Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Austerity work?

BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 3:18:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This topic is very basic: Does the economic policy of austerity, also known as belt tightening, work?
Is is economically feasible. Had it been successful?
Your thoughts?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:06:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 3:18:28 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This topic is very basic: Does the economic policy of austerity, also known as belt tightening, work?
Is is economically feasible. Had it been successful?
Your thoughts?

No, it doesn't work, and there's been not only a case study over the past several years -- tepid U.S. recovery, European sovereign debt crisis, etc. -- but considerable research, the most relevant of which is probably Blanchard and Leigh, that find considerable fiscal multipliers, especially at the zero lower bound.

The implication is that, at positive nominal interest rates, central banks can control the level of aggregate demand -- fiscal austerity would essentially be irrelevant, because it could be readily "offset" by monetary policy; but that's a bit harder (a) once rates hit zero and (b) when dealing with countries, such as those in the European periphery -- Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland -- *without* independent monetary policies, and thus without the ability to depreciate their currencies a la Argentina in the early 2000s.

But, in reality, there is no real mechanism by which it "works." Indeed, growth in the US accelerated in 2013 not *because* of sequestration, but *in spite of it.* It accelerated not *because* of draconian spending cuts and tax hikes, but *because* the Fed offset it -- which it can sort of do, though it's imperfect -- by expanding its QE program. Any "animal spirits" or "confidence fairy" type sh1t that resulted was a function of monetary policy, not of fiscal austerity.

In reality, there are no tangible economic benefits of austerity. Granted, if a country is at or near its fiscal limit and there's pressure on bond yields, there's obviously wisdom in getting that budget deficit down, but there's absolutely zero agreement on where that *endogenous* -- yes, it is 100% endogenous, there's no 90% Rogoff-and-Reinhart debt timebomb -- limit is. Heck, Japan can sustain a debt-to-GDP ratio in excess of 2000. That's a classic case where the causality from slow growth to high debt is clearly not in favor of the austerian worldview. Ironically, gratuitous austerity would actually push *forward* the fiscal limit and thus make future debt harder to service. Austerity in Greece, for instance, actually *increased* its debt-to-GDP ratio because it took more than a dollar out of GDP for every dollar in spending cuts.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 10:25:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does Austerity work? It's already to late, you are already bankrupt and beyond the point of no return when talking about austerity. Austerity is choosing who is going to get screwed the worst and who will not suffer at all in govt positions.
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%
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 12:19:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Austerity is anti-Keynesian, thus the benefits of people keeping what they have earned will never be admitted.

The GDP equation promotes greater government spending. Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:40:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 12:19:17 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Austerity is anti-Keynesian, thus the benefits of people keeping what they have earned will never be admitted.

This is totally wrong and a misrepresentation of Keynes. I can't say I'm particularly surprised.

Keynes argued, contra classical economists, that involuntary unemployment is caused by downward nominal wage rigidity. This does not lend itself to perpetual budget deficits. The entire mantra is spend more when times are bad and spend less when times are good--i.e, the very textbook model, contra Ricardians, holds that budget deficits can "crowd out" private investment and are thus deleterious over long periods of time. The zero lower bound on nominal interest rates is the reason we're even talking about stimulus spending--spending more now means we can spend less later.

The GDP equation promotes greater government spending.

Hogwash--it says that the level of aggregate spending matters to economic outcomes. You can make whatever assumptions you want from there. I've derived for you in the past, for instance, the user-savings identity *from* the GDP equation: the question is where the causality lies. I believe--and all of the evidence on this backs me--that the causality in the short run (which, let's be honest, is where we're perpetually trapped) is from income to savings.

Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

There are many, many problems with using GDP as a primary metric for the "good" associated with fiscal spending--I said this to Wylted just the other day. The main one is the inability of economists to subtract, as goes the saying: we'll count, for instance, environmental cleanup in GDP, but not factor in the degradation from the oil spill that brought the need for the cleanup in the first place.

This, however, is just sophistry that's become typical of you.

If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Lol, oh, what utter hogwash. You have to work backwards from a die-heard, no-nuance view of negative freedom as the be-all-end-all to even come to this.

It's fine to hold that position--radical and stupid though it may be--but don't try to pass it off as economics or intellectually rigorous: it isn't. Stick to the politics forum with the other hacks if this is *truly* all you have to bring to the table. My suspicion is that it is.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 2:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 10:25:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
Does Austerity work? It's already to late, you are already bankrupt and beyond the point of no return when talking about austerity. Austerity is choosing who is going to get screwed the worst and who will not suffer at all in govt positions.

Tell me how Japan manages with a 200 percent debt-to-GDP ratio--and how their bond yields are near historically low levels. Tell me how the United States, which is *past* Rogoff and Reinhart's 90 percent debt-to-GDP death-spiral threshold, still enjoys exceptionally low yields and Treasuries virtually no perceived risk. Tell me how the Eurozone, which implemented these "austerity" measures, have seen their debt-to-GDP ratios rise.

This is hogwash: there is likely some "tipping point," but it's heavily ENDOGENOUS. The best way to measure it is a PV of the maximum possible primary surplus. That's based on capacity, productivity, technological innovation, etc., all of which are undermined by the severe downturn that would inevitably be induced by austerity.

I swear: people comment on this sh1t--mostly politicians--without having but the slightest knowledge of the history or the academic literature. How many more times must you be proven demonstrably wrong for you to comprehend that we are *not* on the precipice of some God-damned tipping point, nor are we anywhere near it?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 2:44:06 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:25:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
Does Austerity work? It's already to late, you are already bankrupt and beyond the point of no return when talking about austerity. Austerity is choosing who is going to get screwed the worst and who will not suffer at all in govt positions.

Tell me how Japan manages with a 200 percent debt-to-GDP ratio--and how their bond yields are near historically low levels. Tell me how the United States, which is *past* Rogoff and Reinhart's 90 percent debt-to-GDP death-spiral threshold, still enjoys exceptionally low yields and Treasuries virtually no perceived risk. Tell me how the Eurozone, which implemented these "austerity" measures, have seen their debt-to-GDP ratios rise.

This is hogwash: there is likely some "tipping point," but it's heavily ENDOGENOUS. The best way to measure it is a PV of the maximum possible primary surplus. That's based on capacity, productivity, technological innovation, etc., all of which are undermined by the severe downturn that would inevitably be induced by austerity.

