The proof about Keynes at long last

[cbirch2]

it is absolutely pure and perfect liberal ignorance to believe that Federal spending can make up for GDP loss. It is just as stupid as believing in the sun God. Now we can understand that humans were ignorant enough to worship the sun, Hitler, Stalin and Mao just by seeing the liberal cancer that is here now.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports). Someone doesnt know what GDP is.

no idea what that has to do with stimulus?? Do you?? If so why be so afraid to explain?????? You're uber simplistic liberal idiotic formula would imply that government spending or stimulus can be set anywhere to perfectly control GDP?? When the reality is the more the libturds spend the less the private sector spends so there is no gain possible.

The fact is that is the definition of GDP. You think your ranting and raving about a formula that i made up, but rather your freaking out over a basic econ 101 formula.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) is the definition of GDP.

"GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M). Y = C + I + G + (X − M)"

a quick google of "GDP definition" gives:

"Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports."

Im sorry if you dont understand economics.

 

[Brutus]

Money doesnt act differently when its infused into an economy because of where it came from.

of that is perfectly brainless liberalism!! Money for the housing bubble came from the Fed and Fanny Freddie. It caused the great recession.
See why we are 100% positive a liberal will have no brain whatsoever??

Stimulus works and it always has worked.

of course if so economists and others would have noticed and recessions and unemployment would no longer be a problem

 

[Brutus]

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports). Someone doesnt know what GDP is.

no idea what that has to do with stimulus?? Do you?? If so why be so afraid to explain?????? You're uber simplistic liberal idiotic formula would imply that government spending or stimulus can be set anywhere to perfectly control GDP?? When the reality is the more the libturds spend the less the private sector spends so there is no gain possible.

The fact is that is the definition of GDP. You think your ranting and raving about a formula that i made up, but rather your freaking out over a basic econ 101 formula.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) is the definition of GDP.

"GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M). Y = C + I + G + (X − M)
"
Im sorry if you dont understand economics.

does the formula say that all government has to do is spend and it can control GDP?? Please tell us liberal genius!

 

[cbirch2]

no idea what that has to do with stimulus?? Do you?? If so why be so afraid to explain?????? You're uber simplistic liberal idiotic formula would imply that government spending or stimulus can be set anywhere to perfectly control GDP?? When the reality is the more the libturds spend the less the private sector spends so there is no gain possible.

The fact is that is the definition of GDP. You think your ranting and raving about a formula that i made up, but rather your freaking out over a basic econ 101 formula.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) is the definition of GDP.

"GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M). Y = C + I + G + (X − M)
"
Im sorry if you dont understand economics.

does the formula say that all government has to do is spend and it can control GDP?? Please tell us liberal genius!

Will you stop getting mad because you dont understand economics?

Governments cant simply spend anything they want because the bond market will drive yields up on their debt and make borrowing more expensive, which could wipe out any stimulus effects of spending. That isnt our problem right now.

Again, you can get as angry as you want. It just shows that you dont understand even very simple economics.

Think about it. Taxes take money away from the economy. In other words, they reduce GDP. So if you just remove government spending from that equation it becomes obviously wrong. Adding government spending isnt to add something to the equation, its to balance the taxes that were implicitly removed before. You can say that the government borrows the money and could make GDP anything, but thats only partially true. increases in government spending (and therefore government induced GDP growth) are offset by money that inevitably cannot be spent at a later time, and therefore less potential government spending induced GDP growth at that later time.

So let me say it again: just because you dont understand it and get angry when you hear it doesnt mean its wrong. it means your wrong.

 

[Brutus]

Look at your own numbers again. At the very least the stimulus raised GDP 2 percent for at least a year and a half. While bushes tax cuts gave 1 percent growth over the same period of time.

a perfectly absurd or idiotic comparison given Bush's growth occured at the end of a huge housing bubble while the BO stimulus occured after the huge housing bubble.

