Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Joey makes an endorsement

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:25:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I'd prefer to post this in economics, rather than politics, because frankly I don't give a sh1t about the reality show this election has become: remarkably devoid of substance and pandering to the fragile ego of some anti-intellectual, bigoted entertainer who conflates "political correctness" with "not being an arshole."

To answer a few questions:

1) Yes, I am still in hiatus mode, but tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and I felt obligated to make a fairly substantial post in a feeble attempt to sway people who are on the fence.

2) No, this is not part of some inter-forum brawl -- I'm remarkably uninterested in a contest that weighs quantity of posts over the quality therein. If I cared about "post quantity," I'd run a mafia game with a "substantive post requirement" or something.

Onto the substance...

As much as I hate to say it, there has never been a more objective answer for whom you ought to vote for in tomorrow's primaries. Anyone here who knows me is aware that I'm not a Republican, so I'm not going to use this space to address Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or the rest: all of them would be an utter disaster for this country, if elected, and God forbid we ever be faced with a scenario where we were to call one of these clowns Commander in Chief.

And, as much as it pains me -- and I mean, it deeply pains me -- this endorsement isn't for Bernie Sanders, either. I love Bernie: I love and admire his passion, I respect his sincerity, I empathize with his principles, and he makes me proud to be an American. There is not, nor has there ever been, a candidate for president or otherwise -- with the possible exception of my senator, for whom I cast my first vote as an 18-year old -- who inspired me as much as Bernie did.

Unfortunately, though, inspiration doesn't win elections and emotions aren't more important than facts. There is no equivalency between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: people who suggest otherwise are not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest, and should frankly be ashamed that they're likening this bloviating, racist toddler to someone I'd consider an American hero -- someone who marched with MLK (don't embarrass yourselves by suggesting otherwise, Clinton shills), was for gay marriage "before it was cool," who ACTUALLY warned about the disaster Iraq would be (not in 2004, like Trump did), and I can go on and on.

But the only possible comparison you could make is that Bernie, like Trump, appeals to emotion -- he tries to coat it "facts" about the so-called billionaire class, and in some sense he's right: the Kochs and friends own this government and almost everyone in it. It wouldn't be an ad-hominem attack to criticize Hillary Clinton for her donations, insofar as it is framed as follows (in lieu of, "Hey, she's a shill!"): "Why should I trust someone who only began saying X, Y and Z after her adversary gained traction for saying X, Y and Z, and who physically depends on those same donors when she, should she be fortunate enough to win, runs for reelection in 2020"?

This is a good question, and I don't have an answer for you. (Truthfully, I have an answer, but I don't think my liberal friends here want to hear me defend the banks as a matter not of pragmatism, but of reasonable, sound economic stewardship -- but my intention isn't to attack Bernie's financial policies, misguided though they might be.)

So this isn't about trade or finance -- you all know I'm for free trade and liberalized financial markets and an independent central bank free of the shackles that a rules-based policy imposed by Congress would entail. Or, for that matter, a frivolous audit (that Bernie supports). I've written in the past why I thought Bernie was wrong on this, but clearly it wasn't substantial enough to sway my vote.

It's about something else: credibility.

Most of you have heard me say that in the context of monetary policy. Frankly, it's somewhat similar here. Recently, four former CEA chairs of Democratic administrations -- Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee, Alan Krueger, and Laura Tyson -- published an open letter to Bernie Sanders and Gerald Friedman rebuking the embarrassing, fanciful numbers in Friedman's analysis of Bernie's plan. Let me share a few of them with you:

(1) 5.3 percent real GDP growth over the next decade
(2) 3.8 percent unemployment
(3) A budget SURPLUS by his second term
(4) His single-payer health plan would only cost a bout $10.7 trillion after saving $2 trillion from eliminating deductions on employment healthcare premiums (or something of that sort), when some estimates -- using all of the realistic, conventional assumptions -- found that it could cost up to $20 trillion.
(5) Trend growth of about 3.1 percent.
(6) Labor force participation returns to its 1999 level.

