Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 17:30
VIEWED: 29022
PAGE 18 of 25

PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE

KPO

Monday, January 13, 2014 1:43 AM

Quote:
Yep. Bob and weave.

I answered your question thoroughly...? You just don't like me saying that the way you phrased your question was perverse. But it was.

Quote:
All you have to do is prove that the liberal cures for recession, as enumerated in the article you cited, actually work more effectively to end recessions than the conservative economic policy

I've thoroughly discussed conservative policy ideas, and how they work (or don't) in recessions. And I've shown evidence that Keynesian spending works, and is superior to tax cuts in stimulating the economy. I could go further, and defend other liberal anti-recession policies, but what I've demonstrated so far doesn't seem to have been recognised. When you admit or refute the evidence for Keynesian spending working, and when you admit or refute the arguments that conservative policies don't work in the short term, then we can move onto discussing these other points.

Quote:
ETA: I'd note that all recessions end, so proving they all end because of the liberal cure will be interesting.

Are you asking me to prove things I've never said? That's creative.

Quote:
Spending was cut pretty much every year in the 1920s, and the two small recessions in that decade ended pretty quickly.

Cites? And can I suggest that you show that spending was cut *during* the recessions, and not just 'in the the same decade'.

Quote:
Quote:
3. More domestic energy production

See what I just answered to (2).

Quote:
4. school choice

I don't know much about the claimed economic merits of this, but it seems clear to me it will have little effect on the economy in the short term - so is not an answer to recession.

I'm also curious as to why the author of your article threw this in. It does make me wonder about his economic knowledge chops.

I can understand the economic aspect to both of those policies, just not their relevance to tackling recession.

Quote:
As noted in the wiki article, she also raised taxes in the middle of the recession, thereby lengthening it.

No doubt that didn't help. And that was part of the anti-inflation strategy by the way - 'fiscal tightening'. The opposite of Keynesianism.

Quote:
Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920's and government revenue increased.

By more than it would have without the tax cuts? That's the key question. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and revenue eventually grew above what it had been, but CBO analysis predicted $2 trillion in revenue was lost over the following decade (if I remember right).

Quote:
So the article is incorrect in stating tax cuts are only a conservative economic policy, since liberals will use them in times of recession?

More bad logic. And misrepresentation - the author never claimed it was an exclusively conservative policy idea.

It's not personal. It's just war.

1KIKI

Monday, January 13, 2014 1:57 AM

So Geezer

Not much for facts, are you?

Nope, despite all the references, all the data, all the charts, all the links, you've got your eyes tightly closed, your fingers firmly in you ears, and are stomping your little feet yelling 'but you haven't PROOOOVED anything'. That and you seem unable to understand common English.

Whatever.

Just be grateful (a very few) people still take you seriously enough to actually reply. But persist in your non-discussion and you just might end up in rappy land. Say hi to him for me, OK? You may be the only people talking to each other.

But, don't let me interrupt whatever it was you were doing. Carry on.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

GEEZER

Monday, January 13, 2014 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
ETA: I'd note that all recessions end, so proving they all end because of the liberal cure will be interesting.
There WMD in Iraq! There were!

Geezer, channeling rappy much?

So you're saying all recessions in the U.S. haven't ended? I'll admit that the 2008 recession still hasn't really cleared up, what with household incomes still dropping and unemployment at 6.7%, mostly due to Christmas retail jobs, but generally they end.

Here's a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

and a graph.

Note that all these recessions ended.

Quote:
The thing that frightened Keynes was that the Great Depression showed no signs of ending. That was the basis of Keynesian insight: That an economy can stabilize at a very much lower rate of activity, permanently. (The basic supply-demand curve assumes that the economy is functioning at 100%)

But Hoover started pretty much the Keynesian cure for depression right from the get-go. Even if you don't agree with Rothbard's economic philosophy, he describes Hoover's actions pretty well here.

http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/contents.asp

Quote:
So, shall we walk into the weeds of the data together? It WILL require that you put forth some opinions, and reach actual conclusions.... something you seem loathe to do.

