Krugman: personal austerity versus government austerity

[starcraftzzz]

No, dumbass. You print money to pay construction firms, fixing bridges, roads, interstates, schools, etc.

These projects employ 100s of people.

Econ 101 for you! If you steal money from person A he cant spend it, if you give that stolen liberal money to person B he can then spend but there is no net increase in spending!!

They know liberals are stupid so show up with news cameras when person B spends the money and liberals, being very very slow, forget all about the person from whom the money was stolen??

Still over your head?? What does that tell you about liberalism??

If you want a simpler verison its "Im a retard"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman

2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.

3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.


Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes. See "thrift, paradox of".

so we don't want thrift, we want another stimulative bubble??

In fact we want saving because savings= investment in Econ 101.

 

[Polk]

1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman

2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.

3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending sinThce that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.


Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes. See "thrift, paradox of".

so we don't want thrift, we want another stimulative bubble??

In fact we want saving because savings= investment in Econ 101.

We don't want society-wide thrift, because the result in a decline in demand. The reduced output actually results in a lower level of savings.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The reason the stimulus has been such a colossal failure has been due to the fact that there wasn't enough public works programs, not that I'm sure that would have completely fixed the economy anyways, but at least it would have gotten dollars into the hands of workers instead of the banks.

a little Econ 101 for you. If getting money into people's hands worked the government could merely print it and mail it out rather than waste years searching for shovel ready projects. As a liberal you won't have clue how to understand that. Sorry.

No, dumbass. You print money to pay construction firms, fixing bridges, roads, interstates, schools, etc.

These projects employ 100s of people. As anyone who has lived through an Interstate expansion knows, these things take 3 years to finish, at least.

Multiply that across the country.

Now, all these employed people can pay their bills and their credit cards and go back to consuming consumer goods, which is what our economy, sadly, is based upon, along with services.

Just as important, they are now paying taxes into the system instead of taking money out in the form of unemployment and assistance, and food stamps, and etc.

Couple that construction blitz with another round of Green rebates/tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades like insulation, solar or heat pump water heaters. Solar panels. All of them require professional installation in order to receive the rebate, so that puts more plumbers, electricians back to work, like the last stimulus did.

"If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.” -- Milton Friedman

Krugman and the Libs are wrong in the trillions column the world over. Europe and the USA demonstrate the failure of Keynesian economics daily while the Communist Peoples Republic of Vietnam basks in the prosperity of Free Markets and Free Enterprise after leaving Keynes on the ash heap of history

 

[Wiseacre]

Yes. See "thrift, paradox of".

so we don't want thrift, we want another stimulative bubble??

In fact we want saving because savings= investment in Econ 101.

We don't want society-wide thrift, because the result in a decline in demand. The reduced output actually results in a lower level of savings.

We don't want high levels of personal or collective debt either. Hard to buy stuff when you're paying 18% to the credit card company, or hundreds of billions to the Chinese. At the macro level, savings is part of the calculation for GDP isn't it?

 

[Polk]

so we don't want thrift, we want another stimulative bubble??

In fact we want saving because savings= investment in Econ 101.

We don't want society-wide thrift, because the result in a decline in demand. The reduced output actually results in a lower level of savings.

We don't want high levels of personal or collective debt either. Hard to buy stuff when you're paying 18% to the credit card company, or hundreds of billions to the Chinese. At the macro level, savings is part of the calculation for GDP isn't it?

No. GDP is consumption plus investment plus government spending plus net exports. While savings equal investment in theory, it doesn't always work out in practice. When demand for savings is very high, interest rates are low. While firms may see this as a good opportunity to invest, they won't if they don't believe anyone will consume the output.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While firms may see this as a good opportunity to invest, they won't if they don't believe anyone will consume the output.

supply creates its own demand!! If you invented a car in the stone age age no one could afford or demand it. But a plow would instantly create demand.

We need to use supply side economics to create demand. We got from the stone age to here because Republican supply siders produced stuff people could afford or demand.

welcome to econ 101!!!!

 

[Polk]

Your so-called "econ 101" is a restatement of a theory that was disproven almost 100 years ago.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your so-called "econ 101" is a restatement of a theory that was disproven almost 100 years ago.

why not explain??? Why be so afraid to try??? Does you fear tell you that you are a liberal.

 

[Polk]

Your so-called "econ 101" is a restatement of a theory that was disproven almost 100 years ago.

why not explain??? Why be so afraid to try??? Does you fear tell you that you are a liberal.

If "supply creates its own demand", there would never be a recession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your so-called "econ 101" is a restatement of a theory that was disproven almost 100 years ago.

why not explain??? Why be so afraid to try??? Does you fear tell you that you are a liberal.

If "supply creates its own demand", there would never be a recession.

the current liberal recession/depression is caused by government regulation of supply and demand.