Why are these wrong? Well, David Romer and Christina Romer -- these are incredibly well-known and respected economists (as are numerous others, including Paul Krugman) who are champions of the progressive movement, so the typical "let's attack their motives!" or "it's a hatchet job!" line of thought thrown out by Bernie's campaign is embarrassing, divisive, and destructive to the long-run health of Bernie's career if he were fortunate enough to win -- constructed an extensive analysis. Krueger, Goolsbee, and Krugs also jumped in. Here are a few:

(1) Overestimates productivity growth -- he's leaning against retiring boomers, hysteresis from the financial crisis, massively shrinking global growth, ongoing secular trends in prime-age population, etc.

(2) Assumes the economy will operate BELOW productive capacity throughout the next decade even after massive fiscal injections -- and, in the process, assumes there is more unused capacity than there actually is. No credible person who actually understands this material -- Bernie is included in this group of know-nothings -- thinks there is enough remaining labor-market slack to actually raise real GDP to such a stratospheric level. You might see SOME slack in involuntary part-timers and marginally attached, but all of the research on this -- literally all of it -- finds that the vast majority is due to retiring boomers, more people in their 20s going to college, and hysteresis. They're structurally unemployed, and will not be returning.

Let me give you an example.

Over the past five or so years, the unemployment rate has been declining by about 8 tenths of a percentage point. The U6 has been coming down even faster by about 1 percentage point, and is even at levels we deemed "normal" in the productivity boom of the 1990s. If unemployment is declining, that means that real GDP has been growing ABOVE trend.

But what's the average RGDP growth rate?

Well, we thought for a while it was 2.3 percent. Then we got the NIPA revisions this summer with substantial downward revisions. What's the number?

Slightly over 2 percent.

Yet we're converging on -- and by some estimates AT -- the natural rate of unemployment. Guess what that means? Trend real GDP growth is below 2 percent. How anyone thinks they can materially raise that to even 3, much less 5, is beyond me and symptomatic of immense intellectually dishonesty.

(3) Gerald Friedman asserted he was using "conventional econometric methods."

WRONG. He even conceded this point in an interview with Justin Wolfers, actually.

First, standard macro dictates that stimulus temporarily lifts growth. Once you withdraw the stimulus, you're on your own -- and cutting back will eat into growth, unless offset by monetary policy. But even then the Fed will allow employment to fall in order to bring down inflation.

Friedman wants to have his cake and eat it, too -- the Fed won't offset unemployment falling to 3.8 percent (total bullcrap, since all natural rate estimates, sans some looney ones, are around 5), but growth won't fall once the stimulus is withdrawn?

More in the next post.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:47:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The reason for this disconnect is that Friedman isn't assuming monetary offset: in fact, his analysis COMPLETELY EXCLUDED the Fed. Once you exclude the Fed, which controls aggregate demand -- when Sanders's plans are ENTIRELY demand-driven -- you forsake your credibility, by the way.

Instead, he's assuming really fcking sketchy math.

Romer and Romer wrote about this extensively in their analysis, and frankly I bet they were facepalming as they wrote this -- because it seems like such an undergraduate mistake.

There's a difference between levels and rates of change. This was true when a bunch of dummies shouted that austerity in Britain -- after they fcking withdrew the austerity -- had no effect because growth picked up later on, and it's true now.

Let's say we pass a stimulus and it boosts real growth by 1 percent per year.

Let's say we have this stimulus in effect for 10 years. How much higher is the level of real GDP 10 years from now than it would've been without the stimulus, holding all else constant?

If you said 10 percent, you're wrong.

If you said 1 percent, you were right. We're talking levels, not rates of change.

Go on, run the numbers and check the math.

Friedman's analysis literally added the annual growth rates on top of each, which is a big no-no.

Worse? He maintained that growth rate as a BASELINE even once the stimulus was removed: the economy will just keep growing unhinged, and will just soak up productive capacity from God knows where. He admitted to Wolfers this isn't "standard macro," that he shouldn't describe his analysis as such, and that his numbers were a reflection of his own personal DISAGREEMENT with standard macro.

But this isn't a deviation from the textbooks that's defensible: it's absolute hogwash that gives ammunition to right-wing looney birds who propose giant tax cuts which supposedly will yield all these massive benefits and in the process pay for themselves.

The one difference, say the CEA chairs, is that this analysis -- that Bernie's own campaign endorsed -- is even more grandiose than any plan put forward by Republicans.

The consequence, of course, is that it destroys the reputation of the Democratic party: it feeds the media narrative that "both sides" are proposing ludicrous numbers and are totally and completely averse to arithmetic. Economics isn't magic: we can't perfectly model how a certain policy will actually play out, but we have a pretty damn good idea -- and we're great at disputing provably and embarrassingly false prognostications about sh1t that will never, in a billion years, be consistent with reality.