I swear: people comment on this sh1t--mostly politicians--without having but the slightest knowledge of the history or the academic literature. How many more times must you be proven demonstrably wrong for you to comprehend that we are *not* on the precipice of some God-damned tipping point, nor are we anywhere near it?

They manage the same way all bankrupt nations manage, they manipulate the markets by printing worthless fiat currency. No country in the history of man kind who adopted a fiat based currency didn't eventually collapse. America will collapse Japan will collapse any country whos money is based on fiat will collapse. It's a 100% guarantee. History says so. It isn't a matter of if but when.
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%
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:06:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
They manage the same way all bankrupt nations manage, they manipulate the markets by printing worthless fiat currency.

How do you define "bankrupt?"

In the case of a government--which is *not* a household--bankrupt means (a) you can't pay your bills and (b) no one will lend you money. If that were the case, bond yields would be soaring: that isn't the case.

Your understanding of "fiat money"--particularly your arbitrary labeling of it was 'useless'--underscores both your lack of understanding of monetary policy and, even, of the gold standard I'm sure you support.

Here's the kicker: the U.S. isn't "printing" money. QE ended back in October 2014. The UK isn't printing money. It's just the ECB and the BOJ, and ironically that was *because* they were doing austerity. Austerity depresses growth, drops equilibrium real interest rates, and thus necessitates future stimulus.

Another kicker is that central banks don't "print" money. They don't even control the money supply--they control the level of the monetary base, but that need not (and did not following post-crisis QE, which is why inflation never panned out) translate into actual currency in circulation. The base is an offsetting liability and is a liability of the Fed, but it's broken up into reserves and currency in circulation: the former isn't inflation, the latter might be. Yet, the former has soared, the latter not so much.

Also, the "value" of money is independent, in the short run, of its quantity--especially now when interest rates are disconnected from reserve supply. Velocity -- MV = PY -- is important when determining the actual *effect* on goal variables we care about, and that's been tanking as flights to safe assets has been soaring.

No country in the history of man kind who adopted a fiat based currency didn't eventually collapse.

This is the dumbest fcking thing you've ever said--and, my goodness, you set the bar pretty damn low.

No, the gold standard is what *caused* instability. That's why we suspended it in the 1930s and the 1970s. That's why currency devaluation under FDR, or Argentina in the early 2000s, or even Germany's de-facto internal devaluation in the mid-2000s was largely responsible for clawing out of Depression-era scenarios--the same can be said, largely, for the US at the moment and the Eurozone now, though excessive rigidity by Mario Draghi's comrades isn't exactly helping the cause.

There's a fundamental difference--that's clearly lost on you--between Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic, which are the operative examples of the hyperinflationary "fiat currency" regimes you're talking about and the predominant monetary regimes today: borrowing and issuing their own currency. Any country with debt nominally denominated in its own currency cannot physically go bankrupt. Likewise, at the ZLB it can borrow at negative real interest rates, which will bolster expectations of *future* interest rates by bolstering demand raising equilibrium interest rates. Austerity merely reverses course as it did in Europe.

America will collapse Japan will collapse any country whos money is based on fiat will collapse. It's a 100% guarantee. History says so. It isn't a matter of if but when.

It always amazes me when people who have been wrong about absolutely everything, contingent not on sensible disagreement but rather a fundamental misunderstanding of Economics 101, not only can continue shamelessly to make the same prognostications, but are so blindly unaware of the fact and extent to which they've been wrong.

I'll bet you all the money in my sock drawer that you're full of sh1t. Bond investors, who are willing to accept a record-low interest rate of, like, 90 basis points in real terms to borrow from the U.S. government OVER A THIRTY-YEAR PERIOD--after which the U.S. is, in your judgment, supposed to collapse, as these very same bond investors fly to other currencies (which I guess are supposed to likewise collapse.......)--think you're full of sh1t.

But, really, let's do it--check back with me in a few years, and we'll see who's right.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:42:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:06:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
They manage the same way all bankrupt nations manage, they manipulate the markets by printing worthless fiat currency.

How do you define "bankrupt?"

In the case of a government--which is *not* a household--bankrupt means (a) you can't pay your bills and (b) no one will lend you money. If that were the case, bond yields would be soaring: that isn't the case.

Your understanding of "fiat money"--particularly your arbitrary labeling of it was 'useless'--underscores both your lack of understanding of monetary policy and, even, of the gold standard I'm sure you support.

Here's the kicker: the U.S. isn't "printing" money. QE ended back in October 2014. The UK isn't printing money. It's just the ECB and the BOJ, and ironically that was *because* they were doing austerity. Austerity depresses growth, drops equilibrium real interest rates, and thus necessitates future stimulus.

Another kicker is that central banks don't "print" money. They don't even control the money supply--they control the level of the monetary base, but that need not (and did not following post-crisis QE, which is why inflation never panned out) translate into actual currency in circulation. The base is an offsetting liability and is a liability of the Fed, but it's broken up into reserves and currency in circulation: the former isn't inflation, the latter might be. Yet, the former has soared, the latter not so much.

Also, the "value" of money is independent, in the short run, of its quantity--especially now when interest rates are disconnected from reserve supply. Velocity -- MV = PY -- is important when determining the actual *effect* on goal variables we care about, and that's been tanking as flights to safe assets has been soaring.

No country in the history of man kind who adopted a fiat based currency didn't eventually collapse.

This is the dumbest fcking thing you've ever said--and, my goodness, you set the bar pretty damn low.

No, the gold standard is what *caused* instability. That's why we suspended it in the 1930s and the 1970s. That's why currency devaluation under FDR, or Argentina in the early 2000s, or even Germany's de-facto internal devaluation in the mid-2000s was largely responsible for clawing out of Depression-era scenarios--the same can be said, largely, for the US at the moment and the Eurozone now, though excessive rigidity by Mario Draghi's comrades isn't exactly helping the cause.

There's a fundamental difference--that's clearly lost on you--between Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic, which are the operative examples of the hyperinflationary "fiat currency" regimes you're talking about and the predominant monetary regimes today: borrowing and issuing their own currency. Any country with debt nominally denominated in its own currency cannot physically go bankrupt. Likewise, at the ZLB it can borrow at negative real interest rates, which will bolster expectations of *future* interest rates by bolstering demand raising equilibrium interest rates. Austerity merely reverses course as it did in Europe.

