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.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The military's oath requires protection against all enemies foreign and domestic. If the politicians tried this, it would last about 24 hours.

Oaths matter now?

***Maybe not to you, but to them...yes.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats what the Soviets thought too.

And that's the criticism Hitler rendered.

Oh Hitler thought that as well. Its just a simple dictatorship concept, nothing more.

First we suspend elections.
Second we suspend rights.
Third we start erecting statues to our dear Leader.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe not to you, but to them...yes.

You speak for them, then?

Frazzled wrote:
Oh Hitler thought that as well. Its just a simple dictatorship concept, nothing more.

First we suspend elections.
Second we suspend rights.
Third we start erecting statues to our dear Leader.

Hitler used hyperbole too, are you a fascist?

Frazzled wrote:
Maybe not to you, but to them...yes.


You speak for them, then?
***I speak for their duties, yes. Maybe duty and ethics are less important in your circle.



Frazzled wrote:

Oh Hitler thought that as well. Its just a simple dictatorship concept, nothing more.

First we suspend elections.
Second we suspend rights.
Third we start erecting statues to our dear Leader.


Hitler used hyperbole too, are you a fascist?
***You use hyperbole. Are you?

Frazzled wrote:I speak for their duties, yes.

So not them.

Nice try on the deflection though.

Frazzled wrote:
Maybe duty and ethics are less important in your circle.

Is that why you've been engaged twice? Because duty and ethics mean so much to you?

Frazzled wrote:
You use hyperbole. Are you?

I'm not the guy that dropped "Stalin" into the mix.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I speak for their duties, yes.

So not them.

Nice try on the deflection though.

Anyone can speak to their duties. PLus that whole Civil War thing.

Frazzled wrote:
Maybe duty and ethics are less important in your circle.

Is that why you've been engaged twice? Because duty and ethics mean so much to you?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Maybe duty and ethics are less important in your circle.

Is that why you've been engaged twice? Because duty and ethics mean so much to you?

Aren't you the one who commented that you are offended at the mere suggestion that you had ethics?

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Feels weird sort of agreeing with Biccat about something.

Thats what the Soviets thought too.

And not long thereafter, they recognized the error of their ways and their system collapsed.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Frazzled wrote:
Anyone can speak to their duties. PLus that whole Civil War thing.

Yeah, because Lee totally sided with his duty.

Frazzled wrote:

Maybe duty and ethics are less important in your circle.

Is that why you've been engaged twice? Because duty and ethics mean so much to you?

Mmm. I must have hit close to home.

Yeah, because Lee totally sided with his duty.

*** Actually he did (to his state). Fortunately bodacious numbers of dekpt to their duty and the case was resolved in Grant v.s Lee.

I suspect the opposite is true, what with your coding errors; which did not exist before.
***What? Coding errors? You’re attempting to sidestep, but that’s ok.

Frazzled wrote:Actually he did (to his state)

So what you're saying is that "duty" is flexible.

Frazzled wrote:
What? Coding errors? You’re attempting to sidestep, but that’s ok.

So, you don't know what coding errors are.

So what you're saying is that "duty" is flexible.

***Quite the opposite and I am surprised you don't know that. His duty was inflexible, hence siding with his home state. As noted others thought differently - hence the term carpetbagger and Damnyankee coming into vogue some time later.


So, you don't know what coding errors are.
***No actually.

biccat wrote:Actually, Presidents do not "control" the economy (the US isn't a centrally managed state), but they do have a substantial impact on the economy, in part through their efforts to influence Congress in matters of taxation and laws. However, the way they influence the economy the most is through administrative agencies and the rules that they create. EPA regulations have a huge impact on the economy, same goes for the FDA, FCC, and just about every administrative agency. The President, as chief executive, bears the burden of responsibility for his subordinates.

So, they vaguely, loosely affect things, with most of their impact of an indirect, regulatory nature which is unlikely to show a material impact until years after their own term. That sounds about right.

Has nothing to do with the current situation, of course.

There's an important issue the author you quoted is missing: why didn't it work last time?

