Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

greece in a death spiral


dmarc117
 Share

Recommended Posts

The core message of the Tea Party (i.e., necessary albeit painful economic reality) isn't nearly as retarded as the people who are in charge of the public face of the Tea Party.

 

Which is the exact opposite of what those in current power preach. So slap backs all you want, the current problems are DEMOCRATS & UNIONS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which is the exact opposite of what those in current power preach. So slap backs all you want, the current problems are DEMOCRATS & UNIONS.

 

Particularly government employee unions and their lifetime pensions. No one in the private sector gets such a gimme! That is what has ruined California. I hope that the state goes bankrupt so all the state worker contracts can be reset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes: irresponsible US government spending is currently keeping the US afloat, to a certain extent. The tea partiers oppose that, and would prefer to see the country (government and citizens) face reality and take its medicine.

If the government spending is what is keeping the US afloat right now, why do you consider this spending irresponsible? Would you think it would be more responsible for the government to let the economy crash when it had in its power some ability to keep the economy afloat?

 

Yes, the current budget deficit cannot continue indefinitely, but that doesn't mean that the move to austerity should happen immediately.

 

The US is NOT Greece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the government spending is what is keeping the US afloat right now, why do you consider this spending irresponsible? Would you think it would be more responsible for the government to let the economy crash when it had in its power some ability to keep the economy afloat?

 

Yes, the current budget deficit cannot continue indefinitely, but that doesn't mean that the move to austerity should happen immediately.

 

The US is NOT Greece.

I consider it irresponsible because we're compounding long-term problems (deficit, national debt, insufficient investment in infrastructure) in order to prop up short-term results. We're just kicking the can down the road. At some point we, as a nation, need to face the music: we cannot spend more than we make forever. Now is the best time to deal with that reality, when people are actually paying attention to the issue.

 

What's up with your hyperbole? You make it sound like our options are "support the status quo" v. "let the economy crash." And I know that you know better than that. :wagsnonofinger: And who said anything about an immediate move to austerity here in the US? I'm merely suggesting (and there are others who apparently agree) that our economic policy should be rooted in fiscal reality. If we're going to deficit-spend at all, it needs to be on things that produces a return on our investment/cost savings that outperforms the cost of the borrowed funds. Dumping borrowed cash into entitlement programs and other stop-gap measures strikes me as bad long-term economic policy. (But it sure does gets votes).

 

And thank you soooooo much for pointing out that the US is not Greece. So helpful. But another 50 years of our current spending policies, and who knows? We're certainly headed down the same path. The question is merely whether we're going to learn from Greece's mistakes, or assume (as apparently you do) that because America is not Greece we couldn't possibly end up in the same boat.

 

If it were up to me, I'd take a decade to get our Nation's affairs in order and focus on domestic policy. And yes, there would be a lot of short-term collateral damage. Some people are going to lose their homes and have to go back to renting. Some retirees are going to have to go back to work. The nation as a whole needs to scale back its lifestyle. Right now people and businesses are nuking debt and saving cash at unprecedented levels, and I think that's great for our long-term fiscal stability. Yes, in the short term its hurting spending, which may be the single largest factor in our nation's economy. But perhaps people shouldn't be spending, at least until their financial houses are in order. Everyone is so keen to have "financial recovery now." That isn't going to happen. Its just my opinion, but a more realistic long-term horizon for economic recovery is more like ten years from now... assuming we all (individuals, government, and business) are willing to make strategic - though painful - decisions designed to put us in a better long-term position. That's what I'm doing, at least.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider it irresponsible because we're compounding long-term problems (deficit, national debt, insufficient investment in infrastructure) in order to prop up short-term results. We're just kicking the can down the road. At some point we, as a nation, need to face the music: we cannot spend more than we make forever. Now is the best time to deal with that reality, when people are actually paying attention to the issue.

 

What's up with your hyperbole? You make it sound like our options are "support the status quo" v. "let the economy crash." And I know that you know better than that. :wagsnonofinger: And who said anything about an immediate move to austerity here in the US? I'm merely suggesting (and there are others who apparently agree) that our economic policy should be rooted in fiscal reality. If we're going to deficit-spend at all, it needs to be on things that produces a return on our investment/cost savings that outperforms the cost of the borrowed funds. Dumping borrowed cash into entitlement programs and other stop-gap measures strikes me as bad long-term economic policy. (But it sure does gets votes).