America will collapse Japan will collapse any country whos money is based on fiat will collapse. It's a 100% guarantee. History says so. It isn't a matter of if but when.

It always amazes me when people who have been wrong about absolutely everything, contingent not on sensible disagreement but rather a fundamental misunderstanding of Economics 101, not only can continue shamelessly to make the same prognostications, but are so blindly unaware of the fact and extent to which they've been wrong.

I'll bet you all the money in my sock drawer that you're full of sh1t. Bond investors, who are willing to accept a record-low interest rate of, like, 90 basis points in real terms to borrow from the U.S. government OVER A THIRTY-YEAR PERIOD--after which the U.S. is, in your judgment, supposed to collapse, as these very same bond investors fly to other currencies (which I guess are supposed to likewise collapse.......)--think you're full of sh1t.

But, really, let's do it--check back with me in a few years, and we'll see who's right.

Yes, time will tell who is right and who is wrong won't it. Long live the Wiemar Republic.
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%
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:53:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, time will tell who is right and who is wrong won't it. Long live the Wiemar Republic.

What's funny is, I almost created a futures market with the people I'm talking with at the moment: probability of sadolite actually engaging the very long response I took the time and effort to toil over. Anecdotally, no one actually thought you would understand the slightest thing I wrote, though that wouldn't stop you from pontificating. It appears they were proven right.

Nice reputation, eh? You should work to change it.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:55:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:53:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, time will tell who is right and who is wrong won't it. Long live the Wiemar Republic.

What's funny is, I almost created a futures market with the people I'm talking with at the moment: probability of sadolite actually engaging the very long response I took the time and effort to toil over. Anecdotally, no one actually thought you would understand the slightest thing I wrote, though that wouldn't stop you from pontificating. It appears they were proven right.

Nice reputation, eh? You should work to change it.

Finance is only hard to understand when 1+1 = 3
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%
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:02:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:58:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:55:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:53:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, time will tell who is right and who is wrong won't it. Long live the Wiemar Republic.

What's funny is, I almost created a futures market with the people I'm talking with at the moment: probability of sadolite actually engaging the very long response I took the time and effort to toil over. Anecdotally, no one actually thought you would understand the slightest thing I wrote, though that wouldn't stop you from pontificating. It appears they were proven right.

Nice reputation, eh? You should work to change it.

Finance is only hard to understand when 1+1 = 3

In that case, you shouldn't have the faintest problem understanding the identity of exchange (a short-run variation of the quantity theory of money), the money multiplier, the Wicksellian equilibrium real interest rate, or optimum currency area theory. That's, actually, all my above post referenced.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 2:40:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 12:19:17 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Austerity is anti-Keynesian, thus the benefits of people keeping what they have earned will never be admitted.

This is totally wrong and a misrepresentation of Keynes. I can't say I'm particularly surprised.

Keynes argued, contra classical economists, that involuntary unemployment is caused by downward nominal wage rigidity. This does not lend itself to perpetual budget deficits. The entire mantra is spend more when times are bad and spend less when times are good--i.e, the very textbook model, contra Ricardians, holds that budget deficits can "crowd out" private investment and are thus deleterious over long periods of time. The zero lower bound on nominal interest rates is the reason we're even talking about stimulus spending--spending more now means we can spend less later.

The Keynesian solution to problems more government spending.


The GDP equation promotes greater government spending.

Hogwash--it says that the level of aggregate spending matters to economic outcomes. You can make whatever assumptions you want from there. I've derived for you in the past, for instance, the user-savings identity *from* the GDP equation: the question is where the causality lies. I believe--and all of the evidence on this backs me--that the causality in the short run (which, let's be honest, is where we're perpetually trapped) is from income to savings.

To the government overlords the bottom line GDP number is all that matters especially with a complaint press.

Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

There are many, many problems with using GDP as a primary metric for the "good" associated with fiscal spending--I said this to Wylted just the other day. The main one is the inability of economists to subtract, as goes the saying: we'll count, for instance, environmental cleanup in GDP, but not factor in the degradation from the oil spill that brought the need for the cleanup in the first place.

Keynesian's built the formula, my words validated.


This, however, is just sophistry that's become typical of you.

My counters to Keynesian false arguments are on first principles. The simple principles, like a person's property belongs to them, and the collective can not take it.


If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Lol, oh, what utter hogwash. You have to work backwards from a die-heard, no-nuance view of negative freedom as the be-all-end-all to even come to this.

The underlying action is taking a person's property with coercion is always immoral.

It's fine to hold that position--radical and stupid though it may be--but don't try to pass it off as economics or intellectually rigorous: it isn't. Stick to the politics forum with the other hacks if this is *truly* all you have to bring to the table. My suspicion is that it is.

Any reference a Keynesian idea belongs only in the political forum. His economics are strictly political, especially by using only aggregates to conceal real harm caused by actions.

Keynesian ideas requires government action, which is not longer economics when the actors can not act freely.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 12:02:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 11:55:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The Keynesian solution to problems more government spending.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. That's just demonstrably wrong. You're throwing words, like "Keynesian," that you don't actually understand. That's nothing but a strawman.

To the government overlords the bottom line GDP number is all that matters especially with a complaint press.

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that. But it's not a question of the *level*, but of the relative *stability* around a trend line. From there, it's a question of causation--does savings increase income, or is income necessary to have savings? I tend toward the latter, and you've yet to provide an argument to the contrary (probably because one doesn't actually exist).

Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

There are many, many problems with using GDP as a primary metric for the "good" associated with fiscal spending--I said this to Wylted just the other day. The main one is the inability of economists to subtract, as goes the saying: we'll count, for instance, environmental cleanup in GDP, but not factor in the degradation from the oil spill that brought the need for the cleanup in the first place.

Keynesian's built the formula, my words validated.

Again, you're completely ignoring what I wrote.


This, however, is just sophistry that's become typical of you.

My counters to Keynesian false arguments are on first principles. The simple principles, like a person's property belongs to them, and the collective can not take it.

And, again, you aren't actually concerned with the economics. Save the sophistry for the politics forums.


If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Lol, oh, what utter hogwash. You have to work backwards from a die-heard, no-nuance view of negative freedom as the be-all-end-all to even come to this.

The underlying action is taking a person's property with coercion is always immoral.

It isn't coercion: it's basic social-contract theory, and you have the right to relocate, and to not use government services, if you object.