The same can be said with Friedman's analysis of the impact of the "Gender Fairness Act" or whatever it's called. Of course, the "gender pay gap" or whatever it is called is a left-wing folklore: it is found -- I sh1t you not, this is how it's calculated -- by taking two medians and comparing them to one another. That's it: it's not a regression model, it doesn't control for occupation or life choices or anything of the sort. It's complete and utter hogwash -- the worst kind of junk science. The same can also be said for the grandiose effects of these stimulus plans -- right after Bernie abolishes the Fed, because there's no way they would EVER, even if Friedman's multiplier estimates weren't hogwash, allow THAT MUCH growth to actually take place (and he's getting close, because he wants to bar them from raising rates until unemployment is below 4 percent -- which is incredibly stupid, even to me, who is the biggest dove you'll ever meet) -- and supposedly no impact of his massive tax cuts or healthcare proposals on the incentive to work which, even if you ACCEPT (as I would) are generally a good idea, you cannot possibly exclude from the analysis. The same can be said about a $15 minimum wage, which has never been tested, for which there is no international comparison after adjusting for PPP, and would lead to a considerable trade-off. Even at lower levels there would be a trade-off far more complex with "well, clearly consumption is demand!" (which I've refuted extensively in the past, but whatever).

In all likelihood, Bernie's plans would reduce trend real GDP growth, not accelerate it.

I like Bernie, but his proposals are incredibly irresponsible and riddled with demonstrably false assumptions. Krugman put it best: if the plan were great -- and, trust me, all of us want to believe this stuff -- you wouldn't need to coat it in rainbows and fairies and pixie dust. But economics isn't about emotion: there are nuances and trade-offs and thresholds you need to actually bear in mind, and insofar as Bernie's campaign, in ignoring this nuance, has not only betrayed their sheer ignorance and incompetence on the most important issues facing the next president, they've also demonstrated just how strident they are in their unwillingness to work with the leading progressive economic thinkers on whom they would undeniably depend in the future.

It's kind of how a petulant child would behave: I don't want to make another comparison to Trump after telling you earlier they're nothing alike, but when you tell a child he's wrong, he denies it because.... reasons. You could be the leading expert in your field, and he'll insist he's right because what he's saying feels good.

It's not. Economics doesn't work like that.

I cannot in good conscience cast my vote, or encourage others to do the same, for a guy who will destroy any credibility the Democratic Party has as the party of responsible arithmetic and sound economic policy.

For this reason, I wholeheartedly endorse Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and can announce that I will be voting for her. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Cheers,

Joey
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:49:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Wow.....I wasn't expecting this.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:52:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I'll be around until tonight to answer any questions people have.

BTW, before you impugn my motives, let me make one thing clear:

I'm still an economist, guys -- in fact, I'm still an undergrad. Goldman hasn't cut me a check to endorse Hillary, nor has her campaign. (Granted, they don't know I exist, but I know that "reality" isn't exactly the focal point of consideration for college kids #feelingthebern).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:57:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 2:52:20 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'll be around until tonight to answer any questions people have.

BTW, before you impugn my motives, let me make one thing clear:

I'm still an economist, guys -- in fact, I'm still an undergrad. Goldman hasn't cut me a check to endorse Hillary, nor has her campaign. (Granted, they don't know I exist, but I know that "reality" isn't exactly the focal point of consideration for college kids #feelingthebern).

As a Econ nerd, I'm glad you came to your senses. Sanders=financial deficit
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:03:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 2:57:36 AM, Rosalie wrote:
As a Econ nerd, I'm glad you came to your senses. Sanders=financial deficit

This wasn't a matter of coming to my senses. I was well aware of the immense cost of Bernie's plans -- and, even, the fanciful assumptions he was making. Bernie's campaign endorsing the grandiose numbers in Friedman's paper was the last straw for me. I felt a moral and academic responsibility, as someone well-versed in econometrics and in economic history, to say that enough is enough.

