor did he understand that govt spending distorts the economy and slows real growth. Nor did he understand that we got from the stone age to here thanks to Republicans supplying or inventing new goods and services.

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

Dear ,not wanting to tax and wanting to stimulus spend is impossible. Do you understand??

- Somebody never heard of deficit spending.

tsk tsk

Dear, deficits are paid for with taxes. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

- I see. Except for at any time ever.

You do realize that the national debt represents all of those deficits, right?

Nobody got taxed...dear.

dear, we're always getting taxed more and more to pay for the growing debt.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Actually, it's you that don't understand. He didn't want to tax.

I thought everyone knew that.

Dear ,not wanting to tax and wanting to stimulus spend is impossible. Do you understand??

- Somebody never heard of deficit spending.

tsk tsk

Dear, deficits are paid for with taxes. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

- I see. Except for at any time ever.

You do realize that the national debt represents all of those deficits, right?

Nobody got taxed...dear.

dear, we're always getting taxed more and more to pay for the growing debt.

-Pook, as our deficits have climbed, taxes have mostly gone down.

Did you just realize that our national debt is increasing, so we can NOT be paying for those deficits with increases in taxes.