The Problem With keynesian economics

[Avorysuds]

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?

Sure.

It was called "The Great Depression".

And it didn't end until government started spending loads of money. First on infrastucture then on a war.

Wow... Just fucking wow...

Hoover gave it 6 whole months before he started massive spending, he created the first new deal. FDR spent like wtf whoa over 3 terms as President. We didn't get out of the Depression until we sent 10% of the population (the poor UE people) to war where many of them died... Then after the war when the whole world was nearly destroyed the US was turned to provide the good to rebuild THE WORLD. Taxes were cut, regulations were cut, spending was massively downsized and FDR was no longer President.

So unless you're sitting back hoping for ww3 so we can kill off the poor UE people while praying the US down not get demolished in the process you might want to revisit some basic history.

It is truly stunning that Harding/Coolidge gets the US out of a depression that the president before them was spending like crazy to change by cutting taxes/regulations and lowering spending. 18 months to end a depression. Then 10 years later we enter a new depression due to markets collapsing and people pulling their money out of banks (not due to wars or Government spending) and “laissez faire” gets a whopping 6 months to fix another depression before 12 years of massive spending only to get UE down to 14 % YAY, ensues.

Today under Bush who did 2x stimulus and started TARP and Obama who did 1 massive stimulus and kept TARP going we have managed to keep the US is a semi recession/depression for around 4 years now. We are at spending levels near FDR and yet oddly, just like FDR we can’t seem to shake the recession… Maybe you should re think your position?

 

[Polk]

What planet are you living on? Spending wasn't "massively downsized" after the Second World War. It was lower than during the war, but it was way higher than it was pre-war. Same thing with taxes. The top tax bracket in 1940 paid 81.1%. The top tax bracket wouldn't drop below that level again until 1964.

 

[Avorysuds]

So we were in a depression throughout the Second World War? Someone should tell that to the 2% unemployment rate. Also, the economy actually dipped in to a recession because of post-war demobilization.

Recessions are not defined by employment.

You're right, but employment is a pretty strong indicator of overall economic health. Recessions are defined by falling GDP. So what happened to GDP during the Depression? On the upswing from March of 1933 to May of 1937. Spending restraint kicks the economy back in to recession from May of 1937 to June of 1938. From there, the economy grows every month until February of 1945.

How much did spending go down to when they did these horrible restraints?

When the Government dumps money on the markets some numbers will always look good, that's what you don't understand. Hell, we could enter a recession and by definition be out of it the next month if they just kept giving people money, problem is it's not real and can't last, leaving you will mass debt.

 

[Avorysuds]

What planet are you living on? Spending wasn't "massively downsized" after the Second World War. It was lower than during the war, but it was way higher than it was pre-war. Same thing with taxes. The top tax bracket in 1940 paid 81.1%. The top tax bracket wouldn't drop below that level again until 1964.

Let me make this clear, I never ever want to talk to people like you about "tax brackets" as you are full of shit. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCC TIONNNNNNNNNZZZzzzzzz. It gets so old. Next you will be like TM and claim people paid 98% taxes at one time (the rich).

 

[Polk]

Recessions are not defined by employment.

You're right, but employment is a pretty strong indicator of overall economic health. Recessions are defined by falling GDP. So what happened to GDP during the Depression? On the upswing from March of 1933 to May of 1937. Spending restraint kicks the economy back in to recession from May of 1937 to June of 1938. From there, the economy grows every month until February of 1945.

How much did spending go down to when they did these horrible restraints?

When the Government dumps money on the markets some numbers will always look good, that's what you don't understand. Hell, we could enter a recession and by definition be out of it the next month if they just kept giving people money, problem is it's not real and can't last, leaving you will mass debt.

FY 1936 (July 1935 - June 1936) - 9.2 billion
FY 1937 (July 1936 - June 1937) - 8.8 billion
FY 1938 (July 1937 - June 1938) - 8.4 billion
FY 1939 (July 1938 - June 1939) - 9.3 billion

That doesn't seem like a huge difference, except that total GDP at the time was around 70 billion.

And the idea that government spending is somehow not "real" is bizarre. The government is a consumer of goods and services just like firms are. A car sold to Uncle Sam is no less "real" than a car sold to Uncle Bert's Batting Cages.

 

[Polk]

What planet are you living on? Spending wasn't "massively downsized" after the Second World War. It was lower than during the war, but it was way higher than it was pre-war. Same thing with taxes. The top tax bracket in 1940 paid 81.1%. The top tax bracket wouldn't drop below that level again until 1964.

Let me make this clear, I never ever want to talk to people like you about "tax brackets" as you are full of shit. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCC TIONNNNNNNNNZZZzzzzzz. It gets so old. Next you will be like TM and claim people paid 98% taxes at one time (the rich).

