Suddenly there are talks of another stimulus. Wonder why? Look inside...

[DontBeStupid]

Geez are you dumb.

Did Japan borrow and spend? Yes.
Did Japan drop into a Depression? No.

Facts. You can't argue against reality. Now, if you think that the borrowing and spending CAUSED the zero growth, ok, that's cool, just prove it. Show how the deficit spending pulled the economy down. Should be pretty simple for you, right?

In the mean time, I'll believe the research of a Nobel Prize Winning Economist, who showed that Japan's borrowing and spending kept the country from falling into Depression.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Geez are you dumb.

Did Japan borrow and spend? Yes.
Did Japan drop into a Depression? No.

Facts. You can't argue against reality. Now, if you think that the borrowing and spending CAUSED the zero growth, ok, that's cool, just prove it. Show how the deficit spending pulled the economy down. Should be pretty simple for you, right?

In the mean time, I'll believe the research of a Nobel Prize Winning Economist, who showed that Japan's borrowing and spending kept the country from falling into Depression.

Yea, because we all know Nobel prizes are very hard to earn and those that get them can do no wrong.

 

[Truthmatters]

So here you are pretending trickle down works after just being shown it doesnt?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So here you are pretending trickle down works after just being shown it doesnt?

This thread is old chucklehead lol. And don't flatter yourself, you've proven nothing to me. If that is your plan however, the insulting tone will not help your cause.

 

[grunt11b]

The last thing a government does before a complete takeover is rob the treasury of all it's money, that;'s all this stimulus bullshit is. Robbing the people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Geez are you dumb.

Did Japan borrow and spend? Yes.
Did Japan drop into a Depression? No.

Facts. You can't argue against reality. Now, if you think that the borrowing and spending CAUSED the zero growth, ok, that's cool, just prove it. Show how the deficit spending pulled the economy down. Should be pretty simple for you, right?

In the mean time, I'll believe the research of a Nobel Prize Winning Economist, who showed that Japan's borrowing and spending kept the country from falling into Depression.

Do you think two decades of no growth and soaring deficits are desirable outcomes of gov't policy?
The answer is no because I began the question with "do you think".

 

[DontBeStupid]

Do you think two decades of no growth and soaring deficits are desirable outcomes of gov't policy?
The answer is no because I began the question with "do you think".

If the option is either a Great Depression or decades of flat growth and deficits, I will take the deficits any day and twice on Sunday.

Apparently you disagree. For some reason you think no deficits and a Great Depression are better. Why is that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, Krugman believes this too.

Well, Krugman is a ******* idiot and a pariah in the community of economists.

I notice you aren't saying that I was wrong about there being massive borrowing and spending.

Wars generally include borrowing and spending. But wars do what Keynesian stimulus doesn't, they put people to work.

Instead, you are simply saying that this case doesn't count since it's war.

I'm saying a war economy doesn't fit with the Keynesian model. The idea that funds pumped into the economy with a 1 to 1 correlation to output is worthless. Eventually you run out of money to borrow - just ask the Ukraine. Such borrowing for a purpose, such as war is generally accepted by various socio-economic societies.

But that isn't what Lord Keynes sold - not at all. Keynes postulated that funds reverberate through an economy and have three and a half turns thus stimulating downstream economic activity well in excess of the principle spent and the interest compounded on the loan. Both the failures of Roosevelt and the disaster of the Nixon/Ford/Carter economy demonstrate the folly of Keynes.

World War II was simply a matter of ending unemployment and shrinking the economy. In 1943, 22% of all Americans were in the armed services, oil, gas, food, electricity, steel and many other products were allocated from the market through rationing.

Are you SERIOUSLY attempting to argue that reduction in the market along with nearly a quarter of the nation in the direct employ of the federal government is consistent with Keynesian economics?

Interesting. It makes me wonder if every example I provide you will just dismiss for whatever reasons. Out of curiosity, since we've been at war for almost a decade now, does that mean anything we've learned over these years doesn't count since it's a "war economy" ?

We in fact do not have a war economy. The issue now is that the Porkulus did NOT result in the economic activity that Keynes or the Obama administration predicted. Far from three turns, we failed to realize a single turn - we didn't break even, the incurred debt exceeds the increase in GDP.

And your idea about shipping the workforce off to war would explain a drop in unemployment, but not an increase in GDP

Building munitions increases the GNP but has zero effect on economic sustainability. Seriously, this is elementary stuff.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"abysmal failure" is a fully partisan description of the New Deal.

It is the only objective and rational description of the New Deal.

Speaking in terms of absolutes is always a sign the author has little idea of the historical events of the time.

Of course, the New Deal was a success - just like the Titanic...

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm saying a war economy doesn't fit with the Keynesian model.

The U.S. borrows a ton of money to buy a ton of crap and employ a ton of people, and you think that doesn't fit with Keynes? The fact that we didn't end up with anything tangible does not change the facts of what we did.

World War II was simply a matter of ending unemployment and shrinking the economy.

Except of course that the economy didn't shrink. It grew every year of the war with a slight drop off in 1945, which makes sense since that's when the war ended and we started pulling back our spending.

The issue now is that the Porkulus did NOT result in the economic activity that Keynes or the Obama administration predicted. Far from three turns, we failed to realize a single turn

You mention this three turns thing a couple times. I don't remember anything about Keynes' saying that there must be 3 turns in order for "success". Where did you get that number? Also, you realize the Recover Act is 1/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts and 1/3 aid to states. Tax cuts are the worst stimulus you can do and aid to states can be offset by those states making cuts in other areas. In short, the fact that we didn't get as many "turns" as you believe we should have does not negate the positive effects the Recovery Act had on the economy. Positive effects that every Economist not at the Heritage Foundation will agree with.

Building munitions increases the GNP but has zero effect on economic sustainability.

Are you honestly suggesting there is no market for munitions outside of a war?