To pretend you have only 2 variables is beyond even liberal stupidity

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you just realize you admitted that WWII and not the New Deal ended the FDR Depression?

What gave you the idea anyone ever claimed anything different? (Other that the blatant partisan idiocy of calling it the "FDR Depression," that is.)

Now tell us, please: exactly HOW did World War II end the Depression?

This is a seminal moment, are you admitting that the New Deal did not end the FDR Depression?

 

[cbirch2]

In other words, increases in G in the short term causes a relative decreases in C, I, and (X-M) in the long term. Or yet another way: in the long run money spent to grow GDP through G in the short run cause implicit decreases in the growth of C, I, or X-M, though increased government revenue.

But, that can be a good thing if G is increased at a time when C, I, or X-M decrease.

 

[Brutus]

So let me say it again: just because you dont understand it and get angry when you hear it doesnt mean its wrong. it means your wrong.[/QUOTE]

Will you stop getting mad because you dont understand economics?

a liberal genius speaks

Governments cant simply spend anything they want]

so then they cant control GDP can they??????????????????

because the bond market will drive yields up on their debt and make borrowing more expensive, which could wipe out any stimulus effects of spending. That isnt our problem right now.

so then now the libturds can spend anything the want, not worry about the bond vigilantes, and set GDP and employment wherever they want??? Tell us genius about magical government!!

Again, you can get as angry as you want. It just shows that you dont understand even very simple economics.

what exactly don't I understand? Why be afraid to say exactly what you are talking about??

Think about it. Taxes take money away from the economy. In other words, they reduce GDP.

the libturds don't burn the money so its not really taken from the economy. It does depress the economy though because bureaucrats tend to waste the money.

So if you just remove government spending from that equation it becomes obviously wrong.

the more you remove the better for the economy since the money is then spent or invested privately to grow the real economy. Got it now??

Adding government spending isnt to add something to the equation, its to balance the taxes that were implicitly removed before.

too stupid!! above you said removing through taxes harms the economy???

You can say that the government borrows the money and could make GDP anything, but thats only partially true. increases in government spending (and therefore government induced GDP growth) are offset by money that inevitably cannot be spent at a later time, and therefore less potential government spending induced GDP growth at that later time.

that was pure idiotic gibberish. Let me help you.


if the libturds tax a dollar and spend a dollar it harms the economy because a private dollar is spent or invested more efficiently and sustainably. Libturds spend the dollar only to cause a temporary bubble and recession. NOW have you got it??

 

[cbirch2]

Look at your own numbers again. At the very least the stimulus raised GDP 2 percent for at least a year and a half. While bushes tax cuts gave 1 percent growth over the same period of time.

a perfectly absurd or idiotic comparison given Bush's growth occured at the end of a huge housing bubble while the BO stimulus occured after the huge housing bubble.

To pretend you have only 2 variables is beyond even liberal stupidity

wtf are you talking about fool?

 

[Brutus]

Look at your own numbers again. At the very least the stimulus raised GDP 2 percent for at least a year and a half. While bushes tax cuts gave 1 percent growth over the same period of time.

a perfectly absurd or idiotic comparison given Bush's growth occured at the end of a huge housing bubble while the BO stimulus occured after the huge housing bubble.

To pretend you have only 2 variables is beyond even liberal stupidity

wtf are you talking about fool?

you compared the Bush tax cuts and BO stimulus without even realizing the context of either!! Got it now???????????? in Science you hold all other variables constant!!!!

 

[cbirch2]

So let me say it again: just because you dont understand it and get angry when you hear it doesnt mean its wrong. it means your wrong.

Will you stop getting mad because you dont understand economics?

a liberal genius speaks

Governments cant simply spend anything they want]

so then they cant control GDP can they??????????????????




so then now the libturds can spend anything the want, not worry about the bond vigilantes, and set GDP and employment wherever they want??? Tell us genius about magical government!!



what exactly don't I understand? Why be afraid to say exactly what you are talking about??



the libturds don't burn the money so its not really taken from the economy. It does depress the economy though because bureaucrats tend to waste the money.