I already have a conclusion. It's that no one really knows the best method of ending a recession, since pretty much everything has been tried (including doing nothing), and recessions end when any solution is applied. What's difficult is deciding whether recessions end because of a particular cure, or despite it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Monday, January 13, 2014 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I've thoroughly discussed conservative policy ideas, and how they work (or don't) in recessions. And I've shown evidence that Keynesian spending works, and is superior to tax cuts in stimulating the economy. I could go further, and defend other liberal anti-recession policies, but what I've demonstrated so far doesn't seem to have been recognised. When you admit or refute the evidence for Keynesian spending working, and when you admit or refute the arguments that conservative policies don't work in the short term, then we can move onto discussing these other points.

Of course you've done this from a Keynesian point of view, which pretty obviously is going to determine that Keynesian actions are the correct ones.

So here's a list of recessions in the U.S. since 1789.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

If the Keynesian cure (or the version of Keynesian shown in the article) works better than conservative economic policy, you should be able to use this list to show where Keynesian-type principles were more successful in ending recessions.

Quote:
Quote:
Spending was cut pretty much every year in the 1920s, and the two small recessions in that decade ended pretty quickly.

Cites? And can I suggest that you show that spending was cut *during* the recessions, and not just 'in the the same decade'.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1920_1930USb_15s1li
011mcn_F0f

The recessions were in 1923-24 and 1926-27.

Also noted this in the book "Coolidge" by Amity Shlaes

Quote:
Quote:

3. More domestic energy production

4. school choice

I can understand the economic aspect to both of those policies, just not their relevance to tackling recession.

Same here. I have no idea why they would be cited.

Quote:
Quote:
As noted in the wiki article, she also raised taxes in the middle of the recession, thereby lengthening it.

No doubt that didn't help. And that was part of the anti-inflation strategy by the way - 'fiscal tightening'. The opposite of Keynesianism.

The Wiki article suggests she followed "monetarist" policies. Guess I need to read Friedman.

Quote:
Quote:
Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920's and government revenue increased.

By more than it would have without the tax cuts?

Coolidge's goal wasn't primarily to increase revenue, it was to reduce government spending. He didn't want more revenue, which he believed would only encourage Congress to spend it. Again, I got this from the Coolidge biography cited above.

Quote:
Quote:
So the article is incorrect in stating tax cuts are only a conservative economic policy, since liberals will use them in times of recession?

More bad logic. And misrepresentation - the author never claimed it was an exclusively conservative policy idea.

The article's author listed what he considered the liberal ideas as to what to do about recession.

Quote:
For the last five years, liberals have promoted three main economic policies to shorten or ameliorate the Great Recession and speed the recovery from it.
Deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector.
Easy monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand.
Mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption.

If he had considered tax cuts as a liberal (as well as conservative) idea, seems he would have listed it in the liberal arsenal. After all, he didn't have any problem adding things like school choice to the conservative list.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

1KIKI

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:28 AM

"... and recessions end when any solution is applied ..."

Even the 'do-nothing' solution? I'm sure you have AMPLE historical examples. I'll wait. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I suspect you will never post even one example.

KPO

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:33 AM

Quote:
Of course you've done this from a Keynesian point of view

What the hell does that mean? The graphs I've been using have been 'Keynesian' graphs, with crafty, Keynesian data?

Quote:
If the Keynesian cure (or the version of Keynesian shown in the article) works better than conservative economic policy, you should be able to use this list to show where Keynesian-type principles were more successful in ending recessions.

It's notable that recessions are on average *much* shorter post WWII (Keynesianism biggest defining moment) than they were pre-1929, and much, *much* shorter than they were pre-1900, in libertarianism's laissez-faire heyday. And this is true worldwide, not just in the US; Governments have learned, and recessions have been shallower and shorter, as a result. "We're all Keynesians now", remember?

Quote:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1920_1930USb_15s1li
011mcn_F0f

The recessions were in 1923-24 and 1926-27.

You still haven't shown that there were spending cuts in the middle of those recessions. For all I know spending cuts caused those two recessions, and spending increases alleviated them.

Quote:
I have no idea why they would be cited.

Because they're "conservative economic policy".

Quote:
Coolidge's goal wasn't primarily to increase revenue, it was to reduce government spending. He didn't want more revenue, which he believed would only encourage Congress to spend it. Again, I got this from the Coolidge biography cited above.

This is a nice tangent, but we still haven't answered the question of how stimulus tax cuts in a recession are financed. Let's say the recession is severe, and the tax cuts need to be big. Revenue has already cratered because the economy has tanked, and we're slashing it even more. So do we have huge deficits for a year, or two, or three, until the economy recovers? Or do we implement big spending cuts to finance the tax cuts?

