PDA

View Full Version : Conclusion: THE STIMULUS WORKED BUT WAS NOT ENOUGH



Qtec
09-04-2011, 05:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Three Charts to Email to Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law </div></div>

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6089355018_3eea3fa4be.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6088811201_96839c6977.jpg

link (http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142)


Q...

cushioncrawler
09-04-2011, 05:43 AM
The stimulus woznt a real stimulus, it woznt a keynesian stimulus, thusly it kood never hav worked.
mac.

Ok, google keynesian stimulus. Well, u are wasting your time. Koz i wont find what i am talking about. The reason iz koz no-one seems to understand what Keynes sayd.
The key to keynes iz the word deficit. Unfortunately there are 2 definitions of deficit. And, u guessed it, krappynomicysts are all argueing around the wrong deficit.

LWW
09-04-2011, 06:41 AM
A couple photos for you to try and wrap your simple mind around:

http://www.celebrityhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ashtonpunked.jpghttp://www.celebrityhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ashtonpunked.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg

Q... </div></div>

Although you believe this graph shows you one thing, and in your defense you were spoon fed the idea that you should accept this without question, what it actually shows is the result of the demokrook party's stupidonomic agenda.

You so willfully deceived that I at this point pity you. Your beloved democrooks take control of congress in 01/07. Their policies begin to take root in 01/08 ... and the wheels fall off.

But ... your handlers tell you to blame the debacle not on those who caused it, but those who oversaw a growing economy prior to this mess of their own creation.

Anyone who would post that graph as support of your claim is seriously calling their own intellect into question.

LWW
09-04-2011, 06:50 AM
A photo for you to try and wrap your simple mind around:

http://www.bsckids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ashton-kutcher-punkd.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6089355018_3eea3fa4be.jpg

Q... </div></div>

Wow. Just <span style='font-size: 26pt'>WOW!</span>

Again, you post evidence up as <span style='font-size: 26pt'>"PROOF"</span> when you actually have no clue what the graph is telling you.

Why do I think that?

Most folks won't willfully post data which makes them appear to an imbecile.

Let me explain what you have posted.

You have posted a graph which shows a Bush regime deficit rising to roughly 25% of the level of the current deficit ... and then tapering off to about 10% of the current level, followed by an explosion in the deficit following the congressional takeover by the democrooks.

Then, at the very end of the graph, you have projections of drastic deficit reduction ... down to a mere 400% of what the democrooks inherited ... based on nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Have you no intellectual curiosity at all?

LWW
09-04-2011, 07:05 AM
I know what's going through your mind by now:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss125/Varus_Torvyn/cat-punked.jpg</div></div>

The answer is, yes you were ... three times in a row.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6088811201_96839c6977.jpg

Q... </div></div>

This one was your best shot ... and it's still a lie.

What it shows is the Bush regime's record of increasing spending by about $700B per year over 5 years.

One could make the argument that 2 wars and improvements to MEDICARE were largely to blame and increased revenue made it possible without breaking the bank. Even accepting those, which I don't entirely, it was a miserable performance.

Then, the lie comes in.

The democrooks ... including then senator Obama who was a part of the stupidonomic cabal ... raises spending by an additional $900B per year and does it in only 3 years.

In the end, as always, you have painted yourself into the dunce corner by insisting that increasing spending, while winning 2 wars and increasing MEDICARE, by $140B a year on average, while growing the tax base ... is somehow terrible to a statist such as yourself.

At the same time, party doublethink demands that you believe increasing spending by $300B per year on average ... while decimating the tax base ... while winding down the 2 wars ... while hacking MEDICARE ... is somehow totally awesome.

It's a shame you didn't bring an intellectual paddle and rudder with you on the journey.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 07:43 AM
Let us remember the right is too ignorant to correctly read a chart.

Remember that they can switch from "The deficits don't matter" to "ONLY the deficits matter" as they are called to do by their Repiglican Bulls*itters, who caused this entire mess.

The Right has been Brain Washed, and lovin' it.

Bah bah bah...too damned stupid to figure out who has stolen their wealth, what little of it they had.

The crash was a done deal, by early 07, when the Dems regained the majority in Jan. 07.

Nothing could have stopped the crash, created by deregulatory policies of the right, Bush's "Ownership Society" Greenspand's so called "Free Market" and the Greedy investors and predatory lenders, who advantaged the hidden, shadow market, which was exacerbated by their own exotic instruments, created on Wall St., by those who were bilking all of the rest of us, compliments of Alan Greensapan, Bush, Repiglican policies, and the Greedy PIGS on Wall St.

Same pigs who in many cases were also being subsidized by Bush, while they outsourced our jobs, and hid their money off shore, to evade paying their taxes.

I hope they hang Mazella right over that golden Bull on Wall St., along with the rest of the thieves, who skipped out with all of that money they stole from all of the rest of us.

The chart is absolutely correct.

The righties on here are ignorant, kool aid slurpping, brain washed idiots!

G.

G.

Sev
09-04-2011, 07:49 AM
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political/attachment-1.jpg

cushioncrawler
09-04-2011, 07:53 AM
Mandeville gave great offence by this book, in which a cynical system of morality was made attractive by ingenious paradoxes. . .His doctrine that prosperity was increased by expenditure rather than by saving fell in with many current economic fallacies not yet extinct. Assuming with the ascetics that human desires were essentially evil and therefore produced 'private vices' and assuming with the common view that wealth was a 'public benefit', he easily showed that all civilisation implied the development of vicious propensities. . .

The text of the Fable of the Bees is an allegorical poem —'The Grumbling Hive, or Knaves turned honest', in which is set forth the appalling plight of a prosperous community in which all the citizens suddenly take it into their heads to abandon luxurious living, and the State to cut down armaments, in the interests of Saving:

No Honour now could be content,
To live and owe for what was spent,
Liv'ries in Broker's shops are hung;
They part with Coaches for a song;
Sell stately Horses by whole sets
and Country-Houses to pay debts.
Vain cost is shunn'd as moral Fraud;
They have no Forces kept Abroad;
Laugh at th' Esteem of Foreigners,
And empty Glory got by Wars;
They fight, but for their Country's sake,
When Right or Liberty's at Stake.

The haughty Chloe
Contracts th' expensive Bill of Fare,
And wears her strong Suit a whole Year.
And what is the result?—
Now mind the glorious Hive, and see
How Honesty and Trade agree:
The Shew is gone, it thins apace;
And looks with quite another Face,
For 'twas not only they that went,
By whom vast sums were yearly spent;
But Multitudes that lived on them,
Were daily forc'd to do the same.
In vain to other Trades they'd fly;
All were o'er-stocked accordingly.
The price of Land and Houses falls;
Mirac'lous Palaces whose Walls,
Like those of Thebes, were rais'd by Play,
Are to be let. . .
The Building Trade is quite destroy'd,
Artificers are not employ'd;
No limner for his Art is fam'd,
Stone-cutters, Carvers are not nam'd.

So 'The Moral' is:
Bare Virtue can't make Nations live
In Splendour. They that would revive
A Golden Age, must be as free,
For Acorns as for Honesty.

Two extracts from the commentary which follows the allegory will show that the above was not without a theoretical basis:

As this prudent economy, which some people call Saving, is in private families the most certain method to increase an estate, so some imagine that, whether a country be barren or fruitful, the same method if generally pursued (which they think practicable) will have the same effect upon a whole nation, and that, for example, the English might be much richer than they are, if they would be as frugal as some of their neighbours. This, I think, is an error.

On the contrary, Mandeville concludes:

The great art to make a nation happy, and what we call flourishing, consists in giving everybody an opportunity of being employed; which to compass, let a Government's first care be to promote as great a variety of Manufacures, Arts and Handicrafts as human wit can invent; and the second to encourage Agriculture and Fishery in all their branches, that the whole Earth may be forccd to exert itself as well as Man. It is from this Policy and not from the trifling regulations of Lavishness and Frugality that the greatness and felicity of Nations must be expected; for let the value of Gold and Silver rise or fall, the enjoyment of all Societies will ever depend upon the Fruits of the Earth and the Labour of the People; both which joined together are a more certain, a more inexhaustible and a more real Treasure than the Gold of Brazil or the Silver of Potosi.

cushioncrawler
09-04-2011, 07:56 AM
No wonder that such wicked sentiments called down the opprobrium of two centuries of moralists and economists who felt much more virtuous in possession of their austere doctrine that no sound remedy was discoverable except in the utmost of thrift and economy both by the individual and by the state. Petty's 'entertainments, magnificent shews, triumphal arches, etc.' gave place to the penny-wisdom of Gladstonian finance and to a state system which 'could not afford' hospitals, open spaces, noble buildings, even the preservation of its ancient monuments, far less the splendours of music and the drama, all of which were consigned to the private charity or magnanimity of improvident individuals.

The doctrine did not reappear in respectable circles for another century, until in the later phase of Malthus the notion of the insufficiency of effective demand takes a definite place as a scientific explanation of unemployment. Since I have already dealt with this somewhat fully in my essay on Malthus, it will be sufficient if I repeat here one or two characteristic passages which I have already quoted in my essay:

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political/attachment-1.jpg </div></div>

Are you really dumb enough to think that all of the interest on Bush's borrowing/spending, and the costs of Bush's Wars, ended when President Obama took office?

The loss of revenues, due to the Bush Tax cuts?

There wasn't an economist, anywhere, that predicted a healthy, speedy jobs recovery at the time of Bush's CRASH and near Depression.

Yeah, you are that dumb.

Stuff it!

The stimulus created Millions of Jobs, Sherlock, and saved millions more.
It wasn't until REpiglicans got back into power, that more and more jobs were destroyed by their Governors.

Economists, and HISTORY, have proven that had the stimulus been larger, which REpigs refused to go along with, our recovery would also have been larger.

You can't overturn the worst economy since the Great Depression, left by your boy BUSH, without investing in re-building our infrastructure, which is in serious need of re-building, particularly now, after these hurricanes.

We can't rebuild the American dream, unless we create an Industril economu again, instead of nothing going on excedpt the gambling on Wall St., the same that bourhgt us to our knees.

We need to tax the hell out of the outsourcing corporations, the polluting corporations, the corrupt Hedge funding pigs, and investors, who are gambling with our money, and not paying taxes enough to cover the damages they bring about!





Repiglicans created this mess spending and borrowing us into a ditch, and Rah Rah Warring us into obvlion, and now they are blocking the recovery, for political purposes.

PIGS!




G.

cushioncrawler
09-04-2011, 08:27 AM
The view that changes in Government expenditures and tax rates exercise a powerful influence on total spending, without regard to changes in time volume of Government debt outstanding or ‘in the rate of monetary expansion, has also been prevalent among many others, About four hundred professional economists signed a statement supporting the Revenue Act of 1964 as a means of stimulating total demand. Politicians, ‘public figures, and economic commentators imave come generally to support fiscal actions explicitly, hut ‘more frequently implicitly, on the basis of time simple multiplier analysis.
This view has been challenged by a number of economists on time grounds that it does not give adequate recognition to the financing of Government expenditures. They argue that Governme’nt spending financed by taxes or borrowinmg from saving of the general public ‘may reduce other spending to such an extent that there will be little, if any, net increase in total spending. This is frequently referred to as the “crowding omit” of private expenditures by fiscal actions. According to these economists, stabilization recomnmendations based on time prevailing multiplier analysis of the 1960’s are erroneous. The following article by Roger W. Spencer and William P. Yohc provides a survey of economic theory from Adam Smith to the present regarding the influence of fiscal actions on economic activity. They find that “crowding out” has been the clonuuant view thiring the past tmco hundred years. Moreover, the emphasis on thu simple Keynesian multiplier analysis in developing economic stabilization programs during the 1960’s is not in general agreement with Keynes’ own views or with post-Keynesian economics.

cushioncrawler
09-04-2011, 08:47 AM
Keynes advocated Government spending as a stimulative economic measure twelve years before the publication of The General Theory, but he attached the “rider” that such spending should be financed by monetary expansion.tm2 He emphasized (in 1929) that
the central bank had the power to defeat expansionary fiscal actions and thus - nsure that the expenditure financed 1w the Treas wv was at the expense of other business enterprise.”~ The British Treasury. however, like 1-lawtrey, took the position
that Gov ei-nment spending, regardl.ess of financing, simply displaced private spending. Keynes continued to press his fiscal policy arguments in the years preceding Time General Theory,
but eventually downgraded the necessity’ of monetary expansion accompanying increased Government spending in order for such spending to have an expansionary effect. Development of the liquidity preference theomy of interest and the fiscal multiplier
theory, particularly the latter, were the keys to Keynes’ ability to shift money into the background of his analysis. The liquidity preference concept led to the idea that mnore efficient utilization of the existing money stock (increased velocity) was encouraged by increased Government expenditures, while the mathematical formulation of the multiplier (by H. F. Kahn, a student of Keynes) indicated that the increased
taxes and saving generated by the rise in Governmnent- indueed income would be just enough to cover the financing of the deficit. The response of total spending to bond-financed
Government expenditures is ambiguous. If savers are indifferent between the holding of bonds and money, the interest rate does not rise, the net market value of the debt increases by this means of financing, and a strong wealth effect may be realized. At the other extreme, savers insisting on holding a fixed ratio of money and debt would result in a rise in the interest
rate, no change in the value of the debt (gains from the acquisition of new bonds being offset by capital losses suffered from the holding of old bonds), and no wealth effect.
Actual conditions, according to Musgrave, fall somewhere in the middle. During a depression, the interest rate is likely to be relatively unresponsive. The implication is that the interest rate is likely to he most responsive during periods of rapid expansion. A more detailed model might consider the effects of price expectations and varying default risks on interest rates (and, consequently, private spending), and present a wider spectrum of private and public assets. The introduction of fractional reserve banldng (which is excluded from the above discussion) into the system complicates the argument somewhat, but the essential principles remain unchanged. In practice,
as Buchanan points out, commercial bank purchases of Government bonds out of excess reserves permit the full expansionary effect to take place (money creation), but bonds purchased when reserves
are not in excess have the same effect as borrowing from the public. In the latter case, “The expansionary effects of the public spending side of the deficit are, to a considerable extent, offset by the reduction in private investment caused by the tightening up of funds available for private securities.”28

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 08:48 AM
Mac.
Theories fall short of historical proof.

Theories about economics, are a far cry from the actual proven policies, which stimulate grwoth.

Investing in Industrial Jobs, as in the steel indsutry, and the automobile industry, for example, and re-building the crumbling infrastructure, Investing in higher education, and Jobs in the clean energy field, will support a recovery, and more jobs.

We must end the Bush Tax cuts. WE are virtually paying the same pigs who outsource our jobs, and steal our money.

WE need more taxes, on the economic offenders, not less!

It they pollute and make people sick, make them pay for it.

If they oursource and hide their money off shore, tax them more, not less.

If they don't care about America, fine, let them get the hell out!

If we catch them gambling oour money away on Wall St., take everything they own, their mansions, their boats, their jets, take all of it and sell it to pay for the fraud they created.

It's time for our country to renew the Justice Department, get the War criminals, and treasonists of the Bush Administration behind bars.

File charges against the thieves on Wall
St.

File charges against the polluters.

Impeach the RW supreme Court Justices, who have broken the law, both Scalia, AND Thomas.

End the practice of people like Sara Palin, skipping out on her own illegal activities, by resigning from office.

Our country need to strenngthen oversite, and the legal remedies for breaking our laws.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, should be the first ones tried for their crimes. The public should demand it!

Polluters should go to jail.

Fraud, anywhere and everywhere, should be indicted.

We should go after those banks, and ratings agencies, full force.

Corporate profits for wealthy CEO's and investors, do not create American JOBS! It's pretty obvious, if they did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

G.

LWW
09-04-2011, 11:47 AM
Not convincing.

Try this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style="color: #FF6666">Mac.
Theories fall short of historical proof.

Theories about economics, are a far cry from the actual proven policies, which stimulate grwoth.</span>

<span style="color: #330099">Investing in Industrial Jobs, as in the steel indsutry, and the automobile industry, for example, and re-building the crumbling infrastructure, Investing in higher education, and Jobs in the clean energy field, will support a recovery, and more jobs.</span>

<span style="color: #660000">We must end the Bush Tax cuts. WE are virtually paying the same pigs who outsource our jobs, and steal our money.

WE need more taxes, on the economic offenders, not less!

It they pollute and make people sick, make them pay for it.</span>

<span style="color: #33CCFF">If they oursource and hide their money off shore, tax them more, not less.

If they don't care about America, fine, let them get the hell out!

If we catch them gambling oour money away on Wall St., take everything they own, their mansions, their boats, their jets, take all of it and sell it to pay for the fraud they created.</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">It's time for our country to renew the Justice Department, get the War criminals, and treasonists of the Bush Administration behind bars.

File charges against the thieves on Wall
St.

File charges against the polluters.</span>

<span style="color: #3366FF">Impeach the RW supreme Court Justices, who have broken the law, both Scalia, AND Thomas.

End the practice of people like Sara Palin, skipping out on her own illegal activities, by resigning from office.</span>

<span style="color: #FFCC33">Our country need to strenngthen oversite, and the legal remedies for breaking our laws.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, should be the first ones tried for their crimes. The public should demand it!

Polluters should go to jail.</span>

<span style="color: #33FF33">Fraud, anywhere and everywhere, should be indicted.

We should go after those banks, and ratings agencies, full force.

Corporate profits for wealthy CEO's and investors, do not create American JOBS! It's pretty obvious, if they did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

G. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</span>

</span></span></div></div>

cushioncrawler
09-04-2011, 08:57 PM
I agree re jailing re the recent crimes.

But getting back to Keynes it appears that "crowding out" woz recognized (by many) back in 1929. This iz what i hav been sayin -- that a funded deficit iz not az effektiv az a nonfunded deficit.
Obama funded the deficits by selling bonds -- this crowded out ordinary private money and lending. Or it would hav, had it not been for much offshore buying of the bonds -- so Obama's deficit woz thusly only partly crowded out.
But keynes sayd (somewhere) that u hadta print money -- thats the way.
mac.

eg8r
09-05-2011, 06:13 PM
Yeah qtip it was a big winner. I bet Obama will trumpeting it to the high heavens on the next campaign trail. What a schmuck.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:40 AM
We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!