Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[Eric Cartman]

Government spending is not genuine economic output.

Spoken like a true zealot.

The reason you would not count the engineers salary is because you are counting the consumption of his/her product otherwise you would be counting it twice in the consumption method of calculating GDP. You would count it in the income method. In the United States we generally choose not to have government compete in the production of goods for sale but of government engineer might build a road that creates economic value or design a rocket, etc.

Both engineers will spend their paychecks the same (basically) thus producing the same velocity of money. Which is of course another concept that the Austrians don't like.

 

[AmazonTania]

What? So you mean we don't have socialism for the rich, and everyday isn't Christmas on Wall Street?

Crap...

 

[ilia25]

It always seems to be the problem when an economy is depressed or when unemployment is high.

Yes, but economy is not always depressed. Most of the time it is not. So, again, nobody is saying, as you claimed, that spending is always too little.

I never said it is always depressed. I am talking about the reason why the economy is always depressed.

Yes, I'm sorry!.. For a moment I thought I was talking to a marginally intelligent person. My mistake.

Seriously, you should just stop writing or even thinking about these things. It's way beyond your mental abilities.

Wait, you have clients?! God Almighty, something is seriously wrong with this world...

 

[AmazonTania]

Yes, but economy is not always depressed. Most of the time it is not. So, again, nobody is saying, as you claimed, that spending is always too little.

I never said it is always depressed. I am talking about the reason why the economy is always depressed.

Yes, I'm sorry!.. For a moment I thought I was talking to a marginally intelligent person. My mistake.

So you were online for a straight hour-and-a-half since I have posted my rebuttal, had no other threads to post on in between this time, and THIS is the best you are able to come up with? Embarrassing.

Seriously, you should just stop writing or even thinking about these things. It's way beyond your mental abilities.

Well, that obviously can't be true, because you can't refute nor dispute anything that I have said. Instead of concentrating on the discussion, you've chosen to concentrate on a grammatical error and throw an ad-hominem to mask your inherent economic illiteracy. And I might be able to look pass all of this, if this wasn't the second time you've done this.

If economics isn't your forte, then maybe you shouldn't be discussing these matters. Krugman's blog will only get you so far.

Wait, you have clients?! God Almighty, something is seriously wrong with this world...

I'll say. You're demonstrated why someone shouldn't be educated in an American school. Thank you for that.

 

[AmazonTania]

Bush was made President by a Supreme Court decision after losing the popular vote handily.

The electoral college decides the president. Not a mob majority.

Or maybe it does. Who knows?

The Electoral College selected Bush after the Supreme Court awarded him Fl, though overall Gore/Leiberman had won the national popular vote by >500k votes.

I don't really see what the popular vote has to do with the citizens of Florida. Even in the event of a 269-269 tie, the popular vote still has no bearing.

 

[PMZ]

The electoral college decides the president. Not a mob majority.

Or maybe it does. Who knows?

The Electoral College selected Bush after the Supreme Court awarded him Fl, though overall Gore/Leiberman had won the national popular vote by >500k votes.

I don't really see what the popular vote has to do with the citizens of Florida. Even in the event of a 269-269 tie, the popular vote still has no bearing.

Under the modern rules for the Electoral College, it serves no purpose. It's a artifact left over from previous ages that puts democracy at risk. That's why in all of the decision making processes that we accomplish democratically, there is only one in which that artifact is employed. Presidential elections.

It can, under wierd circumstances, make a mockery of government of, for and by, the people.

Bush will always remembered as demonstrative of the catastrophic consequences of negating the will of the people.

 

[Mertex]

I will.

But only after the GOP quits whining about losing to Obama.

The difference is there was evidence of voter fraud in 2008 and 2012 on the part of Democrats. Same in 2,000 but not enough to tip it in Gore's favor.

Really? Because the only stories I'd heard about voter fraud came from those in the camp of the GOP.

There was that lady in NV who was a Republican that got nailed for voting twice......

There was also that little fracas in CO where they were registering voters, but throwing out the Democrat forms.

As a matter of fact, I think that they were thrown out of the GOP for their little infraction.

Not to mention Pennsylvania, who went on the air and predicted that Voter(Photo) ID would guarantee Romney would win the election! Blew up in their face.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60](R) Admits Voter ID Laws About Helping Romney Win Election - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Totino]

Government spending is not genuine economic output.

Spoken like a true zealot.

The reason you would not count the engineers salary is because you are counting the consumption of his/her product otherwise you would be counting it twice in the consumption method of calculating GDP. You would count it in the income method. In the United States we generally choose not to have government compete in the production of goods for sale but of government engineer might build a road that creates economic value or design a rocket, etc.

Both engineers will spend their paychecks the same (basically) thus producing the same velocity of money. Which is of course another concept that the Austrians don't like.

Zealot? Don't get mad at me because you don't even have basic comprehension of economic concepts.
First and foremost, there's plenty of private employees/industries that don't actually produce anything, but still provide a value. Thus using your logic their salaries should be counted.
Further, government employee's salaries get counted TWICE moron. Once when the government pays them, and AGAIN when the employee purchases an item. Thus inflating GDP on the government spending side.
For private spending to actually boost economic output, something actually has to be created. This isn't true with the government, thus it raises GDP NO MATTER WHAT. Regardless of pointless and wasteful things its spending on, which do NOTHING for the economy, it still raises GDP through the very nature that it's government spending.
"GDP counts government salaries as “government expenditures” as soon as the government hires a person. But the “consumption” and “investment” parts of GDP only count genuine purchases by the private sector (leaving the oddities of imputed spending for the coda below). So if a private sector product spends years in the incubator, burning through thousands of person-hours of work and millions of dollars of salary–but never sees the light of day–then the product never shows up in GDP. But if the government had hired those same workers who worked just as long on a similarly fruitless project, their labor would give a big boost to GDP. Government hiring creates GDP by definition. Private hiring only creates GDP if the worker actually creates a product."
If you don't understand how ridiculous this notion is, there's no hope for you.
Not to mention your Keynesian theory about government spending being the same "basically" as the private employee has already been debunked over and over.

