I believe Stiglitz is advocating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz says:
- Thread starter olias
- Start date
Quote from toc:
no offense to the economist but then if financial matters are not tightened the debt levels soar and then government is paying a bigger chunk of the revenues to pay off the interest each month. this means spending in other areas is cut down which means fewer jobs.
And thus a downward spiral. What we need is some kind of interruption to the negative feedback.
Going through this usual pile o' steaming, um, perfume, a few points:
1. Keynes never advocated spending in the good times. He advocated saving during the good times so you could spend in the bad times. Think "ant and grasshopper": Keynes was advocating that we be ants. The point is, when winter comes, you are supposed to eat that stored food, not sit around advocating that everyone starve for the good of the colony.
2. Clinton ended with a surplus. Reagan and the two Bushes didn't. If that doesn't tell you where the problem lies, you've got issues that can't be dealt with.
3. Further to 2: check where gold stocks bottomed just before this now more than decade-long bull market. The date was November 14, 2000, going by the HUI. What happened in November 2000?
1. Keynes never advocated spending in the good times. He advocated saving during the good times so you could spend in the bad times. Think "ant and grasshopper": Keynes was advocating that we be ants. The point is, when winter comes, you are supposed to eat that stored food, not sit around advocating that everyone starve for the good of the colony.
2. Clinton ended with a surplus. Reagan and the two Bushes didn't. If that doesn't tell you where the problem lies, you've got issues that can't be dealt with.
3. Further to 2: check where gold stocks bottomed just before this now more than decade-long bull market. The date was November 14, 2000, going by the HUI. What happened in November 2000?
Quote from trefoil:
2. Clinton ended with a surplus. Reagan and the two Bushes didn't. If that doesn't tell you where the problem lies, you've got issues that can't be dealt with.
The rebuttal is going to be that Clinton used "smoke and mirror" accounting.
The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that Reagan, Bush and Shrub used accounting at least as agregious and still couldn't come up with surpluses.
Quote from jem:
clinton took the advice of dick morris and triangulated gringrich and the house republicans.
Republican or Democrat we don't care... they have all been spending like assholes intent on destroying our children's futures.
Now its about time every american tells them to stop it.
Bullshit.
The Republicans spent like drunk sailors, AND bankrupted the economy. For six out of the eight years of the Bush Presidency they had control of EVERY DAMN BRANCH.
Every single one.
You promote this line to prevent blame being placed where it belongs.
Of course it will kill jobs, but the question is whether or not we should bite the bullet while the problem is within our grasp, or if we should continue pushing it off, and pushing it off till the situation explodes.
Quote from olias:
Stiglitz Warns Austerity Kills Jobs, Brings Decline
By Frances Schwartzkopff - May 13, 2011 7:51 AM PT
Austerity measures âdonât workâ and prevent countries from creating jobs needed to generate economic growth, said Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Photographer: Derick E. Hingle/Bloomberg
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz said while Greece and Ireland had âno choiceâ but to tighten fiscal policy, measures adopted by some other countries such as the U.K. arenât justified. Photographer: Derick E. Hingle/Bloomberg
Austerity measures âdonât workâ and prevent countries from creating jobs needed to generate economic growth, said Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
âAusterity is an experiment that has been tried before with the same results,â Stiglitz said today in a speech in Copenhagen. Cutting budgets in low-growth cycles leads to higher unemployment and hampers recovery, he said.
Greece, Ireland and Portugal are under pressure to push through austerity measures that have sparked anti-government protests and general strikes as the three euro members struggle to comply with the terms of their bailout programs. The budget cuts have failed to persuade most investors the countries will avoid a default, a Bloomberg Global Poll published today showed.
Europeâs leaders are gripped by âdeficit fetishism,â Stiglitz said. Austerity âdoesnât work, it does not led to more efficient, faster growing economies,â said Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001.
The U.S. economic expansion will exceed European growth this year and the next, the European Commission in Brussels said today. U.S. gross domestic product will rise 2.6 percent this year and 2.7 percent in 2012, while the euro area will expand 1.6 percent in 2011 and 1.8 percent next year.
The U.S. federal budget deficit is projected to reach $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of gross domestic product, this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The 17- member euro regionâs deficit is forecast to be 4.3 percent of GDP this year, the European Commission forecasts.
A 2009 U.S. stimulus package increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million and cut unemployment by 0.7 percentage point to 1.8 percentage point, according to U.S. CBO.
Eighty-five percent of those surveyed this week said Greece probably will default, with majorities predicting the same fate for Portugal and Ireland, which followed Greece in seeking European Union-led bailouts, the Bloomberg poll showed. The outlook for all three deteriorated since a January poll.
To contact the reporter on this story: Frances Schwartzkopff in Copenhagen at fschwartzko1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tasneem Brogger at tbrogger@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...illing-austerity-measures-hurt-economies.html
Quote from jem:
Before you call someone out you should make sure you understand economics... otherwise you lower like a moron.
within two years after reagan's tax cuts govt revenues were up and up permanently. check history, check the graphs... there were posted on et.
along parts of the curve... lower taxes equal more investment, more jobs more revenue.
along a large part of the tax vs revenue curve.
The reason revenue increased is because the government borrowed in excess of the revenue reductions and spent the money on military hardware which stimulated the economy. It took two years for the borrowed money to percolate into the economy. Borrowing as a percent of GDP was especially heavy during the Reagan Presidency. The money borrowed was largely passed through private defense contractors and filtered down into the economy where it eventually appeared as higher income both corporate and individual, hence tax revenues increased.
It has never been shown in practice that reducing tax rates leads to higher government revenue in the absence of heavy borrowing and government spending. Eventually the inflation caused by borrowing and monetizing some of the debt can also leads to higher nominal revenues. The supply side, trickle down economics of the Reagan era has been thoroughly discredited.
It is excessive government spending, during periods of high employment that leads to increased tax revenues, not tax cuts!
Quote from piezoe:
The reason revenue increased is because the government borrowed in excess of the revenue reductions and spent the money on military hardware which stimulated the economy. It took two years for the borrowed money to percolate into the economy. Borrowing as a percent of GDP was especially heavy during the Reagan Presidency. The money borrowed was largely passed through private defense contractors and filtered down into the economy where it eventually appeared as higher income both corporate and individual, hence tax revenues increased.
It has never been shown in practice that reducing tax rates leads to higher government revenue in the absence of heavy borrowing and government spending. Eventually the inflation caused by borrowing and monetizing some of the debt can also leads to higher nominal revenues. The supply side, trickle down economics of the Reagan era has been thoroughly discredited.
It is excessive government spending, during periods of high employment that leads to increased tax revenues, not tax cuts!
We always have heavy govt spending.
Thats what the traitors in congress keep doing.
Revenues went up after Reagans tax cut. We agree.
Now your spin is that it had nothing to do with the tax cuts and supply side economics has been discredited by pinko socialists.
And I will tell you cutting tax rates contributed in large part to the unprecedented boom which followed for 20 years. You want to have people invest in business... you make it worth their time and money to keep their profits.
Quote from trefoil:
Bullshit.
The Republicans spent like drunk sailors, AND bankrupted the economy. For six out of the eight years of the Bush Presidency they had control of EVERY DAMN BRANCH.
Every single one.
You promote this line to prevent blame being placed where it belongs.
I have blamed the those big spending republican socialists plenty.
They are just as culpable for criminal spending as democrats.