It's fine to hold that position--radical and stupid though it may be--but don't try to pass it off as economics or intellectually rigorous: it isn't. Stick to the politics forum with the other hacks if this is *truly* all you have to bring to the table. My suspicion is that it is.

Any reference a Keynesian idea belongs only in the political forum.

lol.

It's the foundation of modern macroeconomics. Politics is for bullsh1tting, grandstanding and back-scratching--an empirically consistent model of the economy, proven right time and again, is far from that.

His economics are strictly political, especially by using only aggregates to conceal real harm caused by actions.

You don't even understand Keynes's most basic writings, which is just so sad.

There is a micro basis for Keynes, actually: today they're called DSGE models.

Keynesian ideas requires government action, which is not longer economics when the actors can not act freely.

Of course that's economics. In fact, there are branches of economics that deal with the *impact* and the optimal extent of government intervention and the impact on various economic actors. So that's bullsh1t.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 12:37:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:06:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2015 2:44:06 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/7/2015 10:25:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
Does Austerity work? It's already to late, you are already bankrupt and beyond the point of no return when talking about austerity. Austerity is choosing who is going to get screwed the worst and who will not suffer at all in govt positions.

Tell me how Japan manages with a 200 percent debt-to-GDP ratio--and how their bond yields are near historically low levels. Tell me how the United States, which is *past* Rogoff and Reinhart's 90 percent debt-to-GDP death-spiral threshold, still enjoys exceptionally low yields and Treasuries virtually no perceived risk. Tell me how the Eurozone, which implemented these "austerity" measures, have seen their debt-to-GDP ratios rise.

This is hogwash: there is likely some "tipping point," but it's heavily ENDOGENOUS. The best way to measure it is a PV of the maximum possible primary surplus. That's based on capacity, productivity, technological innovation, etc., all of which are undermined by the severe downturn that would inevitably be induced by austerity.

I swear: people comment on this sh1t--mostly politicians--without having but the slightest knowledge of the history or the academic literature. How many more times must you be proven demonstrably wrong for you to comprehend that we are *not* on the precipice of some God-damned tipping point, nor are we anywhere near it?

They manage the same way all bankrupt nations manage, they manipulate the markets by printing worthless fiat currency. No country in the history of man kind who adopted a fiat based currency didn't eventually collapse. America will collapse Japan will collapse any country whos money is based on fiat will collapse. It's a 100% guarantee. History says so. It isn't a matter of if but when.

Wise words.

All currency will someday reach its intrinsic value.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 1:30:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 12:02:04 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:55:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The Keynesian solution to problems more government spending.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. That's just demonstrably wrong. You're throwing words, like "Keynesian," that you don't actually understand. That's nothing but a strawman.

Then my words should not be irritating to you.


To the government overlords the bottom line GDP number is all that matters especially with a complaint press.

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that. But it's not a question of the *level*, but of the relative *stability* around a trend line. From there, it's a question of causation--does savings increase income, or is income necessary to have savings? I tend toward the latter, and you've yet to provide an argument to the contrary (probably because one doesn't actually exist).

Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

There are many, many problems with using GDP as a primary metric for the "good" associated with fiscal spending--I said this to Wylted just the other day. The main one is the inability of economists to subtract, as goes the saying: we'll count, for instance, environmental cleanup in GDP, but not factor in the degradation from the oil spill that brought the need for the cleanup in the first place.

Keynesian's built the formula, my words validated.

Again, you're completely ignoring what I wrote.

Your words validate my point.



This, however, is just sophistry that's become typical of you.

My counters to Keynesian false arguments are on first principles. The simple principles, like a person's property belongs to them, and the collective can not take it.

And, again, you aren't actually concerned with the economics. Save the sophistry for the politics forums.

Keynesian Ideas belong are political.



If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Lol, oh, what utter hogwash. You have to work backwards from a die-heard, no-nuance view of negative freedom as the be-all-end-all to even come to this.

The underlying action is taking a person's property with coercion is always immoral.

It isn't coercion: it's basic social-contract theory, and you have the right to relocate, and to not use government services, if you object.

Social-contract theory is coercive, what should be done to those that object to this contract? They will be victims of force.


It's fine to hold that position--radical and stupid though it may be--but don't try to pass it off as economics or intellectually rigorous: it isn't. Stick to the politics forum with the other hacks if this is *truly* all you have to bring to the table. My suspicion is that it is.

Any reference a Keynesian idea belongs only in the political forum.

lol.

I'm not laughing.


It's the foundation of modern macroeconomics. Politics is for bullsh1tting, grandstanding and back-scratching--an empirically consistent model of the economy, proven right time and again, is far from that.

A political foundation, thus not economics.


His economics are strictly political, especially by using only aggregates to conceal real harm caused by actions.

You don't even understand Keynes's most basic writings, which is just so sad.

I understand Liberty being destroyed regardless of context.


There is a micro basis for Keynes, actually: today they're called DSGE models.

Keynesian ideas requires government action, which is not longer economics when the actors can not act freely.

Of course that's economics. In fact, there are branches of economics that deal with the *impact* and the optimal extent of government intervention and the impact on various economic actors. So that's bullsh1t.

And no longer economics. Economics with the center being government action is not economics, it's politics.

Let's see if you can stop here without getting the last word.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 1:41:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 1:30:39 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 12:02:04 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:55:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The Keynesian solution to problems more government spending.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. That's just demonstrably wrong. You're throwing words, like "Keynesian," that you don't actually understand. That's nothing but a strawman.

Then my words should not be irritating to you.

That makes no sense--you're spewing bullsh1t and strawmanning my arguments. Of course that's infuriating when I'm attempting to engage in a meaningful discussion, which evidently you are incapable of.


To the government overlords the bottom line GDP number is all that matters especially with a complaint press.

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that. But it's not a question of the *level*, but of the relative *stability* around a trend line. From there, it's a question of causation--does savings increase income, or is income necessary to have savings? I tend toward the latter, and you've yet to provide an argument to the contrary (probably because one doesn't actually exist).

Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

There are many, many problems with using GDP as a primary metric for the "good" associated with fiscal spending--I said this to Wylted just the other day. The main one is the inability of economists to subtract, as goes the saying: we'll count, for instance, environmental cleanup in GDP, but not factor in the degradation from the oil spill that brought the need for the cleanup in the first place.

Keynesian's built the formula, my words validated.

Again, you're completely ignoring what I wrote.

