Had enough of obamanomics?

[Rick]

What the summary from Rick demonstrates is that government spending does alleviate the effects of a depression. FDR's initial spending bills were insufficient to fully fix the problem. When government spending increased sufficiently, the US economy rebounded. However, it is important to realize that all of FDR's efforts alleviated suffering. Public works programs put money back into the economy. Those who worked on those programs got dollars to spend on necessities, so the money went directly into the private sector. Moving away from the gold standard made the economy have more ability to respond to the economic crisis.

The Austrian thinkers, as I recall, care little about unemployment. They do not see it as a real issue, the important issue is the accumulation of private property. IMO, this is an anti-human, anti-freedom POV. This is why the Reps ran on jobs, but have done nothing to address the jobs problem, instead dealing in endless "social" issues.

All you do is advertise your ignorance, but I must say it's at least slightly encouraging when you are able to move your rhetioric beyond the usual Koolaid Kid slogans. You're wrong about the Austrian school - none other than Friedrich Hayek himself supported government relief in extreme circumstances. That does not obviate the basic mechanisms of recovery: lower taxes, deregulate, get out of the way of business. In that regard, Keynsianism is exactly the WRONG policy, as has now been demonstrated into two huge experiments that had the american people as guinea pigs. And you have a reading problem - to look at my post and say it shows keynsianism succeeded is like reading a history of world war two and saying fascism succeeded.

 

[TruthSeeker]

All you do is advertise your ignorance, but I must say it's at least slightly encouraging when you are able to move your rhetioric beyond the usual Koolaid Kid slogans. You're wrong about the Austrian school - none other than Friedrich Hayek himself supported government relief in extreme circumstances. That does not obviate the basic mechanisms of recovery: lower taxes, deregulate, get out of the way of business. In that regard, Keynsianism is exactly the WRONG policy, as has now been demonstrated into two huge experiments that had the american people as guinea pigs. And you have a reading problem - to look at my post and say it shows keynsianism succeeded is like reading a history of world war two and saying fascism succeeded.

Silver-dollar words, smug comments, arrogant bullying, and the ability to spell and put together coherent diatribes, does not offset ignorance of the facts, and complete lack of understanding of "Economics 101" basics.

Just give Doc Pepper a bigger shovel, Rick.

 

[Pepper]

All you do is advertise your ignorance, but I must say it's at least slightly encouraging when you are able to move your rhetioric beyond the usual Koolaid Kid slogans. You're wrong about the Austrian school - none other than Friedrich Hayek himself supported government relief in extreme circumstances. That does not obviate the basic mechanisms of recovery: lower taxes, deregulate, get out of the way of business. In that regard, Keynsianism is exactly the WRONG policy, as has now been demonstrated into two huge experiments that had the american people as guinea pigs. And you have a reading problem - to look at my post and say it shows keynsianism succeeded is like reading a history of world war two and saying fascism succeeded.

I look at reality and see that Keynesian policies succeeded.

Lower taxes had been in place since the Bush tax cuts. Historically low rates. And yet the economy still came very close to collapse. Tax cuts failed.

Deregulation is the cause of this mess. Risky and complicated financial instruments that nobody really understood got us here.

 

[Rick]

I look at reality and see that Keynesian policies succeeded.

You have a reality disconnect that's scary.

Lower taxes had been in place since the Bush tax cuts. Historically low rates. And yet the economy still came very close to collapse. Tax cuts failed.

As leftwingers are happy to point out, RINO Bush and congress greatly ramped up the deficit during his two terms - tax policy is only ONE way government can screw up the economy. When obozo got elected, I consoled myself by saying, well, after the Bush deficits, at least they certainly won't dare increase the deficit - clearly I appreciated neither oibozo's total ignorance and incompetence in that area nor the the extent of the recklessness of zealous leftwingers when they had complete control of te goivernment.

Deregulation is the cause of this mess. Risky and complicated financial instruments that nobody really understood got us here.

Once again, you are simply are ignorant of the facts and turn reality upside down. Under Bush, regulation HUGELY increased - 17,000 entries were added to the Federal Register. And the "complicated financial instruments", securitized mortgages, were intiated by fanny mae under bill clinton's appointee franklin raines.

Another cause of the collapse was the fed encouraging the leftwing subprime mortgage scheme by keeping interest rates low fo a long time during the housing bubble. That idea too was advocated by keynes, and it was the key factor in how "progressives" triggered the great depression by supporting cheap money.