That's what the top bracket was. Of course that wasn't the effective rate (I never claimed it was, for that matter). Do you have any evidence there was a massive wave of new deductions, however?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When the Government dumps money on the markets some numbers will always look good, that's what you don't understand.

good point!! If dumping money were in fact good we'd all know it, even economists, and recessions/depressions would be a thing of the past!!

Dumping money causes bubbles like the liberal housing bubble that burst to cause the current liberal depression. Trying to teach a liberal economics is like trying to teach geometry to a goldfish.

 

[Polk]

When the Government dumps money on the markets some numbers will always look good, that's what you don't understand.

good point!! If dumping money were in fact good we'd all know it, even economists, and recessions/depressions would be a thing of the past!!

Dumping money causes bubbles like the liberal housing bubble that burst to cause the current liberal depression. Trying to teach a liberal economics is like trying to teach geometry to a goldfish.

1. It's not a universal good, but even in the cases where it is good, people oppose it because it doesn't strike them as morally right.
2. The housing bubble was caused by the easy money policies of Alan Greenspan. Last time I checked, Greenspan is a Republican.

 

[Avorysuds]

When the Government dumps money on the markets some numbers will always look good, that's what you don't understand.

good point!! If dumping money were in fact good we'd all know it, even economists, and recessions/depressions would be a thing of the past!!

Dumping money causes bubbles like the liberal housing bubble that burst to cause the current liberal depression. Trying to teach a liberal economics is like trying to teach geometry to a goldfish.

1. It's not a universal good, but even in the cases where it is good, people oppose it because it doesn't strike them as morally right.
2. The housing bubble was caused by the easy money policies of Alan Greenspan. Last time I checked, Greenspan is a Republican.

And all you really care about is Republican VS Democrat, that's why you can't and won't learn.

To you, a slight near meaningless cut in spending during FDR's time as President is why the GD kept going... Of course then spending goes right back up and grows even and the Depression continues but that does not matter to you at all...

Harding destroys a depression by doing everything you claim makes a Depression worse and..... what? Just air.... No debate, no talking... Just skip 9 years to the next depression and while you’re at it blame it all on Harding and Coolidge!

What I’m trying to point out here is that when cutting and shrinking and non interventionism is done things get better, in fact Harding had something like 2% UE at one point I believe. Yet you gloss over it. Then, under FDR you actually have the balls to claim a near meaningless cut in spending is why the Depression kept going… You have to search and then over credit these cuts but hey, if it allows you to fully and absolutely blame something other than the mass spending FDR was doing then you do it.

And no, Government spending is not real in the context I gave. It’s fake because a recession/depression is something that is actually measured, but when/if Government dumps cash on the markets the numbers magically go up… Life does in fact not get any better as Hoover/FDR/Bush/Obama have proved… FDR proved you can have people starving in the streets for 10 years plus while spending insane amounts. But again, you don’t want to learn, you want to “feel” like you’re the good guy despite it is your way of thinking that starves people, destroys people lives, costs them their homes and health… You have proved you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The housing bubble was caused by the easy money policies of Alan Greenspan. Last time I checked, Greenspan is a Republican.

he was a libertarian but was not acting like one!!! Easy money is a long standing liberal policy dating back to the Cross of Gold Speech. Easy money favors the little guy debtor or so the theory goes. Bernie Sanders for example is very vocal now about using the Fed to inflate the currency and employment numbers

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

POLK: And all you really care about is Republican VS Democrat,

thats because all the voting booth cares about is Republican versus Democrat. Thankfully it is the perfect distilation of all of human history:

freedom versus government!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure.

In 1937, FDR became concerned with the debt and began an austerity program. Economic growth, slow as it was, became worse. The economy was slipping back into a depression.

And it bounced right back up again the next year despite no large increase in spending.

Want to try again?

Take your own advice.

New appropriations in the spring of 1938 totaled $5B. The economy resumed its recovery.

Don't you mean $500 million?

Total government spending was $17.2 billion in 1937 and $17.7 billion in 1938.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is pretty much what the Obama stimulus did.

What's your point?

The Obama stimulus had people doing things they were going to do even if it hadn't passed, all it stimulated was letting states delay budget cuts for one year. Krugman specifically said that was the best type of stimulus, yet the states still had to cut their budgets because the recovery did not happen.

My point is you are an idiot.

Wrong again, dumbass.

Spending is all that matters but it has to be large enough to meet the need. Thanks to Republican obstruction and obfuscation, this one wasn't.

That is what Krugman blathers, but Keynes thought differently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So we were in a depression throughout the Second World War? Someone should tell that to the 2% unemployment rate. Also, the economy actually dipped in to a recession because of post-war demobilization.

Recessions are not defined by employment.

You're right, but employment is a pretty strong indicator of overall economic health. Recessions are defined by falling GDP. So what happened to GDP during the Depression? On the upswing from March of 1933 to May of 1937. Spending restraint kicks the economy back in to recession from May of 1937 to June of 1938. From there, the economy grows every month until February of 1945.