It did work. It can't not work. When government spends money, it raises aggregate demand. This will offset some or all of the fall in aggregate demand that is happening in the private sector, depending on the size of the fall and the size of the stimulus package.

The only actual effort to argue otherwise came from the idea that there was no such thing as a reduction in aggregate demand, that every dollar earned would be immediately respent, that every dollar available for investment would be invested. Hegel lost that argument six decades ago.

Everyone accepts this. Tracking GDP, noting that it rises and falls, is an acceptance that Hegel was wrong. Even the people who now resist Keynesian stimulus accept that Hegel was wrong. They just dishonestly pretend otherwise, for political reasons.

The other important question is: why should we trust someone from the Center for Economic Policy and Research (a progressive think tank) over, for example, the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank)?

Because one side is making an argument from plain, and very well understood economic policy, and the other is not. This thing where people just drop pudits in front of the camera and declare sometihng is being debated is just not true.

Even if you eliminate the problem of politics and experts, you also have the problem of who chooses the experts. Which eventually leads back to politics.

Yes, definitely. Note I'm not arguing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The blue lines were those put out by the administration - light blue was what the unemployment rate would do if there wasn't a bill passed, dark blue was the track that the unemployment rate was supposed to follow with the recovery plan (ARRA). The red dots show actual unemployment rate.

I'm not sure what definition of "worked" you're looking at here.

The size of the fall in private sector demand was greater than first believed, and the compromises in the stimulus package reduced it's effectiveness (dropping planned infrstructure for cash handouts was politically necessary, but bad economics).

Your effort there is like saying that when I dropped the bucket it didn't fall as fast as predicted, therefore there's no such thing as gravity.

sebster wrote:So, they vaguely, loosely affect things, with most of their impact of an indirect, regulatory nature which is unlikely to show a material impact until years after their own term. That sounds about right.

No, a president's influence is not "vague" or "loose." For example, for years the Bush administration refused the EPA (under their authority as chief executive) the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court eventually came down on the side of regulating greenhouse gases (quite incorrectly I might add). If the EPA regulates greenhouse gases as required by the Clean Air Act, it will have an immediate and severe impact on the economy (and would, hypothetically, require about 10x more funding and employees).

Even earlier this year the President told the EPA to suspend enacting certain smog rules that would certainly have had an economic impact.

Given that, I'm not sure how you can say that the president's influence is "vague" or "loose" when he has direct control over significant economic factors.

sebster wrote:It did work. It can't not work. When government spends money, it raises aggregate demand. This will offset some or all of the fall in aggregate demand that is happening in the private sector, depending on the size of the fall and the size of the stimulus package.

You're entirely mistaken here. The history of the bailout/stimulus programs has shown, repeatedly I might add, that the programs don't work. Although I appreciate your attempt to justify increased spending with theory, at some point (hypothetically at least) you should recognize that the track record of stimulus spending is entirely negative.

As for the "it can't not work," well, see the chart above. It did not work.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:The other important question is: why should we trust someone from the Center for Economic Policy and Research (a progressive think tank) over, for example, the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank)?

Because one side is making an argument from plain, and very well understood economic policy, and the other is not. This thing where people just drop pudits in front of the camera and declare sometihng is being debated is just not true.

Sorry, you have to have some unbiased metric by which you're asserting that AEI is "making an argument from plain, and very well understood economic policy" and why the CEPR "is not." Otherwise you're simply declaring yourself (or some other arbiter) as the universal 'expert.'

sebster wrote:The size of the fall in private sector demand was greater than first believed

Alternative theory: there is a flaw in the underlying understanding.

sebster wrote:Your effort there is like saying that when I dropped the bucket it didn't fall as fast as predicted, therefore there's no such thing as gravity.

If a dropped bucket doesn't fall as fast as predicted, a scientist would not think that the problem lies with the bucket. He would think that the problem lies in the understanding of gravity.

sebster wrote:So, they vaguely, loosely affect things, with most of their impact of an indirect, regulatory nature which is unlikely to show a material impact until years after their own term. That sounds about right.

Has nothing to do with the current situation, of course.

Right, as we all know, presidents only have an effect on the economy if it allows their opponents to attack them better.