The Dwindling Deficit

[Nbadan]

The Dwindling Deficit


Bad news for Dr. Evil fans: the days of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit are over. In fact, the deficit is falling fast.

Some readers may recall the ridicule heaped on the people at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities when they produced estimates suggesting that any notion of a debt/deficit crisis was all wrong. It’s turning out, however, that they were probably overestimating debt growth. The deficit is fading, and debt as a medium-term (meaning up to 10 years) issue has largely gone away.

This is not good news — or not unambiguously good news, at any rate. A deficit falling to probably less than 5 percent of GDP this year and well below that next year is MUCH TOO LOW for an economy whose private sector is still engaged in a vicious circle of deleveraging.

Oh, by the way, it is now 26 months since Bowles and Simpson predicted a US fiscal crisis within two years.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/the-dwindling-deficit/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Not only is this year's deficit on track to be significantly smaller than year's, to the tune of about $200 billion, it's also on pace to be even better than optimistic projections from February. Hell, we even ran a surplus in April. All told, the U.S. federal deficit will be about $600 billion smaller than it was in President Obama's first year in office, making this the fastest deficit reduction Americans have seen since World War II.

Time to put the pedal to the deficit metal and crank up this economy....but lets raise wages too..

[Wild Cobra]

A deficit is still a deficit. Under our current economic situation, any deficit is unacceptable. We should be paying off the debt. Not adding to it.

[boutons_deux]

austerity, cutting govt spending, in a down period of unstable capitialism is a disaster, proven repeatedly.

eg

Economists See Deficit Emphasis as Impeding RecoveryThe nation’s unemployment rate would probably be nearly a point lower, roughly 6.5 percent, and economic growth almost two points higher this year if Washington had not cut spending and raised taxes as it has since 2011, according to private-sector and government economists.

After two years in which President Obama and Republicans in Congress have fought to a draw over their clashing approaches to job creation and budget deficits, the consensus about the result is clear: Immediate deficit reduction is a drag on full economic recovery.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/deficit-reduction-is-seen-by-economists-as-impeding-recovery.html?from=homepage

deficit reduction is a 1% strategy for themselves AFTER they have received $Ts in tax cuts, not a strategy for the 99%.

[spursncowboys]

I don't see how anyone can take krugman serious.

[boutons_deux]

I don't see how anyone can take krugman serious.

he's been more right than Repug/VRWC economists whining about deficits, stimulus, hyper-inflation, etc, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

The Dwindling Deficit



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/the-dwindling-deficit/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Not only is this year's deficit on track to be significantly smaller than year's, to the tune of about $200 billion, it's also on pace to be even better than optimistic projections from February. Hell, we even ran a surplus in April. All told, the U.S. federal deficit will be about $600 billion smaller than it was in President Obama's first year in office, making this the fastest deficit reduction Americans have seen since World War II.

Time to put the pedal to the deficit metal and crank up this economy....but lets raise wages too..

Trying to connect some dots here. Is this a result of extremely low Fed rates?

Sorry, poorly stated question. Are low Fed rates a contributor to this reduction?

[mercos]

Not sure how anyone can argue for austerity at this point. Europe tried it, and their economic situation and deficit situation got worse.

[boutons_deux]

Trying to connect some dots here. Is this a result of extremely low Fed rates?

Sorry, poorly stated question. Are low Fed rates a contributor to this reduction?

The shrinking deficit was a result of both higher tax receipts and lower government spending. Government receipts climbed 6.4 percent year-over-year as the economy grew stronger and certain tax breaks expired. Corporate income taxes were a “major contributor” to the rise in overall receipts, the administration report said, climbing to $242 billion, from $181 billion in 2011.

Moreover, outlays dropped $61 billion year-over-year because of falling military spending on Afghanistan and Iraq, tapering stimulus spending and the strengthening economy. “The largest decreases relative to the prior year came from the Department of Defense, unemployment insurance and Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier),” the report said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/business/federal-deficit-for-2012-fiscal-year-falls-to-1-1-trillion.html

[Drachen]

Well, this is pretty good news.

[TeyshaBlue]

The shrinking deficit was a result of both higher tax receipts and lower government spending. Government receipts climbed 6.4 percent year-over-year as the economy grew stronger and certain tax breaks expired. Corporate income taxes were a “major contributor” to the rise in overall receipts, the administration report said, climbing to $242 billion, from $181 billion in 2011.