Your words validate my point.

*facepalm*

Okay, humor me: how?



This, however, is just sophistry that's become typical of you.

My counters to Keynesian false arguments are on first principles. The simple principles, like a person's property belongs to them, and the collective can not take it.

And, again, you aren't actually concerned with the economics. Save the sophistry for the politics forums.

Keynesian Ideas belong are political.

Nope, not even close. The key is "nuance," a term lost on politicians.

Again, stick to the politics--or the religion--forum if you can't handle it.



If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Lol, oh, what utter hogwash. You have to work backwards from a die-heard, no-nuance view of negative freedom as the be-all-end-all to even come to this.

The underlying action is taking a person's property with coercion is always immoral.

It isn't coercion: it's basic social-contract theory, and you have the right to relocate, and to not use government services, if you object.

Social-contract theory is coercive, what should be done to those that object to this contract? They will be victims of force.

No, not at all--they can go live on a deserted island, if they want. Ironically, many of them *love* social-contract theory when it comes to, say, using police or fire forces or driving on roads, but they *hate* when they have to pay for those services.

So, really, go live on an island if taxation--the cost of civilization--bothers you *that* much. Or, better yet, don't utilize government services--at all. See how well that works out for you.


It's fine to hold that position--radical and stupid though it may be--but don't try to pass it off as economics or intellectually rigorous: it isn't. Stick to the politics forum with the other hacks if this is *truly* all you have to bring to the table. My suspicion is that it is.

Any reference a Keynesian idea belongs only in the political forum.

lol.

I'm not laughing.

I know you aren't, and it's very, very sad.


It's the foundation of modern macroeconomics. Politics is for bullsh1tting, grandstanding and back-scratching--an empirically consistent model of the economy, proven right time and again, is far from that.

A political foundation, thus not economics.

No, not at all. The average politician probably couldn't draw a basic Hicksian AD-AS graph.


His economics are strictly political, especially by using only aggregates to conceal real harm caused by actions.

You don't even understand Keynes's most basic writings, which is just so sad.

I understand Liberty being destroyed regardless of context.

*sigh*

Every conversation with you is so circuitous. It always comes back to this one God-damned assertion.


There is a micro basis for Keynes, actually: today they're called DSGE models.

Keynesian ideas requires government action, which is not longer economics when the actors can not act freely.

Of course that's economics. In fact, there are branches of economics that deal with the *impact* and the optimal extent of government intervention and the impact on various economic actors. So that's bullsh1t.

And no longer economics. Economics with the center being government action is not economics, it's politics.

That's just completely fact-free. Literally *every* economics class--not political economy, but economics--considers the impact of government action in some way. In Micro, that's Pigouvian taxes and the "optimal" subsidy. In Macro, that might be IS/LM to gauge the impact of monetary/fiscal policies. Government is certainly at the center of much of this, but there are *zero* political implications. That's why the best economic policies are often bad politics.

Let's see if you can stop here without getting the last word.

Lmfao.

Oh, the sheer irony--the guy who insists on filling space with bullsh1t is accusing me of having a psychological need for the "last word." At least I'm actually making substantive comments.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:22:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 1:41:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

How about, instead of wasting time in this thread, direct your attention elsewhere -- namely this lovely thread: [http://www.debate.org...]
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:23:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 1:41:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/9/2015 1:30:39 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 12:02:04 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:55:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The Keynesian solution to problems more government spending.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. That's just demonstrably wrong. You're throwing words, like "Keynesian," that you don't actually understand. That's nothing but a strawman.

Then my words should not be irritating to you.

That makes no sense--you're spewing bullsh1t and strawmanning my arguments. Of course that's infuriating when I'm attempting to engage in a meaningful discussion, which evidently you are incapable of.


To the government overlords the bottom line GDP number is all that matters especially with a complaint press.

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that. But it's not a question of the *level*, but of the relative *stability* around a trend line. From there, it's a question of causation--does savings increase income, or is income necessary to have savings? I tend toward the latter, and you've yet to provide an argument to the contrary (probably because one doesn't actually exist).

Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

There are many, many problems with using GDP as a primary metric for the "good" associated with fiscal spending--I said this to Wylted just the other day. The main one is the inability of economists to subtract, as goes the saying: we'll count, for instance, environmental cleanup in GDP, but not factor in the degradation from the oil spill that brought the need for the cleanup in the first place.

Keynesian's built the formula, my words validated.

Again, you're completely ignoring what I wrote.

Your words validate my point.

*facepalm*

Okay, humor me: how?

The formula adds government spending regardless of the harm caused by government expropriation of funds from individuals. The spending of those funds regardless how is always a plus to GDP.




This, however, is just sophistry that's become typical of you.

My counters to Keynesian false arguments are on first principles. The simple principles, like a person's property belongs to them, and the collective can not take it.

And, again, you aren't actually concerned with the economics. Save the sophistry for the politics forums.

Keynesian Ideas belong are political.

Nope, not even close. The key is "nuance," a term lost on politicians.

Nuance is only needed when principles are being disregarded.


Again, stick to the politics--or the religion--forum if you can't handle it.

America is in trouble when people consider, free markets and free people to be religion.




If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Lol, oh, what utter hogwash. You have to work backwards from a die-heard, no-nuance view of negative freedom as the be-all-end-all to even come to this.

The underlying action is taking a person's property with coercion is always immoral.

It isn't coercion: it's basic social-contract theory, and you have the right to relocate, and to not use government services, if you object.

Social-contract theory is coercive, what should be done to those that object to this contract? They will be victims of force.

No, not at all--they can go live on a deserted island, if they want. Ironically, many of them *love* social-contract theory when it comes to, say, using police or fire forces or driving on roads, but they *hate* when they have to pay for those services.

The ones that want to oppress should leave, leave the rest alone.


So, really, go live on an island if taxation--the cost of civilization--bothers you *that* much. Or, better yet, don't utilize government services--at all. See how well that works out for you.

Let people pay for what they use, and what they support, don't use coercion, use persuasion.



It's fine to hold that position--radical and stupid though it may be--but don't try to pass it off as economics or intellectually rigorous: it isn't. Stick to the politics forum with the other hacks if this is *truly* all you have to bring to the table. My suspicion is that it is.

Any reference a Keynesian idea belongs only in the political forum.

lol.

I'm not laughing.

I know you aren't, and it's very, very sad.


