Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:
Hitler never killed anyone,

Hmm are you sure about that ? Even during his service in the german army during WW I ?

I'm pretty sure he pulled a Bush and never served in direct harm. He did kill his dog though.

He killed himself. That might count.

Was he a person though, he might have been a newt.

Unfortunately for Hitler he was reincarnated as the HURR DURR dawg!



"WHO WILL LISTEN TO HIS IDIOCY NOW?!@?*&$

Frazzled wrote:I'm sorry Sebster, I missed the US recession that "Government Spend" economics ever got us out of. Oh right, yea, there wasn't one.

What, that's it? I actually thought about spending the time to hunt down the Economist article that broke down the level of stimulus provided by various forms of stimulus. Good thing I didn't, given the depth and insight of your reply. But if you want examples, the recovery from the Great Depression actually began in 1933, largely as a result of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. The recession of 1937 ended as a result of the increased spending of the second world war. The recession of 1960 ended as a result of direct stimulus spending. That's off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the early 80's recession was ended by increased govt spending as well.

halonachos wrote:Well, WW2 got us out of the depression because the government was buying arms and other countires were buying from america.

That's what we need, another world war. Someone in germany needs to start something up again, if not then we'll find someone else.

Yes, spending on the military produces stimulus. Because it involves government spending a pile of money, creating jobs, stimulating further spending and growing aggregate demand. Which is exactly what regular stimulus does, except this time it has the guns!guns!guns! appeal which makes it more politically acceptable certain types.

But actually pretending that government spending on the military is somehow magically different from spending on infrastructure or health? That's something no-one even vaguely educated in economics could try to sustain.

Frazzled wrote:yea but thats not Keynesian spend economics. The people espousing keynesian economics generally hang out out at the local antiwar college coffee shop.

Oh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
Hmm are you sure about that ? Even during his service in the german army during WW I ?

He was a messenger, and while he was very brave he probably didn't kill anyone in service. That said, I have a vague memory of Hitler killing someone during the Night of Long Knives, but I might have just gotten that from the History Channel, and if so it's probably junk.

reds8n wrote:
Hmm are you sure about that ? Even during his service in the german army during WW I ?

Sebster wrote:He was a messenger, and while he was very brave he probably didn't kill anyone in service. That said, I have a vague memory of Hitler killing someone during the Night of Long Knives, but I might have just gotten that from the History Channel, and if so it's probably junk.

I am concerned that the relevance to the original topic is... erm... would this happen to be the Alex Jones talkshow?

BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FFS!!!

JESUS H. FREAKING CHRIST... okay, I am chill

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Did you know a hurr durr is what Liverpudlian women go to get before a big date, a wedding or similar?

Hold the freaking stagecoach up...what did you say? There's a real hurr durr?

When you go to the hurrdresser and get your hurr dun.

Skarwael wrote:What is Barack Obama actually like? It's hard to get an impression of him across the pond because there isn't much media coverage. Is he actually the messiah-like person how he was portrayed in the early days, or is he all show and no go?

Just curious.

I'm still kind of making up my mind about him... right now its leaning towards 'don't like'... mostly because he seems a bit similar to George W. Bush... and I liked Bush... a little... I think I'm just disappointed that he was overhyped like whatever the latest Codex would be... I'm curious as to how Obama would handle a 9/11-type or Hurricane Katrina-type situation.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'm sorry Sebster, I missed the US recession that "Government Spend" economics ever got us out of. Oh right, yea, there wasn't one.

What, that's it? I actually thought about spending the time to hunt down the Economist article that broke down the level of stimulus provided by various forms of stimulus. Good thing I didn't, given the depth and insight of your reply. But if you want examples, the recovery from the Great Depression actually began in 1933, largely as a result of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. The recession of 1937 ended as a result of the increased spending of the second world war. The recession of 1960 ended as a result of direct stimulus spending. That's off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the early 80's recession was ended by increased govt spending as well.

