Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Economic Predictions

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here are some things that have happened in the past few years:

1.) Deficits have exploded while interest rates have remained low.

2.) Large budget deficits and large increases in spending have not been effective in stimulating economic growth.

3.) Countries that have their own currency have not suffered from fiscal "austerity".

4.) Countries with flexible labor markets have not had as tough a time recovering as ones with tight regulation.

The first thing contradicts many on the right. The second thing contradicts keynesians as does the third thing. The fourth thing simply shows the harm of large welfare states which contradicts what the left says.

All those who scream about the "failure of fiscal austerity" ignore the fact that everywhere that "fiscal austerity" has taken place either does not have a central bank willing to increase AD (France and Ireland) or has awful supply side policies (France again). Britain is actually not a case because they have not engaged in any real austerity.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:44:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 8:15:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Here are some things that have happened in the past few years:

1.) Deficits have exploded while interest rates have remained low.

2.) Large budget deficits and large increases in spending have not been effective in stimulating economic growth.

3.) Countries that have their own currency have not suffered from fiscal "austerity".

4.) Countries with flexible labor markets have not had as tough a time recovering as ones with tight regulation.


The first thing contradicts many on the right. The second thing contradicts keynesians as does the third thing.

How can you say this? What is the level of growth you are using to define when the level of spending was successful? Keynesians would most likely argue that the increased spending lessened the recession and the reason 3% growth has not been achieved because the level of spending needed to get to 3% growth would indeed breach a limit where deficits become harmful. In other terms, I don't know of a Keynesian who argues there is no point where Gov spending becomes counter productive.

The fourth thing simply shows the harm of large welfare states which contradicts what the left says.

All those who scream about the "failure of fiscal austerity" ignore the fact that everywhere that "fiscal austerity" has taken place either does not have a central bank willing to increase AD (France and Ireland) or has awful supply side policies (France again). Britain is actually not a case because they have not engaged in any real austerity.

Fiscal austerity does not produce immediate gains. The problem with it, is the pain to impliment, so the question becomes is there a middle road that can achieve the long term goal with less pain? The answer, if you have institutions and countries willing to lend to you, is yes.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 5:22:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Economocs aint rocket science. It is as simple as 1+1=2

What is complicated is getting people to belive is 1-1=3 And robbing peter to pay paul makes peter a richer man.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 8:33:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 8:15:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Here are some things that have happened in the past few years:

1.) Deficits have exploded while interest rates have remained low.

2.) Large budget deficits and large increases in spending have not been effective in stimulating economic growth.

3.) Countries that have their own currency have not suffered from fiscal "austerity".

4.) Countries with flexible labor markets have not had as tough a time recovering as ones with tight regulation.


The first thing contradicts many on the right. The second thing contradicts keynesians as does the third thing. The fourth thing simply shows the harm of large welfare states which contradicts what the left says.

Your analysis here is incorrect, especially on "the second thing". It's common knowledge that current economic policy was implemented to stem a Great Depression-like scenario, and to the extent that it has, it has indeed stimulated economic growth, from extremely negative to anemically positive.

Your "fourth thing" is a blanket statement with zero validity in reality. You have to give examples of what you consider to be a "flexible labor market" as opposed to "tightly regulated" markets.

All those who scream about the "failure of fiscal austerity" ignore the fact that everywhere that "fiscal austerity" has taken place either does not have a central bank willing to increase AD (France and Ireland) or has awful supply side policies (France again). Britain is actually not a case because they have not engaged in any real austerity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 8:33:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/17/2013 8:15:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Here are some things that have happened in the past few years:

1.) Deficits have exploded while interest rates have remained low.

2.) Large budget deficits and large increases in spending have not been effective in stimulating economic growth.

3.) Countries that have their own currency have not suffered from fiscal "austerity".

4.) Countries with flexible labor markets have not had as tough a time recovering as ones with tight regulation.


The first thing contradicts many on the right. The second thing contradicts keynesians as does the third thing. The fourth thing simply shows the harm of large welfare states which contradicts what the left says.

Your analysis here is incorrect, especially on "the second thing". It's common knowledge that current economic policy was implemented to stem a Great Depression-like scenario, and to the extent that it has, it has indeed stimulated economic growth, from extremely negative to anemically positive.

Your "fourth thing" is a blanket statement with zero validity in reality. You have to give examples of what you consider to be a "flexible labor market" as opposed to "tightly regulated" markets.


If you think that large budget deficits and fiscal stimulus helped end the great depression or the recent crisis, you have learned nothing.

And, I mean labor markets with high UI and high MW as well as high labor taxes. They do real harm.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 10:30:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Everyone is gonna die.

Only in the long run
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 2:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I predict that we are cruising for a world wide economic crash of epic proportions, but not for any of the reasons that the conservative republican corporate blowhards are spouting.

The real reason is that far too much wealth has been piling up under the control of way too few people. And those people aren't spending it, they're investing it. This is a big problem because investment dollars only take production/consumption dollars from the system, and turn them into more investment dollars. They don't fuel the real engine of the economy, with is production/consumption. All the investment dollars do is siphon off more wealth to be invested, again, to siphon off more wealth ... you get the picture. This can't continue without eventually causing a total collapse of the system because it forces the economic engine to run on less and less money until it can't run at all.

Even now, those people who have all that money can't find places to invest it, because the people who actually buy things don't have the money to buy things, with. That slows production, which kills jobs, which further empties the pockets of the people who actually buy things. ... You can see where this ends up .... a small group of people sitting on a giant pile of cash, while everyone else is jobless and broke.

Sooner or later the wealth of the world has to get back into the hands of the people who will SPEND it, instead of those people who just want to invest it. Because spending it is what really creates jobs, which puts even more money in the hands of the spenders, which creates even more jobs .... and so on.

Normally, we would simply tax these uber-wealthy investors, and then give that wealth back to the rest of the population in the form of infrastructure spending and social support systems. Which is an excellent way of protecting the populace while jump-starting the production/consumption engine of the economy. But we've waited too long, and the uber-wealthy are now SO wealthy and SO powerful that they have overwhelmed the governments of the world. They basically own them, now. And of course they have no intention of giving one cent of their big piles of cash back to the people from which it all came.

So we're looking at either a total economic collapse and a global depression or a global sociopolitical/economic revolution, and my guess is that it will end up being both.

Sorry kids, but we're in for some really bad times, ahead, I think.