Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OK Ed, let's try a few examples. A bunch of people predicted four years ago that quadrupling the monetary base would cause hyperinflation within a year. I saw the TV ads shilling various exotic investments based on that premise. A group of ecocomists generally refered to as "New Keynesians" said that couldn't happen when demand was so weak, and predicted deflation rather than inflation. Prices fell. Which group was correct?
If we can believe this administration who is posting gains in the GDP, no we are not. Nevertheless, the growth is so anemic that it has had negligible effecton the misery index. See my previous post.
I don't know...housing is up, new construction is up, malls are packed...which strangely enough they seem to have always been since the whole recession started...
It's not entirely a nationwide thing yet but it's hard to say there aren't SOME things improving.
The economy is getting better. It's not where it should be but its improving.
Going over the Fiscal Cliff, however, and we go back into recession.
In 2009 the incoming Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christine Romer, computed that the minimum effective stimulus package would be at least $1.2 trillion. Larry Summers said that $800 billion was the maximum politically feasible and that Obama could always come back to Congress for a second round of stimulus if needed. Romer, et al predicted the stimulus would be enough to avoid a full blown depresion, but not enough to return the economy to health. Who had it right?
1, Samuelson discussed the liquidity trap in Keynesian theory which explained how normal monetary expansion was ineffective in a depression. A corollary is that in these circumstances neither interest rates nor inflation will result from monetary expansion. That's three predictions that turned out to be true in 2007--2012. Exactly the opposite was argued for inflation and interest rates by all the business pundits.
2. Fifties and sixties vintage labor economics taught that some structural unemploment could result from workers not adapting to changes in requirements for job skills, but that generally this couldnot explain the absolute level of unemployment when all sectors showed rising unemployment. Only lack of effecive demand explained high levels of unemployment.
I notice he didn't quote the links I posted to back up the numbers I used. Nor did he post any links of his own to support his rebuttal.
I thought I handled the issue by chastising you for using the Heritage Foundation as a credble source of economic analysis. They make Marxian economics look good by comparison. Find some reputable sources before you start demanding things. It also looks like you don't have enough confidence in your own ability to make economic arguments when you rely on authority. If you can only mindlessly repeat pablum and never make a case of your own, give it up. Argue with me on ideas, not sources.
Generally, I make my own economic arguments and I use references for statistical purposes. I suggest you do the same. For the record, the main sources I rely upon for statistics are the IRS SOI series, the Census, CBO and the JCT, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. If you are going to argue economics, you need to be familiar with these sources.
If I find an interesting study, like the recent one about declining life expectancy at age 65 for Americans with less than a high school education, of course I'll reference it.
Okay, there has never been a President in the history of our country who thought raising taxes in a recession was a smart move, and that included President Obama four years ago. Why the change of heart now, I don't pretend to understand.Okay, there has never been a President in the history of our country who thought raising taxes in a recession was a smart move, and that included President Obama four years ago. Why the change of heart now, I don't pretend to understand.
And there isn't an economist worth his/her salt who thinks all tax cuts or credits have equal weight in stimulating the economy. Those that free up venture capital and provide confidence in a reasonably permanent policy will encourage and stimulate economic growth but there is a point of diminishing returns. The initial economic spurt will gradually smooth out and eventually settle into a normally expanding economy again, but it will generally settle at a higher level than from the point that was started.
When you don't know what the policy and regulation is going to be; when the tax rates are going to cut excessively into an already razor thin profit margin, the smaller businesses simply pull in their horns and maintain the status quo. When faced with oppressive regulation as they see in Obamacare, they will downsize and otherwise do what they have to do to avoid the extra costs.
Raising the debt limit without any concessions in spending seems as much of a fools folly as defaulting on our debts. Raising taxes when that will only discourage private enterprise further also appears to be the wrong way to go.
Without a healthy economy, we don't have a prayer to start cutting into the deficits or debt. or have room to maneuver to repair any of the other problems.
A leader who cared would have the power to do that. First, he must care for ALL Americans.It is a given that people and businesses working and paying taxes produce many times over the revenues that are possible by taxing more from a shrinking pool of people who earn enough money to be taxed. In fact, sensible economics have calculated that if you confiscated ALL the wealth let alone the income, of top 1%, that would run the government at best a very few weeks at the current rate of spending. We are acquiring deficits at a rate every single day now that in the past would have been considered huge in a whole year.
Doesn't it make more sense to cap spending, eliminate every single expenditure that does not HAVE to be spent at this time, and put into practice policy and a tax structure that encourages economic growth, greater business activity, and put people to work?
Doesn't it make more sense to cap spending, eliminate every single expenditure that does not HAVE to be spent at this time,
I don't understand how his 2009 promise to try to bring the deficit down was made while there seems to be a disconnect between the promise and performance of spending continuing endlessly on.Doesn't it make more sense to cap spending, eliminate every single expenditure that does not HAVE to be spent at this time,
yes exactly 100% true!! This is called zero based budgeting while Obozo uses base line budgeting which assumes all current spending programs will continue upwards based on COLA, inflation, population increase, union contracts and inherent increases. When Barry says he is saving money he means saving money off the baseline but this does not shrink the deficit and debt, it is merely moderating the rate of growth!!
The best approach to actually control the slippery scumbags is to
make them work within an absolute debt ceiling or cap as you say!!!