 

And thank you soooooo much for pointing out that the US is not Greece. So helpful. But another 50 years of our current spending policies, and who knows? We're certainly headed down the same path. The question is merely whether we're going to learn from Greece's mistakes, or assume (as apparently you do) that because America is not Greece we couldn't possibly end up in the same boat.

 

If it were up to me, I'd take a decade to get our Nation's affairs in order and focus on domestic policy. And yes, there would be a lot of short-term collateral damage. Some people are going to lose their homes and have to go back to renting. Some retirees are going to have to go back to work. The nation as a whole needs to scale back its lifestyle. Right now people and businesses are nuking debt and saving cash at unprecedented levels, and I think that's great for our long-term fiscal stability. Yes, in the short term its hurting spending, which may be the single largest factor in our nation's economy. But perhaps people shouldn't be spending, at least until their financial houses are in order. Everyone is so keen to have "financial recovery now." That isn't going to happen. Its just my opinion, but a more realistic long-term horizon for economic recovery is more like ten years from now... assuming we all (individuals, government, and business) are willing to make strategic - though painful - decisions designed to put us in a better long-term position. That's what I'm doing, at least.

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider it irresponsible because we're compounding long-term problems (deficit, national debt, insufficient investment in infrastructure) in order to prop up short-term results. We're just kicking the can down the road. At some point we, as a nation, need to face the music: we cannot spend more than we make forever. Now is the best time to deal with that reality, when people are actually paying attention to the issue.

 

What's up with your hyperbole? You make it sound like our options are "support the status quo" v. "let the economy crash." And I know that you know better than that. :wagsnonofinger: And who said anything about an immediate move to austerity here in the US? I'm merely suggesting (and there are others who apparently agree) that our economic policy should be rooted in fiscal reality. If we're going to deficit-spend at all, it needs to be on things that produces a return on our investment/cost savings that outperforms the cost of the borrowed funds. Dumping borrowed cash into entitlement programs and other stop-gap measures strikes me as bad long-term economic policy. (But it sure does gets votes).

 

And thank you soooooo much for pointing out that the US is not Greece. So helpful. But another 50 years of our current spending policies, and who knows? We're certainly headed down the same path. The question is merely whether we're going to learn from Greece's mistakes, or assume (as apparently you do) that because America is not Greece we couldn't possibly end up in the same boat.

 

If it were up to me, I'd take a decade to get our Nation's affairs in order and focus on domestic policy. And yes, there would be a lot of short-term collateral damage. Some people are going to lose their homes and have to go back to renting. Some retirees are going to have to go back to work. The nation as a whole needs to scale back its lifestyle. Right now people and businesses are nuking debt and saving cash at unprecedented levels, and I think that's great for our long-term fiscal stability. Yes, in the short term its hurting spending, which may be the single largest factor in our nation's economy. But perhaps people shouldn't be spending, at least until their financial houses are in order. Everyone is so keen to have "financial recovery now." That isn't going to happen. Its just my opinion, but a more realistic long-term horizon for economic recovery is more like ten years from now... assuming we all (individuals, government, and business) are willing to make strategic - though painful - decisions designed to put us in a better long-term position. That's what I'm doing, at least.

Hard to argue with any of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider it irresponsible because we're compounding long-term problems (deficit, national debt, insufficient investment in infrastructure) in order to prop up short-term results. We're just kicking the can down the road. At some point we, as a nation, need to face the music: we cannot spend more than we make forever. Now is the best time to deal with that reality, when people are actually paying attention to the issue.

 

What's up with your hyperbole? You make it sound like our options are "support the status quo" v. "let the economy crash." And I know that you know better than that. :wagsnonofinger: And who said anything about an immediate move to austerity here in the US? I'm merely suggesting (and there are others who apparently agree) that our economic policy should be rooted in fiscal reality. If we're going to deficit-spend at all, it needs to be on things that produces a return on our investment/cost savings that outperforms the cost of the borrowed funds. Dumping borrowed cash into entitlement programs and other stop-gap measures strikes me as bad long-term economic policy. (But it sure does gets votes).

 

And thank you soooooo much for pointing out that the US is not Greece. So helpful. But another 50 years of our current spending policies, and who knows? We're certainly headed down the same path. The question is merely whether we're going to learn from Greece's mistakes, or assume (as apparently you do) that because America is not Greece we couldn't possibly end up in the same boat.

