How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!

Ah. I wondered whom Tania had for research assistants. A genuine congenital idiot incapable of truth. OF COURSE!!!

 

[Graphix]

now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!

Ah. I wondered whom Tania had for research assistants. A genuine congenital idiot incapable of truth. OF COURSE!!!

pot calling kettle lmao at least I know when I'm wrong you just keep going and going thanks for the laughs. I thought this forum was going to be boring.

The best way to think about this continued slump, I’d argue, is to accept that we’re in a depression …. It’s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: "a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse."

Paul Krugman End This Depression Now!

http://digamo.free.fr/krugman12.pdf

here is a free copy of the book dude. you could really use it. LMAO TOO FUNNY

 

[Rshermr]

now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!

Ah. I wondered whom Tania had for research assistants. A genuine congenital idiot incapable of truth. OF COURSE!!!

pot calling kettle lmao at least I know when I'm wrong you just keep going and going thanks for the laughs. I thought this forum was going to be boring.

The best way to think about this continued slump, I’d argue, is to accept that we’re in a depression …. It’s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: "a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse."

Paul Krugman End This Depression Now!

http://digamo.free.fr/krugman12.pdf

here is a free copy of the book dude. you could really use it. LMAO TOO FUNNY

But that is what con tools do, me poor ignorant con. They believe what they want to believe. Good for you. It is SOOO much easier than actually learning anything. And you can therefor tell anyone the truth about whether ignorance is bliss. Cause, jesus, are you ignorant.

 

[oldfart]

So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:

So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.

Well, but then, yes,it was a pretty stupid statement by you. Because, me dear, I did not say any such thing. Now this is tough for a con tool to follow, but here goes. I am going to try to get you to understand what I said. Though it was pretty clear:

If at one point in the down economy, unemployment is say 9.5% and you are not in a depression, and it then goes, over a two or three year period, to 7.4%, then (now pay attention, because I know you are trying to ignore this) then the UE rate is BETTER. And if the first ue rate had indicated no depression was underway, then we were certainly not in depression at that later date when the ue rate had dropped. And dropped a goodly amount.
And, if gdp is down a fair amount, but no one is calling it a depression, then it could not be a depression when gdp has increased during that time, and increased to record levels.

"When Roosevelt took office in 1933, real GDP was more than 30% below its normal trend level. (For comparison, the U.S. economy is currently estimated to be between 5 and 10% below
trend.)"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2009/3/09 lessons/0309_lessons_romer

You see, me dishonest con tool, it is indeed possible to have a ue rate that goes from 3 to 25%, and a downturn in gnp that drops by over 30% of it.s trend line, and then have both of those indicators improve and still be in a depression. As it did during the great depression.

So, try as you can to change the subject, it is still the case that you can find not even a single economist who believes we are in a depression. So, apparently you have given that up, and are trying to misquote what I have said. Tacky, me poor con tool. Shows a complete lack of integrity.
You are getting really boreing. Trying to prove we are currently in a depression is stupid, me dear. Makes you look like a tool. And a fool.

I think this particular argument has more than run its course. There is no firm definition of "depression" in economics. Economic historians generally accept the NBER definition of recessions and their judgment in declaring them. Depressions are usually measured by tracking from the quarter where real GDP begins to fall to the quarter where real GDP surpasses the original quarter GDP figure ("peak and trough" calculations). A better measure might be to calculate the depression as continuing until there are two or more quarters where the growth rate of real GDP reaches the long-term trend level for growth (note that this will still be lower that GDP would have been had there been no depression).

According to the NBER, the current downturn began in late 2007 and persisted until the end of 2009. By the "peak & trough" method, the current downturn began in late 2007 and reached pre-recession real GDP in the second quarter of 2011. By the "trend line" method, growth is still under 2% and we have a way to go before we are back on the long-term trend line.

We have only two benchmark periods to compare this to, the Great Depression of the Thirties and the Long Depression of the 1870-80's. Both lasted ten years or longer.

So can we lay to rest the issue of who called the current economic downtrend a depression, and when, and what they meant by that? Then we could spend more time on the good stuff, like getting out of it.

