Republicans Sell Us Out --Again. Why Do We Need Them?

[Ricter]

I'm not conceding anything, or, if you think I am then you're not listening.



Again, says you. To say "no one cares about additional spending, it's to be expected when your income rises" is complete horseshit. The total dollars you spend absolutely matters. It may not to your life of limos and mansions, but it's a very relevant statistic to most people. You just throw in the "% of GDP" because it's a convenient way to say "we're not spending as much". Proves my point entirely - spending is not important to a Keynesian. If it were, you'd not have to come up with clever ways to make the number look better.

Additionally, the government wouldn't have to change the GDP calculation in order to make it look better. The only thing that matters is total dollars spent, adjusted for inflation (even though inflation is a rigged number as well).

Some folks might say the whole point of earning more is so that you can spend more.

 

[ETcallhome]

Let's suppose your income rose dramatically this year, say you won the top Power Ball prize, $30 million. Is anyone (who still loves him or has him around) really going to buy dad the same for Christmas, a new sweater?

Dad's doing just fine. He doesn't need anything more than a sweater (and he still hasn't worn the one I bought him last year, he says he is "saving it.") I'd pay off all the kids debts though with the understanding that they never once mentioned to me how they got that deep in debt.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Let's suppose your income rose dramatically this year, say you won the top Power Ball prize, $30 million. Is anyone (who still loves him or has him around) really going to buy dad the same for Christmas, a new sweater?

No, but even in that extreme example, your total spending would increase. In fact, to anyone you spoke of that asked you about it, you'd say "hell yes, I spent more than I did last year."

That windfall amount of money would be the equivalent of the government winning trillions. Which it would have to use to pay down debt. That's how bad of a hole we're in.

 

[Ricter]

No, but even in that extreme example, your total spending would increase. In fact, to anyone you spoke of that asked you about it, you'd say "hell yes, I spent more than I did last year."

That windfall amount of money would be the equivalent of the government winning trillions. Which it would have to use to pay down debt. That's how bad of a hole we're in.

Yes, but the burden of your spending would be less, and could well be below trend. As Obama's is.

 

[Ricter]

That's how bad of a hole we're in.

To ourselves, 68%, Treasuries.

 

[ETcallhome]

To ourselves, 68%, Treasuries.

well, if we just owe it to ourselves, why don't we just tell ourselves we miscalculated and cannot pay ourselves back what we said we would pay to ourselves?

 

[Ricter]

well, if we just owe it to ourselves, why don't we just tell ourselves we miscalculated and cannot pay ourselves back what we said we would pay to ourselves?

Because we can pay it back, and do. It's not all due at once. Not even most of it.

 

[ETcallhome]

Because we can pay it back, and do. It's not all due at once. Not even most of it.

good, so then we don't need to raise taxes

 

[Ricter]

good, so then we don't need to raise taxes

Well, we might, since we have other expenses. Maybe WWIII is upon us.

 

[ETcallhome]

Well, we might, since we have other expenses. Maybe WWIII is upon us.

don't forget global warming
a small transaction tax should pay for terrorism and climate change, and I don't think anybody wants more terrorism or climate change, and it really wouldn't affect the middle class that much. Besides, we have a lot more to fear from HFT than we do GDP. Take care of HFT first and climate change, and we can deal with GDP later.