Moreover, outlays dropped $61 billion year-over-year because of falling military spending on Afghanistan and Iraq, tapering stimulus spending and the strengthening economy. “The largest decreases relative to the prior year came from the Department of Defense, unemployment insurance and Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier),” the report said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/business/federal-deficit-for-2012-fiscal-year-falls-to-1-1-trillion.html

Yeah, I read the OP. It didn't answer my question either.

[coyotes_geek]

Trying to connect some dots here. Is this a result of extremely low Fed rates?

Sorry, poorly stated question. Are low Fed rates a contributor to this reduction?

Isn't this just the result of the payroll tax holiday being allowed to lapse? If not all, at least a good chunk of it I'd think.

[coyotes_geek]

In any event, good news.

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Medicine Spending Shows Rare Dip In 2012
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ims-us-medicine-spending-shows-rare-dip-in-2012/

BigPharma has been trying frantically, and often succeeding, to extend their patents that expired recently or soon. generics for Medicare/Medicaid reduce spending.

you don't want an answer, so why do you ask?

[TeyshaBlue]

Isn't this just the result of the payroll tax holiday being allowed to lapse? If not all, at least a good chunk of it I'd think.

Got to have some impact for sure.

[boutons_deux]

Drug spending falls for first time in 6 decades
An explosion of cheap generic substitutes for widely used prescription drugs last year helped drive the first decline in pharmaceutical spending in the U.S. in nearly six decades.

Drug makers often lament what they call the patent cliff, which is when patent protections on their drugs expire and cheap substitutes come to market. For pharmaceutical companies, it cuts into sales and forces prices down.

But their loss is the consumer's gain, according to a report being released Thursday by a leading pharmaceutical research group.

Pharmacy shelves are being stocked with less-expensive generic versions of top-selling drugs such as Lipitor and Plavix, offering savings to consumers, employers and health insurers, according to the report by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

The rise of generics cut the nation's tab for prescription medications 1% in 2012 to $325.8 billion — the first decline since IMS began tracking the data in 1957. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, the decline was 3.5%. That means average spending per person was $898 last year, down $33 from 2011.

"The largest driver of this slowdown," said IMS research director Michael Kleinrock, was the "unprecedented cluster of very popular and effective medicines losing patent protections and facing generic competition at the same time.

"We've often called it the 'patent dividend' for the health system and for patients," Kleinrock said.

Consumers this year will see new generic medications at the pharmacy as a number of patents are set to expire.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-75832251/

Repugs will block any bill that attempts to overturn their rule forbidding the govt to negotiate prices down, as other countries do.

[boutons_deux]

No recovery for U.S. government workers


Federal government jobs fell by 4,200 in February, the fifth month in a row those jobs have been zapped from the economy. And, thanks to the automatic budget cuts, it's going to get worse.

In contrast to gains in the private sector, (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/news/economy/february-jobs-report/index.html?iid=HP_LN)a total of 33,000 federal worker jobs have been lost since January 2012 -- and that does not include jobs at the Postal Service, which is in the midst of a crisis of its own (http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/13/news/economy/postal-service-congress/index.html?iid=EL).

"These job losses are a preview of the effects of sequestration, because it's already taken place in some agencies and will likely continue with more spending reductions," said Stephen Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University.

The wane in federal jobs is due largely to workers leaving federal agencies facing about $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over the next 10 years, Fuller said. Federal agencies have been freezing jobs as workers retire or leave for the private sector.

On top of that, February ushered in a massive layoff of federal workers on short-term contracts at the Defense Department (http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/federal-worker-layoff/index.html?iid=EL). Those losses will continue through April, according to agency memos.

On March 1, $85 billion of forced federal budget cuts (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/06/news/economy/spending-cuts/index.html?iid=EL), dubbed sequestration, kicked in, promising further federal job losses, economists say.

"I would expect to continue to see erosion in federal worker jobs, as disgruntled workers decide to bail for the private sector and federal agencies are told not to backfill jobs," Fuller said.

Federal spending and hiring has been on a downward slope. In 2011, federal dollars spent on both defense and non-defense contracts fell for the first time in 31 years.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/news/economy/federal-worker-jobs/index.html

[RandomGuy]

A deficit is still a deficit. Under our current economic situation, any deficit is unacceptable. We should be paying off the debt. Not adding to it.

If you can borrow money at 2%, but use that cash to make a return of 5%, would you do it?

[RandomGuy]

I don't see how anyone can take krugman serious.


“Fiscal tightening is hurting,” Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors, wrote to clients recently. The investment bank Jefferies wrote of “ongoing fiscal mismanagement” in its midyear report on Tuesday, and noted that while the recovery and expansion would be four years old next month, reduced government spending “has detracted from growth in five of past seven quarters.”


The Federal Open Market Committee, which sets policy for the central bank, noted signs of improvement in the private sector last week in a statement. “But fiscal policy is restraining economic growth,” it added, echoing public comments that Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has made for months. In April, the International Monetary Fund said the United States would achieve further growth “in the face of a very strong, indeed overly strong, fiscal consolidation.”


The “prioritization” proposal first arose in 2011 from among the most conservative House Republicans, those who were driving hardest against the White House on raising the debt ceiling and expressing unconcern about default, but it has now become mainstream in the House ranks.

Economists and financial analysts generally dismiss the idea as unworkable if not dangerous, and count on Democrats to block it. Gregory Daco, a senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight, said the Republicans’ proposal was the kind that caused his clients to ignore the fiscal policy out of Washington, and rely instead on the Fed to buttress the recovery.

“Whenever I talk to our customers or clients, they sort of brush off everything that’s related to fiscal policy,” Mr. Daco said. “The view is, ‘Oh, it doesn’t matter.’ That’s what I hear a lot."

He noted that the economy was much stronger than Europe’s largely because the United States initially opted for stimulus measures and allowed deficits to increase when the recession and financial crisis hit five years ago. European governments pursued austerity policies to cut their debts, further stalling economic activity and in turn inflating deficits..”


Sure... it's all Krugman.

Quite frankly, if the GOP in congress got off their asses and opted for infrastructure spending, our economy would be humming along.

The problem with that... is that would give the Democrats a chance to say that Obama's policies worked for the next presidential election in 2016. I think that the present group of rabid ideologues would do just that, i.e. directly harm the economy just to fuck the Democrats, because that fits rather well with just about every other policy they put forward.

The Republicans are putting party before the common good, and deserve to be relagated to a regional noisemaker. Let the grown ups handle things.

[boutons_deux]

"I think that the present group of rabid ideologues would do just that, i.e. directly harm the economy just to fuck the Democrats, because that fits rather well with just about every other policy they put forward."

think?

I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE.

How much more evidence do you need to quit "thinking" about the destroy-govt, post-policy obstructionist Repugs?

[BobaFett1]

boutons_deux MUST BE jOHN eDWARDS SPOKEPERSON.

[RandomGuy]

Still didn't get an answer.


A deficit is still a deficit. Under our current economic situation, any deficit is unacceptable. We should be paying off the debt. Not adding to it.

If you can borrow money at 2%, but use that cash to make a return of 5%, would you do it?

[boutons_deux]

Still didn't get an answer.



If you can borrow money at 2%, but use that cash to make a return of 5%, would you do it?

and of course govt investment returns much higher than 5% and not only to the "investors", but the 99%.

[boutons_deux]

Destroying the Lair of the Budget-Balancing Cretins Even though our debt burden is relatively large, because interest rates are extremely low, the interest burden is not. In fact, relative to the size of the economy it is near post-war lows. It is at post-war lows if we subtract the $80 billion in interest refunded to the Treasury each year by the Federal Reserve Board.


While this burden is projected to rise somewhat when interest rates return to a more normal level, even in a decade the interest burden is not projected to be back to its early 1990s level. In short, there is absolutely no horror story in this picture.
The deficit hawks have used dishonest fear-mongering to prevent the country from taking the steps needed to get the economy back to full employment. These people have enormous economic and political power. As a result they may be able to keep their austerity policies in place. But we have to recognize, this is about making the rich richer, not helping our children and grandchildren.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/destroying-the-lair-of-the-budget-balancing-cretins?utm_source=CEPR+feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cepr+%28CEPR%29

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/budget-deficit-cbo-estimate/2158945/

[Th'Pusher]

Better IMO: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/cbo-cuts-2013-deficit-estimate-by-24-percent.html?_r=0

[spursncowboys]

Then it's back up once the market corrects. Just like the "surplus" that Bush got from Clinton.

[Nbadan]

Then it's back up once the market corrects. Just like the "surplus" that Bush got from Clinton.