The government drafted every able bodied man in the fracking country, of course unemployment was low. That is not a reliable indication of anything other than the government's ability to draft people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What planet are you living on? Spending wasn't "massively downsized" after the Second World War. It was lower than during the war, but it was way higher than it was pre-war. Same thing with taxes. The top tax bracket in 1940 paid 81.1%. The top tax bracket wouldn't drop below that level again until 1964.

Strangely enough, the bottom tax bracket was a lot higher then also. The reason for that is actually quite simple, the top tax bracket is never the main source of government revenue. If you want higher taxes at least be honest about it and admit you want to tax the middle class so you can pay for all of your pet programs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Recessions are not defined by employment.

You're right, but employment is a pretty strong indicator of overall economic health. Recessions are defined by falling GDP. So what happened to GDP during the Depression? On the upswing from March of 1933 to May of 1937. Spending restraint kicks the economy back in to recession from May of 1937 to June of 1938. From there, the economy grows every month until February of 1945.

How much did spending go down to when they did these horrible restraints?

When the Government dumps money on the markets some numbers will always look good, that's what you don't understand. Hell, we could enter a recession and by definition be out of it the next month if they just kept giving people money, problem is it's not real and can't last, leaving you will mass debt.

Not a lot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?

Sure.

It was called "The Great Depression".

And it didn't end until government started spending loads of money. First on infrastucture then on a war.

Can you point to the year prior to Hitler invading France in 1940 when all this government spending lowered unemployment below 14%?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we were in a depression throughout the Second World War? Someone should tell that to the 2% unemployment rate. Also, the economy actually dipped in to a recession because of post-war demobilization.

Recessions are not defined by employment.

You're right, but employment is a pretty strong indicator of overall economic health. Recessions are defined by falling GDP. So what happened to GDP during the Depression? On the upswing from March of 1933 to May of 1937. Spending restraint kicks the economy back in to recession from May of 1937 to June of 1938. From there, the economy grows every month until February of 1945.

Giving FDR credit for economy growth because the FED started putting back the money siphoned off of the US economy is silly.

The FDR Depression was worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years and a total central planning fail

 

[Polk]

good point!! If dumping money were in fact good we'd all know it, even economists, and recessions/depressions would be a thing of the past!!

Dumping money causes bubbles like the liberal housing bubble that burst to cause the current liberal depression. Trying to teach a liberal economics is like trying to teach geometry to a goldfish.

1. It's not a universal good, but even in the cases where it is good, people oppose it because it doesn't strike them as morally right.
2. The housing bubble was caused by the easy money policies of Alan Greenspan. Last time I checked, Greenspan is a Republican.

And all you really care about is Republican VS Democrat, that's why you can't and won't learn.

To you, a slight near meaningless cut in spending during FDR's time as President is why the GD kept going... Of course then spending goes right back up and grows even and the Depression continues but that does not matter to you at all...

Harding destroys a depression by doing everything you claim makes a Depression worse and..... what? Just air.... No debate, no talking... Just skip 9 years to the next depression and while you’re at it blame it all on Harding and Coolidge!

What I’m trying to point out here is that when cutting and shrinking and non interventionism is done things get better, in fact Harding had something like 2% UE at one point I believe. Yet you gloss over it. Then, under FDR you actually have the balls to claim a near meaningless cut in spending is why the Depression kept going… You have to search and then over credit these cuts but hey, if it allows you to fully and absolutely blame something other than the mass spending FDR was doing then you do it.

You have a good story, if only pesky facts didn't get in your way.
1. Harding didn't face a sustained downturn. He entered office during the demobilization from the First World War. The recession ended four months after he took office, so the impact of his policies where nil. Also, it's dishonest to say "skip 9 years to the next depression". The economy spent two more years in recession during that time period (5/23-7/24 and 10/26-11/27). The "Roaring 20s" weren't a constant roar.
2. The spending cut figures and the national income figures track too closely together for anything else to explain the 1937 recession (though many cons have tried to come up with excuses over the years).

And no, Government spending is not real in the context I gave. It’s fake because a recession/depression is something that is actually measured, but when/if Government dumps cash on the markets the numbers magically go up… Life does in fact not get any better as Hoover/FDR/Bush/Obama have proved… FDR proved you can have people starving in the streets for 10 years plus while spending insane amounts. But again, you don’t want to learn, you want to “feel” like you’re the good guy despite it is your way of thinking that starves people, destroys people lives, costs them their homes and health… You have proved you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

Life didn't get any better? I'm guessing the millions of people earned a living building dams for the TVA, or tens of thousands who had electric power for the first time because of the Rural Electrification Administration, or still use public facilities today build by the Works Progress Administration.

 

[Polk]

POLK: And all you really care about is Republican VS Democrat,

thats because all the voting booth cares about is Republican versus Democrat. Thankfully it is the perfect distilation of all of human history:

freedom versus government!!!

I do really love these slams from such obvious partisan cheerleaders.