So if you just remove government spending from that equation it becomes obviously wrong.

the more you remove the better for the economy since the money is then spent or invested privately to grow the real economy. Got it now??

Adding government spending isnt to add something to the equation, its to balance the taxes that were implicitly removed before.

too stupid!! above you said removing through taxes harms the economy???

You can say that the government borrows the money and could make GDP anything, but thats only partially true. increases in government spending (and therefore government induced GDP growth) are offset by money that inevitably cannot be spent at a later time, and therefore less potential government spending induced GDP growth at that later time.

that was pure idiotic gibberish. Let me help you.


if the libturds tax a dollar and spend a dollar it harms the economy because a private dollar is spent or invested more efficiently and sustainably. Libturds spend the dollar only to cause a temporary bubble and recession. NOW have you got it??

....

wow can you stop ranting please? calm down. ill keep it simple.

You asked why GDP was included in the formula, and i explained it to you. Government implicitly removes money from the three other components of GDP: investment, consumption, and net imports. Over the long run, the money the government spends and the money it takes in have to be equal. So on the long run Government Spending = Government Revenue. Government Revenue is implicitly removed from the three other components of GDP: investment, consumption, and net exports. So you have to add Government Spending to offset the subtraction of Government Revenue. Get it now? To argue this equation is to argue every single economist in the world. Every one. GDP is a basic concept. Get it?!

so then now the libturds can spend anything the want, not worry about the bond vigilantes, and set GDP and employment wherever they want??? Tell us genius about magical government!!

Your the one throwing out parts of economics, im explaining it fully. try to follow along.

Im acknowledging that the yield on treasury bonds could go up and that if that happened it would be contractionary. That could happen if the market became less willing to finance our debt. The only thing is, rather than go up as the conservatards have warned, yields on treasury bonds have dropped dramatically. 10 year notes just hit record lows. So why are we pursuing austerity when the bond market has, if anything, become much more willing to finance US debt.

It seems clear to me that were having two different arguments. You had a problem with the equation for GDP and i tried to solve it for you. Not sure if you get that yet. You seem to want to debate the usefulness of government spending. Those are two different things. I assure that the equation for GDP is correct, and has to be correct, and government spending must be included in that equation. If you want to debate the usefulness of government spending in a recession i would be happy to debate that.

 

[Brutus]

GDP is a basic concept. Get it?!

the point is, the more the government spends the lower the GDP.

Im acknowledging that the yield on treasury bonds could go up and that if that happened it would be contractionary. That could happen if the market became less willing to finance our debt. The only thing is, rather than go up as the conservatards have warned, yields on treasury bonds have dropped dramatically. 10 year notes just hit record lows. So why are we pursuing austerity when the bond market has, if anything, become much more willing to finance US debt.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. 1) we are borrowing from the Fed, not the bond market, who openly says it is manipulating rates 2) the more the libturds borrow and spend the more the bubbles grow.

 

[cbirch2]

GDP is a basic concept. Get it?!

the point is, the more the government spends the lower the GDP.

No you idiot. The point is that the government can spend in the short term to to increase GDP. As long as it doesnt disturb the bond market too much it can increase short term GDP. That is fact.

Long term government spending is neutral on GDP, because taxes and spending eventually have to equal. Your opinion may be that the inefficient way government spendings money decreases long term GDP. Thats true to some extent.

Its also true that avoiding long periods of GDP decline through government spending is good for long term GDP.

The point is that government should spend money in certain ways to boost aggregate demand in times of recession.