By the way, the "deficit" is the last thing on my mind. But at least be HONEST about it. Hell, Paul Krugman just made an extensive post yesterday making the case for infrastructure investment amid record-low interest rates. It's a wonderful idea, but at least be HONEST about it: "we'll run a higher deficit to invest in infrastructure because we think this will yield long-term dividends, will boost the long-term Wicksellian equilibrium real interest rate and ease any concerns about a possible "secular stagnation" scenario, and want to take advantage of low real interest rates, which will likely not be around for much longer."

If you think I care about running a higher deficit right now, then you didn't read my post. I dropped my support for Bernie precisely because I cannot stand economic fairy tales. Fearmongering over the deficit -- which, by the way, has come down substantially over recent years -- is perhaps the most pernicious form of promulgating non-truths, to the extent that the media even repeats it as though it's a truism. It's not.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:35:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 2:47:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Let's say we pass a stimulus and it boosts real growth by 1 percent per year.

Let's say we have this stimulus in effect for 10 years. How much higher is the level of real GDP 10 years from now than it would've been without the stimulus, holding all else constant?

If you said 10 percent, you're wrong.

If you said 1 percent, you were right. We're talking levels, not rates of change.

Go on, run the numbers and check the math.

Friedman's analysis literally added the annual growth rates on top of each, which is a big no-no.

I don't understand. Isn't the equation just 1.01 ^ 10 = 1.104 (assuming we start from a state of zero growth), which implies that the level of GDP after 10 years would be 10.4 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus? For example, say we start at a GDP of 100 billion. 1 percent growth means that this level would rise to 101 billion by the end of the year. Then, the next year, if that growth rate is maintained, that 101 billion would grow to a little over 102 billion, and so on, until we got to 110 billion, which is ~ 10 percent higher than what we started with. Did you mean to ask "How much higher is the growth rate after 10 years" ?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:43:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 3:35:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

No, this is how it works.

Let's say that we have a baseline -- absent stimulus -- level of real GDP as follows (in billions):

Year 1: 2
Year 2: 3
Year 3: 4
Year 4: 5

etc. Continue until year 10, when real output is 11.

Now increase the LEVEL, not the growth rate.

We get:

3.03
4.04
5.05
....
....
...
...

until 11.11 in year 10.

Now, take the rate of change between the actual level (11.11) and what the level would have been under the baseline:

(11.11 /11) - 1 = .01 * 100 = 1%

In other words, to increase the LEVEL of real GDP by 1 percent over the entirety of the decade, you're increasing the level by an average of 1 percent each year. If you add 1 percentage point to real GDP growth each year, you've increased the rate of change, but you haven't increased the LEVEL by nearly as much.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:54:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The big difference, Dylan, is that you're assuming a compounded annual growth rate. But Bernie's spending increase takes place in the first year -- he's not constantly adding to the stimulus each year.

Romer and Romer explain it far better than I can:

"We have a conjecture about how Friedman may have incorrectly found such large effects. Suppose one is considering a permanent increase in government spending of 1% of GDP, and suppose one assumes that government spending raises output one-for-one. Then one might be tempted to think that the program would raise output growth each year by a percentage point, and so raise the level of output after a decade by about 10%. In fact, however, in this scenario there is no additional stimulus after the first year. As a result, each year the spending would raise the level of output by 1% relative to what it would have been otherwise, and so the impact on the level of output after a decade would be only 1%."

https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com...
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:58:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 3:43:27 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/1/2016 3:35:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

No, this is how it works.

Let's say that we have a baseline -- absent stimulus -- level of real GDP as follows (in billions):

Year 1: 2
Year 2: 3
Year 3: 4
Year 4: 5

etc. Continue until year 10, when real output is 11.

Now increase the LEVEL, not the growth rate.

We get:

3.03
4.04
5.05
....
....
...
...

until 11.11 in year 10.

Now, take the rate of change between the actual level (11.11) and what the level would have been under the baseline:

(11.11 /11) - 1 = .01 * 100 = 1%

In other words, to increase the LEVEL of real GDP by 1 percent over the entirety of the decade, you're increasing the level by an average of 1 percent each year. If you add 1 percentage point to real GDP growth each year, you've increased the rate of change, but you haven't increased the LEVEL by nearly as much.

Oh, I got confused by the terminology. When you said that the stimulus boosts real growth by 1 percent per year, I assumed that the 1 percent was in regard to the economy as a whole - that the economy would be growing by an additional percent a year- not to the growth figure itself.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:59:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 3:58:03 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2016 3:43:27 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/1/2016 3:35:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

No, this is how it works.

Let's say that we have a baseline -- absent stimulus -- level of real GDP as follows (in billions):

Year 1: 2
Year 2: 3
Year 3: 4
Year 4: 5

etc. Continue until year 10, when real output is 11.

Now increase the LEVEL, not the growth rate.

We get:

3.03
4.04
5.05
....
....
...
...

until 11.11 in year 10.

Now, take the rate of change between the actual level (11.11) and what the level would have been under the baseline:

(11.11 /11) - 1 = .01 * 100 = 1%

In other words, to increase the LEVEL of real GDP by 1 percent over the entirety of the decade, you're increasing the level by an average of 1 percent each year. If you add 1 percentage point to real GDP growth each year, you've increased the rate of change, but you haven't increased the LEVEL by nearly as much.

Oh, I got confused by the terminology. When you said that the stimulus boosts real growth by 1 percent per year, I assumed that the 1 percent was in regard to the economy as a whole - that the economy would be growing by an additional percent a year- not to the growth figure itself.

Yeah, I probably did a sh1tty job of explaining it, and that explains why it took me a while to even make sense of your calculation, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:24:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 2:25:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

TRUMP TRIUMPH!

Lol, jk. I don't agree with you at all, but I'm glad you aren't falling victim to Bernie... so many uneducated and incompetent youth are supporting Bernie, without any real rationale. Props for that.

Enjoy your hiatus. :)
"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
Naturalmoney.org
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 8:25:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Many people are completely fed up with the political system. They feel powerless with regard to what happens in Washington. Politicians in the US are bought and paid for. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to buy Trump or Sanders, and that contributes to their success. A similar situation exists over here in Europe, even though the cause is somewhat different. Fascism is on the horizon under the pressures of immigration, most notably if the economy deteriorates.

In Europe we have the European Union that is not really democratic and has no real power to make decisions, so that decisions are made in deals in between national politicians. As voters we have no influence at all. The United States was not really a democracy from the beginning. It is a constitutional republic, meant to protect the elites from "the excesses of democracy". Of course there is a genuine concern that democracy can go wrong, most notably if it is not really a democracy (meaning politicians disregarding the interests of their voters).

The US has a winner-takes-all district system that is prone to manipulation and corruption. Special interests only have to buy two political parties because it is difficult to start a new one. Those parties are not inclined to cooperate because they do not need to. There are costly lawsuits about district borders so that the outcome can be tweaked. In Europe many countries have proportional representation and coalition governments. Hence, it is more difficult to buy politicians, and political parties are more inclined to cooperate.

Only a reorganisation of the political system would improve things in the long run. For anyone who is interested in an example of a successful democracy, I advise to investigate the political system Switzerland (proportional representation, coalition governments and referendums). In my opinion it is the best system that currently exists, and it can be implemented in any country, albeit with some minor adaptations. If people are made responsible for their own fate, they are more inclined to be informed and more likely to learn from their own mistakes.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 6:37:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 3:24:05 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/1/2016 2:25:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

TRUMP TRIUMPH!

Lol, jk. I don't agree with you at all, but I'm glad you aren't falling victim to Bernie... so many uneducated and incompetent youth are supporting Bernie, without any real rationale. Props for that.

Enjoy your hiatus. :)

Exactly...

They like the idea of free tuition, and a raise in minimum wage, but they don't know the consequences.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 8:15:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 6:37:26 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 3/1/2016 3:24:05 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/1/2016 2:25:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

TRUMP TRIUMPH!

Lol, jk. I don't agree with you at all, but I'm glad you aren't falling victim to Bernie... so many uneducated and incompetent youth are supporting Bernie, without any real rationale. Props for that.

Enjoy your hiatus. :)

Exactly...

They like the idea of free tuition, and a raise in minimum wage, but they don't know the consequences.

Yup. Unprecedence is a scary thing, especially when the shock is guaranteed to affect the entire nation.

When did you become an economist?
"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
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 8:29:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 8:15:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 6:37:26 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 3/1/2016 3:24:05 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/1/2016 2:25:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

TRUMP TRIUMPH!

Lol, jk. I don't agree with you at all, but I'm glad you aren't falling victim to Bernie... so many uneducated and incompetent youth are supporting Bernie, without any real rationale. Props for that.

Enjoy your hiatus. :)

Exactly...

They like the idea of free tuition, and a raise in minimum wage, but they don't know the consequences.

Yup. Unprecedence is a scary thing, especially when the shock is guaranteed to affect the entire nation.

When did you become an economist?

Who said I was an economist? Lol..
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 6:37:26 PM, Rosalie wrote:
They like the idea of free tuition, and a raise in minimum wage, but they don't know the consequences.

Indeed you aren't an economist.

Neither of those have the types of consequences you think they would. I'm not even a Bernie guy and I can at least acknowledge that.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 9:46:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/2/2016 6:37:26 PM, Rosalie wrote:
They like the idea of free tuition, and a raise in minimum wage, but they don't know the consequences.

Indeed you aren't an economist.

Neither of those have the types of consequences you think they would. I'm not even a Bernie guy and I can at least acknowledge that.

You *were a Bernie guy.

Seems like you're a little agitated that I was called a economist. :p
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 9:48:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, Rosalie wrote:
You *were a Bernie guy.

I was indeed. I explained above what changed my mind.

What did Keynes say happens when the facts change?

Seems like you're a little agitated that I was called a economist. :p

No, I'm a little agitated that you made a demonstrably economically illiterate remark. In the age of Trump, it seems that people can say whatever the hell they want.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 10:08:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 9:48:36 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, Rosalie wrote:
You *were a Bernie guy.

I was indeed. I explained above what changed my mind.

What did Keynes say happens when the facts change?

Seems like you're a little agitated that I was called a economist. :p

No, I'm a little agitated that you made a demonstrably economically illiterate remark. In the age of Trump, it seems that people can say whatever the hell they want.

Well, I"m sorry you feel that way. I"m just saying the idea of a free tuition is very appealing to college students, of course. Just how Bernie wants to raise minimum wage, its appealing to the younger generation.

Sadly, a lot of our generation is very uneducated, and knows very little about the economy. Sure, raising minimum wage, and a free college tuitions sounds good and all, but there has to be consequences.

There are 3 main reasons why I don"t support free college tuition. 1st off, where is the money going to come from? Who"s going to pay for it? Of course we are! So higher taxes, yay!!

But wait"there"s more!

On the off chance that understudies get free junior college educating without respect for their wage levels, america's college promise could turn into an immoderate white collar class qualification program. The evaluated expense of the system, more than 10 years, is $60 billion.

The project could urge understudies to go to junior college rather than four-year schools, which could constrain some four-year schools to close. Assigning the evaluated $60 billion in government spending required for the system more than 10 years could imply that less subsidizing will be accessible for advanced education activities and budgetary guide at four-year schools and colleges. The arrangement calls for states to get the tab for 25% of the bill, and state spending on advanced education has been inclining down.

The arrangement doesn't address what a few observers see as a more serious issue: High dropout rates in junior college of somewhere around 66% and 80%.

I'm merely arguing why so many young people are for Sanders, it's out of stupidity.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 10:16:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/2/2016 6:37:26 PM, Rosalie wrote:
They like the idea of free tuition, and a raise in minimum wage, but they don't know the consequences.

Indeed you aren't an economist.

Neither of those have the types of consequences you think they would. I'm not even a Bernie guy and I can at least acknowledge that.

I don't understand why you're so sure Rosalie is ignorant of the real consequences of those policies. Is there some background I don't know about?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 11:02:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Indeed you aren't an economist.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious... Lol.

I realize both of the aforementioned issues are much more complex than either mine or her statements impressed.
"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
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 11:09:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 11:02:20 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Indeed you aren't an economist.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious... Lol.

I realize both of the aforementioned issues are much more complex than either mine or her statements impressed.

It doesn't take an economist to know that raising mw, and providing a free tuition is a bad idea
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 11:13:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 11:09:03 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 3/2/2016 11:02:20 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Indeed you aren't an economist.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious... Lol.

I realize both of the aforementioned issues are much more complex than either mine or her statements impressed.

It doesn't take an economist to know that raising mw, and providing a free tuition is a bad idea

I used to think the same way, but there's WAY more that goes into it than what you are letting on. Sure, I disagree with both proposals, but I don't make bare assertions with glaring oversimplifications about the topic. If you want to repeatedly needle that it's a bad idea, explain WHY you think it's a bad idea.
"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
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 11:14:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 11:13:04 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 11:09:03 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 3/2/2016 11:02:20 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Indeed you aren't an economist.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious... Lol.