 

[Graphix]

Ah. I wondered whom Tania had for research assistants. A genuine congenital idiot incapable of truth. OF COURSE!!!

pot calling kettle lmao at least I know when I'm wrong you just keep going and going thanks for the laughs. I thought this forum was going to be boring.

The best way to think about this continued slump, I’d argue, is to accept that we’re in a depression …. It’s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: "a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse."

Paul Krugman End This Depression Now!

http://digamo.free.fr/krugman12.pdf

here is a free copy of the book dude. you could really use it. LMAO TOO FUNNY

But that is what con tools do, me poor ignorant con. They believe what they want to believe. Good for you. It is SOOO much easier than actually learning anything. And you can therefor tell anyone the truth about whether ignorance is bliss. Cause, jesus, are you ignorant.

I ain't a con not that I know what one is lmao. and yeah, I should be learning from you! you know more than all our noble prize economist

you're so awesome eshermr!

 

[AmazonTania]

As you spend your time here (if you dwell in the economy section) you will become more familiar with how Rshermr thinks:

1. Anyone who disagrees with him is either a con, a tool or usually a combination of the two (con tool).
2. Anyone which does not align with his view of the world has an agenda.

Because he knows what is in everyone's hearts and what they believe. It's the gift he has... Also, you will probably learn that he isn't the most honest or consistent person to talk with, despite his claims on how everyone else is dishonest:

In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression. The title is tongue in cheek. You should actually read it. You may actually learn something.

The best way to think about this continued slump, I’d argue, is to accept the fact that we’re in a depression. No, it’s not the Great Depression, at least not for most of us (but talk to the Greeks, the Irish, or even the Spaniards, who have 23 percent unemployment—and almost 50 percent unemployment among the young). But it’s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: “a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse.”

Paul Krugman: End This Depression Now! Page 4

Good find on the book, BTW. I knew it had to have been leaked on the internet somewhere.

Why exactly does it matter if Krugman says we are in a depression? It really doesn't. I tried to make the case that the US is experiencing a depression, the effects are similar to the depression and there are many economist which supports this position. Apparently, it's impossible for any economist to disagree with Rshermr. He's just that closed-minded.

So what exactly have we've learned from our USMB economist thus far:

1. Depressions apparently only last 2 years. Only the parts where there is significant decline is only classified as a depression.
2. If GDP increases and unemployment decreases, you're not in a depression.
3. Krugman never said the United States was experiencing a depression.
4. Krugman never wrote a book stating the current economy condition was a depression. The title was apparently, 'tongue in cheek.'
5. The opinions of economist matter, except for when these economist tell you that you are wrong. Then all of a sudden the opinions of economist do not matter.
6. Krugman doesn't know what he is talking about when he classifies this economic climate as a 'Lesser Depression.' There is no such thing as a 'Lesser Depression.'
7. A Lesser Depression is not the same thing as a Depression, despite the fact that they're both classified as depressions.

Now that we all understand that we are in a depression, it would be better if everyone came up with solutions which would help get us out of it. Or we can continue to let the original poster turn this thread into an even bigger joke. Either one is fine with me.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:

So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.

Well, but then, yes,it was a pretty stupid statement by you. Because, me dear, I did not say any such thing. Now this is tough for a con tool to follow, but here goes. I am going to try to get you to understand what I said. Though it was pretty clear:

If at one point in the down economy, unemployment is say 9.5% and you are not in a depression, and it then goes, over a two or three year period, to 7.4%, then (now pay attention, because I know you are trying to ignore this) then the UE rate is BETTER. And if the first ue rate had indicated no depression was underway, then we were certainly not in depression at that later date when the ue rate had dropped. And dropped a goodly amount.
And, if gdp is down a fair amount, but no one is calling it a depression, then it could not be a depression when gdp has increased during that time, and increased to record levels.