It's quite amazing how stupid you are. Government spending inflates GDP, thus not giving you an accurate picture of the economy. Fact.

 

[ilia25]

I never said it is always depressed. I am talking about the reason why the economy is always depressed.

Yes, I'm sorry!.. For a moment I thought I was talking to a marginally intelligent person. My mistake.

So you were online for a straight hour-and-a-half since I have posted my rebuttal, had no other threads to post on in between this time, and THIS is the best you are able to come up with? Embarrassing.

This is not "the best", this is typical of you. As I said already, it is impossible to argue with a person who keeps contradicting herself. Worse, you don't get it even after I point out one of those incident after another!

Then I can't get even simple notions through you -- like the notion about depression being a very special state of the economy where normal rules don't apply.

In the end I can only keep going so far before I have to admit that you just don't have the mental capacity to understand things we are talking about. Nothing personal, I'm just stating the facts.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Further, government employee's salaries get counted TWICE moron. Once when the government pays them, and AGAIN when the employee purchases an item. Thus inflating GDP on the government spending side.

Wow, an individual making a private purchase inflates government spending that's interesting.

If you are so against the spending method of calculating GDP then use either the income method or the production method. You should get the same results.

You keep attacking GDP like some wacko. It is a broad measure that has lots of limitations but is widely thought of as useful along with hundreds of other economic indicators.

It's quite amazing how stupid you are. Government spending inflates GDP, thus not giving you an accurate picture of the economy. Fact.

Fact: You keep attacking GDP because you realized that you couldn't dispute my actual point that more consumer spending would be helpful.

I could care less if you like GDP as a metric. Even a bathroom scale that is off by a 100 pounds will usually tell you if you are getting bigger or smaller....

 

[ilia25]

It's quite amazing how stupid you are. Government spending inflates GDP, thus not giving you an accurate picture of the economy. Fact.

Fact: You keep attacking GDP because you realized that you couldn't dispute my actual point that more consumer spending would be helpful.

I could care less if you like GDP as a metric. Even a bathroom scale that is off by a 100 pounds will usually tell you if you are getting bigger or smaller....

He just can't get it. The notion that GDP numbers have meaning only in comparison with something else is beyond him.

 

[Mertex]

Yes, I'm sorry!.. For a moment I thought I was talking to a marginally intelligent person. My mistake.

So you were online for a straight hour-and-a-half since I have posted my rebuttal, had no other threads to post on in between this time, and THIS is the best you are able to come up with? Embarrassing.

This is not "the best", this is typical of you. As I said already, it is impossible to argue with a person who keeps contradicting herself. Worse, you don't get it even after I point out one of those incident after another!

Then I can't get even simple notions through you -- like the notion about depression being a very special state of the economy where normal rules don't apply.

In the end I can only keep going so far before I have to admit that you just don't have the mental capacity to understand things we are talking about. Nothing personal, I'm just stating the facts.

I'm so glad that someone else noticed the same thing!

 

[AmazonTania]

Yes, I'm sorry!.. For a moment I thought I was talking to a marginally intelligent person. My mistake.

So you were online for a straight hour-and-a-half since I have posted my rebuttal, had no other threads to post on in between this time, and THIS is the best you are able to come up with? Embarrassing.

This is not "the best", this is typical of you.

Could have fooled me. You've offered NOTHING that I haven't heard or seen before. The only interesting responses you have provided is when you give up and start throwing a tantrum. As I have said previously, you are an absolute joke.

As I said already, it is impossible to argue with a person who keeps contradicting herself.

Why would that be impossible? If anything, that should make it very easy for you. Logic, meet idiot. You choose to focus on grammatical errors because you have no argument at all.

Worse, you don't get it even after I point out one of those incident after another!

I do it get. You don't see to understand that I don't care. The problem is that it has ZERO to do with anything I was saying. None, at all. Other from this, I don't know what to tell you, other than you probably just get a life. I don't really know how much you expect from an internet forum.

But you are making progress. You're one step away from making fun of spelling mistakes. That's always fun.

Then I can't get even simple notions through you -- like the notion about depression being a very special state of the economy where normal rules don't apply.

I think it's you who doesn't understand that normal rules do not apply. You always have the same answers, regardless of whatever facts are presented to you. Your pitiful responses can pretty much be summed up in this Flow Chart I created in just a few minutes.

In the end I can only keep going so far before I have to admit that you just don't have the mental capacity to understand things we are talking about. Nothing personal, I'm just stating the facts.

We engaged in a debate, you get thoroughly debunked, throw an ad-hominem and you decide to quit. You engage a second time -- on two separate topics -- this time, get your ass handed to you, throw more ad-hominems again and decide to quit, again. At this point, anything you have said is just your pure opinion. And your opinions doesn't convince anyone you are knowledgeable, nor credible.

Your a very simplistic individual. It's really not difficult to understand what you are talking about. Especially if you can only regurgitate ideas from other people. I would have a modicum of respect for you if you could actually stay on track, but instead you throw out ambiguous hyperbolic rhetoric. And when you are refuted you resort to ad-hominems.

If economics isn't your forte, then you shouldn't be in the business of discussing it. Nothing personal, I'm just stating the facts.

 

[ilia25]

You choose to focus on grammatical errors because you have no argument at all.

Oh so that was a grammatical error? Then what would be a grammatically correct version of that phrase?