I realize both of the aforementioned issues are much more complex than either mine or her statements impressed.

It doesn't take an economist to know that raising mw, and providing a free tuition is a bad idea

I used to think the same way, but there's WAY more that goes into it than what you are letting on. Sure, I disagree with both proposals, but I don't make bare assertions with glaring oversimplifications about the topic. If you want to repeatedly needle that it's a bad idea, explain WHY you think it's a bad idea.

Did you not read my post explaining why above? ^
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 11:17:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 11:14:34 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 3/2/2016 11:13:04 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 11:09:03 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 3/2/2016 11:02:20 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Indeed you aren't an economist.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious... Lol.

I realize both of the aforementioned issues are much more complex than either mine or her statements impressed.

It doesn't take an economist to know that raising mw, and providing a free tuition is a bad idea

I used to think the same way, but there's WAY more that goes into it than what you are letting on. Sure, I disagree with both proposals, but I don't make bare assertions with glaring oversimplifications about the topic. If you want to repeatedly needle that it's a bad idea, explain WHY you think it's a bad idea.

Did you not read my post explaining why above? ^

Didn't see it, my bad. :P
"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
3/3/2016 12:27:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 11:02:20 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/2/2016 9:37:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Indeed you aren't an economist.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious... Lol.

Nope.

I realize both of the aforementioned issues are much more complex than either mine or her statements impressed.

This is true.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 12:28:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 10:08:09 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Well, I"m sorry you feel that way.

This isn't how I "feel." People do that all the time in a feeble attempt to equivocate. This isn't how I "feel." This is reality.

I"m just saying the idea of a free tuition is very appealing to college students, of course.

That it is, but this isn't the bulk of what you said.

Just how Bernie wants to raise minimum wage, its appealing to the younger generation.

Again, not what you said.

Sadly, a lot of our generation is very uneducated, and knows very little about the economy.

This is illustrated in your post and in your support -- and, evidently, a whole bunch of people's -- support for Trump.

Sure, raising minimum wage, and a free college tuitions sounds good and all, but there has to be consequences.

Give me a few. I bet they're grossly exaggerated. The research on the MW, for instance, is incredibly complex. Ironically, an area where the research is pretty much settled is trade theory -- and yet we know where The Donald stands on that.

There are 3 main reasons why I don"t support free college tuition. 1st off, where is the money going to come from? Who"s going to pay for it? Of course we are! So higher taxes, yay!!

First, this isn't necessarily bad unto itself. The literature is actually pretty clear on there not being considerable effects on growth from tax rates.

Second, rates don't even need to go up -- we could just close meaningless loopholes, like carried interest, that Trump's buddies take advantage of.

Third, we could just, you know, stop giving money to giant oil companies and and defense contractors. Weird thought, I know -- people complain that there's no money in the budget for education and things that actually, you know, matter (or they're just dumb and think it's "socialism," but heaven forbid we try to cut outlays to their defense contractor buddies!).

But wait"there"s more!

Can't wait.

On the off chance that understudies get free junior college educating without respect for their wage levels, america's college promise could turn into an immoderate white collar class qualification program. The evaluated expense of the system, more than 10 years, is $60 billion.

Bare assertion.

The project could urge understudies to go to junior college rather than four-year schools, which could constrain some four-year schools to close. Assigning the evaluated $60 billion in government spending required for the system more than 10 years could imply that less subsidizing will be accessible for advanced education activities and budgetary guide at four-year schools and colleges. The arrangement calls for states to get the tab for 25% of the bill, and state spending on advanced education has been inclining down.

Bare assertion, and probably copy and pasted without attribution.

The arrangement doesn't address what a few observers see as a more serious issue: High dropout rates in junior college of somewhere around 66% and 80%.

Irrelevant, especially when in many cases that's due to exorbitant debt.

I'm merely arguing why so many young people are for Sanders, it's out of stupidity.

No, it really isn't.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 12:29:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 10:16:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't understand why you're so sure Rosalie is ignorant of the real consequences of those policies. Is there some background I don't know about?

See her post above.

I also can't take people who support Trump seriously. If one liners can sway her, virtually anything can. To say that Trump's supporters aren't swayed by evidence is a truism.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 4:36:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Hillary scum. VTL The Clintons
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.