We're screwed

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Goodness gracious Tex, finish reading your own links.



He's saying we need more of the same because the first stimulus was insufficient.

Right, because the first one worked so well. Or maybe I missed that part: did he say the first stimulus accelerated the recovery and saved jobs? Is that what you read?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Right, because the first one worked so well. Or maybe I missed that part: did he say the first stimulus accelerated the recovery and saved jobs? Is that what you read?

Why would he ask for a second one if the first one didn't do anything?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Right, because the first one worked so well. Or maybe I missed that part: did he say the first stimulus accelerated the recovery and saved jobs? Is that what you read?

the philosophy is rather simple actually. More money has been spewing into the economy, but I don't notice any appreciable differences, but then again, I didn't participate in cash for clunkers, or didn't qualify as a first time home buyer, so those areas aren't affecting me or more clientele.

On one hand the Keynsians believe the government must inflate the economy by spewing money into it so that it doesn't spiral down further and if they pull the plug too soon it will deflate any way. That's what they argue in short.

On the other hand, that theory doesn't address whether the economy is capable of sustaining itself ever under this model, and what happens to inflation and how will the taxpayers afford the spending spree.

My observation is that this spiral is in large part systemic, our economic structure is rotting at the core, so any spending is artificial and will extend the length of recovery. The longer you delay hitting bottom, the longer it will take to get out of the trough.

It doesn't also address the problems with T Bills and taxation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Why would he ask for a second one if the first one didn't do anything?

That would be my question to him. But you're welcome to answer it in his place.

You'd think if we're looking at double-digit inflation for the next 2 years (as he asserts we are) after already pumping $800B give-or-take into the economy, that might give a guy some pause in recommending we spend more.

Either way, reading his article, it's hard to make a case for how Obama's policies have sped up recovery and saved jobs. Unless of course one decides to just make up a "saved jobs" number, but Obama would never do that.

[Archaea]

The questions which economists have not answered satisfactorily, is how to kickstart the economy to have internal, not government spending external, incentives to grow.

The super smart economists Chino and California love to believe in seem to believe if you spend a lot of money for a very long time, (a) it won't hurt to pay it back, (b) dollar devaluation is no problem in the grand scheme of things, and (c) there will be no dive once the faucet of the government spending is turned off and taxes go sky high.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Note this comment, on page 24,

and the following observation:

The Klein & Stern survey evidence helps to mount a general case that all academic disciplines, including economics, range from predominately to rock-solidly Democratic.

That they singled out economics just highlights that they expect it to be more conservative.

These facts are inherently important. Academia is a major part of the political culture; it profoundly influences how tens of millions of Americans will understand social affairs and, indeed, their own personal selfhood.

The two intro econ classes at Harvard are taught by Republicans. I believe 50% of all the superstars are Republican (which itself is a symptom of discrimination; you have to be a superstar to survive if you're pub).

In any case, as an undergrad, I'd say about 80% of the models we studied showed that the free market equilibrium was the best solution. So teacher ideology matters less when everything is mathematicized.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

That would be my question to him. But you're welcome to answer it in his place.

You'd think if we're looking at double-digit inflation for the next 2 years (as he asserts we are) after already pumping $800B give-or-take into the economy, that might give a guy some pause in recommending we spend more.

Either way, reading his article, it's hard to make a case for how Obama's policies have sped up recovery and saved jobs. Unless of course one decides to just make up a "saved jobs" number, but Obama would never do that.

My question with the stimulus or any type of Keynsian economics is how you improve capital items, infrastructure and create internal stimulus.

Right now, consumer confidence in a better tomorrow is at an all time low. The internal stimulus isn't there.

Part of the malaise is actually good. We need to start saving a lot more of our earnings.

and industry needs the ability to invest in better means of production. China is building new, high quality factories and means of production. The investment is so significant, we don't have the ability to catch up if we don't start.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That they singled out economics just highlights that they expect it to be more conservative.



The two intro econ classes at Harvard are taught by Republicans. I believe 50% of all the superstars are Republican (which itself is a symptom of discrimination; you have to be a superstar to survive if you're pub).

In any case, as an undergrad, I'd say about 80% of the models we studied showed that the free market equilibrium was the best solution. So teacher ideology matters less when everything is mathematicized.

But the assumptions are the rub, and the values to assume are based upon assumptions.

We are talking about minor percentage points which ultimately result in significant discrepancies.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That would be my question to him. But you're welcome to answer it in his place.

You'd think if we're looking at double-digit inflation for the next 2 years (as he asserts we are) after already pumping $800B give-or-take into the economy, that might give a guy some pause in recommending we spend more.

Either way, reading his article, it's hard to make a case for how Obama's policies have sped up recovery and saved jobs. Unless of course one decides to just make up a "saved jobs" number, but Obama would never do that.

Because the first one was way too small! Go figure!

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But the assumptions are the rub, and the values to assume are based upon assumptions.

We are talking about minor percentage points which ultimately result in significant discrepancies.

What if you use generalized numbers like Y=A*L^gK^(1-g) with no actual values?