[]
Depression-er no not at all, because fo the spending the country fell into a substantially worse recession in 36-37 and kept falling. The second part was worse than the first. That didn't end until WWII
1960:Sorry no. Kennedy put a substantial tax cut in place.
1980's ended vis massive tax cuts. You remember that reagan fellow.

Three strikes-yer OUTTA DERE

On the positive everyone remember the new phrase that pays
"Quick hide your beagle. Vick's now an Eagle."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

When you go to the hurrdresser and get your hurr dun.

(ringshot!)
Ta dum dum!

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Out of curiosity could Cairnius be a "Concern Troll" ? Perhaps this a superbly suiting tangent to this conversation. I am interested in Troll research, especially the false Troll/ actually angry dude face... or something along those lines.

Interesting point. He actually remind me of myself, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him. I really need to learn how to control that. Damned hormones, always getting the better of me.

Truer words were never spoken - before I showed up you were the only one of you in here, and now there's another one so you don't get to feel as speshul.

I'm just less angry than you are. It happens when you get older. Youthful rage turns to young adult cynicism turns to middle-aged amusement and resignation turns to elderly "I just don't give a gak anymore unless you're messing with my social security benefits."

Frazzled wrote:
Depression-er no not at all, because fo the spending the country fell into a substantially worse recession in 36-37 and kept falling. The second part was worse than the first. That didn't end until WWII
1960:Sorry no. Kennedy put a substantial tax cut in place.
1980's ended vis massive tax cuts. You remember that reagan fellow.

Substantially worse in 36-37 is just plain wrong. It was severe, but nowhere near as bad as the earlier recession. And claiming 'it didn't work because there was another recession several years later' is gibberish... do you have any idea about stimulus spending is meant to achieve? You realise it doesn't mean rainbows and puppy dogs and no more recessions ever again. It means that you spend to stimulate the economy to make the current recession a little less severe.

WWII ended the 36-37... because lots of money was spent.

You're getting confused when it comes to Kennedy's fiscal policy. His tax cut was introduced in '64, and that is three years after he introduced the first non-war deficit and moved the US out of recession. His tax cut came in the middle of a long period of growth, it's hard to attach any growth in activity to it.

Meanwhile, tax cuts are still going in to deficit. It's all the same thing, getting more money out there to maintain aggregate demand. There is lots of debate over which should be undertaken (most economists will argue the most effective is infrastructure, but tax cuts are the most obvious and that means a lot to politicians). When Reagan cut taxes and increased spending... both were economic stimulus.

Have you studied this, or are you just going off of news shows and the like?

I'll play hours in economics classes if you want Sebbie.

31.
How about yourself?

Well since it appears you cant say ANYTHING bad about our great savior Obama.... here is some pro Obama Nation stuff:

Keynesian economics, as a school, advocates deficit spending. That's all it does. Any form of deficit spending is Keynesian. You can argue that its also other things, but it will always be Keynesian no matter what. That's simply the term for that type of thinking which is accepted.

What would not be Keynesian is a simultaneous cut in both taxes, and government spending. In other words, a general roll-back in terms of aggregates government functionality.

jp400 wrote:Well since it appears you cant say ANYTHING bad about our great savior Obama.... here is some pro Obama Nation stuff:

I like that one actually...

Frazzled wrote:I'll play hours in economics classes if you want Sebbie.

31.

What's that, econ 101 in first year? Did they do Keynes?

How about yourself?

Not including secondary? Guess not?

First year uni. Two semesters of straight economics 104 hours. Economic history 52 hours.
Second year uni, monetary economics 52 hours. Quanititative economics (shiver) 52 hours.
Third year uni, economic history 52 contact hours. Middle East economies 26 hours.

That's contact hours, if you include study the rule of thumb is to treble or quadruple it (but I was nowhere near that, except quantitative economics). And that, by the way, is just about the bare minimum needed for a B Com. Which is all I did, because I'm not some econs guru and don't want to claim I am. All I'm talking about here are very, very basic economic principles.