Im acknowledging that the yield on treasury bonds could go up and that if that happened it would be contractionary. That could happen if the market became less willing to finance our debt. The only thing is, rather than go up as the conservatards have warned, yields on treasury bonds have dropped dramatically. 10 year notes just hit record lows. So why are we pursuing austerity when the bond market has, if anything, become much more willing to finance US debt.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. 1) we are borrowing from the Fed, not the bond market, who openly says it is manipulating rates 2) the more the libturds borrow and spend the more the bubbles grow.

Even more stupid. Its ok though. I think your just genuinely stupid rather than just lying....

Of course the fed is monetizing our debt. Its exactly what should happen right now. It also has the effect of reducing our trade deficit and boosting US manufacturing. How could you argue about that.

But no, that isnt even the problem with what you said. The problem is that you implied rates on T notes are low because of the fed. They arent. T notes dropped to record lows after our downgrade over fears of growth. They then dropped further once greece edged closer to a downgrade over fears of global growth.

Treasuries are a saftey asset, everyone knows that. The fact that people are flooding into treasuries mean that there are very few other safe assets left. They would rather invest in a US bond that yields .03% than in anything else, because they know we wont default. That means the market is more concerned about growth than our deficit. Theyre practically screaming it. And for good reason. Our debt to GDP ratio is comparatively good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you just realize you admitted that WWII and not the New Deal ended the FDR Depression?

What gave you the idea anyone ever claimed anything different? (Other that the blatant partisan idiocy of calling it the "FDR Depression," that is.)

Now tell us, please: exactly HOW did World War II end the Depression?

HOW?

WWII officially started Sept 39 with the invasion of Poland, but it was only after Hitler conquered France in Spring 1940, and the Battle of Britain that summer was it fairly obvious the USA would be back in war in Europe, it was just a question of time. Men joined the military and businesses started looking at wartime production.

It wouldn't be until Dec 41 that Soviet agents in Japan and DC would convince their respective governments that instead of Japan fighting their natural enemy the USSR, it would be better to have the Japanese fight the USA.

 

[Brutus]

No you idiot. The point is that the government can spend in the short term to to increase GDP. As long as it doesnt disturb the bond market too much it can increase short term GDP. That is fact.

1) 0bviously the Feds know it will disturb a free bond market-QE123
2) printing and dropping from helicopter will increase GDP in short term but on balance do harm with bubbles etc. Catching on now??

Long term government spending is neutral on GDP, because taxes and spending eventually have to equal. Your opinion may be that the inefficient way government spendings money decreases long term GDP. Thats true to some extent.

too stupid!! to some extent???? if not government could always spend and we'd never have to worry about GDP or unemployment ever again!!

Its also true that avoiding long periods of GDP decline through government spending is good for long term GDP.

too stupid and perfectly liberal. Long periods of decline in context of stable money supply is exactly how you correct malinventment from libturd distortions in free market like the current housing bubble. Catching on???

The point is that government should spend money in certain ways to boost aggregate demand in times of recession.

libturd demand creates a bubble that bursts while private demand creates a sustainable and growing economy. Try to think about where exactly this gets over your head so you can ask directly about it!!


too stupid but perfectly liberal. 1) we are borrowing from the Fed, not the bond market, who openly says it is manipulating rates 2) the more the libturds borrow and spend the more the bubbles grow

Even more stupid. Its ok though. I think your just genuinely stupid rather than just lying....

Of course the fed is monetizing our debt. Its exactly what should happen right now.

our subject was fiscal policy??? why change the subject unless desperate??

It also has the effect of reducing our trade deficit and boosting US manufacturing. How could you argue about that.

again you are changing the subject. I m teaching a liberal about fiscal policy

But no, that isnt even the problem with what you said. The problem is that you implied rates on T notes are low because of the fed.

the fed openly says it is trying to control rates. Sorry!!

Treasuries are a saftey asset, everyone knows that. The fact that people are flooding into treasuries mean that there are very few other safe assets left. They would rather invest in a US bond that yields .03% than in anything else, because they know we wont default. That means the market is more concerned about growth than our deficit.

too stupid, you just said its about safety!!!