It's the foundation of modern macroeconomics. Politics is for bullsh1tting, grandstanding and back-scratching--an empirically consistent model of the economy, proven right time and again, is far from that.

A political foundation, thus not economics.

No, not at all. The average politician probably couldn't draw a basic Hicksian AD-AS graph.

Politician don't need to draw any curve, Keynesian economists are in their pocket, and on the payroll. Politics know that economic indoctrination is on thier side.



His economics are strictly political, especially by using only aggregates to conceal real harm caused by actions.

You don't even understand Keynes's most basic writings, which is just so sad.

I understand Liberty being destroyed regardless of context.

*sigh*

Yet, still true.


Every conversation with you is so circuitous. It always comes back to this one God-damned assertion.

You are the one that keeps advocating coercive policies. I believe in letting people live how they want.



There is a micro basis for Keynes, actually: today they're called DSGE models.

Keynesian ideas requires government action, which is not longer economics when the actors can not act freely.

Of course that's economics. In fact, there are branches of economics that deal with the *impact* and the optimal extent of government intervention and the impact on various economic actors. So that's bullsh1t.

That becomes the study of people's response to being on the receiving side of a bayonet.


And no longer economics. Economics with the center being government action is not economics, it's politics.

That's just completely fact-free. Literally *every* economics class--not political economy, but economics--considers the impact of government action in some way. In Micro, that's Pigouvian taxes and the "optimal" subsidy. In Macro, that might be IS/LM to gauge the impact of monetary/fiscal policies. Government is certainly at the center of much of this, but there are *zero* political implications. That's why the best economic policies are often bad politics.

The classes are indoctrination, not education. Any descent to government action in an economics class is blasphemy to the deity of Keynes.

Central bank's monetary policy is based on governmental force either direct or a government created monopoly.


Let's see if you can stop here without getting the last word.

Lmfao.

Oh, the sheer irony--the guy who insists on filling space with bullsh1t is accusing me of having a psychological need for the "last word." At least I'm actually making substantive comments.

I a done on this thread, let statists argue how to spend other people's money.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:24:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 11:02:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:58:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:55:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:53:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, time will tell who is right and who is wrong won't it. Long live the Wiemar Republic.

What's funny is, I almost created a futures market with the people I'm talking with at the moment: probability of sadolite actually engaging the very long response I took the time and effort to toil over. Anecdotally, no one actually thought you would understand the slightest thing I wrote, though that wouldn't stop you from pontificating. It appears they were proven right.

Nice reputation, eh? You should work to change it.

Finance is only hard to understand when 1+1 = 3

In that case, you shouldn't have the faintest problem understanding the identity of exchange (a short-run variation of the quantity theory of money), the money multiplier, the Wicksellian equilibrium real interest rate, or optimum currency area theory. That's, actually, all my above post referenced.

All you are saying is that 1 dollar plus one borrowed dollar plus interest = 2 dollars of wealth because I never have to pay back the dollar + interest. The day of reckoning will come on the borrowed dollar. The debt is so large now that it can never be repaid let alone reduced. The National debt will be defaulted on. That is a 100% guarantee. And when that happens the dollar will be worthless because it never had any value to begin with.
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%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:28:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 2:24:18 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:02:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:58:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:55:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:53:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, time will tell who is right and who is wrong won't it. Long live the Wiemar Republic.

What's funny is, I almost created a futures market with the people I'm talking with at the moment: probability of sadolite actually engaging the very long response I took the time and effort to toil over. Anecdotally, no one actually thought you would understand the slightest thing I wrote, though that wouldn't stop you from pontificating. It appears they were proven right.

Nice reputation, eh? You should work to change it.

Finance is only hard to understand when 1+1 = 3

In that case, you shouldn't have the faintest problem understanding the identity of exchange (a short-run variation of the quantity theory of money), the money multiplier, the Wicksellian equilibrium real interest rate, or optimum currency area theory. That's, actually, all my above post referenced.

All you are saying is that 1 dollar plus one borrowed dollar plus interest = 2 dollars of wealth because I never have to pay back the dollar + interest. The day of reckoning will come on the borrowed dollar. The debt is so large now that it can never be repaid let alone reduced. The National debt will be defaulted on. That is a 100% guarantee. And when that happens the dollar will be worthless because it never had any value to begin with.

Correction: The "Borrowed dollar never had any value to begin with."
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%
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:39:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 2:22:16 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 12/9/2015 1:41:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

How about, instead of wasting time in this thread, direct your attention elsewhere -- namely this lovely thread: [http://www.debate.org...]

Lol, I read some of it... I'll get there.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:47:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 2:39:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:22:16 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 12/9/2015 1:41:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

How about, instead of wasting time in this thread, direct your attention elsewhere -- namely this lovely thread: [http://www.debate.org...]

Lol, I read some of it... I'll get there.

I never feared you would.... okay, fine, only a couple of times.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:51:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 2:24:18 AM, sadolite wrote:

All you are saying is that 1 dollar plus one borrowed dollar plus interest = 2 dollars of wealth because I never have to pay back the dollar + interest.

That's not necessarily true: the federal government rolls over debt all the time. The point is, because of its ability to borrow and the varying maturities--much of it long-term--that they issue, they'll never have to pay off the *entire* principle at the same time. Not to mention, a lot of that debt is owned by Americans or buy government agencies: the Federal Reserve (which isn't exactly a government agency, but it's close enough) and the SSA, for instance, own a sh1tton of government debt. The perceived "default risk" there is absolutely zero for obvious reasons.

The day of reckoning will come on the borrowed dollar.

No, it won't. There is a fiscal limit, but to get there you have to make a multiplicity of assumptions, hold current growth prospects constant, assume we run deficits ad infinitum, assume there are no positive hysteresis effects that raise trend growth and thus the PV of maximum primary surplus, thus shifting outward the fiscal limit, etc. It's malarchy: that's especially the case now with the Fed holding onto so many Treasuries, and planning to do so at least until the end of the decade. The dearth in Treasury supply, in spite of a multitude of foreign lenders chomping at the bit to hold onto U.S. debt--contra the narrative of a "day of reckoning"--will hold down longer-term yields, reducing government borrowing costs while allowing the federal government more room to spend, shift out the fiscal limit, and reduce *future* outlays by enhancing its ability to service futur edebt.

The debt is so large now that it can never be repaid let alone reduced.