More to it than just that....there are greater tax receipts than were projected, the savings from the sequester..and the lower borrowing rates on the federal deficit..

[RandomGuy]

Then it's back up once the market corrects. Just like the "surplus" that Bush got from Clinton.

Economics fail.

You right-wingers suck at understanding free markets sometimes.

[spursncowboys]

Sure it is simplified but ultimately the reason is because of the stock market. All of the asian money that got poured into our markets.

[tlongII]

Still didn't get an answer.



If you can borrow money at 2%, but use that cash to make a return of 5%, would you do it?

So you think our government makes a return greater than the amount it spends? :lol

[Jacob1983]

I agree that a deficit is still a deficit. Evil is still evil. Don't say that to an Obama supporter because Obama can do no wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Destroying the Lair of the Budget-Balancing Cretins Even though our debt burden is relatively large, because interest rates are extremely low, the interest burden is not.
What happens if carter II gives us double digit interest rates like Carter I did?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think our government makes a return greater than the amount it spends? :lol
He probably does, but he will deny it.

[RandomGuy]

So you think our government makes a return greater than the amount it spends? :lol

Not an answer to my question.

But yes, governments can and do spend money that earns a return over time greater than their cost in capital to the economy as a whole.

If you like I could get our resident PhD in economics to point you in the right direction for the data and economic studies supporting that.

This particular bit of economic reality is contrary to a lot of dogma that contends "all goverment spending is wasteful", which is dumb. Some goverment spending is indeed stupid and wasteful. I won't argue with that. SOME is, but not ALL.

Are you going to try and argue that goverment spending is, by definition, bad for the economy?

[RandomGuy]

He probably does, but he will deny it.

Fail.

[Homeland Security]

If you can borrow money at 2%, but use that cash to make a return of 5%, would you do it?

I don't think that argument is framed right. If you set up your budget so that structurally you have to borrow a lot of money, and it is very, very difficult to change your budget structure because of a sclerotic political process, then things might seem great while you're borrowing at 2% and making a 5% return. But since you don't have firm control over what the interest rate is or what return you get, if interest rates go to 8% and you are getting a 2% return, and you can't change the structure of your budget, you can be wiped out very quickly. It's like piling up a bunch of dry tinder against the side of your house and scoffing when someone tells you it's unwise. After all, you've lived in that house 10 years and there's never been a fire!

[RandomGuy]

I don't think that argument is framed right. If you set up your budget so that structurally you have to borrow a lot of money, and it is very, very difficult to change your budget structure because of a sclerotic political process, then things might seem great while you're borrowing at 2% and making a 5% return. But since you don't have firm control over what the interest rate is or what return you get, if interest rates go to 8% and you are getting a 2% return, and you can't change the structure of your budget, you can be wiped out very quickly. It's like piling up a bunch of dry tinder against the side of your house and scoffing when someone tells you it's unwise. After all, you've lived in that house 10 years and there's never been a fire!

Hmmm took me a re-read to two to get through.
When you have a large one-off stimulus, it doesn't become part of the budget.

I would also ponit out that we have a huge structural deficit in infrastructure spending right now. We have so much old legacy infrastructure from our mid 20th century success that developing countries will get to bypass us in a lot of ways, because they can use the 2nd and 3rd generation stuff that we can't.

Rates of return on such things often go with increases in economic activity, meaning your returns get indexed to inflation and rates.

I don't see it as like that at all.

[BobaFett1]

Fail.

^ truth^

RandomGuy a Al Gore voter.:lol

[RandomGuy]

^ truth^

RandomGuy a Al Gore voter.:lol

:sleep

http://avatarfarm.com/forum/forumimages/boring.jpg

[BobaFett1]

:sleep

http://avatarfarm.com/forum/forumimages/boring.jpg

NOt trying to excite you jackwagon.

[RandomGuy]

NOt trying to excite you

You might not be trying, but you are succeeding in boring me to death...

[Homeland Security]

Hmmm took me a re-read to two to get through.
When you have a large one-off stimulus, it doesn't become part of the budget.
If I'm $1500 in the red every month, then one month I'm an additional $2000 in the red because I had to fix the A/C, I'm probably not thinking, "gee, that's not a problem, it was just a one-off expense."


