Yes, it is generally not very smart or prosperous to increase taxes and barley cut spending in a poor economy. I would argue that there is successful form of "austerity", in which you cut spending, cut taxes, and loosen regulations. I am sure you will adamantly disagree, but thought I would share anyway.
Yes, it is generally not very smart or prosperous to increase taxes and barley cut spending in a poor economy. I would argue that there is successful form of "austerity", in which you cut spending, cut taxes, and loosen regulations. I am sure you will adamantly disagree, but thought I would share anyway.
I simply disagree because of what our problem is. This seems more like the trickle down trash that has never worked. People making an income do not need tax cuts right now. People need jobs and income. Yea yea, if you cut taxes, everyone will become job producers and no one saves money or pays off debt. I get the conservative rationale.
But, in the real world, demand creates jobs, not supply and all economics is trickle up economics unless you are the government. You do what Reagan did and increase public sector employment and spending drastically along with tax cuts, you will have a striving economy again. As long as we continue to cut the size of government, we will continue seeing slow to no growth and having major economical problems.
I know this will get your Keynesian panties in a wad, but lack of aggregate demand is not holding back our economy. You have it backwards. Demand alone does not increase the amount of goods, production does. Unless your goal is to distort the structure of prices, you have it wrong. You need to allow people to invest in actual, tangible goods and services (which is where my previous point of decreasing regulation comes in, such as the liberalization of labor laws, taxation, etc..). Consumption will follow.
It's not wrong at all. Demand creates supply. And when I speak of Demand, I'm not talking about what "people want", I'm talking about the economic demand in which people will buy something at a certain price and have the money to do so.
And lack of demand is most definitely holding back our economy.
We do not have any shortage of laborers, we do not have any shortage of resources, we do not have any shortage of supply. Our output gap is almost in the trillions. We need demand. That comes from income. You can cut regulations all you want but that would not create more demand, it would create more potential profits for people who already have money.
The government should be spending trillions more and hiring millions of people putting them to work and putting them active in the economy again. The economy would grow significantly, just like it did under Reagan and Bush.
Sorry, champ, this is the real world not Berkeley. If you have increased production that is financed through savings, you will have sustainable growth. Your helicopter game is not sustainable growth. Obviously, I agree with you that our economy needs job creation but that doesn't mean I have to agree with how you want to do it. There is one point I agree 100% on, you can't increase taxes and decrease spending. That is pure lunacy in a struggling economy. You are, however, absolutely wrong that aggregate demand could be our savior.
You act like this is our first rodeo. You are 100% wrong and we are seeing it all over the world. We've seen it for the past century. Every President in your life time has increased aggregate demand through increases in public sector employment and spending. This is the first President that hasn't and we get the results that the "Berkeley" people predict. A crappy economy. This economy needs jobs and income, not tax breaks and reduction in regulations so the people that already have the money can have even more money. That's not even logical. They already have all the money, how much more money do they need until they start creating jobs? The answer is none. They'll start creating more jobs when people start buying their shit. Demand creates jobs, not supply.
Who has all the money? The small businesses that employ 55% of all Americans and supply 60% of net new jobs? You're right let's regulate and tax the hell out of those rich bastards. You act like all business owners are flying to their beach house in a Gulfstream jet. In 2011, less than 4% of small business owners made $1 million. Less than 20% are millionaires. But fuck those guys, let's really stick it to them.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said let's raise taxes or increase regulations. I simply said cutting taxes and decreasing regulations will not create jobs. People buying their shit will create jobs. And statistics showing we have a disparity of wealth at it's greatest level since right before the Great Depression, so I'm not making stuff up like you are. The data shows that there is a large concentration of money on the top and wages and gains in income on the bottom rivals 3rd world countries. We are basically living in a plutocracy right now.
The difference between you and I is if the data was flipped, my opinion would be different. Your opinion is fraud trickle down economics no matter what the data shows.
What we need is jobs, we need income for individuals who create the demand for these businesses to profit. In return they hire. They do not hire people by saving money and or getting tax breaks. That's failed logic. And you are acting like I'm asking the US to do something different. They've been doing what I'm talking about for the past century. The times they have tried to go away from my theories is the times we run in to major economic problems.
Your post here shows you are more interested in defending your political parties ideology rather than really debating what is appropriate economic measures for economic growth. Because this is nonsensical.
This has nothing to do with political parties. There are free market dems and tax and spend repubs.
This is the last time I'm going to say this because it's getting redundant.
I get it. You want to cure the ailment with what caused the ailment. A short term fix.
Lower rates. Inflate the bubble. Bubble bursts. Rinse and repeat.
I prefer fixing this with the supply side. Increase confidence. Free up funds for the private sector to be put to a productive use rather than a bureaucratic use. I want to increase resources and new knowledge. It will be painful in the short term but creates sustainable long term growth in the long run.
Now we can agree to disagree and move on. This conversation is digressing to the point of being not productive. One more thing, the way you treat people, as you did Russ a few posts up, is insufferable and arrogant. You exemplify what embarrasses me about people our age. There's a respectful way to disagree. You should try to learn it.
I can't help it when I know someone is blatantly wrong and just unleashing decades old failed conservative talking points. Notice how you don't use data... it is all conjecture and typical "confidence" or other bullshit that is impossible to actually quantify. Pretty soon you'll be talking about peoples feelings or opportunity costs, lol. Anything that cannot be quantified because it's how your masters teach you guys. I use data and only data. You can keep the conjecture crap, but if you want to play in the big leagues you're going to need a lot more than just your opinion. This is up there with the Willie & Gas Man way of arguing. I was expecting more, had high hopes for you. At least you got Russ' support. That would make me feel confident.
This is the type of comment I don't understand. It adds nothing to our conversation. It's just juvenile. Makes it really hard to want to continue this conversation. I don't see the need to insult people that disagree with your views on economics. Intellectual debates can be respectful. It's possible for two smart people to look at the same situation and believe different things.
You've made your point clear, all "Austrian" economists are stupid and you and Krugman are brilliant.
You started the conversation off with "Sorry, champ, this is the real world not Berkeley.".
I don't see how anything I have said is any different than this level of commenting.
You are confident in your thoughts, that's all I can say. Is there any data backing up your theory, absolutely not. What I talk about is mainstream economic thinking throughout the world and you are trying to lecture me using some economic theory that is pretty much a joke in the world of economics. So, I apologize if I come off a little argumentative, but your theory is very much aligned with the thought process of many on this forum who I think are some of the biggest retards I've ever met. You seem much more capable of understanding different viewpoints.
I just didn't get that from your argument. It just amazes me that some of you guys actually think you know more than the entire world of economists. Just like arguing Global Warming with these guys. They know more than the entire world of climatologists. It's just a trend of the retard bar (not saying you are including in that), but it's just what I have to deal with.
There is no empirical evidence, math, logic, etc that shows Austrian economics would work. It's pretty much an anti-government philosophy that requires low level of thinking.
MT is doing just fine.
We're just here to laugh at you - comedy is the only thing you're good for.
"Reagan was a Keynesian"
"mainstream economic thinking"
"smart people think like me"
"I'm very, VERY educated"
"the retard bar" (basking in the glow of your paltry 75 self-identified "climatologists" lmao)
You're definitely that rare breed of dumb AND arrogant, which means you'll be Stuck on Stupid forever!
:laughingb
