How is austerity doing in Europe

[RKMBrown]

Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...

 

[Rshermr]

Bullshit. Unless you are spending to defend from enemies who are attacking you... Less money sucked into the vortex that is government spending is most certainly a better investment in the economy than government spending.

Nothing, nothing done by government is better than what the people would have done for themselves with their own money. You want my paycheck to spend on your crack pot investment scheme? Screw you.

Profound, rkm. Stupid. Unsubstantiated. But I am sure you believe it is profound. So, do you have an example of a bad economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Nice. A graph from freedom works. A true bat shit crazy con web site. Try again, me poor ignorant con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...

Wow. Again right out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. Nice. Do you ever try rational, non partial sources??? Or do you stay rite there in your comfort zone. Because it leaves you as nothing but a joke, if you do.
For instance, if you look at the charts, you would see that reagans tax cuts in 1981 started the ue rate up, and it went to the highest point since the great depression by late 1982. Then, he borrowed more than all the previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And increased taxes 11 times. His other tax decreases happened during low unemployment. When tax decreases make sense. Sorry for the truth of the matter. You can now go back to the bat shit crazy con sites you feel more comfortable in.

 

[Kimura]

GDP growth is everywhere and always economic growth. That is not debatable.

However, it is fair to critique the quality of growth. For example, much of the growth in the 00s was driven by a housing bubble. Without the housing bubble, growth would have been lower. It is also fair to question whether QE is creating similar artificial growth. Only time will tell, but given that it is controversial and the scale unprecedented, it is open to fair criticism.

There are many things which can contribute to economic growth. The issue is whether or not it is indeed economic growth, but whether or not it always the best indicator no matter what. If it's used right, it can be, but often times it's used as a bogus metric.

Actually, the issue very much is whether GDP is indeed economic growth. During the Obama years, GDP has crawled upward while debt has skyrocketed and now for the first time ever, the debt has surpassed GDP. The question is not can the US sustain this trend; but for how long. I would say that the last four years have been severely negative in many ways for the US economy. Yet, if we were to take Toro's simple minded approach of only looking at GDP, we could only deduce that everything is roses.

Debt-to-GDP ratios don’t affect growth. If the US didn’t have a non-convertible currency, or had its debts denominated in another currency, then it would be a problem. The Reinhart and Rogoff data – besides omitting these variables – had coding errors and omitted certain time periods. In Eurozone countries we find that government budget constraints create a negative relationship between debt-to-GDP ratios and growth.

In monetarily sovereign nations, such as the US, UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia, etc we could see an indirect relationship between debt-to-GDP ratios and growth as a direct result of reactionary policies by the political class who worship austerity in a cult-like devotion, even though the data presents a different story, such as deficit reductions having a negative impact on growth. It’s all basic macroaccounting at the end of the day.

There really isn’t national debt in the traditional sense of the word. All we’re doing is swapping out one government sector financial instrument (US Treasuries) for another type of financial instrument (bank deposits). We’re simply dealing with changing the composition of assets between the government sector and private sector, since net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny. Any and all financial assets in the private sector are liabilities of the federal government - both as currency and bonds. The exchange of these assets cannot pose any strain on the US financial system in any capacity any more than transferring money between your checking account and savings account.

 

[RKMBrown]

Profound, rkm. Stupid. Unsubstantiated. But I am sure you believe it is profound. So, do you have an example of a bad economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Nice. A graph from freedom works. A true bat shit crazy con web site. Try again, me poor ignorant con tool.

The source is OMB (the whitehouse) and BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). You saw a website advertisement and freaked out. ROFL

 

[RKMBrown]

Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...

Wow. Again right out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. Nice. Do you ever try rational, non partial sources??? Or do you stay rite there in your comfort zone. Because it leaves you as nothing but a joke, if you do.
For instance, if you look at the charts, you would see that reagans tax cuts in 1981 started the ue rate up, and it went to the highest point since the great depression by late 1982. Then, he borrowed more than all the previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And increased taxes 11 times. His other tax decreases happened during low unemployment. When tax decreases make sense. Sorry for the truth of the matter. You can now go back to the bat shit crazy con sites you feel more comfortable in.

I wrote that paragraph you ignorant prick. What the hell is a "ue rate?" Do you mean "revenue?" You are nothing but a TROLL An ass hole looking for a life.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are many things which can contribute to economic growth. The issue is whether or not it is indeed economic growth, but whether or not it always the best indicator no matter what. If it's used right, it can be, but often times it's used as a bogus metric.