I would also ponit out that we have a huge structural deficit in infrastructure spending right now. We have so much old legacy infrastructure from our mid 20th century success that developing countries will get to bypass us in a lot of ways, because they can use the 2nd and 3rd generation stuff that we can't.
Yes, at the national level we are kind of like the guy in the ghetto whose house has rotting walls and a caved-in roof, because he'd rather spend the money he has, and max out his credit cards on top of it, on hookers, blow, spinner rims, and a 60" HDTV. Arguing about whether his house needs fixing is kind of beside the point.

Arguing about whether he can get a good rate on balance transfers is also beside the point.

[RandomGuy]

If I'm $1500 in the red every month, then one month I'm an additional $2000 in the red because I had to fix the A/C, I'm probably not thinking, "gee, that's not a problem, it was just a one-off expense."


Yes, at the national level we are kind of like the guy in the ghetto whose house has rotting walls and a caved-in roof, because he'd rather spend the money he has, and max out his credit cards on top of it, on hookers, blow, spinner rims, and a 60" HDTV. Arguing about whether his house needs fixing is kind of beside the point.

Arguing about whether he can get a good rate on balance transfers is also beside the point.

Governments are not like individuals. The analogy is too flawed to be useful, unless the individual suddenly gets to print his own money.

[Th'Pusher]

If I'm $1500 in the red every month, then one month I'm an additional $2000 in the red because I had to fix the A/C, I'm probably not thinking, "gee, that's not a problem, it was just a one-off expense."


Yes, at the national level we are kind of like the guy in the ghetto whose house has rotting walls and a caved-in roof, because he'd rather spend the money he has, and max out his credit cards on top of it, on hookers, blow, spinner rims, and a 60" HDTV. Arguing about whether his house needs fixing is kind of beside the point.

Arguing about whether he can get a good rate on balance transfers is also beside the point.
Silly analogy. Are you arguing that the federal govt should spend 0 on infrastructure until there is a balanced budget?

[tlongII]

Not an answer to my question.

But yes, governments can and do spend money that earns a return over time greater than their cost in capital to the economy as a whole.

If you like I could get our resident PhD in economics to point you in the right direction for the data and economic studies supporting that.

This particular bit of economic reality is contrary to a lot of dogma that contends "all goverment spending is wasteful", which is dumb. Some goverment spending is indeed stupid and wasteful. I won't argue with that. SOME is, but not ALL.

Are you going to try and argue that goverment spending is, by definition, bad for the economy?

I don't want to listen to your resident PhD in Economics. Those guys are generally failures. Not ALL government spending is wasteful, but it's obvious that in it's totality it doesn't result in a positive ROI.

[Homeland Security]

Governments are not like individuals. The analogy is too flawed to be useful, unless the individual suddenly gets to print his own money.
You can print money but you can't print value. Value has to be created. Resources are still finite. The government can do a lot of things individuals can't do, and "balancing the budget" doesn't mean the same thing for a sovereign state as it does for an individual or even a corporation, but the general principle holds. When the financial markets start telling sovereign states that their structural deficits are out of control, sovereign states have to take corrective action or the terms of borrowing start getting worse. And when terms start getting worse, a state that is highly leveraged gets in trouble very, very quickly. This idea that government is just different somehow and the rules don't apply is far-too-common magical thinking on the left, and it's why when Obama has to do the unpleasant thing and trim spending, he has to do three times the work in political theater in convincing lefties that the Republicans made him do it.

Infrastructure is a necessity. If you defer maintenance on your house too long, you end up losing your most valuable asset because it gets just too far gone. If you defer maintenance on your facilities in your business too long, you endanger your ability to operate. I'm not arguing that infrastructure spending should go away, in fact I'd argue it needs to be a higher priority since so much is reaching the end of its useful life. "Higher priority" means "cut or defer other less important shit," not "borrow, borrow, borrow some more."

[Homeland Security]

BTW, reading back through, I never intended to defend Wild Cobra's argument that any deficit is bad, period. Wild Cobra is a complete fucking idiot and has the economic literacy of an annelid. A sovereign state is going to have debt. A government that makes up 20% of the economy and runs a 5% deficit is going to break even with 1% GDP growth.

I say that once the U.S. has convinced the financial markets that it is acting in good faith to address its structural deficit, then have the discussion about infrastructure spending.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't want to listen to your resident PhD in Economics. Those guys are generally failures. Not ALL government spending is wasteful, but it's obvious that in it's totality it doesn't result in a positive ROI.

