The proof about Keynes at long last

[Brutus]

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.

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed

 

[Brutus]

The private sector is suffering from a debt overhang.

dear, the private sector is suffering from the current great recession caused by malinvestment or a housing bubble in turn caused by libturds wanting everyone to own a house.

 

[Brutus]

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.

dear, if the Federal Reserve buys a bad mortgage they have merely expanding their balance sheet, they have not made the debt magicially disappear or " cleared it immediately" whatever on earth that means. Is the libturd genius idea to prevent all companies from failing by buying their debt as long as bond rates don't go up, which they cant because librturds regulate them? See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? Government magicially clears debt! Good one. Every wonder why the USSR and Red CHina stop believing in
magical government ?

 

[Brutus]

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?

dear, it is never constraining if the Fed prevents it from being constraining by buying enough bonds to keep rates where they want them. Is that really over your head?

 

[Brutus]

Again, this is a neoconservative article of faith. No actual historical evidence to support it, and in fact all evidence would suggest against it.

actually USA has highest standard of living because it has most free market. Europe has more liberalism and 75% our GDP. USSR and Red China had even more libturd regulation and even lower standards of living.

 

[Brutus]

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.

of course if this was true you would not be so afraid to provide your best examples. In the current case Fed Reserve policy was low interest rates to bubble up housing market. Plus, you had Fanny Freddie and much other libturd bleeding heart policy to get everyone into ownership. Laissez faire??? Nothing remotely close.

Read "Reckless Endangerment" if you want blow by blow on libturd regulation over the last 40 years. Also, keep in mind that bank liquidity comes from the Fed, not Bush!! DO you get anything right??

 

[Brutus]

Republicans blame fannie and freddie for the mortgage bubble when they didnt even issue the loans.

as I said read "Reckless Endangerment" if you want to understand how Fanny controlled entire mortgage market. Here's a tiny tiny piece:

J. Bridges says:
Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.

 

[Brutus]

so your whole theory that we are only borrowing from the fed is wrong. Just...so wrong....

if I said only I'll pay you 10,000. Bet???? THe stated policy of the Fed is to lower rates to mask the Republican free market!! Deal with it!!

 

[Brutus]

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

pure liberal stupidity! when your best investment yields 0% that means there is extreme danger.

 

[Brutus]

i agree, the great recession sucks. Which is why we should avoid austerity measures that the republicans propose. .

actually when you are broke and in debt you cut back so as not to be more broke and more in debt.
and thus make the situation worse. There is no libturd magic free lunch that makes throwing gasoline on the fire a good idea. Ask your Dad or a teacher to explain these basics to you.

 

[Brutus]

Whats too complex for me to understand?

Liberals substitute magic for thinking because malinvestment, capitalism, competition, and monetarism, are too difficult for them understand.
Liberals spied for Stalin because they felt he had great magic in his liberal hands. Very little has changed.

 

[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!!



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???



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



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



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 about Santa claus

 

[ibanker]

[/QUOTE]So stimulus doesnt work, and the economy just happened to have a historically powerful rebound right after it was signed and began to slow as it ran out.......

Just a coincidence though....no correlation....

LMAO god anti-keynsians are idiots. Its just like how they said the stimulus would raise interest rates, and instead they dropped. Or how they said bernanke was going to create inflation, when in reality a tripling of the monetary base did nothing because were in a liquidity trap.

Next time you criticize a Nobel laureate in economics, make sure you know very simple facts about economics. lol. noob.[/QUOTE]

You could be the most ignorant economic wannabe I've encountered yet. And that is saying something.

Really? You started a chart in 2008 and because the economic cycle didn't continue declining forever, you made a link to Keynesianism as the reason? This is hilarious.

You should seriously consider taking an econ class.

 

[editec]

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.

It just gets a little frustrating when people think that somehow cutting spending when we dont need to is going to fix the problem.

It gets even more frustrating when these plans come from people runnning for president.

Their inability (or refusal) to GET IT, is their problem.

YOUR FRUSTRATION with them is YOUR problem.

I share that frustration with you, but really the problem is that you and I have expectations for people that they cannot really live up to.

If somebody has proven time after time that they are not capable of understanding your POV?