It can certainly be *reduced.* Frankly, the actual number isn't all that scary if you look at a more reliable metric, like real public debt to GDP. We can increase the denominator by not doing dumb sh1t, like austerity, and make existing debt easier to service.

The National debt will be defaulted on. That is a 100% guarantee.

Lol.

You're delusional, and haven't been paying attention over the past.... two decades. The Japanese experience completely throws a monkey wrench on this.

Again, I'm serious about that bet.

And when that happens the dollar will be worthless because it never had any value to begin with.

lol.

Really now? That's why it's soaring, right?

And look at this: https://research.stlouisfed.org...

That's a trade-weighted index of the real dollar exchange rate--pretty close to historical levels, minus a few aberrations (1980s, when the fed funds rate was 20 fcking percent). That's with zero nominal interest rates and a $4.5 trillion balance sheet--imagine where that's going once the Fed starts hiking. Not to mention, productivity differentials are associated with upward movements in the real dollar exchange rate. Assume for a second that Summers and DeLong's findings are correct: fiscal spending produces hysteresis effects that mollify structural unemployment and raise trend growth. If that's the case, fiscal stimulus--via even a basic Mundell-Fleming model--will *appreciate* the dollar. Hell, that's a supply-side argument AGAINST fiscal stimulus. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, for goodness' sake.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:00:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 2:23:04 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The formula adds government spending regardless of the harm caused by government expropriation of funds from individuals. The spending of those funds regardless how is always a plus to GDP.

Yeah, you're right: it's an objective metric that doesn't account for unquantifiable sophistry. I'm not one to praise the BEA often, but kudos to them for getting this one right.

Nuance is only needed when principles are being disregarded.

Well, thank you for admitting that you aren't a fan of nuance--this discussion might as well be done, because you're essentially admitting that you're averse to intellectual debate.

America is in trouble when people consider, free markets and free people to be religion.

No, it's in trouble when we have absolutist, such as yourselves, who aren't willing to consider that actions have trade-offs--that is the very crux of economics.

The ones that want to oppress should leave, leave the rest alone.

And then the remaining .00000000000000001 percent would struggle to sustain themselves because they have no one to sell sh1t to and no one to work for them. They'd come crawling back to whatever deserted island the bulk of civilization is now on.

Let people pay for what they use, and what they support, don't use coercion, use persuasion.

Oh, yeah, because we'll fund a fcking military on "persuasion." Have you ever heard of the free-rider problem?

*rolls eyes*

Politician don't need to draw any curve, Keynesian economists are in their pocket, and on the payroll. Politics know that economic indoctrination is on thier side.

It's almost like you haven't even been listening to the politicians these days--half of them (the GOP) are pretty much with you: let markets be markets, and reality and actual human behavior be darned.

Yet, still true.

No, it really isn't.

You are the one that keeps advocating coercive policies. I believe in letting people live how they want.

Right, I advocate them because they work and have worked, and I'm willing to defend them. That's because I actually know economics, and know what I'm talking about. I can't say the same for you.

That becomes the study of people's response to being on the receiving side of a bayonet.

Characterize it however you want, but that's a non-trivial component of economics.


The classes are indoctrination, not education. Any descent to government action in an economics class is blasphemy to the deity of Keynes.

Lmfao.

Oh, yes, because Hayek was completely opposed to the existence of a government, right?

Oh, wait, no he wasn't. He believed in essential government services--and NGDP targeting.

Milton Friedman thought the Fed needed to be more aggressive in response to the Great Depression--he blamed it for doing *too little.*

These people were *not* in any way, shape or form in lockstep with Keynes.

Central bank's monetary policy is based on governmental force either direct or a government created monopoly.

I'll just let you have this one because I'm sick and tired of this. Sure, it is. So? It works. I'd rather be coerced, but have a job, than "free" and homeless.

I a done on this thread, let statists argue how to spend other people's money.

I like those arguments.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:36:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 12:19:17 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Austerity is anti-Keynesian, thus the benefits of people keeping what they have earned will never be admitted.

The GDP equation promotes greater government spending. Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Now, back on topic.

Austerity always works at letting people keep thier hard earned property out of the hands of the collective.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:51:39 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 3:36:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 12:19:17 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Austerity is anti-Keynesian, thus the benefits of people keeping what they have earned will never be admitted.

The GDP equation promotes greater government spending. Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Now, back on topic.

Austerity always works at letting people keep thier hard earned property out of the hands of the collective.

No it really doesn't. The idea behind austerity, aka "belt tightening", is that in order to reduce debt and deficits you should cut spending and/or tax more to balance that out. And the logic behind it makes since at a personal level. Lets say your pay is cut, you need to cut back so you have money to spend on necessary things. But that doesn't work at the level of a country because the income in taxes is not independent of spending. If you cut back on spending, especially in a time of crisis, then the income in taxes will decrease, even if you increase taxes or crackdown on tax evasion. That is just the fact. Allow economist, professor, and former Greek finance minister Yannis Varoufakis to explain.
https://www.youtube.com...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:53:45 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
The world will cease to accept the US dollar as payment for debt. That is 100% guaranteed. And when that happens the people will not accept it. And then you will have the Wiemar Republic. History repeats itself always. The US dollar will become worthless, It has to and so to will the Japanese yen. They both already are along with Greece and every other country that manipulates it's currency to spend far beyond any taxes collected by the generation of true wealth The value of all are completely arbitrary based on nothing. They are all certainly not valued on the basses of wealth created. Their value is bases purely on manipulation until it can't be manipulated anymore. That day will come. History says so.
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%
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:01:28 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 9:51:39 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 3:36:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 12:19:17 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Austerity is anti-Keynesian, thus the benefits of people keeping what they have earned will never be admitted.

The GDP equation promotes greater government spending. Every government program increases GDP without regards to the unseen harm to a society by transferring property from rightful owners to others.

If a country believes in rights of individuals, then austerity is always a great success.

Now, back on topic.

Austerity always works at letting people keep their hard earned property out of the hands of the collective.

No it really doesn't. The idea behind austerity, aka "belt tightening", is that in order to reduce debt and deficits you should cut spending and/or tax more to balance that out. And the logic behind it makes since at a personal level. Lets say your pay is cut, you need to cut back so you have money to spend on necessary things. But that doesn't work at the level of a country because the income in taxes is not independent of spending. If you cut back on spending, especially in a time of crisis, then the income in taxes will decrease, even if you increase taxes or crackdown on tax evasion. That is just the fact. Allow economist, professor, and former Greek finance minister Yannis Varoufakis to explain.
https://www.youtube.com...