Theyre practically screaming it. And for good reason. Our debt to GDP ratio is comparatively good.

its good when we are 14.5 trillion in debt heading to 40 trillion of unfunded liabilities?? It may be better than greece but its not good and the great recession is certainly not good!

Do you notice how the Republican free market is too complex for a liberal to understand? This is why the liberal retreats to thinking about magical government. Its just like thinking of Santa claus.

 

[Bern80]

Look boys I appluade your efforts to educate these guys, but one of two things is happening.

1. Either they're incapable of understanding the points you make; or

2. They don't want to understand the points you make.

Now based on the way they attack the messenger bringing them REAL DATA?

One has to question their motives for continuously missing (or mistating and then complainting about) the point.

I guess what I am saying here is your expectations that the scales will fall from their eyes is naive.

Only intellectually honest people can admit that they were wrong or don't understand.

You're not playing with peiople for whom intellectual honesty is important.

You're mostly discussing issues with partisans who think that insulting people who disagree with the POV is the whole point of coming here.

Or they're wrong. I mean since we all know you're such an objective guy ed, you'd at least have to enteratin that as a possibility. I guess the only thing I find amusing is that President's continue to credit for the shape of an economy whether the economy is good or bad. Also, you do realize that an economy can grow while unemployment goes up at the same time, right?

 

[cbirch2]

No you idiot. The point is that the government can spend in the short term to to increase GDP. As long as it doesnt disturb the bond market too much it can increase short term GDP. That is fact.

1) 0bviously the Feds know it will disturb a free bond market-QE123
2) printing and dropping from helicopter will increase GDP in short term but on balance do harm with bubbles etc. Catching on now??

1) You have no idea what your talking about, or even what I'm talking about. By "disturb" i mean interest rates going up. The fact that you dont know that is just hilarious. The only way government spending could possibly decrease short term GDP is through increased interest rates on government debt. The exact opposite has happened in the united states, interest rates have gone down.

2) "do harm with bubbles etc" <<---- This is the uneducated ramblings of a fool. Wow. Its so very clear you have no idea what your talking about. The idea that the government prolongs a depression is simply an article of faith. There is absolutely no technical basis for the assertion. The private sector is suffering from a debt overhang. Theres no difference between letting that debt clear itself over years or the government intervening to clear it immediately. Again, as long as the purchase of debt isnt large enough to disturb the bond market, which it hasnt been, the effect is beneficial.

Long term government spending is neutral on GDP, because taxes and spending eventually have to equal. Your opinion may be that the inefficient way government spendings money decreases long term GDP. Thats true to some extent.

too stupid!! to some extent???? if not government could always spend and we'd never have to worry about GDP or unemployment ever again!!

Only an idiot would take "the government should spend to boost demand" and turn it into "government can spend as much as it wants". I never said the government can spend as much as it wants, i said it was constrained mostly by the bond market, which in the case of the US hasnt actually done much contraining at all....

Get it now fool?

too stupid and perfectly liberal. Long periods of decline in context of stable money supply is exactly how you correct malinventment from libturd distortions in free market like the current housing bubble. Catching on???

Again, this is a neoconservative article of faith. No actual historical evidence to support it, and in fact all evidence would suggest against it. In 2008 that idea would have meant letting AIG, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, GE, and countless other international institutions simply fail. Anyone arguing the economy is worse off today than it would have been had that happened is absolutely insane.

libturd demand creates a bubble that bursts while private demand creates a sustainable and growing economy. Try to think about where exactly this gets over your head so you can ask directly about it!!

Actually if you look back across the historical record boom and bust cycles have occurred under the exact type of laissez faire economics your describing. Rather, booms and busts have more often come from deregulation. Again, when bush relax leverage limits it allowed banks to increase the credit they extend by sometimes up to 5 fold...in a single year....That is the definition of a bubble, and something of similar scale is entirely beyond the scope of the federal government.