 

If it were up to me, I'd take a decade to get our Nation's affairs in order and focus on domestic policy. And yes, there would be a lot of short-term collateral damage. Some people are going to lose their homes and have to go back to renting. Some retirees are going to have to go back to work. The nation as a whole needs to scale back its lifestyle. Right now people and businesses are nuking debt and saving cash at unprecedented levels, and I think that's great for our long-term fiscal stability. Yes, in the short term its hurting spending, which may be the single largest factor in our nation's economy. But perhaps people shouldn't be spending, at least until their financial houses are in order. Everyone is so keen to have "financial recovery now." That isn't going to happen. Its just my opinion, but a more realistic long-term horizon for economic recovery is more like ten years from now... assuming we all (individuals, government, and business) are willing to make strategic - though painful - decisions designed to put us in a better long-term position. That's what I'm doing, at least.

 

I'm not an economist and as I've noted in the past, I sometimes have difficulty understanding various economic principles. This post, however, makes sense to me. I would potentially break my ban on voting for repub/dem if a candidate would stand up and say these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to deficit-spend at all, it needs to be on things that produces a return on our investment/cost savings that outperforms the cost of the borrowed funds.

The current "real" interest rate the government is paying to borrow money for 30 years is 1.69%.

 

You honestly don't think there are a significant number of temporary spending projects that could be enacted right now that won't have a return greater than this?

 

Yes, budget deficits can't continue forever (well, actually theoretically, they can, but let's ignore that for now), and eventually the US economy is going to have to "take its medicine"... but there is a time and place to take the medicine and now is not it. (To continue with your medical analogy, while immunizations are necessary, there is a good reason why you don't give them to kids who are already sick. You wait until they are better and then you give them the shots so that their bodies can handle them better.)

Edited by wiegie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an economist and as I've noted in the past, I sometimes have difficulty understanding various economic principles. This post, however, makes sense to me. I would potentially break my ban on voting for repub/dem if a candidate would stand up and say these things.

highly doubtful.... a politician from either party would not be supported by either party for saying such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an economist and as I've noted in the past, I sometimes have difficulty understanding various economic principles. This post, however, makes sense to me. I would potentially break my ban on voting for repub/dem if a candidate would stand up and say these things.

No mainstream politician has the guts. The Tea Party is trying to promote the message of fiscal reality, but they come off like ignorant half-wits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider it irresponsible because we're compounding long-term problems (deficit, national debt, insufficient investment in infrastructure) in order to prop up short-term results. We're just kicking the can down the road. At some point we, as a nation, need to face the music: we cannot spend more than we make forever. Now is the best time to deal with that reality, when people are actually paying attention to the issue.

 

What's up with your hyperbole? You make it sound like our options are "support the status quo" v. "let the economy crash." And I know that you know better than that. :wagsnonofinger: And who said anything about an immediate move to austerity here in the US? I'm merely suggesting (and there are others who apparently agree) that our economic policy should be rooted in fiscal reality. If we're going to deficit-spend at all, it needs to be on things that produces a return on our investment/cost savings that outperforms the cost of the borrowed funds. Dumping borrowed cash into entitlement programs and other stop-gap measures strikes me as bad long-term economic policy. (But it sure does gets votes).

 

And thank you soooooo much for pointing out that the US is not Greece. So helpful. But another 50 years of our current spending policies, and who knows? We're certainly headed down the same path. The question is merely whether we're going to learn from Greece's mistakes, or assume (as apparently you do) that because America is not Greece we couldn't possibly end up in the same boat.

 

If it were up to me, I'd take a decade to get our Nation's affairs in order and focus on domestic policy. And yes, there would be a lot of short-term collateral damage. Some people are going to lose their homes and have to go back to renting. Some retirees are going to have to go back to work. The nation as a whole needs to scale back its lifestyle. Right now people and businesses are nuking debt and saving cash at unprecedented levels, and I think that's great for our long-term fiscal stability. Yes, in the short term its hurting spending, which may be the single largest factor in our nation's economy. But perhaps people shouldn't be spending, at least until their financial houses are in order. Everyone is so keen to have "financial recovery now." That isn't going to happen. Its just my opinion, but a more realistic long-term horizon for economic recovery is more like ten years from now... assuming we all (individuals, government, and business) are willing to make strategic - though painful - decisions designed to put us in a better long-term position. That's what I'm doing, at least.