Obvious? lol

[RandomGuy]

I don't want to listen to your resident PhD in Economics. Those guys are generally failures. Not ALL government spending is wasteful, but it's obvious that in it's totality it doesn't result in a positive ROI.

If it is that obvious, it should be easy to prove. Link?

[SnakeBoy]

If you can borrow money at 2%, but use that cash to make a return of 5%, would you do it?


Governments are not like individuals. The analogy is too flawed to be useful, unless the individual suddenly gets to print his own money.

[RandomGuy]

[clever bit]

Nice try, but no.

Welcoem back.

[tlongII]

ROI = (Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment

Tell me how you could possibly think this is a positive number as it relates to government spending?

[TeyshaBlue]

No, I'm waiting for you to show me how obvious it isn't.

[tlongII]

No, I'm waiting for you to show me how obvious it isn't.

I already did.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol wut?

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you have any idea how to measure ROI in increments other than $?

That's your first problem.

There's several more when you solve that one.

[TeyshaBlue]

But, it's so obvious. Should be simple.

[TeyshaBlue]

Aside from the asinine notion that govt should produce a profit. lol

[Homeland Security]

Nice try, but no.
I think he got it. The analogy is useful while arguing for more spending, but totally flawed while arguing against more spending.

[Homeland Security]

Aside from the asinine notion that govt should produce a profit. lol
I regard it as pretty straightforward that any action taken by the state should result in a net increase in the public good. Would you argue otherwise?

[TeyshaBlue]

I regard it as pretty straightforward that any action taken by the state should result in a net increase in the public good. Would you argue otherwise?

Nope. And that's the metric I was leading tlongII to.

[ChumpDumper]

What happens if carter II gives us double digit interest rates like Carter I did?First there would have to be Republican inspired inflation for interest rates to be raised.

Has that happened?

[Homeland Security]

Nope. And that's the metric I was leading tlongII to.
Ah, but now factor in opportunity cost and things get complicated.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ah, but now factor in opportunity cost and things get complicated.

Ergo, conclusions are not exactly Obvious.

[tlongII]

Do you have any idea how to measure ROI in increments other than $?

That's your first problem.

There's several more when you solve that one.

Do you? ROI is a fiscal measure. When you understand that you will be better equipped to realize why it's obvious.

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you? ROI is a fiscal measure. When you understand that you will be better equipped to realize why it's obvious.

Not as it applies to Governmental expenditures. lol...you act as if ROI exists in a vacuum.
You don't run a govt like a corp or a household. When you understand that you will be better equipped to realize why your narrative is asinine.

[tlongII]

Not as it applies to Governmental expenditures. lol...you act as if ROI exists in a vacuum.
You don't run a govt like a corp or a household. When you understand that you will be better equipped to realize why your narrative is asinine.

You have to generate some sort of ROI eventually or you will go broke. For some reason liberals don't understand this. It is mind boggling.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[tlongII]

http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif


:bling

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You have to generate some sort of ROI eventually or you will go broke. For some reason liberals don't understand this. It is mind boggling.

The economy is not a zero sum game. You understand what zero sum implies right?

[tlongII]

The economy is not a zero sum game. You understand what zero sum implies right?

Please explain.

[RandomGuy]

ROI = (Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment

Tell me how you could possibly think this is a positive number as it relates to government spending?

FWIW: I am an accountant, and understand the composition of ROI, as well as other measures of investment effectiveness.
Easy.
Public education.
Infrastructure.
Police protection.
Fire protection.
Food inspection.
Financial regulation.

The list goes on.
If you would like to cut your teeth and set aside your dogmatic assertion:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-employment.pdf



“CBO estimates that [Unemployment Insurance payment extention] would raise output cumulatively between 2010 and 2015 by $0.70 to $1.90 per dollar of total budgetary cost"

The hard part is how do you measure the economic benefits of a bridge? You have to measure each economic transaction made cheaper or possible by a bridge.

Reality is far more complex than the blind assumption that all goverment spending has a negative ROI.

[TeyshaBlue]

This isn't rocket science, tlong. But you do have to put aside your pre-existing narrative to grok this.

[RandomGuy]

I think he got it. The analogy is useful while arguing for more spending, but totally flawed while arguing against more spending.

Still not quite there.

That is really my fault though, for not fleshing out the nuances. Out of time for now, but will try to get to it later.