Actually, the issue very much is whether GDP is indeed economic growth. During the Obama years, GDP has crawled upward while debt has skyrocketed and now for the first time ever, the debt has surpassed GDP. The question is not can the US sustain this trend; but for how long. I would say that the last four years have been severely negative in many ways for the US economy. Yet, if we were to take Toro's simple minded approach of only looking at GDP, we could only deduce that everything is roses.

Debt-to-GDP ratios don’t affect growth. If the US didn’t have a non-convertible currency, or had its debts denominated in another currency, then it would be a problem. The Reinhart and Rogoff data – besides omitting these variables – had coding errors and omitted certain time periods. In Eurozone countries we find that government budget constraints create a negative relationship between debt-to-GDP ratios and growth.

In monetarily sovereign nations, such as the US, UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia, etc we could see an indirect relationship between debt-to-GDP ratios and growth as a direct result of reactionary policies by the political class who worship austerity in a cult-like devotion, even though the data presents a different story, such as deficit reductions having a negative impact on growth. It’s all basic macroaccounting at the end of the day.

There really isn’t national debt in the traditional sense of the word. All we’re doing is swapping out one government sector financial instrument (US Treasuries) for another type of financial instrument (bank deposits). We’re simply dealing with changing the composition of assets between the government sector and private sector, since net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny. Any and all financial assets in the private sector are liabilities of the federal government - both as currency and bonds. The exchange of these assets cannot pose any strain on the US financial system in any capacity any more than transferring money between your checking account and savings account.

What a load of crap. If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth. YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE. YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.

 

[Kimura]

What a load of crap. If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth. YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE. YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.

You cannot compare households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. We can't use the currency in any capacity until the government spends it. Under a fiat system, for the umpteenth time, spending precedes taxing and any type of "borrowing". The federal government basically taxes what it has already spent, and also borrows back what it has already spent so to speak.

Secondly, the US government can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". The US government doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.

 

[RKMBrown]

What a load of crap. If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth. YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE. YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.

You cannot compare households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. The US can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". Also, the US doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.

I nominate this "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" as the dumbest post of all time! Ranks up there with Pelosi's we have to spend our way out of this recession comment.

 

[Freemason9]

Bullshit. Unless you are spending to defend from enemies who are attacking you... Less money sucked into the vortex that is government spending is most certainly a better investment in the economy than government spending.

Nothing, nothing done by government is better than what the people would have done for themselves with their own money. You want my paycheck to spend on your crack pot investment scheme? Screw you.

Profound, rkm. Stupid. Unsubstantiated. But I am sure you believe it is profound. So, do you have an example of a bad economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Note that in 1980-81--prior to the onset of Reagan's "supply side economics" strategy and tax cuts--the economy had already started to recover from a long and painful recessionary environment, although growth was still slow. Reagan's tax cuts had the effect of immediately reducing tax revenue for the next two years. Tax revenue increased again from 1985 on because of ECONOMIC RECOVERY. And actually, had Reagan just left the rate structure alone, the rate of economic growth carried forward from 1980-81 would have indicated far more growth than what we got with the cuts. So it may be that Reagan impeded economic growth and caused economic harm through his tax policies--the upward trend in 1980-81 was greater than anything Reagan achieved later.
If you bothered to look into history, you would find that tax revenues always increase rather briskly during the periods after recession--IOW, during economic recoveries. It's actually happening right now.

You should also recall that many Reagan "cuts" were restored later--although the greater effect of Reagan tax cuts was to shift tax assessments downward to city/county/state levels that tended to be more regressive.

IOW, it's a big complex subject that cannot be readly described through a simple picture graph.

 

[RKMBrown]

Profound, rkm. Stupid. Unsubstantiated. But I am sure you believe it is profound. So, do you have an example of a bad economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Note that in 1980-81--prior to the onset of Reagan's "supply side economics" strategy and tax cuts--the economy had already started to recover from a long and painful recessionary environment, although growth was still slow. Reagan's tax cuts had the effect of immediately reducing tax revenue for the next two years. Tax revenue increased again from 1985 on because of ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

If you bothered to look into history, you would find that tax revenues always increase rather briskly during the periods after recession--IOW, during economic recoveries. It's actually happening right now.

You should also recall that many Reagan "cuts" were restored later--although the greater effect of Reagan tax cuts was to shift tax assessments downward to city/county/state levels that tended to be more regressive.

IOW, it's a big complex subject that cannot be readly described through a simple picture graph.

I lived through the Carter years, the Reagan years, ... there is no comparison. Reagan's revolution brought America back from the brink of destruction. It plugged the holes in the boat and set it moving again. The Bush's and Obama took the plugs out and have sunk the ship. We are on the bottom. There is no chance for recovery. We are now living in a quasi facist / socialist state. I'd just as soon burn my bank account as let this government get ahold of a red cent from me.

 

[Kimura]

What a load of crap. If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth. YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE. YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.

You cannot compare households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. The US can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". Also, the US doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.

I nominate this "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" as the dumbest post of all time! Ranks up there with Pelosi's we have to spend our way out of this recession comment.

Who does the US borrow from? Santa Claus? The US government doesn’t have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer. Any and all tax payments and bond purchases are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn’t so, there wouldn’t be any dollars to buy US financial securities (Treasuries) or any money to extinguish your tax obligations.

Operationally, the settlement of bond auctions and tax payments to the Treasury can only happen through reserve accounts. The balances in these reserve accounts are from previous government deficits which are comprised of FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These Federal Reserve loans can be facilitated by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos. Therefore, in order for any bond sales to get settled, or for tax payments to get made, there must have been previous government spending.

 

[Freemason9]

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Note that in 1980-81--prior to the onset of Reagan's "supply side economics" strategy and tax cuts--the economy had already started to recover from a long and painful recessionary environment, although growth was still slow. Reagan's tax cuts had the effect of immediately reducing tax revenue for the next two years. Tax revenue increased again from 1985 on because of ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

If you bothered to look into history, you would find that tax revenues always increase rather briskly during the periods after recession--IOW, during economic recoveries. It's actually happening right now.

You should also recall that many Reagan "cuts" were restored later--although the greater effect of Reagan tax cuts was to shift tax assessments downward to city/county/state levels that tended to be more regressive.

IOW, it's a big complex subject that cannot be readly described through a simple picture graph.

I lived through the Carter years, the Reagan years, ... there is no comparison. Reagan's revolution brought America back from the brink of destruction. It plugged the holes in the boat and set it moving again. The Bush's and Obama took the plugs out and have sunk the ship. We are on the bottom. There is no chance for recovery. We are now living in a quasi facist / socialist state. I'd just as soon burn my bank account as let this government get ahold of a red cent from me.

Pure bullshit.

The economy of the 1970s was defined by excessive war spending, a constriction of oil (energy) supplies and consequent price hikes, soldiers re-entering a battered job market, the growth of Asian competitors, and an absurd obsession with stopping inflation by Ford.
Ford policies hammered the economy (remember his WIN buttons? LOL). Carter spent his term trying to undo the Nixon-Ford legacy. He did it, too, and the economy responded with a recovery in 1980-81.

Unfortunately, Reagan shit all over it.

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't like this government either, and this government comes from a flawed Constititution that prevents improvement in processes. We will eventually demand and get a new government that actually HONORS working people for a change.

 

[Freemason9]

You cannot compare households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. The US can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". Also, the US doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.

I nominate this "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" as the dumbest post of all time! Ranks up there with Pelosi's we have to spend our way out of this recession comment.

Who does the US borrow from? Santa Claus? The US government doesn’t have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer. Any and all tax payments and bond purchases are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn’t so, there wouldn’t be any dollars to buy US financial securities (Treasuries) or any money to extinguish your tax obligations.

Operationally, the settlement of bond auctions and tax payments to the Treasury can only happen through reserve accounts. The balances in these reserve accounts are from previous government deficits which are comprised of FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These Federal Reserve loans can be facilitated by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos. Therefore, in order for any bond sales to get settled, or for tax payments to get made, there must have been previous government spending.

Technically, the U.S. government borrows nothing at all. It creates money and expands the money supply by debt creation. Unfortunately, many Americans imagine that the process is similar to car loans. It isn't.

The U.S. can create as many jobs as it wants. The fact that it doesn't create jobs says a great deal, don't you think?

 

[Rshermr]

Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...

Wow. Again right out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. Nice. Do you ever try rational, non partial sources??? Or do you stay rite there in your comfort zone. Because it leaves you as nothing but a joke, if you do.
For instance, if you look at the charts, you would see that reagans tax cuts in 1981 started the ue rate up, and it went to the highest point since the great depression by late 1982. Then, he borrowed more than all the previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And increased taxes 11 times. His other tax decreases happened during low unemployment. When tax decreases make sense. Sorry for the truth of the matter. You can now go back to the bat shit crazy con sites you feel more comfortable in.

. I wrote that paragraph you ignorant prick. What the hell is a "ue rate?" Do you mean "revenue?" You are nothing but a TROLL An ass hole looking for a life.

Wow. You actually admit to writing that drivel?? Well, good for you
The ue rate, should you have any idea of economics is widely understood to mean the unemployment rate. Not my problem you are an ignorant con with no economic knowledge.

 

[Rshermr]

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Nice. A graph from freedom works. A true bat shit crazy con web site. Try again, me poor ignorant con tool.

The source is OMB (the whitehouse) and BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). You saw a website advertisement and freaked out. ROFL

no, me poor ignorant con tool. I saw who they got their nubers from. But we all by this time, assuming we have a brain (maybe that leaves you out) know that those numbers can be picked as wanted for particular times. And given particular meanings which have nothing to do with the truth. I could, for instance, go get numbers moveon.org had taken from the blm and produced graphs and made statements of meaning. But then I would not. Because I have integrity. Sorry you do not.

 

[RKMBrown]

You cannot compare households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. The US can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". Also, the US doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.

I nominate this "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" as the dumbest post of all time! Ranks up there with Pelosi's we have to spend our way out of this recession comment.

Who does the US borrow from? Santa Claus? The US government doesn’t have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer. Any and all tax payments and bond purchases are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn’t so, there wouldn’t be any dollars to buy US financial securities (Treasuries) or any money to extinguish your tax obligations.

Operationally, the settlement of bond auctions and tax payments to the Treasury can only happen through reserve accounts. The balances in these reserve accounts are from previous government deficits which are comprised of FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These Federal Reserve loans can be facilitated by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos. Therefore, in order for any bond sales to get settled, or for tax payments to get made, there must have been previous government spending.

>>> Who does the US borrow from?
Anyone who will buy t-bills. Sometimes that is American citizens, sometimes it is non-us citizens, sometimes the independent banking cartel called the "fed" does.

>>> Santa Claus?
No. Santa is a fictional character. It's just a story.

>>> The US government doesn’t have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.
I have no idea what borrowing fiat means. But yes the US Government can engage in the process of quantitative easing, or could change the current monetary system, and can also declare debt as invalid. It's good to be king.

>>> Any and all tax payments and bond purchases are made with money that is already spent.

Huh? The act of spending money moves money from one account to another account. If that's what you are trying to say ok. But I have no idea why you think you can spend money that is already spent, it's ludicrous and makes me think you are confusing theft and fraud with normal accounting practices.

>>> If this wasn’t so, there wouldn’t be any dollars to buy US financial securities (Treasuries) or any money to extinguish your tax obligations.

HUH? Here you appear to be confusing the concept of "currency" in the form of notes, with the concept of amounts of funds secured in accounts foreign and domestic. At any point in time only a very small fraction of assets are represented in the form of physical bills or notes.

>>> The balances in these reserve accounts are from previous government deficits which are comprised of FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These Federal Reserve loans can be facilitated by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos. Therefore, in order for any bond sales to get settled, or for tax payments to get made, there must have been previous government spending.

Agreed. Not sure how that ties to "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" comment but ok. I suppose it was a typo and you really meant to say "the federal government has to borrow money before it has to repay the loan by taking our assets?"

 

[Kimura]

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Note that in 1980-81--prior to the onset of Reagan's "supply side economics" strategy and tax cuts--the economy had already started to recover from a long and painful recessionary environment, although growth was still slow. Reagan's tax cuts had the effect of immediately reducing tax revenue for the next two years. Tax revenue increased again from 1985 on because of ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

If you bothered to look into history, you would find that tax revenues always increase rather briskly during the periods after recession--IOW, during economic recoveries. It's actually happening right now.

You should also recall that many Reagan "cuts" were restored later--although the greater effect of Reagan tax cuts was to shift tax assessments downward to city/county/state levels that tended to be more regressive.

IOW, it's a big complex subject that cannot be readly described through a simple picture graph.