Politicians, compliant economists, and voters for receiving stolen property, created the need for austerity. When plans have been shown as a failure, none of those groups want to pay any price. The people that wanted to keep their own property from the beginning are forced to pay more. This is not very fair.

You bring up a crackdown on tax evasion idea to bring jack-booted thugs into the lives of people that are not contributing at a required amount. The unwritten motto of the statist, producers must fear government and sucklings must support. Parliamentary forms of government are very prone to schemes of transfer payment, opposition to ideas have little voice.

Reductions in spending and increases in revenue are two different issues and must be separated. Anti-austerity groups are always for higher taxes, even in the good times. The idea of raising taxes as part of austerity is a political poison pill. It is an attempt to decrease support for proposals.

You also bring Greece into this thread, the Greek crisis is easy to solve. Simply Greece defaults on all debt, then sets up a system to only payout what it receives. Greece would not need to borough any more currency. The real problem with this idea is outside of Greece. If an EU member defaults on government debt, is any government debt safe to hold. If investors realized that government debt was always just one election away from default. Then the market for government debt is gone. For that reason alone, other countries will never let Greece default.

Politicians and thier paid economists should remember that a residence money does not belong to the government.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:15:08 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:53:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
The world will cease to accept the US dollar as payment for debt. That is 100% guaranteed.

Really? Is that before or after the Fed starts hiking rates, *pushing up* the value of the dollar? Is that before or after investors continue to flock to the dollar as the rest of the developed--and developing, frankly--world implodes, as they've been doing since mid-2014? In fact, they flew to the dollar in fcking 2008, right when we were on the precipice of disaster: that was right before the Fed cut the fed funds rate to zero.

Where are they going to fly? The euro? The yen? The renmimbi?

You really, really didn't think this through. The same dipsh1ts who screamed about a "dollar crisis" were likewise screaming about hyperinflation, a stock-market collapse, a bubble in virtually everything, and a spike in long-term rates.

But, instead, we've seen this:

(1) The dollar has been rocketing
(2) Headline inflation is nearly zero.
(3) Find me a bubble--I dare you. The burden of proof is on you to point me to an asset price that deviates from its intrinsic value. If you can find me a discounted cash flow model that can readily prove that, I'll pay you.
(4) Long-term rates are at historically low levels, and the yield curve has been flattening, even as the Fed signals that it's going to raise rates, and as investors put an 85% probability on liftoff in December.

You and your friends have been wrong on everything--Bob Murphy predicted something like 10 percent CPI inflation, and in spite of being chastened by being not only wrong, but embarrassingly so, he doubled down. So has Peter Schiff and all these rest of these anti-intellectual fckwits. It's shameful, and you frankly should feel ashamed. Never once has intellectual dishonesty been a good color on anyone.

And when that happens the people will not accept it.

Ironically, a *rising* dollar at the moment which is crimping manufacturing--a composite index of which just hit a 6-year low, as inflation likewise struggles--is what people "will not accept" at the moment. The problem with the dollar is that it's *overvalued.* The same can be said at the moment, as in the 1990s, by the renmimbi.

And then you will have the Wiemar Republic. History repeats itself always.

Again, you are unbelievably ignorant. You don't even understand a difference so fundamental as that between the Weimar--which was physically printing money to finance government expenditures, as a consequence of the *Treaty of Versailles*, which John Maynard Keynes warned would be an unbelievably disaster--and a modern-day industrial country that (a) borrows in its own currency--Weimar's debt was denominated in pounds and (b) has people lining up to hold its bonds.

Once again--and I don't know how many times and how many ways I need to see this for you to comprehend it--the Fed (a) doesn't print money, (b) hasn't ever printed money, and (c) ended QE back in October of last year. Inflation is historically low. What's the source of the currency crisis? You've been wrong on everything. Just concede.

The US dollar will become worthless, It has to and so to will the Japanese yen.

Lol.

Ironically, the Japanese followed a two-decade-long *deflationary* policy. If even the Japanese fail your test when it quite literally maintained its price level since roughly the 1990s, there really isn't any pleasing you.

Hell, the Japanese can only get a somewhat higher inflation rate when they pass a sales-tax hike. Both tight money and demographics--and a rapidly shrinking working-age population--have reduced their trend rate of growth to something like 0 percent in real terms. That's why it's unbelievably stupid when the financial media screams about a "recession." It's hogwash.

They both already are along with Greece and every other country that manipulates it's currency to spend far beyond any taxes collected by the generation of true wealth

Lol, God, you're an idiot. Greece didn't print a dime--it went to Goldman Sachs and pushed forward payments via credit default swaps. It fudged EU borrowing limits, which were stupid anyway, but the whole point of that was to join the European Union and, consequently, the euro--it's on a common currency. It cannot physically print a damned dime, nor can it manipulate "its" currency. It doesn't have its own currency. If it did, like Argentina, it would be much, much better off today.

Like, really, Greece is perhaps the best example of why countries shouldn't blow giant gobs of money--on tax evasion, corporate tax breaks, military spending, nepotism, etc etc etc, which they did (Germany spends more as a percent of its GDP on social welfare, FYI)--during good times. But if you think Greece "manipulates it currency," you don't know a damned thing. This is so demonstrably wrong and so unbelievably embarrassing that you should really just stop.

The value of all are completely arbitrary based on nothing.

Sure: money is worth only what we assign to it. But the same is true of commodities or, well, anything. The idea that *only gold* has any intrinsic value--or, for that matter, any value--is circuitous hogwash.

They are all certainly not valued on the basses of wealth created.

Wrong--even the most basic textbook model holds that real exchange rates over longer periods of time are a function of fundamentals.

Their value is bases purely on manipulation until it can't be manipulated anymore.

I don't think you understand what "manipulation" means. It's wrong on "money printing," just as it is on interest rates. Ironically, if we define manipulation as "allowing interest rates to deviate from their 'efficient' levels," then monetary policy has been much too tight in the US, Europe, Japan, Sweden, and the list goes on and on.

That day will come. History says so.

No, it really doesn't--but, then again, you don't actually know the history. You just make bold-faced, empty assertions, and expect that no one will call you out for being hopelessly misinformed. Sorry, that isn't going to work.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah