PDA

View Full Version : Reagan Was More Keynesian Than Obama



Qtec
06-05-2012, 01:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Reagan’s policies embraced anti-austerity Keynesian economics to a greater degree than President Obama has, and that’s why Obama is in trouble, argues Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

Appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” the New York Times columnist and Princeton professor argued that Reagan was able to reduce unemployment after taking office in part because he grew government jobs — unlike Obama, who has significantly cut them.

“If you actually look at the actual track record of government spending, government employment, Reagan is the Keynesian and Obama — mostly because of political constraints, although a little bit of lack of conviction on the part of his own people — has been the anti-Keynesian,” Krugman said. “He’s been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just over three years into Reagan’s first term, government jobs grew by 3.1 percent; at the same time during Obama’s tenure, they’ve been cut by 2.7 percent. Hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs have been shed in recent years. Government jobs also grew under President George W. Bush, which helped keep unemployment down during most of his two terms.</span>

“After there was a recession under Ronald Reagan, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>government employment went way up. It went up after the recessions under the first George Bush and the second George Bush,”</span> Obama said last month on the campaign trail. “So each time there was a recession with a Republican president, compensated — we compensated by making sure that government didn’t see a drastic reduction in employment. The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me.”

More broadly, federal spending growth under Obama has been remarkably low by historical standards. The pressure from the GOP and D.C. political elites, who have been hostile to Keynesian economics in recent years, has put the administration in a tough spot.

The Keynesian theory holds that government spending is necessary help lift the economy when it’s under-performing.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Data shows that Republicans tend to accept it when they’re in power and that they benefit from it. But they’ve relentlessly attacked Obama’s efforts to stimulate the economy in the wake of the Great Recession, and have led the charge against financially helping cash-strapped states avert layoffs of public employees like teachers and police.</span>

And that has fueled economic struggles across the nation, which were confirmed by the lousy jobs report last Friday which saw the unemployment rate tick up to 8.2 percent.

The irony of the situation wasn’t lost on Krugman.

“<u>We’re actually practicing government austerity on a scale that we haven’t seen in 60 years. It’s not the president’s policy,</u>” he said Sunday. “In effect, we’ve already got the policies that Republicans say they will impose if they take the election, and yet, of course, it may lead to the defeat of this president.” </div></div>

Q

Q

LWW
06-05-2012, 03:10 AM
That was just precious.

You are the guy that bought the magic beans, aren't you.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 06:06 AM
Krugman has been right about everything.

I really do wish president Obama would include him in his economic panel.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2012, 10:23 AM
As appointments to the CEA are probably positions requiring Senate approval, that is likely impossible to arrange. He would be blocked, as Elizabeth Warren was for the consumer protection board head.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 10:25 AM
How about as the administration's economic advisor?

G.

cushioncrawler
06-05-2012, 04:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Krugman has been right about everything. I really do wish president Obama would include him in his economic panel. G.</div></div>Gayle -- The K-man with the fake-Nobel iz a toprung krappynomicyst, much better than bottomrung. I like him.
But i havnt heard K-man nor anyone else properly describe how Keynes works.
Simply inkreecing gov spending aint Keynesian.
mac.

LWW
06-06-2012, 04:46 AM
Leftists always believe whatever they are told by their party masters.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 04:16 PM
Surprising perhaps to you, there are objective facts that can be determined apart from political ideology and talking points.

That the CEA team requires Senate confirmation, exactly as I said, is one such objective fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Council is comprised of a Chairman and two Members. The Chairman is Alan Krueger. Katharine Abraham and Carl Shapiro have been confirmed by the United States Senate as the Council's members. </div></div>

Here, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/about) on Whitehouse.gov's page on the CEA.

So your bleating appears to be one of your random phrase generator's output, as it applies to anything I've said on this thread, which it doesn't.

As for Reagan's use of Keynesian tactics, that's true as well.

* Doubled the annual defense budget spending that had already been raised significantly, by a factor of the rate of inflation + 3% during high inflation times

* Quadrupled the previous record annual deficit, and at his best, never got below double that previous record annual deficit

* Raised government spending as a share of gdp

* Grew government by any objective standard, including as to its workforce

* Added to the financial stimulus of all the above with very large tax cuts (which if you don't know is also as much a Keynesian tactic as spending more)

cushioncrawler
06-07-2012, 05:10 PM
Spending more iz not keynesian if it iz fully funded.
mac.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 12:18 PM
True, but of course, in the example in question, it was all borrowed money, never paid for.

cushioncrawler
06-08-2012, 08:08 PM
Yes but borrowing iz funding, ie funding with other's money.
And funding aint keynesian.

Az i hav sayd before, theusofa iz lucky that the Chineze hav been funding a large part of theusofagov expenditure.
This offshore-borrowing iz halfway to being keynesian. It iz keynesian in the short term, but not in the longterm (koz it will havtabe payed back, with more bonds probly). But short term iz better than nuthun.

I dont know of many keynesian fixes -- probly germany, and theusofa and england in WW2. And i dont know of any non-keynesian fixes ever anywhere, at least none that worked.

Az u will be aware, even Keynes didnt beleev Keynes -- koz Keynes changed hiz mind in later years. Something about crowding-out and crowding-in. All bullshit of course.
mac.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2012, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Krugman has been right about everything. I really do wish president Obama would include him in his economic panel. G.</div></div>Gayle -- The K-man with the fake-Nobel iz a toprung krappynomicyst, much better than bottomrung. I like him.
But i havnt heard K-man nor anyone else properly describe how Keynes works.
Simply inkreecing gov spending aint Keynesian.
mac. </div></div>

Mac,
I think you would really enjoy his books.

Ever read any of them?

There isn't anything you could think of, that he doesn't explain in simple language, and prove with credible stastistics and accepted historical facts.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2012, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes but borrowing iz funding, ie funding with other's money.
And funding aint keynesian.

Az i hav sayd before, theusofa iz lucky that the Chineze hav been funding a large part of theusofagov expenditure.
This offshore-borrowing iz halfway to being keynesian. It iz keynesian in the short term, but not in the longterm (koz it will havtabe payed back, with more bonds probly). But short term iz better than nuthun.

I dont know of many keynesian fixes -- probly germany, and theusofa and england in WW2. And i dont know of any non-keynesian fixes ever anywhere, at least none that worked.

Az u will be aware, even Keynes didnt beleev Keynes -- koz Keynes changed hiz mind in later years. Something about crowding-out and crowding-in. All bullshit of course.
mac. </div></div>

mac, as you must be aware, the money created when one borrows COMES FROM NOWHERE. It's just a credit from one or another bank, not actual money. They can simply credit the borrower's account with money, so long as their reserves amount to the fractional reserve requirement (10%? not sure-- maybe 5%). So it doesn't reduce the amount of money by using someone else's money.

As for a non-Keynesian fix, oddly enough, the Clinton years show the example.

That was because with a moderate amount of inflation, and above-zero interest rates, the effect of monetary policy was strong enough to spark a virtuous cycle in interest rates, despite the strongly negative fiscal policies (where more taxes were taken out of the economy, but the reduced interest rates (or flat interest rates), allowed titanic refinancing at lower and lower rates, which then put that extra money in borrowers' hands).

The federal government stopped issuing the 30-year bond, which made it more scarce for people who wanted to lock in a 30-year guarantee and so they bid up that price, meaning the yield went down. Then the federal government borrowed at shorter terms and therefore lower rates, saving the difference which amounted to scores of billions of dollars in annual savings. More capital was freed up for the private sector, and with more capital, the price for that (the interest rates) also came down. Rinse and repeat, it went on for 8 years.

cushioncrawler
06-09-2012, 06:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mac, as you must be aware, the money created when one borrows COMES FROM NOWHERE. It's just a credit from one or another bank, not actual money. They can simply credit the borrower's account with money, so long as their reserves amount to the fractional reserve requirement (10%? not sure-- maybe 5%). So it doesn't reduce the amount of money by using someone else's money.

As for a non-Keynesian fix, oddly enough, the Clinton years show the example.

That was because with a moderate amount of inflation, and above-zero interest rates, the effect of monetary policy was strong enough to spark a virtuous cycle in interest rates, despite the strongly negative fiscal policies (where more taxes were taken out of the economy, but the reduced interest rates (or flat interest rates), allowed titanic refinancing at lower and lower rates, which then put that extra money in borrowers' hands).

The federal government stopped issuing the 30-year bond, which made it more scarce for people who wanted to lock in a 30-year guarantee and so they bid up that price, meaning the yield went down. Then the federal government borrowed at shorter terms and therefore lower rates, saving the difference which amounted to scores of billions of dollars in annual savings. More capital was freed up for the private sector, and with more capital, the price for that (the interest rates) also came down. Rinse and repeat, it went on for 8 years. </div></div>Yes, ordinary krappynomix kan at times improov the health of a patient that haznt got a terminal illness and iznt sick enuff to havta go to hozzy, if the patient iz patient enuff to wait a few years.
Hooray.

But Keynesian stuff kan bring the dead back to life in a day.
Thats the main difference.

For sure banx lend money they dont hav, and suppozedly only up to a limit. Which tends to raize the question that if they lend to peter then they probly karnt lend to paul. Except that when peter puts hiz loan in the bank then that bank kan loan to paul, who when he puts hiz loan in the bank then that bank kan loan to mac, who when he puts hiz loan in the bank then that bank kan loan to etc etc etc etc.

I dont think that any banx need follow any banking rules.
In a sense most banking loans and some credit card purchases are keynesian.
So it sort of kums down to how to get the velocity of money going fastnuff.
Gov spending, eg on infrastrukture, ie private industry spending aktually, helps.
But it kaint bring the dead back to life in a day, unless it iz nonfunded.
And the banx kan do their own nonfunded parasitik usuary shit at the same time.
mac.

cushioncrawler
06-09-2012, 06:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mac, I think you would really enjoy his books.
Ever read any of them? There isn't anything you could think of, that he doesn't explain in simple language, and prove with credible stastistics and accepted historical facts. G.</div></div>Gayle, i used to read economix books but it takes too much time. I do hav Free To Choose next to the computer with friedman smiling at me, and i sometimes read a page, very annoying, what an idiot.

The thing iz, all stupid economix books are about stupid politix and stupid finance. They are not about real economix at all. U kood just az eezyly write a stupid book about monopoly or some other stupid game.

Inflation -- looz a turn.
Deflation -- free toss.
Interest rates rize -- go back one square.
Unemployment up -- declare war.

Fake rules for fake economix for a fake system for a fake kuntry for the fake happyness of a bunch of fakes by a bunch of fakes for a bunch of fakes.
mac.

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 12:20 PM
In a sense most banking loans and some credit card purchases are keynesian.

Yes, initially they are. The interest due on the repayment, however, is deflationary and therefore anti-Keynesian, over time.

The interest is extracted from the real economy, real consumers' money, and about the only way to continue the system is issuing... MORE. DEBT. Unless that 'feature' of our monetary system (which is a debt system) is understood, all of this is a mystery. When it is understood, which is the worst possible thing to those currently profiting from it, it is revealed as a house of cards, on a foundation of sand, with the tide coming in as it had to, eventually.

cushioncrawler
06-10-2012, 05:08 PM
Debt, internally there aint no gov debt. The pipple are indebted to themselvs.

Hmmmmm -- Cameron turns out to be wrong or a liar about debt and stuff.
(a) He woz wrong/lied about what woz "wrong with england's ekonomix", and (b) he woz wrong/lied about "how" to fix thems wrongs, and
(c) he he woz wrong/lied when he sayd that he woz the guy that would do that "how".

There iz no argueing that b and c are wrong/lies Duzzenmadder if (a) iz a lie or not.
Thusly cameron shood resign. Hiz main platform woz wrong and/or a lie.

Mitt might be going down a similar path (if elected). Would mitt carry throo, or would he renege like cameron. Either way, the usofa would be rooted. We will never know -- and, the usofa will be rooted no matter who wins.
mac.

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 08:44 PM
I do hav Free To Choose next to the computer with friedman smiling at me, and i sometimes read a page, very annoying, what an idiot.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Have to agree with that! Smart in his earlier writings, and then down the rabbit hole of extreme libertarianism.