"When Roosevelt took office in 1933, real GDP was more than 30% below its normal trend level. (For comparison, the U.S. economy is currently estimated to be between 5 and 10% below
trend.)"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2009/3/09 lessons/0309_lessons_romer

You see, me dishonest con tool, it is indeed possible to have a ue rate that goes from 3 to 25%, and a downturn in gnp that drops by over 30% of it.s trend line, and then have both of those indicators improve and still be in a depression. As it did during the great depression.

So, try as you can to change the subject, it is still the case that you can find not even a single economist who believes we are in a depression. So, apparently you have given that up, and are trying to misquote what I have said. Tacky, me poor con tool. Shows a complete lack of integrity.
You are getting really boreing. Trying to prove we are currently in a depression is stupid, me dear. Makes you look like a tool. And a fool.

I think this particular argument has more than run its course. There is no firm definition of "depression" in economics. Economic historians generally accept the NBER definition of recessions and their judgment in declaring them. Depressions are usually measured by tracking from the quarter where real GDP begins to fall to the quarter where real GDP surpasses the original quarter GDP figure ("peak and trough" calculations). A better measure might be to calculate the depression as continuing until there are two or more quarters where the growth rate of real GDP reaches the long-term trend level for growth (note that this will still be lower that GDP would have been had there been no depression).

According to the NBER, the current downturn began in late 2007 and persisted until the end of 2009. By the "peak & trough" method, the current downturn began in late 2007 and reached pre-recession real GDP in the second quarter of 2011. By the "trend line" method, growth is still under 2% and we have a way to go before we are back on the long-term trend line.

We have only two benchmark periods to compare this to, the Great Depression of the Thirties and the Long Depression of the 1870-80's. Both lasted ten years or longer.

So can we lay to rest the issue of who called the current economic downtrend a depression, and when, and what they meant by that? Then we could spend more time on the good stuff, like getting out of it.

I am all for it. But I believe trying to call our current condition a depression simply does not pass the giggle test.
But that is the concern, no doubt. That we take a look at where we are and determine what needs to happen to get back to a good economic state. So, what would you suggest. It would appear to me, from looking at other periods of high unemployment, that we still could look toward infrastucture as the potential stimulus target. Because, from what I have seen, our issue is trying to jump create jobs in an economy that still lacks demand due to unemployment levels. And more particularly, in terms of good jobs.
I tried to start a string about the particular problems that I think that we have at this point in the evolution of our economy, which is how do you regain a situation where the economy is good for the middle class when so many of those jobs are outsourced, and mechanization has taken many of the better paying jobs away. The string went over like a fart in church, directly into a food fight about who deserved the spoils of increased productivity.
Thoughts???

 

[Rshermr]

What is the effect of austerity on the larger countries where it has been implemented in Europe? Here is the latest numbers I have been able to find:
In the UK, a decrease in GDP of 3% since 2009.
file:///C:/Users/Rick/Desktop/taylor%20fig1%2019%20jul.png
Austerity has cost the UK £3,500 for every household

 

[Rshermr]

What is the effect of austerity on the larger countries where it has been implemented in Europe? Here is the latest numbers I have been able to find:
In the UK, a decrease in GDP of 3% since 2009.

Austerity has cost the UK £3,500 for every household

 

[oldfart]

I think this particular argument has more than run its course....So can we lay to rest the issue of who called the current economic downtrend a depression, and when, and what they meant by that? Then we could spend more time on the good stuff, like getting out of it.

I am all for it. But I believe trying to call our current condition a depression simply does not pass the giggle test.
But that is the concern, no doubt. That we take a look at where we are and determine what needs to happen to get back to a good economic state. So, what would you suggest. It would appear to me, from looking at other periods of high unemployment, that we still could look toward infrastucture as the potential stimulus target. Because, from what I have seen, our issue is trying to jump create jobs in an economy that still lacks demand due to unemployment levels. And more particularly, in terms of good jobs.
I tried to start a string about the particular problems that I think that we have at this point in the evolution of our economy, which is how do you regain a situation where the economy is good for the middle class when so many of those jobs are outsourced, and mechanization has taken many of the better paying jobs away. The string went over like a fart in church, directly into a food fight about who deserved the spoils of increased productivity.
Thoughts???

My post was an attempt to move on to something that would progress rather than simply repeat itself. You are correct in that attempts to do so often get sidetracked pretty quickly, we both have threads that start OK and by the tenth post are shot to hell. Amazontania usually makes some good points and has had the same thing happen to her.

Sometimes the only way to move on is to move on. In that spirit I note a recent paper by Antonio Fatás and Ilian Mihov dated August 14 that revisits business cycle theory. (See, somehow I have managed to remain on topic!)

Here: Recoveries: The missing third phase of the business cycle | vox

Basically they use NBER dating for peak and trough dates by quarter for downturns since 1948 and a new measure which I don't fully understand (you have to pay to get the actual paper, and I'm cheap, so I can't look at the methodological notes) to date a quarter of "recovery" where GDP rejoins a long-term trend line.

In five recessions beginning in 1948 through 1969 the recovery lasted 3 to 5 quarters beyond the official end of the recession by NBER definitions. Since then three recessions ('73, '81, and '90) had recoveries lasting 5 or 6 quarters, two ('80 & '01) did not achieve a recovery before the next recession hit, and the current one is 16 quarters and counting. [Table 1] Clearly the nature of recessions and especially of recoveries changed about 1980.

So check them out and let me know what you think of the idea of concentrating on the recoveries rather than the recessions!

 

[Rshermr]

I think this particular argument has more than run its course....So can we lay to rest the issue of who called the current economic downtrend a depression, and when, and what they meant by that? Then we could spend more time on the good stuff, like getting out of it.

I am all for it. But I believe trying to call our current condition a depression simply does not pass the giggle test.
But that is the concern, no doubt. That we take a look at where we are and determine what needs to happen to get back to a good economic state. So, what would you suggest. It would appear to me, from looking at other periods of high unemployment, that we still could look toward infrastucture as the potential stimulus target. Because, from what I have seen, our issue is trying to jump create jobs in an economy that still lacks demand due to unemployment levels. And more particularly, in terms of good jobs.
I tried to start a string about the particular problems that I think that we have at this point in the evolution of our economy, which is how do you regain a situation where the economy is good for the middle class when so many of those jobs are outsourced, and mechanization has taken many of the better paying jobs away. The string went over like a fart in church, directly into a food fight about who deserved the spoils of increased productivity.
Thoughts???

My post was an attempt to move on to something that would progress rather than simply repeat itself. You are correct in that attempts to do so often get sidetracked pretty quickly, we both have threads that start OK and by the tenth post are shot to hell. Amazontania usually makes some good points and has had the same thing happen to her.

Sometimes the only way to move on is to move on. In that spirit I note a recent paper by Antonio Fatás and Ilian Mihov dated August 14 that revisits business cycle theory. (See, somehow I have managed to remain on topic!)

Here: Recoveries: The missing third phase of the business cycle | vox

Basically they use NBER dating for peak and trough dates by quarter for downturns since 1948 and a new measure which I don't fully understand (you have to pay to get the actual paper, and I'm cheap, so I can't look at the methodological notes) to date a quarter of "recovery" where GDP rejoins a long-term trend line.

In five recessions beginning in 1948 through 1969 the recovery lasted 3 to 5 quarters beyond the official end of the recession by NBER definitions. Since then three recessions ('73, '81, and '90) had recoveries lasting 5 or 6 quarters, two ('80 & '01) did not achieve a recovery before the next recession hit, and the current one is 16 quarters and counting. [Table 1] Clearly the nature of recessions and especially of recoveries changed about 1980.

So check them out and let me know what you think of the idea of concentrating on the recoveries rather than the recessions!