And that's what I'm wondering, do you have that basic foundation? Because declaring that something wasn't Keynesian stimulus because it was a tax cut doesn't come from any economics textbook, it comes from a list of Republican talking points.

1. Because declaring that something wasn't Keynesian stimulus because it was a tax cut doesn't come from any economics textbook, it comes from a list of Republican talking points.

Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.
2. Hours calc are different over there. Each college course over here is anywhere from 2-4 hours (I think I had a 5 hour one once). So following yours it would be 8 courses give or take-its been a few years.

sebster wrote:
First year uni. Two semesters of straight economics 104 hours. Economic history 52 hours.
Second year uni, monetary economics 52 hours. Quanititative economics (shiver) 52 hours.
Third year uni, economic history 52 contact hours. Middle East economies 26 hours.

That's contact hours, if you include study the rule of thumb is to treble or quadruple it (but I was nowhere near that, except quantitative economics). And that, by the way, is just about the bare minimum needed for a B Com. Which is all I did, because I'm not some econs guru and don't want to claim I am. All I'm talking about here are very, very basic economic principles.

Economics major?

Can we change the title of this thread now to "Keynesian Economics... what do you think?" so that at least it will be more accurate. I think it stopped being about Obama a long time ago.

I wonder why he did this ?

..hmm.... it's almost like a certain group of people are trying to derail what's going on...

Frazzled wrote:
Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.

Tax cuts equate to deficit spending when they are not accompanied by cuts in overall expenditure. Remember, Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily hinge on what Keynes actually wrote, only the work which followed from his initial position.

Tax cuts aren't intrinsically connected to deficit spending, but they certainly have the capacity to be manifestations of it. It doesn't matter if you create a deficit by spending more, or collecting less; either were its spending in deficit. Now you can argue that tax cuts are preferable because they tend to produce less market uncertainty, but that's not the same as saying that they can never be Keynesian.

reds8n wrote:I wonder why he did this ?

..hmm.... it's almost like a certain group of people are trying to derail what's going on...

Speaking of derail but me likey

1. He's exercising his Second Amendment rights (Arizona is open carry)
2. His protesting potential regulation/banning of weapons currently being contemplated or have already been proposed.

(3. He's being a nut. Signs work. The President is a special case, this is both stupid and attracts negative publicity)
Whats funny is there's no comment about the 9 other people with firearms who were in their own section demonstrating, but away from the Obama people.

reds8n wrote:I wonder why he did this ?

..hmm.... it's almost like a certain group of people are trying to derail what's going on...

Is that out of the ordinary for political protesters?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.

Tax cuts equate to deficit spending when they are not accompanied by cuts in overall expenditure. Remember, Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily hinge on what Keynes actually wrote, only the work which followed from his initial position.

Tax cuts aren't intrinsically connected to deficit spending, but they certainly have the capacity to be manifestations of it. It doesn't matter if you create a deficit by spending more, or collecting less; either were its spending in deficit. Now you can argue that tax cuts are preferable because they tend to produce less market uncertainty, but that's not the same as saying that they can never be Keynesian.

Come on Dogma, we both know the connotations of Keynesian economics are government spending. Tax incentives follow the Laffer dialectic.

I just have a question....

If Obama can turn water into budlight, then how come AB got bought out by Inbev?

Frazzled wrote:
Come on Dogma, we both know the connotations of Keynesian economics are government spending. Tax incentives follow the Laffer dialectic.

Yes, it is. Andrew Laffer was a Keynesian Monetarist. The two terms are not mutually exclusive as they apply to different principles. Keynesian theory merely states that the government must intervene during economic crisis. Monetarist theory comments on the form that intervention should take; expanding on it through the use of monetary policy as preventive medicine.

