Harvard Economist On The Stimulus

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Quite interesting and seems there's a bit of a brouhaha with him, Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Matt Yglesias, and Tyler Cowen.

    An interview with Robert Barro - The Atlantic Business Channel

     
  2. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Surprise!!!!! I did not vote for Obama or any Democrats, but I was certainly willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt as they said they were going to put together a stimulus package that concentrated on infrastructure and tax cuts. The bulk of this package is handouts to special interest groups. Infrastructure spending only amounts to a little over 5% of this package. Hell, they would have spent that much on infrastructure anyway. This stimulus package is a joke and it's going to backfire on the Dems big time. When it proves to be useless as a stimulus to get this economy going again, people are going to really start looking at the cost, and then the shit is going to hit the fan.

    No, Republicans didn't act like Republicans the over the past eight years. But now we have the Democrats increasing the deficit to four or five times what it was under Bush. Everyone complained then; but now it's okay to spend even more? The Dems better pray that they are right and this works. If it does not, they are going to write themselves a fast ticket right back out of power.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    What's most atrocious about that is the apparent belief that Paul Krugman and Larry Summers (to provide an example) constitute the respective ends of the spectrum of what's considered acceptable discussion regarding economic matters. Debates between the likes of (purported) free marketers and neo-Keynesians ought not to constitute the extent of discussion of political economy, which is why Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert's discussion of participatory economics deserves inclusion, or why Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis's discussion of labor economics deserves conclusion.

    When can we hope to see Bowles's observation that "the Coasian view of the capitalist economy as a multiplicity of mini-communal economies operating in a sea of market exchanges is...superficially indistinguishable from the Marxian view" represented in mainstream discussion circles?

    I found no direct reference to Keynesianism, but I think it likely that this is an indirect one. Putting aside capitalism's tendency toward market concentration and Keynesianism's according tendency toward stagflation prevention, Herbert Stein again deserves to be quoted here: "it is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to [Keynes]...y the outbreak of the war a large part of the fiscal revolution had already occurred. It was accepted policy that we would run deficits in depressions, that we would not raise taxes in depressions in an attempt to balance the budget."
     
  4. Munin
    Offline

    Munin VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,300
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +95
    Well yeah, but the first line is really no excuse for republicans to just say now "we didn't act like republicans". The GOP supported Bush both in 2000 & in 2004, so really republicans can't hide from their mistake for voting for him (like they tried to do during the latest elections: saying something like "he s not one of us" :eusa_liar: ).


    Secondly the spending that Bush did was not during an economic crisis (to fix a bad economic situation), his spending was the cause of the crisis: the spending of Bush was not investing in the economy. It was mostly spending the war, tax breaks for the rich and other non-economy stimulating efforts.

    Also his budget cutting on schools, infrastructure, healthcare, ... other essential stuff for an economy to work properly didn't help the economy to much either. And his investments were without "return on investment": Iraq? (What did we get out of that except a huge debt and responsability over the outcome of the situation in Iraq? Afghanistan is no different but was at least justified, he managed to let this war last for at least 8 years.)

    In short: the spending of Bush had very little to do with investing the economy and his tax cuts also had very little to do with stimulating the economy: whatever spin he d like to give it THE TRICKLE DOWN THEORY DIDN'T WORK!!! (as we can surely see by now).

    He also failed to see that the import/export ratio of the US with China was seriously fucked up and that it was bad for US interests, he didn't fix it and he just let it go: Hoover Institution - Focus - The U.S. รข€“ China Trade Deficit: Reason for Worry?
    Ever wondered why China owns so much of US debt (and how they are funding their army, space program, olympic games, ...), well then look no further then the graph in the link above. Also clinton failed to do anything about it, but the difference with clinton was that he didn't have a problem with it because it was still "under control".



    But enough of the republican bashing now, that was just a reaction to that first sentence. We should sure not forget who got us into this mess in the first place.

    The democrats don't deserve much praising either at this moment, they seem to abuse the crisis to put some very partisan stuff into the bill. They seem to abuse the weak position of the republicans who can not afford to completely reject the bill, while they did it the already one time they obviously couldn't afford to keep rejecting this "rescue package" while the economic situation keeps getting worse and worse (that originally started partly due to their failed policies of the past 8 years, with democrats to blame along with it but they re not voting against the rescue package now).

    But if you re a bit objective you should see that Obama didn't fuck up anything up to this point (except appointing people who didn't pay their taxes). He didn't cause any bad things to happen yet, he is being criticized for actions that have not been proven to be bad or good because it is too early to see any effects.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2009
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    44% of the current bail out proposal comes to us in the form of TAX CUTS.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    You'd almost think the Democrats were listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not to worry, Nancy will fix that up.
     
  7. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    you can always tell a harvard man, but you can't tell him much.
     
  8. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,130
    Thanks Received:
    10,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,678
    you can just hear the distain and sarcasam dripping from his opinion of Krugman!
     
  9. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,049
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    And then what? Put the Republicans back in again?
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Is there another choice ?
     

Share This Page