I looked at the paper, and actually found it interesting. But obviously there was no intent to explain the reasons why. I have made my thoughts known, and am hardly bashful about doing so again. But I would very much be interested in your thoughts.
In general, I think that the most important issue that I can see relative to the 2007 recession is that it was quite deep and that it did not get sufficient support from gov programs to bring the economy back, in terms of employment particularly. It may be simplistic in nature, but I believe that the fact that the stimulus was not large enough particularly because such a large portion of the stimulus was tax cuts. And in particular, as the cbo has supported, the tax cuts for the wealthier taxpayers had very little if any effect. What was needed was stimulus in terms of spending on those areas with the best multipliers. And with the best opportunity for long term economic and social benefit.
Having said that, I am concerned with the lack of interest in spending for hiring by business in general. That is, in relation to past recession recoveries. So, there you go. My questions are why no more push for infrastructure stimulus and why the lack of hiring in relation to gains in gnp.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago?? In the worst of the great recession??? Why, NO, she forgot to mention that. So, we should look. Has gdp decreased???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Has the unemployment rate gone up???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%. And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.

But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.

You're a cherry picking hack, Rshermr and it would surprise me at all to learn that you have some sort of vested interest in spreading your propaganda.

The US unemployment rate is a govt. scam (much like the rest of what the govt. does). The reality is that 1 in 5 of able bodied Americans who want to work are not working. 1 in 3 are not working or are underemployed. The system has only increased to a system of elite haves and have nots over the last 100 years as politicians regulate people out of business and throw their pittance to the poor.

 

[Rshermr]

Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago?? In the worst of the great recession??? Why, NO, she forgot to mention that. So, we should look. Has gdp decreased???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Has the unemployment rate gone up???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%. And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.

But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.

You're a cherry picking hack, Rshermr and it would surprise me at all to learn that you have some sort of vested interest in spreading your propaganda.

The US unemployment rate is a govt. scam (much like the rest of what the govt. does). The reality is that 1 in 5 of able bodied Americans who want to work are not working. 1 in 3 are not working or are underemployed. The system has only increased to a system of elite haves and have nots over the last 100 years as politicians regulate people out of business and throw their pittance to the poor.

OK. Good. we have the alternative reality posted bare and without proof. got it.

 

[oldfart]

In that spirit I note a recent paper by Antonio Fatás and Ilian Mihov dated August 14 that revisits business cycle theory. (See, somehow I have managed to remain on topic!)

Here: Recoveries: The missing third phase of the business cycle | vox

Basically they use NBER dating for peak and trough dates by quarter for downturns since 1948 and a new measure which I don't fully understand (you have to pay to get the actual paper, and I'm cheap, so I can't look at the methodological notes) to date a quarter of "recovery" where GDP rejoins a long-term trend line.

In five recessions beginning in 1948 through 1969 the recovery lasted 3 to 5 quarters beyond the official end of the recession by NBER definitions. Since then three recessions ('73, '81, and '90) had recoveries lasting 5 or 6 quarters, two ('80 & '01) did not achieve a recovery before the next recession hit, and the current one is 16 quarters and counting. [Table 1] Clearly the nature of recessions and especially of recoveries changed about 1980.

So check them out and let me know what you think of the idea of concentrating on the recoveries rather than the recessions!

I looked at the paper, and actually found it interesting. But obviously there was no intent to explain the reasons why. I have made my thoughts known, and am hardly bashful about doing so again. But I would very much be interested in your thoughts.
In general, I think that the most important issue that I can see relative to the 2007 recession is that it was quite deep and that it did not get sufficient support from gov programs to bring the economy back, in terms of employment particularly. It may be simplistic in nature, but I believe that the fact that the stimulus was not large enough particularly because such a large portion of the stimulus was tax cuts. And in particular, as the cbo has supported, the tax cuts for the wealthier taxpayers had very little if any effect. What was needed was stimulus in terms of spending on those areas with the best multipliers. And with the best opportunity for long term economic and social benefit.
Having said that, I am concerned with the lack of interest in spending for hiring by business in general. That is, in relation to past recession recoveries. So, there you go. My questions are why no more push for infrastructure stimulus and why the lack of hiring in relation to gains in gnp.