There are main-line Keynesians, who don't accept the intervention methodology of Monetarist theory, but they are few and far between. There are also Monetarists who believe the budget must always be balanced, and they are equally rare.

Ahtman wrote:Economics major?

Can we change the title of this thread now to "Keynesian Economics... what do you think?" so that at least it will be more accurate. I think it stopped being about Obama a long time ago.

Nah, Accounting and Finance double major. The econs units were straight up mandatory (perhaps not Middle East Economies, not sure why I took that. Maybe just because it was cool and didn't have an exam).

Frazzled wrote:Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.

Have you read the General Theory?
"The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways."

And to some extent, everything is Keynesian. It has been since the near total win of Keynesian economics from the 60s onwards - remember Nixon's 'we're all Keynesian now'? Since then you've seen the near universal acceptance of basic Keynesian economics, at least in rhetoric (actual application has tended more towards deficits in the good times as well as the bad).

What you've seen since is either a variation on Keynes (debate as to the most effective way to manage aggregate demand) and a fringe of alternative theories, the hardline monetarists, the Austrian School...

2. Hours calc are different over there. Each college course over here is anywhere from 2-4 hours (I think I had a 5 hour one once). So following yours it would be 8 courses give or take-its been a few years.

Ah, over here they give you total contact hours in a semester. But again, this isn't a economics measuring contest; 'you must have sat in this many classes to contribute'. But you're making some pretty basic errors about what Keynesian economics are, so I just wanted to see where you where coming from. It might be a national thing, Keynes is probably bigger in Australia than anywhere else so it might just be that Keynes isn't covered in the same depth elsewhere.

Frazzled wrote:Come on Dogma, we both know the connotations of Keynesian economics are government spending. Tax incentives follow the Laffer dialectic.

Yeah, this is what I mean when I point out how closely you're following Republican talking points and not economics. Laffer's model is, no pun intended, a laughing stock in economics. The only place it has any traction at all is among the Republican party of the US. Nobel prize laureate (although we know what you think of them ) James Tobin said "the 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."

Let’s think about what Laffer was saying... he wasn’t the first to theorise that if tax rates are too high you’ll remove the incentive to earn, reduce total income and thereby reduce total tax revenue. Funnily enough, Keynes mentioned that too; “Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget.” But Keynes was hardly the first either, it’s an old idea.

No, Laffer’s claim to fame was that he felt countries were taxing at a rate beyond the optimum point of revenue. To establish this claim he produced this graph;



And that was it. No consideration of the immense number of factors that lead to the wealth of a country and grow domestic product. No consideration of the wide variety of elements that make up tax policy. Just a plotting of countries and a silly attempt to draw a curve through it.

Here’s the WSJ’s 2004 attempt to plot the evidence of the Laffer curve;


What you see is a wide range of countries fitting a general mess. And a line picking the outlier of Norway and ignoring the rest, in order to establish a very dubious theory.

And that’s all Laffer has. A silly graph he made, the support of the Republican party, who have latched on to anything to justify their platform position of less taxes, and the editorial page of the WSJ. To dispute Keynes while assuming Laffer’s curve is established is absurd.

Economy is easy: the more gold you have the richer you are.

However, spending on military is much easier. Seeing as though each bullet can be used once, the brass can be recycled but the lead can't. Also, its hard to recycle bombs and things that get blowned up. Not to mention the fact that they have to try to compensate loss of dear ones.

Infrastructure is the same way, things need to get replaced.

Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.




But I will vote to rename this thread the "Off Topic Off Topic" Thread.

halonachos wrote:
Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.

You mean like military spending is based on the plan to purchase bullets, or the plan research a new weapons system?

Or infrastructure spending is based on the plan to construct new roads, utilities, and bridges?

I'm rather disillusioned that President Obama can turn water into Bud Lite.

There's a lot you can do with a bucket of water -- water the garden, wash in it or drink it. None of these is possible with Bud Lite.

I would have hoped he could turn the water into some useful.