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.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Still, not seeing your point... seems like no matter who's in congress or the WH, the budget is increasing.

So, by your own graph, you mean declining under both Clinton and Obama?

Damn those spendthrift Democrats.

Uh huh... you and I tussled over this before... if you totally buy into Krugman's love affair over that the GDP is the only meaningful measure of prosperity... then that's an awesome graph.

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... you and I tussled over this before... if you totally buy into Krugman's love affair over that the GDP is the only meaningful measure of prosperity... then that's an awesome graph.

First up, it was your graph, you posted it.

Second up, its pretty clear I've got a lot more time for Krugman than you do, but GDP as the primary measure of prosperity isn't a Krugman thing, it's an economics thing.

Third up, whether or not it is the best or even only measure of prosperity is quite irrelevant to the issue here, which is that GDP is also a measure of scale. That is, an economy grows over time and so all parts of it will tend to grow over time along with it, and so to give any one element of the economy some measure of scale, and not just mindlessly report that 'everything is getting bigger all the time', you need a measure of scale to compare each component to. If we don't do this, then we would conclude that US manufacturing has grown over the last 30 years, and that would be extremely misleading - it is when we compare it to overall GDP that we see the real picture - that US manufacturing has declined as a portion of total GDP. The same is true of government spending.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... you and I tussled over this before... if you totally buy into Krugman's love affair over that the GDP is the only meaningful measure of prosperity... then that's an awesome graph.

First up, it was your graph, you posted it.

Second up, its pretty clear I've got a lot more time for Krugman than you do, but GDP as the primary measure of prosperity isn't a Krugman thing, it's an economics thing.

Third up, whether or not it is the best or even only measure of prosperity is quite irrelevant to the issue here, which is that GDP is also a measure of scale. That is, an economy grows over time and so all parts of it will tend to grow over time along with it, and so to give any one element of the economy some measure of scale, and not just mindlessly report that 'everything is getting bigger all the time', you need a measure of scale to compare each component to. If we don't do this, then we would conclude that US manufacturing has grown over the last 30 years, and that would be extremely misleading - it is when we compare it to overall GDP that we see the real picture - that US manufacturing has declined as a portion of total GDP. The same is true of government spending.

Yeah, dude... I know that. I was trying to point out to Killkrazy that his statement:

Ever since the US Budget was invented Republican presidents have overseen times of decline and Democrat presidents have overseen times of improvement in the public finances.

Is just standard anti-republican hyperbole... that's all.

Also... I just find all this worship over the GDP interesting. Take a gander at 1946.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Challenge accepted.

From graphs you get to maths easily enough.
From maths you can easily jump to physics.
From physics to nuclear physics and testing.
From testing you get to the Bikini atoll where tests used to be conducted.
From there it should be obvious. Mission accomplished.

Bikini Atoll

I have to say this about changing the curriculum.
When I was in my senior year, I got into alot of old Sci-fi. Like Lovecraft and Wells. We where required to read a 300 or so page book every quarter. It had to be a that. I went up to my teacher with stuff like Call of Cthulu and War of the Worlds. He said because of the books I was reading, I didnt have to follow the 300 page book. So I read Call of Cthulu and did a report on it(I swear it went over everyones head) Then I read War of the worlds(The copy I got was 140 pages) and finished it. I mentioned it was short to a girl, who complained to my teacher. My god my teacher went off on the mother. Tell how he knew her girl was reading Twilight and that she already read it. He then refused to count the girls last book report.
Sometimes.....sometimes.....you can get away with stuff

War and Peace. 10th grade.

ooh ooh ooh, I've never been in a literary pissing contest before - Lord of the rings 6th grade.

Bullockist wrote:
ooh ooh ooh, I've never been in a literary pissing contest before - Lord of the rings 6th grade.

I was noticing the opposite sex at that grade

I...errr....had my head in a book.

Bullockist wrote:
I...errr....had my head in a book.

What was the magazine?

The magazines were Penthouse stolen from the local newsagent. I never realised magazines were for any other content till I was 15 and discovered a LaRP magazine, which thankfully I didn't take up. I also however didn't take up much of the content from Penthouse either

Heavy Metal magazine

 whembly wrote:
Yeah, dude... I know that. I was trying to point out to Killkrazy that his statement:

Ever since the US Budget was invented Republican presidents have overseen times of decline and Democrat presidents have overseen times of improvement in the public finances.

Is just standard anti-republican hyperbole... that's all.

He overstated his case, as the trend he gives only goes back to Reagan.

Because before Reagan every post-war president ended their term with a debt to GDP ratio lower than when their term began. That massive debt built up over WWII was steadily paid down. But then with Reagan you had a cut those famous tax cuts. Clinton took the bait, and worked with a Republican congress to bring down spending to match the lower tax base. Then Bush II cut taxes again... and now there's calls to lower spending to match the lower tax revenues.

Now, that's a fairly simple narrative and there's points of detail that go against it (Obama got Bush's high end tax cuts removed, while he supported and maintained Bush's middle class tax cuts) but the overall narrative holds.

Point being, the Republicans aren't the party of small government. They're the party of tax cuts, with an expectation that someone down the track will figure out how to pay for it.

Also... I just find all this worship over the GDP interesting.

It's the most direct measure of society's material wealth available. Why shouldn't it be a key part of economic analysis?

 Jihadin wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Challenge accepted.

From graphs you get to maths easily enough.
From maths you can easily jump to physics.
From physics to nuclear physics and testing.
From testing you get to the Bikini atoll where tests used to be conducted.
From there it should be obvious. Mission accomplished.

Bikini Atoll

Wait... there's a toll on bikinis??? I'm going on a open carry protest!!!

I liked this thread more when it was about spiders.