Anything the government chooses to do pales in comparison with the trends of the private sector. Republicans blame fannie and freddie for the mortgage bubble when they didnt even issue the loans.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. 1) we are borrowing from the Fed, not the bond market, who openly says it is manipulating rates 2) the more the libturds borrow and spend the more the bubbles grow.

1) We are borrowing from both. 47% of our debt isnt even domestically owned, and a large portion of the remaining 53% is owned by large banks and investors. so your whole theory that we are only borrowing from the fed is wrong. Just...so wrong....

2) Again, the problem lies with the private sector....

our subject was fiscal policy??? why change the subject unless desperate??

again you are changing the subject. I m teaching a liberal about fiscal policy

You brought up the fed and monetary policy when you said we were borrowing from the fed. That was ur point. Im just making sure you know how dumb you are.

You know nothing of fiscal policy, thats been fairly obvious here.

the fed openly says it is trying to control rates. Sorry!!

So your theory is that demand is high for treasuries because most of that demand comes from the fed?

Maybe then you can explain why private investors rushed into treasuries, even when they were yielding record lows. That would match up much more with a growth-concerned model, and really have absolutely no resemblance to a model in which the fed is simply monetizing debt.

Treasuries are a saftey asset, everyone knows that. The fact that people are flooding into treasuries mean that there are very few other safe assets left. They would rather invest in a US bond that yields .03% than in anything else, because they know we wont default. That means the market is more concerned about growth than our deficit.

too stupid, you just said its about safety!!!

What? It is about safety....you really dont get this?

The market are so concerned about growth that they would rather keep their money in low yielding but secure assets like US bonds, instead of investing in volatile stocks that may eventually become worthless.

Simple enough for you?

The bond market is perfectly fine with the US at the moment.

Theyre practically screaming it. And for good reason. Our debt to GDP ratio is comparatively good.

its good when we are 14.5 trillion in debt heading to 40 trillion of unfunded liabilities?? It may be better than greece but its not good and the great recession is certainly not good!

i agree, the great recession sucks. Which is why we should avoid austerity measures that the republicans propose. Our debt is a long term issue, and can be dealt with fairly easily.

Reduce our military footprint, reform social security by raising the retirement age, eliminate privatized health insurance, remove the bureaucracy from our education system (along with the bad teachers), and renovate our infrustructure for the 21st century (did you know they have self mending cement????).

These are practical measures that would actually tackle the sources of our deficit. Instead republicans would rather cut discretionary spending by eliminating pell grants for students than pay for the structural deficit through structural reform.

Simple concept really. A structural deficit requires structural reform, not a hatchet job to discretionary spending.

Do you notice how the Republican free market is too complex for a liberal to understand? This is why the liberal retreats to thinking about magical government. Its just like thinking of Santa claus.

Whats too complex for me to understand? For my perspective you've only done a whole lot of whining and a whole lot yelling "free market, free market!".

In reality, your the one that cant grasp even simple concepts....

Jesus christ you dont even know how to calculate GDP....

 

[Brutus]

By "disturb" i mean interest rates going up. The fact that you dont know that is just hilarious.

dear, libturd spending would shoot interest rates up. Thats why QE123. Got it now?? Libturds could spend trillions and not disturb bond market as long as Fed buys the debt!!! Finally got it????

 

[Brutus]

The only way government spending could possibly decrease short term GDP is through increased interest rates on government debt.

dear, its called "rational expectations". Bussiness knows it is artifical bubble spending so they hold back as they are doing now.

 

[Brutus]

The exact opposite has happened in the united states, interest rates have gone down.

yes because of Federal Reserve competition and worldwide recession, both of which mean the libturd bubble spending is more egregious than ever. In a real free market not distorted by liberalism interest would be sky high to reflect the irresponsibility of liberalism. Masking it only make the malinvestment worse or the bubble bigger!! Got it now?