 

well, I see one real big thing to disagree with. when you say "another 50 years of our current spending policies", I think you are being extraordinarily optimistic about how long we have to address this. knock off the zero and you'd be a lot closer to the truth.

 

I think there's actually a lot of what you describe in the last paragraph going on right now with individuals and businesses. people are bearish in general, stuffing money in mattresses (and GOOLD!), etc. it's not such a bad thing in many ways, but it's also kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- people worrying about the future so much pulls the rug out from demand, so that the economy can never get going.

 

ultimately, the big question becomes, what can the government do to restore confidence? the conventional answer given by this administration and keynesian economists in general is to prop up aggregate demand by spending money. but I think what you see now is how that very spending can actually have NEGATIVE impacts on the animal spirits of consumers and producers, as people are now getting freaked out (rightfully so) about the debt we are accumulating and the ridiculous future tax rates ultimately needed to support it. I personally think that people would feel a lot better about our economic future if some folks in washington got serious about pulling back on the reigns on the monstrous growth in government spending and debt. maybe it's counterintuitive to some folks' notion of textbook economics, but it's not like it's an idea without empirical support. see this old, but very relevant paper:

 

Abstract:

According to conventional wisdom, a fiscal consolidation is likely to contract

real aggregate demand. It has often been argued, however, that this conclusion

is misleading as it neglects the role of expectations of future policy: if the

fiscal consolidation is read by the private sector as a signal that the share of

government spending in GDP is being permanently reduced, households will revise

upwards their estimate of their permanent income, and will raise current and

planned consumption.

Only the empirical evidence can sort out which of these two contending views

about fiscal policy is more appropriate —— i.e how often the contractionary

effect of a fiscal consolidation prevails on its expansionary expectational

effect. This paper brings new evidence to bear on this issue drawing on. the

European exercise in fiscal rectitude of the 1980s, and focusing, in particulars

on its two most extreme cases —— Denmark and Ireland.

We find that at least in the experience of these two countries the

expectations' view has a serious claim to empirical relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current "real" interest rate the government is paying to borrow money for 30 years is 1.69%.

 

You honestly don't think there are a significant number of temporary spending projects that could be enacted right now that won't have a return greater than this?

 

Yes, budget deficits can't continue forever (well, actually theoretically, they can, but let's ignore that for now), and eventually the US economy is going to have to "take its medicine"... but there is a time and place to take the medicine and now is not it. (To continue with your medical analogy, while immunizations are necessary, there is a good reason why you don't give them to kids who are already sick. You wait until they are better and then you give them the shots so that their bodies can handle them better.)

 

Sounds like what some of us were saying about health care reform, but that didn't stop them from passing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current "real" interest rate the government is paying to borrow money for 30 years is 1.69%.

 

You honestly don't think there are a significant number of temporary spending projects that could be enacted right now that won't have a return greater than this?

 

Yes, budget deficits can't continue forever (well, actually theoretically, they can, but let's ignore that for now), and eventually the US economy is going to have to "take its medicine"... but there is a time and place to take the medicine and now is not it. (To continue with your medical analogy, while immunizations are necessary, there is a good reason why you don't give them to kids who are already sick. You wait until they are better and then you give them the shots so that their bodies can handle them better.)

6% of our budget goes interest on the national debt: double the 3% we spend on education. I'd say interest is a problem.

 

As far as when to make changes, its never a good time. When times are good no one cares. When times are bad people say they can't handle it. This is about political will power more than anything else. But we have both a debt and a deficit that are spiraling ever-larger. The longer we wait, the bigger it gets, and the harder it will be to reverse course. If not now, when? Mañana?

 

Yes, there are plenty of spending programs I'd be okay with, mainly building things the country needs. But unless this year's budget either reduces next year's deficient and/or the aggregate national debt, we're doing something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I see one real big thing to disagree with. when you say "another 50 years of our current spending policies", I think you are being extraordinarily optimistic about how long we have to address this. knock off the zero and you'd be a lot closer to the truth.

 

I think there's actually a lot of what you describe in the last paragraph going on right now with individuals and businesses. people are bearish in general, stuffing money in mattresses (and GOOLD!), etc. it's not such a bad thing in many ways, but it's also kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- people worrying about the future so much pulls the rug out from demand, so that the economy can never get going.

 

ultimately, the big question becomes, what can the government do to restore confidence? the conventional answer given by this administration and keynesian economists in general is to prop up aggregate demand by spending money. but I think what you see now is how that very spending can actually have NEGATIVE impacts on the animal spirits of consumers and producers, as people are now getting freaked out (rightfully so) about the debt we are accumulating and the ridiculous future tax rates ultimately needed to support it. I personally think that people would feel a lot better about our economic future if some folks in washington got serious about pulling back on the reigns on the monstrous growth in government spending and debt. maybe it's counterintuitive to some folks' notion of textbook economics, but it's not like it's an idea without empirical support. see this old, but very relevant paper:

I think a lot of people and business are thinking like I am thinking right now - they'll start spending again once they: (1) pay down some debt; (2) create a more significant emergency cash reserve; and (3) get used to dedicating a more significant percentage of their income to retirement savings. People are also more averse to buying on credit, despite the fact that the cost to borrow money is crazy-low.

 

Mark my word, people will start spending again once they feel more secure. And there is more than a trillion in liquid cash sitting on Corporate America's balance sheet. Government (state and Fed) seems to be the only player that is still spending like crazy. Yeah, that helped stabilize markets: there's no denying that. And if the Fed actually makes some money on the GM and wall street bailouts then the Obama administration will be vindicated for those decisions. Though it won't surprise me if they blow the profits on hookers and tequila, instead of paying down debt like the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I see one real big thing to disagree with. when you say "another 50 years of our current spending policies", I think you are being extraordinarily optimistic about how long we have to address this. knock off the zero and you'd be a lot closer to the truth.

they said the same in the 80's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were up to me, I'd take a decade to get our Nation's affairs in order and focus on domestic policy. And yes, there would be a lot of short-term collateral damage. Some people are going to lose their homes and have to go back to renting. Some retirees are going to have to go back to work. The nation as a whole needs to scale back its lifestyle. Right now people and businesses are nuking debt and saving cash at unprecedented levels, and I think that's great for our long-term fiscal stability. Yes, in the short term its hurting spending, which may be the single largest factor in our nation's economy. But perhaps people shouldn't be spending, at least until their financial houses are in order. Everyone is so keen to have "financial recovery now." That isn't going to happen. Its just my opinion, but a more realistic long-term horizon for economic recovery is more like ten years from now... assuming we all (individuals, government, and business) are willing to make strategic - though painful - decisions designed to put us in a better long-term position. That's what I'm doing, at least.

 

This isn't as simple as you make it sound. It is not just scaling back our lifestyle and not as simple as retirees going back to work. If you let our economy completely fail, the consequences are NOT known and can only be speculated and one speculation is DOOMSDAY. Do you really want the govt to sit back and have a potential meltdown that can take years/decades to recover from? Right now is the time to spend money, jobs are needed, economy needs a boost, and the borrowing rate is so low. If this works, in theory, the economy should pick up and then you scale back and pay off the debt with the new revenue.

 

In all businesses, increasing revenue is key and it is no different for our govt.

 

Simply allowing for disaster is NOT the answer I want and I bet you if the govt did what you are saying to do AND it does become DOOMSDAY, there will be posts how they don't do enough.

 

I do not agree on how they are spending their money, but I do agree they must spend the money. We are not mortgaging our kids future, we are mortgaging USA's future and we must. It isn't as simple as "lets deal with it later." That is not what the govt has in mind. This is necessary to have a shot at recovery.

 

No one knows the outcome of how this will play out, maybe it will end up being DOOMSDAY anyway, but heck at least we tried to battle it. USA isn't a country were we just accept an outcome and I am not going to accept it. I hope this spending does stimuate the economy now, so later we can AFFORD to cut back. We can't afford to cut back now.

 

Of course, this post is JMHO and with respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't as simple as you make it sound. It is not just scaling back our lifestyle and not as simple as retirees going back to work. If you let our economy completely fail, the consequences are NOT known and can only be speculated and one speculation is DOOMSDAY. Do you really want the govt to sit back and have a potential meltdown that can take years/decades to recover from? Right now is the time to spend money, jobs are needed, economy needs a boost, and the borrowing rate is so low. If this works, in theory, the economy should pick up and then you scale back and pay off the debt with the new revenue.