 

[Pepper]

You have a reality disconnect that's scary.

You rightwingers are so brainwashed. If someone disagrees with you, it completely destroys your world. You wander around bumping into things and yelling.

As leftwingers are happy to point out, RINO Bush and congress greatly ramped up the deficit during his two terms - tax policy is only ONE way government can screw up the economy. When obozo got elected, I consoled myself by saying, well, after the Bush deficits, at least they certainly won't dare increase the deficit - clearly I appreciated neither oibozo's total ignorance and incompetence in that area nor the the extent of the recklessness of zealous leftwingers when they had complete control of te goivernment.

You cannot fix a recession by cutting government spending. Please consult economy history.

Once again, you are simply are ignorant of the facts and turn reality upside down. Under Bush, regulation HUGELY increased - 17,000 entries were added to the Federal Register. And the "complicated financial instruments", securitized mortgages, were intiated by fanny mae under bill clinton's appointee franklin raines.

No, mortgage bundles were not originated by FM and FM.

Another cause of the collapse was the fed encouraging the leftwing subprime mortgage scheme by keeping interest rates low fo a long time during the housing bubble. That idea too was advocated by keynes, and it was the key factor in how "progressives" triggered the great depression by supporting cheap money.

So Allen Greenspan is a leftie, huh? LOL

 

[Rick]

You cannot fix a recession by cutting government spending. Please consult economy history.

Like all obamabots, you are militantly ignorant of history and economics, and can't be tutored. The relevent facts are layed out for you chapter and verse, and all you respond with is a glassy-eyed koolaid stare, and posts that amount to "Duh no you're wrong."

 

[BigRob]

You cannot fix a recession by cutting government spending. Please consult economy history.

From the WSJ:
Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We're probably forgetting something.

In the face of that...how do you really continue to argue that Keynesian economics has been a success?

 

[GenSeneca]

In the face of that...how do you really continue to argue that Keynesian economics has been a success?

 

[Pepper]

From the WSJ:
Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We're probably forgetting something.

In the face of that...how do you really continue to argue that Keynesian economics has been a success?

Are you calling Bush and Greenspan Keynesians?

The one-time rebate given under Bush, are you calling him a late convert to Keynesian economics?

The near zero interest rates that the fed put in place well before Obama took office-are you calling GREENSPAN a Keynesian? You do realize he sat at the knee of Ayn Rand, right?

Do you understand the difference between improving a situation and creating a permanent fix?

Do you realize that Obama put far more tax cuts into the first stimulus package than the Keynesians wished, as a compromise measure with the Republicans?

Do you realize that Keynesians have said from the beginning that the problem is that we are dealing in half-measures? A too-small stimulus, and too large a reliance on tax cuts?

Do you realize that WWII spending was a massive economic stimulus?

 

[Pepper]

Red Kool Aid is your flavor. You've been drinking it down, too.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Red Kool Aid is your flavor. You've been drinking it down, too.

I have to disagree. BLACK CHERRY is obviously the preferred Kool-Aid flavor of the leftists.

 

[Rick]

Are you calling Bush and Greenspan Keynesians?

The one-time rebate given under Bush, are you calling him a late convert to Keynesian economics?

Bush ran up a $5 trillion dollar debt with spending - REMEMBER? REMEMBER?? It wasn't just a "one-time rebate".

The near zero interest rates that the fed put in place well before Obama took office-are you calling GREENSPAN a Keynesian? You do realize he sat at the knee of Ayn Rand, right?

Everyone in the world but YOU realizes greenspan ditiched objectivism?

Do you realize that Obama put far more tax cuts into the first stimulus package than the Keynesians wished, as a compromise measure with the Republicans?

So intead of creating a $14 trillion debt, he could have created - what - a $100 trillion debt??

Do you realize that Keynesians have said from the beginning that the problem is that we are dealing in half-measures? A too-small stimulus, and too large a reliance on tax cuts?

Do you realize that no matter how many trainloads of taxes and regulations the statists get, they >>ALWAYS<< say it's never enough? Do you realize there's NO LIMIT, EVER, to government greed?

Do you realize that WWII spending was a massive economic stimulus?

Do you realize the WWII debt lasted for decades and caused post-war recessions?

 

[Pepper]

Which middle school is it that you attend?

 

[Rick]

Which middle school is it that you attend?

What are your academic credentials?

 

[Pepper]

I'm not attacking his education or his intellect. I'm criticizing the level of his humor.