So basically, you can't demonstrate anything.
Case in point, you simply ignore the issue of the fact that there is little evidence of the Bushy admin cuts preceding the "largest revenue gain in American History", of that it had nothing to do with the increase in spending.
Faced with something with some teeth to it, actual and easily obtained data, you can't even get it up.
Regardless, sometimes, government spending effects the economy with a multiplier effect.
mostly liberal BS. Private spending is far more likely to have a sustained multiplier effect. Think how pathetic and short sighted BO's cash for clunkers looks now.
And think how pathetic were the stimulus check during the Bush admin. Had the the program been as big as the bank bailout, it would have been $4000 per person. That would have been a stimulus. So what, what's your point? That doing a crap ass job of gardening means that we should abandon agriculture?
I have no doubt that private spending is far more likely to have a sustained effect. Oh, wait, private spending is the sustained effect. It isn't far more likely to be, it is. So what's your point, that fiscal multipliers don't exists because the GDP exists?
And that there are fiscal multipliers isn't some sort of "liberal vs conservative" economics. It's simple fact, first proposed then demonstrated. In fact, it can be negative or positive. It can be less then one or more than one.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0911.pdf
http://academic.kellogg.edu/mckayg/macro/presentations/MacroPresentation11top5revised.ppt
Does fiscal stimulus work in a monetary union? Evidence from US regions | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists
http://www.columbia.edu/~en2198/papers/fiscal.pdf
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~auerbach/measuringtheoutput.pdf
And it isn't particularly astounding either. If Apple decides to build a factory in a region, the local economy increases by more than just the factory employment alone.
Recognizing that the fiscal multipliers exist, isn't some "liberal vs conservative" thing. I'm just saying that, unfortunately, that damned tax changes are accompanies by spending increases. And because they are, it's impossible to say that GDP changes were due to one and not the other.
You are such a f'in loon.
The interesting question is how much and when.
I am really surprised by your assessment too, considering that government military contracts are a boon to state economies where they exist. It is hardly neutral.
taxes to let military contracts are not a boon so on balance you have a negative.
Is that your opinion based on your vague "liberal vs conservative" theory of economics, or can you back that up with either some solid evidence or deductive reasoning?
there is only one liberal government thats spends, while there are 300 million people who spend what they earn. Think about that.
You cannot even get the size of the work force right. There are about 160 million people who spend, save, and borrow depending on economic factors, which is measured by the marginal propensity to consume.
what???????When liberal government spends $4 trillion and regulates key sectors of the economy they can overwhelm private good sense
That is great to say, in general. So can you prove when it has happened?
What $4 trillion? What regulations? To what key sectors?
if a huge sector of the economy, like housing, is growing because of one temporary liberal government policy then it is likely a bubble. If GDP is growing because of the private decisions of 300 million people spending money their own hard earned money it is likely not a bubble.
Show the median home prices and demonstrate how each of the obvious bubbles are clearly determinable before the fact. Show that everyone of them
wrong wrong wrong. Friedman did exactly that. His economic theories and political theories were based on what he knew of human nature: someone who earns a dollar will spend it better than a fool liberal bureaucrat guessing in Washington.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. It has already been shown that you misrepresent Friedman on the gold standard. Clearly you cannot represent any economist's theories.
Even then, what does usually have to do with always and sometimes? Your full of selected generalities, picking and choosing with no demonstration that your "liberal vs conservative" theory is true in fact.
And what the f is a guessing? What kind of economic activity is a guessing? You mean like guessing paper?
Someone who earns a dollar will always spend it better then someone guessing. But first they have to earn it then they have to spend it and there has to be a product to spend it on. And all that is micro economics which is marginally attached to macro economics. The whole point of macro economics is that in the sum of all those micro-markets,
And we cannot assess either the actual revenues and outlays or the effect unless it is in real dollars and per capita. Any other consideration is useless. And when looked at from a per capita basis, there is little evidence "that did precede largest revenue gain in American History".
I will always agree that precise scientific experiments are impossible in macro economics
Your lack of ability doesn't mean others lack the ability. Do you even know what a natural experiment is? Or the basics econometrics? Do you even know what econometrics is?
First off, they were combined with increased outlays, completely eliminating any conclusion of it being tax cuts alone. Second, in real dollar, per capita terms, they were not the largest. They were modest at best and barely reached the level of revenues during the Clinton admin. At the very least, since efficiency and standard of living were increasing, they should have been higher.
(Oh, as a percentage of the GDP, in real dollars per worker and per capita would be better. Try that, see what you get.
not to mention we were in the runup to a huge liberal housing recession
What the f are you talking about? The bursting of the housing bubble was primarily the result of investment flipping on second, third and fourth single family homes. That, if anything, is a free market process. The history of economic growth has been punctuated by economic shocks and bubble bursts. Investment bubbles are the standard of capitalism. We love jumping on the bandwagon. The the bubble bursts and only the market leaders remain. So is every investment bubble a "liberal" bubble? Was every housing bubble a "liberal" bubble?
Pull down the median housing price data for the past half decade and demonstrate how each "obvious" bubble can be seen in any manner except hind sight.
And faced with the one thing that has some teeth to it, the question of whether the revenues during the Bush admin were somehow astounding, you can't even buck up.
Come on, dude, present some facts to back up your bs. Like a quote from Friedman on the "not following the rules of the gold standard".
You have basically said nothing useful that sheds light on the economic processes. Rather, all you have is this "anyone that points out I'm full of shit is a liberal" theory of economics."
Add some useful information. I'm begging you too, because in my experience, the nature of things is generally somewhere in between the two opposing opinions.