First what struck me as interesting is the focus on recovery. The economic press and punditocracy tend to report the NBER dates and when the recession is over, everything has been hunky-dory. That was generally true 1948--1980 when recoveries lasted 4 quarters and were so regular no one took notice of them. Something happened circa 1980 and is getting worse, recoveries are taking longer, often fail to achieve the trend line before the next, and (although the paper does not address this) have less and less to do with recovery of employment. So today we have a full recovery of the financial sector, large businesses are doing fine, and everything else is still mired in a de facto long recession.

My second thought is the degree to which this is OK for many people. I have always been a bit skeptical of the "social compact" line of reasoning (and maybe I need to start a thread on that!) because it is an ex-post facto concept (we agreed to what we agreed to, but not necessarily for how long). You can't really apply contract law to it, it's hard to see what the enforcement mechanism is, and it rarely includes everyone in the society. It does, however, make a pretty fertile ground for game theory!

So progressives argue that we have had a social compact that government will do certain things for the economic stability of the whole economy, including anti-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy, "automatic stabilizers" like unemployment benefits, and that this will result in everyone having an economic recovery on basically parallel paths, with a few lags. It isn't working out that way, so progressives blame the failure of recovery on simple inadequate stimulus and reform measures. Conservatives blame the failure on the very policies progressives want to expand, arguing for more downwardly flexible wages and prices, less regulation, curtailment of anti-cyclical and entitlement programs, and so forth. We can and are having the argument as to which view is correct, but my point is that both sides feel that the "social compact" is in dire need of renegotiation.

Personally, my over-arching theme in political economy is that political and social stability rest on an expected level of economic success over a broad swath of society, that left to its own devices our political and economic system tend to concentration of power which is the overwhelmingly predominant cause of systemic economic failure, and that therefore a continuous public policy to combat that concentration and its effects are necessary to avoid eventual catastrophic results. This is essentially in political terms the Fabian position of a century ago.

This position is adhered to by most "liberals" in the United States and a good number of conservatives, but it is rarely explicitly stated, because American political discourse has treated anything that can be attacked as "socialist" as sufficiently vulnerable as to be indefensible politically. But these concepts owe very little to socialism in general and Marxism in particular. They are firmly rooted in the American Progressive Movement of 1890--1920 (Bullmoose Party and all!) and of all things, Otto von Bismark. Most of the developed world takes these positions for granted and regard America as being subject to some form of collective delusional state or genetic defect that prevents Americans from seeing the obvious. Again off-topic, I think this is related to the vast gap between what Americans think the rest of the world thinks about America and what they really think. There's a nagging doubt everywhere that unsophisticated, childish, and brutal Americans are going to send the death drones whenever they get frustrated. And the "We-are-saving-the world-defending-freedom" and "see-how-generous-we-are!" schtick doesn't help either. [/rant]

Back on topic, the stimulus was inadequate for several reasons. First, Larry Summers acquiesed in Peterson's & Bernanke's plan to bail out the financial industry and leave everyone else holding the bag. When it came time for stimulus all he could do was dump on Christine Romer, whose only fault was in being right. Notice deja vu all over again, just replace Romer with Janet Yellen. It's a failure of political guts and a bad job of economic analysis, which is Summers forte when he's not being a misogynist. The guy is a slimeball, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. But it is now apparent that he was doing what Obama wanted him to do. Obama had the same kind of opportunity FDR had and could have surrounded himself with almost any economic team he wanted. He chose Clinton era recycles with Goldman Sachs ties. Forget the rhetoric, he had bought into the Wall Street mantra, confidence fairies and all, from the get-go. He just had no idea how big an error that was. And he is still doing the same.

You hit the nail on the head with the comment that too much of the original stimulus was tax cuts. The "cash-for-clunkers" was also a generally bad idea. Not bearing down on the banks to lend more to business was a disastrous policy. If the government was indeed income-constrained in the stimulus, wasting it on political compromises was a recipe for failure-on-the-installment-plan.

We have learned a lot from this experience and economic historians are rewriting the history of the Great Depression based on what we have learned. It's going to be an exciting time in economic history for the next decade.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldfart says:

Personally, my over-arching theme in political economy is that political and social stability rest on an expected level of economic success over a broad swath of society, that left to its own devices our political and economic system tend to concentration of power which is the overwhelmingly predominant cause of systemic economic failure, and that therefore a continuous public policy to combat that concentration and its effects are necessary to avoid eventual catastrophic results. This is essentially in political terms the Fabian position of a century ago.

