Krugman for President

[Ricter]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Krugman is crazy in my opinion.

Just about everything he says seems designed to hasten the financial collapse of the US.

Just about everything he says is based on confirming observations, both current and historical. In fact, in a nutshell, he's only prescribing somewhat modified methods that were used to pull the economy out of the Great Depression (the ones that worked, that is). To say "WWII got us out of that" is really just confirmation that government spending can indeed increase demand sufficiently to get "the fire going", and the growth of the fire afterwards pays for the effort of tossing in the fuel.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

Ahh, you linked to the chart also, thank you. Ok, so what's the right rate? No way to answer that unless you do a comparative examination. For example, if I say I run the marathon in x minutes, you don't know if that's a good or bad time, except by knowing what the "universe" of marathon times is, right? So, how are we doing in relation to our peers? Is a large change in our rate realistic?

1. I do not care about our peers... mush brained spenders are running the show in many countries.

But if I were to engage in a comparison.... on another thread we saw a link that shows China's govt spending to be a much smaller ratio of GDP. I think it was about 12 percent. So China is showing our govt... that in order to experience economic expansion and real growth, you have to keep you govt to be a much smaller ratio of gdp.

But more importantly...

2. I just gave you the proper conclusion and it was supported by charts. As gov't spends more its spending becomes far less productive.

For instance...

Spending on infrastructure can be very useful. govt paying more money to file clerks.. who already make far more than they would in other jobs... is not efficient. Govt giving money to green technologies companies who go bankrupt is criminally inefficient.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from Ricter:

Just about everything he says is based on confirming observations, both current and historical. In fact, in a nutshell, he's only prescribing somewhat modified methods that were used to pull the economy out of the Great Depression (the ones that worked, that is). To say "WWII got us out of that" is really just confirmation that government spending can indeed increase demand sufficiently to get "the fire going", and the growth of the fire afterwards pays for the effort of tossing in the fuel.

I've read that many academics agree that the Roosevelt policies deepened and lengthened the depression to a large degree.

It is illogical. You have a debt crisis so you want to increase debt?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:



Spending on infrastructure can be very useful. govt paying more money to file clerks.. who already make far more than they would in other jobs... is not efficient. Govt giving money to green technologies companies who go bankrupt is criminally inefficient.

I think this is where all open-minded thinkers would end up agreeing. It's not spending, per se, but the nature of the spending. The failures of government sponsored R&D are under the microscope and "criminal", but the successes are... well, how many even know the internet's history, for one example?

377, see above. Is it really all that "illogical"? I lose my job... Now I'm going farther in debt (unless I have savings, a "surplus")... I can cut spending all day, but if I don't get a new job, I'm dead. So, if I need a resume service, a haircut and new suit, an employment agency's services, it may very well make sense for me to go further in debt. This can be expressed in short-term/long-term language. And probably in no-pain-no-gain language, too.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

I think this is where all open-minded thinkers would end up agreeing. It's not spending, per se, but the nature of the spending. The failures of government sponsored R&D are under the microscope and "criminal", but the successes are... well, how many even know the internet's history, for one example?

377, see above. Is it really all that "illogical"? I lose my job... Now I'm going farther in debt (unless I have savings, a "surplus")... I can cut spending all day, but if I don't get a new job, I'm dead. So, if I need a resume service, a haircut and new suit, an employment agency's services, it may very well make sense for me to go further in debt. This can be expressed in short-term/long-term language. And probably in no-pain-no-gain language, too.

Ok... so by logical extension...
the govt spending more... becomes far more inefficient as it becomes a larger part of the economy.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

Ok... so by logical extension...
the govt spending more... becomes far more inefficient as it becomes a larger part of the economy.

The spending itself is not necessarily more inefficient, but I think I understand your point; yes, ceteris paribus, the inefficiency rate would necessarily rise.

But, one man's inefficiency is another man's treasure.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from 377OHMS:

...These days a Nobel Prize mostly indicates that someone is incredibly stupid and destructive...like a degree from Harvard.

Quote from Ricter:

...But, one man's inefficiency is another man's treasure.

Like my tax dollars going to some loser welfare recipient?

 

[Max E.]

LOL, good luck trying to convince a believer in keynesian economics how much of a disaster it has been. Keynes gave liberals the holy grail to keep spending more and more on government, and when it fails the excuse is that they simply didnt spend enough, you will never convince a liberal that keynes has failed, because in their eyes it justifies the non stop increase in government spending.

Quote from jem:

lets see...

"Government spending in the United States has steadily increased from seven percent of GDP in 1902 to 40 percent today."

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php

The chart shows that there is a big blip up during wwII otherwise we see a steady rise...

and here we have this quote..

President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked up federal spending, and total government spending rose up to 20 percent of GDP.

So the new deal got to 20 percent of GDP and now we are at 40 percent.

Note: regarding you question... lets look at your middle choice and see where that leads us. The total current spending calculation.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

LOL, good luck trying to convince a believer in keynesian economics how much of a disaster it has been. Keynes gave liberals the holy grail to keep spending more and more on government, and when it fails the excuse is that they simply didnt spend enough, you will never convince a liberal that keynes has failed, because in their eyes it justifies the non stop increase in government spending.

Caricature. You don't believe there should be NO government spending, and I don't believe there should be ONLY government spending, so it follows, logically, that a level which would suit us both, though still unclear, is somewhere "in the middle".

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:



Like my tax dollars going to some loser welfare recipient?

I think we need to make work for such. And the emphasis is on "make work", because the economy clearly does not need everyone working to produce a sufficiency. I guess we can thank automation for that. Anyway, "you're on your own" will not work in this environment, everyone opening a lemonade stand is useless.