 

[Rshermr]

Ed, just please show a case where increased supply (known as decreased taxes) has spurred the economy. The theory that Polk refers to is in fact valid. Demand creates economic growth. It is not that all tax decreases can not be an economic stimulus, some can. But at a pretty low rate. And tax decreases to the wealthy have nearly no stimulus effect.
Government spending does indeed create demand. Decreases in government spending does indeed slow growth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, just please show a case where increased supply (known as decreased taxes) has spurred the economy.

too stupid but perfectly liberal!! When Henry Ford supplied an auto that everyone could demand or buy the planet was transformed!!!!!!!!!!

The theory that Polk refers to is in fact valid. Demand creates economic growth.

too stupid everyone demands a car and jet plane all the time, since the stone age. It only happens when Republican supply siders make it happen. Libturd marxists are the enemy of civilization!!

It is not that all tax decreases can not be an economic stimulus, some can. But at a pretty low rate.

too stupid 100% of new things like cars and computers came from private money. When the government takes away 25% if GDP thats huge. Who know how much sustainable business that kills!!

And tax decreases to the wealthy have nearly no stimulus effect.

too stupid did the poor provide venture capital to Facebook apple google Intel????????

Decreases in government spending does indeed slow growth.

actually less welfare means people have to get real jobs and can demand real goods on a sustainable basis

 

[Rshermr]

Jesus, Ed, where to start. I asked for an example where supply side economics has worked. It is obvious that you do not understand economics at all.

Ed, just please show a case where increased supply (known as decreased taxes) has spurred the economy.

too stupid but perfectly liberal!! When Henry Ford supplied an auto that everyone could demand or buy the planet was transformed!!!!!!!!!!

ED, Jesus, stop kidding!!! You MUST know that Henry Fords auto represented great engineering, design, marketing, etc. But it has NOTHING to do with economic policy, either supply side or demand side.
Do you need more information??


Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr
The theory that Polk refers to is in fact valid. Demand creates economic growth

too stupid everyone demands a car and jet plane all the time, since the stone age. It only happens when Republican supply siders make it happen. Libturd marxists are the enemy of civilization!!

You responded that demand always existed. Really profound, Ed, but demand in economics terms has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is the act of buying.


Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr
It is not that all tax decreases can not be an economic stimulus, some can. But at a pretty low rate.

too stupid 100% of new things like cars and computers came from private money. When the government takes away 25% if GDP thats huge. Who know how much sustainable business that kills!!

Your response, again, is vacuous. Yes indeed, Ed, cars came from private money. Computers, on the other hand, came from the gov. All sorts of development $ to come up with concepts still being used in computers, and handed over to the private sector. Same with the Internet, and others. But, to get back to the actual statement that you responded to, you may want to consider some other things like roads, bridges, dams, everything the military owns and uses, and so on. And all of those government created stuff created all sorts of jobs in not only the public, but even more so in the private sectors. Hope this does not hurt your brain, but public projects are generally performed by private contractors using goods from private firms.
So tell me, ED, which of those things should we eliminate? Roads? Bridges? The Military?


Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr
And tax decreases to the wealthy have nearly no stimulus effect.

too stupid did the poor provide venture capital to Facebook apple google Intel???????

Again, ED. Another vacuous response. Venture Capital has nothing to do with Supply Side economics. And believe me, the companies you mentioned need no venture capital. They can raise all the revenue they want, should they need to, by selling stock.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr
Decreases in government spending does indeed slow growth.
actually less Welfare means people have to get real jobs and can demand real goods on a sustainable basis.

Great job, Ed, if showing your ignorance is your purpose. Welfare has been gone for years. Someone must have forgotten to inform you. I know your opinion of the poor and unemployed is that they are lazy. However, ED, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Jese, Ed, I hope you learned something, though I doubt it. I hope you do not reply, as I see no reason to discuss things with someone who does not understand much of anything.

Just a note: There is a pretty new comprehensive study of stupid people compared to smart ones. In general, it proved that stupid people are the most certain and most boisterous about their beliefs. Also found that stupid people typically used a lot of vulgarity, name calling, and general lack of civility due to a lack of ability to work with the queens English.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You MUST know that Henry Fords auto represented great engineering, design, marketing, etc. But it has NOTHING to do with economic policy, either supply side or demand side.
Do you need more information??

too stupid and perfectly EXACTLY LIBERAL!!! Most things were invented in America because we had a supply side capitalist economy that encouraged most things to be invented here!!! The economic policy of the USSR prevented things from being invented there!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Venture Capital has nothing to do with Supply Side economics.

OMG!!! too perfectly stupid and liberal!!!! When liberals tax away venture capital through the capital gains tax they tax away venture capital!!!!!!!

In the industry they say, "it reduces the shots on goal they can take"

The more the libturds take the less they have for the new Apples, Googles, Intels, etc etc. Still over your head?????????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very slow!!!