THANK YOU. You just crystallized and shortened a whole lot of thoughts that I have been placing in various posts. What I see as the problem of money and power in politics provided by those who want favors from the politicians that they pay. This push by a segment of those with money is relentless, and has been able to find a variety of ways to make things work in their own best interests often entirely paid for by those other than themselves.
But what is most interesting is that those in control of this effort have been able to convince the very people that they hurt to support what they do. And on this board we see it show up often. With absolutely no doubt in their mind that what they believe is true by definition.

This position is adhered to by most "liberals" in the United States and a good number of conservatives, but it is rarely explicitly stated, because American political discourse has treated anything that can be attacked as "socialist" as sufficiently vulnerable as to be indefensible politically. But these concepts owe very little to socialism in general and Marxism in particular. They are firmly rooted in the American Progressive Movement of 1890--1920 (Bullmoose Party and all!) and of all things, Otto von Bismark. Most of the developed world takes these positions for granted and regard America as being subject to some form of collective delusional state or genetic defect that prevents Americans from seeing the obvious. Again off-topic, I think this is related to the vast gap between what Americans think the rest of the world thinks about America and what they really think. There's a nagging doubt everywhere that unsophisticated, childish, and brutal Americans are going to send the death drones whenever they get frustrated. And the "We-are-saving-the world-defending-freedom" and "see-how-generous-we-are!" schtick doesn't help either.

What I ran into during the years that I both traveled internationally a good deal, and worked with people from other nations, was how surprised they were that we could really be so ignorant as not to see what the rest of the industrialized world new to be true. And that we could have the sort of John Wayne western outlook on the world that did not allow us to see the truth clearly. The citizens United decision, in particular, was a source of amazement to those from other countries.

You hit the nail on the head with the comment that too much of the original stimulus was tax cuts. The "cash-for-clunkers" was also a generally bad idea. Not bearing down on the banks to lend more to business was a disastrous policy. If the government was indeed income-constrained in the stimulus, wasting it on political compromises was a recipe for failure-on-the-installment-plan.

Well, it is an obvious enough thing. I agree that Obama, as well as Clinton, seemed obviously enough to have been owned by the financial industry. And largely by big business in general. But the correct measures to take in terms of stimulus spending are, in my mind, OBVIOUS. Yet we can not get sufficient support for them to see it happen. And that is a political problem, a case of too many politicians owned by those that prefer getting rich themselves to any real concern about the economy in general and the middle class in particular.

We have learned a lot from this experience and economic historians are rewriting the history of the Great Depression based on what we have learned. It's going to be an exciting time in economic history for the next decade.

Exciting is great. Learning is a good, good thing. Getting it right would be PERFECT. However, those who want to run this gov by buying politicians, the courts, and the electorate concern me. I hope that those who prefer truth based on fact rather than "truth" based on agenda win out.

 

[jasonnfree]

Oldfart says:

Personally, my over-arching theme in political economy is that political and social stability rest on an expected level of economic success over a broad swath of society, that left to its own devices our political and economic system tend to concentration of power which is the overwhelmingly predominant cause of systemic economic failure, and that therefore a continuous public policy to combat that concentration and its effects are necessary to avoid eventual catastrophic results. This is essentially in political terms the Fabian position of a century ago.

THANK YOU. You just crystallized and shortened a whole lot of thoughts that I have been placing in various posts. What I see as the problem of money and power in politics provided by those who want favors from the politicians that they pay. This push by a segment of those with money is relentless, and has been able to find a variety of ways to make things work in their own best interests often entirely paid for by those other than themselves.
But what is most interesting is that those in control of this effort have been able to convince the very people that they hurt to support what they do. And on this board we see it show up often. With absolutely no doubt in their mind that what they believe is true by definition.

