Reply With Quote
its okay though they are just printing up money to fix it! that works, right???
its okay though they are just printing up money to fix it! that works, right???
And, the head of the household will be getting a pay cut if our fiscal policy continues. Expect that salary to drop below $20,000.
Let me preface what I'm going to say with: the situation definitely needs to be corrected.
Comparisons between government and household are always pretty re ed because there's quite a few fairly huge differences between them. As a matter of fact, I find such comparisons really a poor scare tactic for the average joe that has no clue about economics, so they dilute it to a case that seemingly they can understand, but really has no connection with reality.
Differences:
- Government controls the monetary flow, and can print money. No household can do that.
- Government control it's salary (taxes) and can raise it or lower it. No household can do that.
- Under the current fiscal scenario, a household would have a hard time finding a lender. The Government right now, under this fiscal scenario, has no problem finding a willing lender (ie: China).
Inflation. Bad.
Government has no idea how to control its salary. Well, this government, anyway. Everything they've tried has driven their salary down. Bad.
There's concern the government will encounter a similar difficult without demonstrating some fiscal restraint.
Funny you should leave out the one strategy that might actually bear fruit.
The government can stop spending so ing much.
The household comparison is certainly an imperfect one, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be much better off if Washington tried to approach the situation in that way.
Household can't do it, and that's the point.
Not really true, for a number of reasons. First off, it's Congress that dictates tax policy, not the executive. Second, raising taxes on millionaires has been proposed more than once, IIRC (including the latest job bill). The GOP and certain democrats oppose it. So, it's not that it can't be done, there's simply opposition to it. Notice that I'm not arguing whether it's a good idea or not, but government certainly has the capacity to regulate their income up to an extent in a whim, and households certainly cannot (short of getting another job where they still have no control over their salary).
Not by lenders. China has a direct interest in keeping lending to the US.
If you wouldn't be senile, you would have noticed I was pointing out the differences between government economy and household economy. They both can stop spending so ing much, thus there's no difference there.
And I did point towards that in my preface.
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
===
A country isn't a for-profit corporation, a country isn't a family. Your simile stinks
Can you list your $1.65 Trillion in spending cuts?
For further reference: in 2003, Federal Spending was 2.16 Trillion - which would give us a balanced budget right now. Not that I particularly support this plan, but I would at least think ONE member of Congress would just say "Why don't we just use this budget?" and see where the conversation goes from there.
So what you are saying is that Bouton's graph made a good point.
Recessions reduce tax revenues, and increase demands on social safety net programs, automatically increasing spending. That is hardly evidence of some kind of runaway spending binge, it is a rather predictable event.
That it seems to surprise people is more indicative of people's general ignorance of economics and finance.
We just need to bite the bullet, increase taxes for a while, until we pay down the debt to something more manageable.
If the debt is bothering you, then perhaps the next time some Republican president gets all rah-rah about cutting taxes, you can grow a pair and ask him how he is going to pay for it, instead of sucking up the cool-aid of debunked supply-side economics.
Liberals love to say "debunked" supply side economics.
When do we get to say "debunked" war on poverty.
or
"debunked" Keynesian theory
, every en lement program ever enacted costs exponentially more than it's designers and proponents ever claimed it would .... can we say all of those are "debunked"?
AT LEAST with supply side there are SOME graphs that show increased revenues after taxes are cut (I am not a proponent, btw, just have a problem with the word "debunked" coming from the side that has yet to get anything, ever, right.)
Anything ever right?
Yeah - liberals have never gotten anything, ever, right.
Well... not really, because "tax cuts" and "economic downturn" are not expenditures.So what you are saying is that Bouton's graph made a good point.
I'm saying take our current level of revenue (which includes those two items) and apply a budget that fits, and see what works and what doesn't work out it. The different between the expenditure today and the expenditure in 2003 is much more than the other 3 items listed on that chart.
In the exercise I'm proposing, the results will be predictable: both Republicans and Democrats will find some things that exist in the current budget, that didn't exist in 2003, that they simply can't live without.
My point is that I don't think any politician is capable of producing a budget with only $2.17 trillion in spending - and I'm even giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming revenues will remain completely unaffected as a result of those cuts.
Economically, yeah, pretty much.Anything ever right?
Yeah - liberals have never gotten anything, ever, right.
Yeah, except Democrats called bull on trickle down economics from day 1.
I see this quite a bit, and I'd just like to point out that Keynesian thought hasn't been the prevailing school in monetary policy or economic theory in general for a very long time. The "neoclassical synthesis" school really began to take over in the mid-50s, early 60s, where 90% of Economics stopped identifying themselves as either Keynesians or anti-Keynesians. From that point, all but the fringes generally acknowledged that the carte blanche acceptance of any single school of thought was a mistake and that to some degree, they all had something to offer (ground breaking, right? Almost 60 years later and Politicians have yet to come to the same realization)."debunked" Keynesian theory
Today, there is a growing school of thought called the "New Neoclassical Economics" school which attempts to overcome some of the normative bias found in Neoclassical Economics.
No idea whether to say, "Yeah" or "Bull " to this post. Have a feeling I'm supposed to disagree, but not really sure.
Just being honest, no economics classes in my quiver whatsoever.
Oh, and isn't the liberal icon Krugman a big proponent of Keynes?
Come on, man, you know better than that.
Always be skeptical of sweeping, blanket statements.
yeah, that was intentional irony/paradox.
That has about as much validity as saying that conservatives have never gotten anything economically right.
You're no fun.
Come on, man, you know better than that.
Always be skeptical of sweeping, blanket statements.
yeah, that was intentional irony/paradox.
That has about as much validity as saying that conservatives have never gotten anything economically right.
Conservatives, at least the modern version, haven't gotten anything right (that's actually become policy), either. I don't have a problem with the tax cuts, but they MUST come with spending cuts. If we are going to invade countries, we've got to pay for it...etc....etc....
I've got 15,000,000,000,000 reasons why neither of our blanket statements are far off the mark.
Don't know why you're supposed to disagree, or anyone for that matter. I'm not making an argument, or even saying that the New Neoclassical School is the right one, just telling you the way things are in Economics these days.
Krugman isn't a monetary economist, where these schools of thought are typically applied, but he could probably be pegged as a Neoclassicist based on his influences (which do include Keynes, but also Hicks and Tobin).
I think it's all too easy for folks to want to peg a certain economist into a certain school based on certain arguments they make - but that would be just as foolish as saying Ron Paul is a far lefty because he believes the government should have no say in gay marriage or marijuana.
Also, while Krugman (or anyone else) may be part of the New Neoclassical School (or the Neoclassical School) that isn't to say they epitomize or are a good representative of that school. These schools merely lay the critical framework for analysis; they don't come up with conclusions. The vast majority of economists these days come from the same school of theoretical foundation - but come up with EXTREMELY divergent ideas of the way to tackle issues.
Ah. Thanks.
If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.--J.B. Shaw
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