I lived through the Carter years, the Reagan years, ... there is no comparison. Reagan's revolution brought America back from the brink of destruction. It plugged the holes in the boat and set it moving again. The Bush's and Obama took the plugs out and have sunk the ship. We are on the bottom. There is no chance for recovery. We are now living in a quasi facist / socialist state. I'd just as soon burn my bank account as let this government get ahold of a red cent from me.

If we look at the Reagan era (supply-side), it was completely and utterly distorted. It’s overall effects were badly filtered through the economy, because it was connected to other idiotic polices which negatively affected wage earners. As a matter of fact, real income for wage earners decreased in the 1980s, and they continue to decrease, or fail to keep up with our distorted policies. If these wretched supply-side policies actually worked, then the individuals making said supply, the workers, should have seen an increase in real incomes. It never happened.

Let’s look at some numbers: business investments in the 1980s averaged around 10% of GDP.This included the Reagan tax cuts. If we look at the 1970s, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP in the 1970s. We’re looking at a 100% increase in business investment. This happened even with those satanic and demonic unions. Business investment under Obama makes up 15% of GDP, even after we had that paltry stimulus.

 

[Rshermr]

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.

Note that in 1980-81--prior to the onset of Reagan's "supply side economics" strategy and tax cuts--the economy had already started to recover from a long and painful recessionary environment, although growth was still slow. Reagan's tax cuts had the effect of immediately reducing tax revenue for the next two years. Tax revenue increased again from 1985 on because of ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

If you bothered to look into history, you would find that tax revenues always increase rather briskly during the periods after recession--IOW, during economic recoveries. It's actually happening right now.

You should also recall that many Reagan "cuts" were restored later--although the greater effect of Reagan tax cuts was to shift tax assessments downward to city/county/state levels that tended to be more regressive.

IOW, it's a big complex subject that cannot be readly described through a simple picture graph.

I lived through the Carter years, the Reagan years, ... there is no comparison. Reagan's revolution brought America back from the brink of destruction. It plugged the holes in the boat and set it moving again. The Bush's and Obama took the plugs out and have sunk the ship. We are on the bottom. There is no chance for recovery. We are now living in a quasi facist / socialist state. I'd just as soon burn my bank account as let this government get ahold of a red cent from me.

You are making a fool of yourself, rkm. Your complete lack of understanding of economics and lack of interest in learning anything is showing. There are actual really high level economics blogs, where you would not have a clue. There is this rather average joe level economic board, which is still way above you. Maybe you could look at the efci.com site. It is more your level. The full name is economics for congenital idiots.com. Just your level.

 

[Kimura]

Anyone who will buy t-bills. Sometimes that is American citizens, sometimes it is non-us citizens, sometimes the independent banking cartel called the "fed" does.

Operationally, bonds function to drain any excess reserves from the banking system. They also provide a place for the private sector to park its wealth in a risk-free environment.
What do those Americans and foreigners use to purchase T-Bills? They use dollars in their respective bank accounts which had to have been spent into existence by the government at some point.

I have no idea what borrowing fiat means. But yes the US Government can engage in the process of quantitative easing, or could change the current monetary system, and can also declare debt as invalid. It's good to be king.

QE isn't money printing if that's what you're getting at. US public debt simply reflects the total savings of the US economy. In other words, it represents the private sector's desire to save in US financial assets.

Huh? The act of spending money moves money from one account to another account. If that's what you are trying to say ok. But I have no idea why you think you can spend money that is already spent, it's ludicrous and makes me think you are confusing theft and fraud with normal accounting practices.

My point was the spending, under a fiat monetary system, precedes any taxing and borrowing.

HUH? Here you appear to be confusing the concept of "currency" in the form of notes, with the concept of amounts of funds secured in accounts foreign and domestic. At any point in time only a very small fraction of assets are represented in the form of physical bills or notes.

No, I'm not.

It's the same on the federal government's side of the ledger. Currency and bonds are liabilities of the federal government, which makes them assets to the public.

Agreed. Not sure how that ties to "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" comment but ok. I suppose it was a typo and you really meant to say "the federal government has to borrow money before it has to repay the loan by taking our assets?"

The current assumption is we pay taxes and purchase bonds so the national government can spend. This is operationally not the case. We can't use the currency until the federal government spends it, which is why spending precedes borrowing and taxing under a fiat system. Uncle Sam is borrowing back and taxing what's already spent. People make the mistake that we're still on a fixed-exchange rate in which case we'd really have to tax and borrow.