This position is adhered to by most "liberals" in the United States and a good number of conservatives, but it is rarely explicitly stated, because American political discourse has treated anything that can be attacked as "socialist" as sufficiently vulnerable as to be indefensible politically. But these concepts owe very little to socialism in general and Marxism in particular. They are firmly rooted in the American Progressive Movement of 1890--1920 (Bullmoose Party and all!) and of all things, Otto von Bismark. Most of the developed world takes these positions for granted and regard America as being subject to some form of collective delusional state or genetic defect that prevents Americans from seeing the obvious. Again off-topic, I think this is related to the vast gap between what Americans think the rest of the world thinks about America and what they really think. There's a nagging doubt everywhere that unsophisticated, childish, and brutal Americans are going to send the death drones whenever they get frustrated. And the "We-are-saving-the world-defending-freedom" and "see-how-generous-we-are!" schtick doesn't help either.

What I ran into during the years that I both traveled internationally a good deal, and worked with people from other nations, was how surprised they were that we could really be so ignorant as not to see what the rest of the industrialized world new to be true. And that we could have the sort of John Wayne western outlook on the world that did not allow us to see the truth clearly. The citizens United decision, in particular, was a source of amazement to those from other countries.

You hit the nail on the head with the comment that too much of the original stimulus was tax cuts. The "cash-for-clunkers" was also a generally bad idea. Not bearing down on the banks to lend more to business was a disastrous policy. If the government was indeed income-constrained in the stimulus, wasting it on political compromises was a recipe for failure-on-the-installment-plan.

Well, it is an obvious enough thing. I agree that Obama, as well as Clinton, seemed obviously enough to have been owned by the financial industry. And largely by big business in general. But the correct measures to take in terms of stimulus spending are, in my mind, OBVIOUS. Yet we can not get sufficient support for them to see it happen. And that is a political problem, a case of too many politicians owned by those that prefer getting rich themselves to any real concern about the economy in general and the middle class in particular.

We have learned a lot from this experience and economic historians are rewriting the history of the Great Depression based on what we have learned. It's going to be an exciting time in economic history for the next decade.

Exciting is great. Learning is a good, good thing. Getting it right would be PERFECT. However, those who want to run this gov by buying politicians, the courts, and the electorate concern me. I hope that those who prefer truth based on fact rather than "truth" based on agenda win out.

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

 

[oldfart]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

I don't see it happening this year, but yes. Eventually so much money will be flooding into politics that the marginal effectiveness of another $100 million will be a lot lower. At that point it becomes financially advantageous for a limitation agreement. If Nixon and the Russians could see the sense in START I, why can't political parties?

 

[AmazonTania]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

 

[Rshermr]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

That is true if you believe that corporations are people. And if you believe that money is speech. Most do not, but it is certainly a matter of opinion.

The issue for most that I have talked to, including pretty much all from other nations, is the concept that the wealthy have the ability to influence politics and the gov MUCH more than those with less money. Or, said another way, few individuals have a million to spend in each of several places from an electoral point of view.

And yup, I know, Citizens United was found for corporations having the right to spend as they wanted, saying essentially that money is speech. But then, as we probably all agree, the supreme court is pretty much made up of politicians in robes.

 

[RKMBrown]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

That is true if you believe that corporations are people. And if you believe that money is speech. Most do not, but it is certainly a matter of opinion.

The issue for most that I have talked to, including pretty much all from other nations, is the concept that the wealthy have the ability to influence politics and the gov MUCH more than those with less money. Or, said another way, few individuals have a million to spend in each of several places from an electoral point of view.

And yup, I know, Citizens United was found for corporations having the right to spend as they wanted, saying essentially that money is speech. But then, as we probably all agree, the supreme court is pretty much made up of politicians in robes.

ROFL

People have money. People group up. Some groups form unions, some form clubs, some form corporations. People spend money. Sometimes people spend money as a group. Advertisements can be bought. People buy advertisements. Sometimes they group their money to buy advertisements. Advertisements can include political and non political topics. What's wrong with any of this? Grouping together to share the cost of an advertisement? Really? lol