 

In all businesses, increasing revenue is key and it is no different for our govt.

 

Simply allowing for disaster is NOT the answer I want and I bet you if the govt did what you are saying to do AND it does become DOOMSDAY, there will be posts how they don't do enough.

 

I do not agree on how they are spending their money, but I do agree they must spend the money. We are not mortgaging our kids future, we are mortgaging USA's future and we must. It isn't as simple as "lets deal with it later." That is not what the govt has in mind. This is necessary to have a shot at recovery.

 

No one knows the outcome of how this will play out, maybe it will end up being DOOMSDAY anyway, but heck at least we tried to battle it. USA isn't a country were we just accept an outcome and I am not going to accept it. I hope this spending does stimuate the economy now, so later we can AFFORD to cut back. We can't afford to cut back now.

 

Of course, this post is JMHO and with respect.

What's with the Doomsday hyperbole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's with the Doomsday hyperbole?

perhaps not all that hyperbolic: http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economic...rticles/2010-18

 

The Great Recession vs. the Great Depression: Stylized Facts on Siblings That Were Given Different Foster Parents

Karl Aiginger

Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) and Vienna University of Economics and Business

 

Abstract

This paper compares the depth of the recent crisis and the Great Depression. We use a new data set to compare the drop in activity in the industrialized countries for seven activity indicators. This is done under the assumption that the recent crisis leveled off in mid-2009 for production and will do so for unemployment in 2010. Our data indicate that the recent crisis indeed had the potential to be another Great Depression, as shown by the speed and simultaneity of the decline in the first nine months. However, if we assume that a large second dip can be avoided, the drop in all indicators will have been smaller than during the Great Depression. This holds true specifically for GDP, employment and prices, and least for manufacturing output. The difference in the depth in the crises concurs with differences in policy reaction. This time monetary policy and fiscal policy were applied courageously, speedily and partly internationally coordinated. During the Great Depression for several years fiscal policy tried to stabilize budgets instead of aggregate demand, and either monetary policy was not applied or was rather ineffective insofar as deflation turned lower nominal interest rates into higher real rates. Only future research will be able to prove the exact impact of economic policy, but the current tentative conclusion is that economic policy prevented the recent crisis from developing into a second Great Depression. This is also a partial vindication for economists. The majority of them might not have been able to predict the crisis, but the science did learn its lesson from the Great Depression and was able to give decent policy advice to at least limit the depth of the recent crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people and business are thinking like I am thinking right now - they'll start spending again once they: (1) pay down some debt; (2) create a more significant emergency cash reserve; and (3) get used to dedicating a more significant percentage of their income to retirement savings. People are also more averse to buying on credit, despite the fact that the cost to borrow money is crazy-low.

 

I think lenders are scared to lend money out, moreso then people not wanting credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

that paper seems like kind of a joke. "we keynesian economists didn't see it coming. when it did come, we were completely off in forecasting how deep the recession would get and, particularly, how ugly the 'recovery' would be. the fed did little but sit on its ass and shrug while saying, 'hey, rates are at zero, what else can we do?'...and politicians just threw a buch of borrowed money at their pet political causes. and all the foregoing SAVED us from certain doom! we are all vindicated!"

 

edit: I'm also wondering whether their "data" simply consist of running the same macroeconomic models that failed to predict the crisis, failed to predict the effects on unemployment from the stimulus bill, failed to predict whether it would stimulate sustained GDP growth, and basically failed to predict anything that can be verified with real-world data.

 

toward the beginning of the crisis, they predict "these policies will have this impact". a couple years later, when things are much worse than predicted, rather than assume that perhaps their antitdote didn't work quite as planned or had unintended consequences, they still assume the policies had the predicted impact -- that, after all, may not be questioned -- therefore everything else just must have been worse than they thought. thus, their policies were EVEN MORE NECESSARY THAN WE THOUGHT! cute little rhetorical trick, heads I win, tails you lose. but at some point it begins to strain credibility.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you didn't actually read the paper, did you? (no need to reply as the answer is a self-evident "no")

 

:wacko: I think I made it failrly clear I read respoded to the abstract you posted and bolded for emphasis.

 

along with the cheap hyperbole yo mama pointed out, this kind dismissive evasion pretty much fills up your bag of tricks these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information