Real World Event Discussions

Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 17:30
VIEWED: 29022
PAGE 21 of 25

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:20 PM

To beat a point to its logical death- as I have stated in many posts over several threads by now, you can't prove a hypothesis because hypotheses can't be universally tested. You CAN, however, disprove them because a single countervailing instance can cause a hypothesis to fail.

So the hypothesis is that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions.

All it takes to disprove the hypothesis is one conservative idea on what to do about recessions (or depressions, I would add). I don't think I've seen any. What I've read, several times over, is that in fact it's impossible to formulate ANY ideas from the data at-hand. So far, the hypothesis stands.

SIGNYM

Monday, January 20, 2014 12:17 AM

YOO HOOO!!!

* waves handkerchief*

Thread still waiting for a single conservative idea!!!

GEEZER

Monday, January 20, 2014 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Basically, you have doubts that any theory works. That includes yours, correct?

Nope. Not correct.

I don't have a theory about what particular actions to take to end a recession. As I've noted again and again, I am doubtful that any of the actions proposed by various theories can be shown to have been the sole cure for recessions.

Your question is like asking me how many angels I believe can dance on the head of a pin, when I've said I don't believe in angels.

"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 20, 2014 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
To beat a point to its logical death- as I have stated in many posts over several threads by now, you can't prove a hypothesis because hypotheses can't be universally tested. You CAN, however, disprove them because a single countervailing instance can cause a hypothesis to fail.

So the hypothesis is that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions.

All it takes to disprove the hypothesis is one conservative idea on what to do about recessions (or depressions, I would add). I don't think I've seen any. What I've read, several times over, is that in fact it's impossible to formulate ANY ideas from the data at-hand. So far, the hypothesis stands.

As noted in the original article, and cited over and over again:

Quote:
To be clear, conservatives absolutely do have an economic policy agenda. They favor 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. They favor these policies now, they favored them in 2008, and they favored them in 2004.

That is, conservatives favor the same set of economic policies when the economy is weak and when it is strong; when unemployment is high and when it is low; when few homeowners are facing foreclosure and when many are. The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles.

So the conservatives apparently do have ideas what to do about recessions - follow their economic policy agenda. The fact that their ideas do not require a change in policy during a recession doesn't mean they don't have an idea.

As to whether this idea is any more or less effective than any other idea, that's pretty much my question.

"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 20, 2014 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
YOO HOOO!!!

* waves handkerchief*

Thread still waiting for a single conservative idea!!!

Just continue to ignore the one I've been quoting since the beginning of this thread.

Since, despite your claim that you want to discuss the relative merits of economic theories in re recessions, you don't seem to be willing to do that, I guess we're done here.

"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."

KPO

Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:15 AM

Quote:
Once again, the conservative idea is not to do anything different than business as usual in response to a recession.

You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there. I simply asked you to provide the same standard of evidence that I've supplied for government spending spurring growth. Or else accept your claim is bunk.

Quote:
So there will be no BIG spending cuts during a recession. Regular conservative economic policy

And yet there HAVE been examples of BIG spending cuts in a recession. Care to hear how GDP reacted?

Quote:
One might also wonder if the reason the recessions during Coolidge's administration were so small (as you noted) was due to his conservative economic policy.

Or they might realise that there was no massive financial crisis that preceded them, and not try to compare them to the Great Depression.

Quote:
Anyone would have to agree that if you throw enough money out there, some of it will be spent to hire new folks.

If you accept that large stimulus packages work, there's really no logic to dismiss the idea that small stimuli work just as well (if not better), in proportion to their size. The only difference is that with big stimuli the effect is too big for you to ignore, and dismiss. But it proves the principle.

Quote:
More to the point of effectiveness, looking at the responses to Question B, less than half agree that the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.

46% agree that benefits of the stimulus will exceed costs, to 12% who disagree. Nearly 4-1 in favour of the stimulus. For an issue that's as politicised as this one, that's a very strong result, in favour of Keynesianism.

Quote:
That paper tracks the length and severity of financial crises. The name "Keynes" is not found in it. Not sure it links the actions above to Keynes.

What was your point in giving that list of policies, and asking if it was Keynesian?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

Your own example of the 1920s contradicts you.

If you take that statement out of context, maybe.

How is that out of context??

Quote:
So the idea is to boost the economy by government spending during recessions and then throttle back when things get back on track.

The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

I can understand this point as a human tendency, but not as a hard and fast rule. And I think you're failing to differentiate between stimulus spending, which is short term, not open-ended by definition, and general government spending.

For example the US right now could ramp up infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy, at the same time as it carries out entitlement reform to tackle the budget deficit. It could (and arguably, should) do both things together. Spending might spike up in the short term, but would go down in the medium/long term.

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

GEEZER

Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there. I simply asked you to provide the same standard of evidence that I've supplied for government spending spurring growth. Or else accept your claim is bunk.

No I did not.

I stated that Coolidge's policy was to cut spending and taxes, the same thing your article cited as conservative economic policy. He did this as standard conservative policy, and made no changes to this policy during a recession. I told you this before, but apparently you just cannot accept the idea that government is incapable of leaping into action (of some sort) in response to a recession.

Quote:
Quote:
So there will be no BIG spending cuts during a recession. Regular conservative economic policy

And yet there HAVE been examples of BIG spending cuts in a recession. Care to hear how GDP reacted?

Yep. Obviously you didn't read my sentence quoted above, or were incapable of understanding what it meant.

Also didn't note the cite above about GDP going up during the Coolidge administration, when, as I think we've established, spending went down.

Quote:
Quote:
One might also wonder if the reason the recessions during Coolidge's administration were so small (as you noted) was due to his conservative economic policy.

Or they might realise that there was no massive financial crisis that preceded them, and not try to compare them to the Great Depression.

But isn't the liberal solution supposed to be the only solution to recession, big or small? If Coolidge's 'solution' of following general conservative economic policy, and not reacting to recession by changing anything, worked, as it did (the recessions went away), apparently the liberal solution isn't the only solution.

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone would have to agree that if you throw enough money out there, some of it will be spent to hire new folks.

If you accept that large stimulus packages work, there's really no logic to dismiss the idea that small stimuli work just as well (if not better), in proportion to their size. The only difference is that with big stimuli the effect is too big for you to ignore, and dismiss. But it proves the principle.

But I don't accept that large stimulus packages work. Just because a lot of extra money spent increases employment somewhat doesn't mean the package is working.

Quote:
Quote:
More to the point of effectiveness, looking at the responses to Question B, less than half agree that the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.

46% agree that benefits of the stimulus will exceed costs, to 12% who disagree. Nearly 4-1 in favour of the stimulus. For an issue that's as politicised as this one, that's a very strong result, in favour of Keynesianism.

So since it's a politicized issue, should we accept these figures at all, considering the overwhelming support of liberal thinking in universities?

Quote:
Quote:
That paper tracks the length and severity of financial crises. The name "Keynes" is not found in it. Not sure it links the actions above to Keynes.

What was your point in giving that list of policies, and asking if it was Keynesian?

Just wanted to see if you thought that the liberal ideas as to what to do about recessions, as stated in the article, aligned with Keynes' ideas.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

Your own example of the 1920s contradicts you.

If you take that statement out of context, maybe.

How is that out of context??

Quote:
So the idea is to boost the economy by government spending during recessions and then throttle back when things get back on track.

The problem is, once governments start spending, they don't stop.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KPO

Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:07 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there.

No I did not.

You absolutely did. And you did so again in this very post I'm replying to.

Quote:
He did this as standard conservative policy, and made no changes to this policy during a recession. I told you this before

I understood it the first time. Please feel free not to repeat it again. I never said he changed policy, I said he cut spending, which is a continuation of policy.

Quote:
Also didn't note the cite above about GDP going up during the Coolidge administration, when, as I think we've established, spending went down.

There it is.

Quote:
If Coolidge's 'solution' of following general conservative economic policy, and not reacting to recession by changing anything, worked, as it did (the recessions went away)

Who says it worked? Who says the spending cuts didn't cause those economic slumps, and then prolong them? This idea that a recession going away proves that every policy that was tried during it worked... I don't even know where to start with it. Especially when you apply it to 1929-1933.

Quote:
But I don't accept that large stimulus packages work.

This is you earlier, conceding that large stimulus works:

Geezer: "...until WWII came along and bailed the Keynesians out."

Quote:
Just because a lot of extra money spent increases employment somewhat doesn't mean the package is working.

Increased employment, increased growth... these aren't good enough for you? You demand more in a stimulus package?

Quote:
So since it's a politicized issue, should we accept these figures at all, considering the overwhelming support of liberal thinking in universities?

Economists voting 4:1 in favour of the ARRA. The result is even stronger if you weigh the respondents' answers according to their confidence.

Quote:
Interesting that you pretend not to understand the context by leaving out the sentence that provides it.

"Federal spending has done nothing but increase since shortly after the de-militarization decrease following WWII ."

You're backtracking, but I don't mind. The key thing is that there ARE examples of governments increasing spending in the short term, and then cutting back.

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

GEEZER

Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You made the point that Coolidge cut spending in a recession and GDP went up, suggesting there might be a cause and effect there.

No I did not.

You absolutely did. And you did so again in this very post I'm replying to.

Quote:
He did this as standard conservative policy, and made no changes to this policy during a recession. I told you this before

I understood it the first time. Please feel free not to repeat it again. I never said he changed policy, I said he cut spending, which is a continuation of policy.

Okay. I can only assume you're purposefully being obtuse on this issue, since the whole point of the discussion is governments doing something different than business as usual in response to recessions. Coolidge did not do anything different than the conservative business as usual, i.e. reducing spending and cutting taxes, during the recessions that occurred while he was in office.

I can only assume from this tack that you actually have nothing, and are going to continue to pretend to misunderstand my points in the hope that I'll eventually get tired of your obfuscation and smoke blowing and give up.

'fraid not.

Quote:
Quote:
Also didn't note the cite above about GDP going up during the Coolidge administration, when, as I think we've established, spending went down.

There it is.

So spending cuts, as part of overall conservative economic policy, not related to or in response to recessions, make GDP go up. Not seeing your point if you think increased spending cures recessions.

Quote:
Quote:
If Coolidge's 'solution' of following general conservative economic policy, and not reacting to recession by changing anything, worked, as it did (the recessions went away)

Who says it worked? Who says the spending cuts didn't cause those economic slumps, and then prolong them? This idea that a recession going away proves that every policy that was tried during it worked... I don't even know where to start with it. Especially when you apply it to 1929-1933.

Or none of the policies worked, which is my point. Spending goes down as part of standard conservative economic policy. Recession ends. Spending goes up as liberal response to recession. recession ends. Maybe recessions just end regardless of what happens.

Quote:
Quote:
But I don't accept that large stimulus packages work.

This is you earlier, conceding that large stimulus works:

Geezer: "...until WWII came along and bailed the Keynesians out."

And you're back to needing a world war to end a recession/depression. Great plan.

Quote:
Quote:
Just because a lot of extra money spent increases employment somewhat doesn't mean the package is working.

Increased employment, increased growth... these aren't good enough for you? You demand more in a stimulus package?

Depends on how much. also depends on if you can provide substantial evidence that the spending alone is responsible for enough growth to end the recession.

Quote:
Quote:
So since it's a politicized issue, should we accept these figures at all, considering the overwhelming support of liberal thinking in universities?

Economists voting 4:1 in favour of the ARRA. The result is even stronger if you weigh the respondents' answers according to their confidence.

Got a breakdown of which school these economists follow? Unless you can show that your cited figures don't come mainly from Keynesians and related schools, your data is suspect.

Quote:
Interesting that you pretend not to understand the context by leaving out the sentence that provides it.

Quote:
"Federal spending has done nothing but increase since shortly after the de-militarization decrease following WWII ."

You're backtracking, but I don't mind. The key thing is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Friday, January 24, 2014 8:52 AM

Quote:
the one I've been quoting since the beginning of this thread.

Which idea is that? Whatever it is, you've undercut your own idea by saying it's impossible to have ANY ideas about the topic. If you have an idea and you think it's worthwhile, you should show us the reasoning why YOUR idea is worthwhile when all other ideas aren't.

Quote:
Okay. I can only assume you're purposefully being obtuse on this issue, since the whole point of the discussion is governments doing something different than business as usual in response to recessions.

Whether the government continues "business as usual" or does something different than usual, government is doing SOMETHING.

Let me give you a medical example: In the case of a raging infection we could do nothing ("stay the course") like we've done for most of our history. Since that has been our historical default, some would say that is the obvious and benign response. Or we could give an antibiotic. There are risks and benefits to consider when administering an antibiotic. But there are also risks and benefits to consider when NOT administering an antibiotic. When a person (or government) actually HAS a choice ... more than one course of action is realistically available... then "doing nothing" is, in fact, doing something. One actually has to defend the idea of "doing nothing different" as a course of action since other courses of action are available.