Well then the best thing to do is accept the fact that they don't have the horsepower to get it and move on.

 

[Brutus]

It just gets a little frustrating when people think that somehow cutting spending when we dont need to is going to fix the problem.

exactly!!!!! when you're broke and in debt for God's sake don't cut spending, spend more and don't worry about being more broke and more in debt in the long run. As Keynes said, "in the long run we're all dead anyway."
Its sound liberal advice we all must give our kids!!

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be just plain stupid?? Sorry but is any other explanation possible? Now we can see that the same kind of pure ignorance that made people follow Hitler Stalin and Mao is loose in America. Once you stop thinking any form of liberalism is as good as any other.

 

[Brutus]

So stimulus doesnt work, and the economy just happened to have a historically powerful rebound right after it was signed and began to slow as it ran out.......

a liberal will lack the IQ to know that a stimulus bubble must burst resulting in a net loss to the economy, not a genuine rebound.

 

[AcidTao]

I just dont understand what compells these clowns to repete these obvious lies?


The stim demonstrateably worked.

And here they are denying facts because Fox news tells them up is down

He just wont acknowledge anything i say, thats how he plans to win the argument. Thats how all conservatives plan to win the argument.

I say average bank leverage quadrupled when bush deregulated, the very definition of a bubble, and he just acts like ive never said it. Its amazing.

First off, if you're going to do research on a topic, don't go with the first thing that pops up on google. Second, your first graph should be entitled "Total non-farm jobs added", as the Bureau of Labor states. I don't where you got it, but it's grossly misleading. Lastly, your graph of GDP growth is a large stretch of the imagination. Anyone who pays attention to the economy knows that we have been a quarterly revision from a double dip.

I'm not sure you realize what Keynesian policies are doing. You can't simply print money, which is backed by nothing more than faith in a questionable government. Dangerous.

 

[likeabird03]

Thank you for that graph on page 1. It actually illustrates that job losses bottomed out when Bush was still in office, and continued to ease before the stimulus was passed. For the most part the picture was continuing the get better well before the stimulus could have any real affect.

May I also add that the brief pop in payrolls at the beginning of 2010 was all due to census hiring and the slowing after that was not a result of Keynesian stimulus wearing off but rather census workers no longer being needed.

There's no end to liberal deception.

And to the argument about rates not going up despite the stimulus, very flawed. The only reason rates are low for now is because the fed is printing cash out of thin air to buy t-bills. Any real demand for govt debt has dried up in recent months, in fact it's turned negative from overseas buyers.

 

[Brutus]

I say average bank leverage quadrupled when bush deregulated, the very definition of a bubble, and he just acts like ive never said it. Its amazing.

Do you get anything right?? Bank leverage comes from Federal Reserve, not Bush.

Deposit Reclassification: Benefits and Strategies
By Joe Moss

Deposit reclassification offers financial institutions a way to dramatically lower their reserve requirements. This opportunity was approved by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) in 1994 and has been implemented by most large banks. Now, as transactional deposits are increasing in small and medium-sized financial institutions, community banks are also able to reap the benefits of deposit reclassification. We examine the benefits and the way reclassification works in this article.

 

[cbirch2]

I say average bank leverage quadrupled when bush deregulated, the very definition of a bubble, and he just acts like ive never said it. Its amazing.

Do you get anything right?? Bank leverage comes from Federal Reserve, not Bush.

Deposit Reclassification: Benefits and Strategies
By Joe Moss

Deposit reclassification offers financial institutions a way to dramatically lower their reserve requirements. This opportunity was approved by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) in 1994 and has been implemented by most large banks. Now, as transactional deposits are increasing in small and medium-sized financial institutions, community banks are also able to reap the benefits of deposit reclassification. We examine the benefits and the way reclassification works in this article.

Im not sure? Do you get anything right??

Im talking SEC regulation. See the Net Capital Rule, more specifically the April 24, 2004 vote to allow exemptions.

Even if i had been talking about the federal reserve, it doesnt exactly help your argument does it? Why would it matter if the fed or the sec was regulating the banks? The central point is that the banks were allowed to over leverage and apparently cant be trusted to act rationally.