Quote:
But Hoover started pretty much the Keynesian cure for depression right from the get-go.

Would you show me this with graphs, and data, and not just claim it with words?

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:34 AM

Geezer is demanding "proof". But in the scientific process Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. [but] A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... and recessions end when any solution is applied ..."

Even the 'do-nothing' solution? I'm sure you have AMPLE historical examples. I'll wait. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I suspect you will never post even one example.

The recessions of 1923-24 and 1926-27, as noted above, ended with no change in Coolidge's policies. He continued to reduce tax rates and spending through both of them, and they ended.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... and recessions end when any solution is applied ..."

Even the 'do-nothing' solution? I'm sure you have AMPLE historical examples. I'll wait. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I suspect you will never post even one example.

The recessions of 1923-24 and 1926-27, as noted above, ended with no change in Coolidge's policies. He continued to reduce tax rates and spending through both of them, and they ended.

Don't get ahead of yourself...

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You still haven't shown that there were spending cuts in the middle of those recessions. For all I know spending cuts caused those two recessions, and spending increases alleviated them.

Plus you would have to show that Coolidge reduced taxes did not add more money to the economy that the government spending reductions took out. If not the tax cut could still have been a very mild stimulus during very mild recessions.

Now second please explain how Coolidge reducing spending during the 1920's was not Keynesian. The twenties was a decade of growth and Keyne's advocated that governments spending should be countercyclical.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Of course you've done this from a Keynesian point of view

What the hell does that mean? The graphs I've been using have been 'Keynesian' graphs, with crafty, Keynesian data?

Means you've been looking at data from a Keynesian point of view. You expect to see Keynes' cure work, so you interpret the data to support this point, while dismissing alternate explanations.

Sort'a like me saying I went to the doctor with a headache, he diagnosed it as an excess of bile, then he bled me and the headache went away. If I believed in the "Four Humours" theory of medicine, that'd confirm it.

Quote:
It's notable that recessions are on average *much* shorter post WWII (Keynesianism biggest defining moment) than they were pre-1929, and much, *much* shorter than they were pre-1900, in libertarianism's laissez-faire heyday. And this is true worldwide, not just in the US; Governments have learned, and recessions have been shallower and shorter, as a result. "We're all Keynesians now", remember?

The average recession 1900-1928 is 18 months, and the average 1929-present is 13.25 or so. Not that big a difference. The again, the reduction in average length could be attributable to things other than Keynes - better communications and resulting business and market efficiencies, for example.

Quote:
Quote:
The recessions were in 1923-24 and 1926-27.

You still haven't shown that there were spending cuts in the middle of those recessions. For all I know spending cuts caused those two recessions, and spending increases alleviated them.

Of course there weren't. Remember, the conservative cure is to continue what you're doing - tax cuts, reduced spending, free trade. Coolidge continued to reduce taxes and spending, and pressed for removal of tariffs during these recessions, just like he did when the country was not in recession.

BTW, the cited graph...
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1920_1930USb_15s1li
011mcn_F0f

...shows no Federal spending increases until 1927. it is interesting to note that once spending increased, the Great Depression followed. Obviously, increased government spending causes recessions/depressions (;<)

Quote:
Quote:
I have no idea why they would be cited.

Because they're "conservative economic policy".

If increased jobs is "economic policy", the energy one might apply. Can't find school choice tied to economics in the 2008 Republican platform. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78545

Quote:
This is a nice tangent, but we still haven't answered the question of how stimulus tax cuts in a recession are financed. Let's say the recession is severe, and the tax cuts need to be big. Revenue has already cratered because the economy has tanked, and we're slashing it even more. So do we have huge deficits for a year, or two, or three, until the economy recovers? Or do we implement big spending cuts to finance the tax cuts?

Once again, Conservatives support "...lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery."

So conservatives won't increase tax cuts as stimulus. They won't speed spending cuts. They won't change their economic plan. This is what Coolidge did in the 1920s.

Quote:
Quote:
But Hoover started pretty much the Keynesian cure for depression right from the get-go.

Would you show me this with graphs, and data, and not just claim it with words?

Government spending went up.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1920_1934USb_15s1li
011mcn_F0f

The Deficit went up.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1928_1934USp_15s1li011mc
n_G0f_Annual_F

PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE