Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 17:30
VIEWED: 29022
PAGE 14 of 25

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I understand why you like Keynes. He gives you permission to go out and take from every class and group you hate.
GEEZER, is it possible, do you suppose, to address the point of the discussion without resorting to emotional personal attacks?

Like these?

"In other words, Geezer is agreeing with you, because a "passive response" is "do what you've been doing all along- i.e., don't respond" [/snicker]"

"Some believe the world is flat. And some say that Geezer is a dick."

"Are you as incapable of learning as rappy?"

"Geezer quite obviously doesn't know any real-world economic facts, so all he can do is what all libertarians do: quote some irrelevant libertarian fantasist who can only talk about how things "sh/w/could be" in some ideal libertarian world."

I could go on. I also note that most of your snark isn't addressed to me directly, but as an aisde to your buddies."

Quote:
Here's a start: Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how economies function, and HOW libertarianism is supposed to make them work better. USE REAL DATA. Don't quote Mises and Hayek, who are fantasists who simply repeat the same mantra over and over again. Refer to the real world.

Sure. I'm to explain economics, but I can't use any theories you disagree with.

[sarcasm] That's fair. [/sarcasm]

Quote:
As far as classes that I "hate": How do you know WHAT "class" I belong to??? Oh, that's right- you don't, do you?

Don't need to know that. Just need to observe how you write about "the rich", corporations and capitalists. We've had the discussion of your hatred for capitalists and capitalism several times.

"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."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 8:39 PM

Quote:
Here's a start: Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how economies function, and HOW libertarianism is supposed to make them work better. USE REAL DATA. Don't quote Mises and Hayek, who are fantasists who simply repeat the same mantra over and over again . Refer to the real world.-signy

Sure. I'm to explain economics, but I can't use any theories you disagree with.-geezer

GEEZER: PLEASE READ WITH COMPREHENSION. I didn't say "don't use their theories". I said... again, slowly and with explanation.... to explain YOUR understanding using your own words. It not only tests YOUR understanding of those theories, it also makes clear where YOU might deviate from their formal theories. When addressing your (or their) theories, we can then address our questions or disagreements TO YOU, not Wikipedia.

Quote:
GEEZER, is it possible, do you suppose, to address the point of the discussion without resorting to emotional personal attacks? -signy

Because in addition to several lines of personal snark (and one example of bad rhetoric) I have written several hundred lines of explanation by now.

And you???

Have failed to propose any suggestions or explain your rationale, in your own words. In other words: have not addressed the topic of the thread.

I'm not going to let you divert me from the discussion from the theory of economic depressions to your own personal he said/she said. Address the topic. Or prove the point of the thread if you don't. It's that simple.

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Interesting in that per the graph on the cite below, federal spending, as a percent of GDP, pretty much tripled between 1929(<4%) and 1936(11%).

This ignores sizeable revenues increases in the corresponding period.

No. It ignores that completely. It just shows that federal spending increased greatly.

Quote:
Quote:
Or you can pick the Federal Deficit as a percent of GDP and see it went from a 1% surplus in 1930 to a 4.5% deficit in 1936.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. We've already established that FDR ran deficits. The debt grew, but not faster than the economy grew. That's why debt/GDP stayed level.

Actually, spending as a percent of GDP increased quite a bit, as shown above.

And if debt/GDP stayed level, why'd the deficit go up?

Quote:
And I don't know why you picked those two specific years, but they are quite illustrative. In 1930 the US ran a budget SURPLUS, the economy SHRANK, and the debt burden GREW. In 1936 the US ran a sizeable budget deficit, the economy GREW and the debt burden SHRANK. Everywhere we turn in this debate, we find more evidence proving Keynes right!

Or that the economy turned around DESPITE what Roosevelt was doing, and would have recovered sooner with less intervention. So I could say that your data proves Hayek or Rothbard was right.

Who knows?

Quote:
This whole, 'you can never sell Keynesian spending on the size that's needed, so you may as well not do any of it at all' argument, I just find truly bizarre. "We can't spend enough to end the depression overnight, so we shouldn't bother with a smaller stimulus package that will only shorten the depression, and make its effects less severe..." Idiotic fatalism.

Once again, this is based on your belief that Keynes is the only solution.

As noted early in this thread, recessions appear to end in similar periods of time regardless of who is in office, or what actions they take.

Quote:
What you still haven't answered:

Yep.

Lots of stuff you and SignyM have ignored as well. You really want to go there?

"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

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Increasing deficits since 1957 seems to indicate that while governments can be changed, we haven't seen such a change so far, and have no idea how to accomplish it. If you have such an idea, that has a chance to work, please elucidate.

Sure we just need to start voting in educated people who think government can help solve problems instead of people who think government is the problem. Next we make sure those people can make the hard choices such as cutting spending to the military industry for things we don't need.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I focus on things I question. For example, I have grave doubts about SignyM and KPO's massive infrastructure projects, since they are going to take years to ramp up, what with developing the highly trained workers now needed for such projects and building the equipment needed to build the infrastructure. If you factor in SignyM's tariff idea, it gets even harder, since much constriction machinery is currently imported.

For one the US is a massive exporter of construction equipment. While massive projects will take time to ramp up smaller infrastructure projects can be started. Just helping small cities replace older water and sewer piping would be a huge boom. Those types of projects don't require much specilized workers or equipment. Basic things like road repair and repaving could be speed up with work crews already availible.

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

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And if debt/GDP stayed level, why'd the deficit go up?

...because GDP went up as well. Do you not understand how ratios work?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Once again, this is based on your belief that Keynes is the only solution.

As noted early in this thread, recessions appear to end in similar periods of time regardless of who is in office, or what actions they take.

This is bullshit. I showed you already that regardless of who was in office the government always introduced some type of stimulas to the economy during recessions, even if it was not called that.

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

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
to explain YOUR understanding using your own words. It not only tests YOUR understanding of those theories, it also makes clear where YOU might deviate from their formal theories. When addressing your (or their) theories, we can then address our questions or disagreements TO YOU, not Wikipedia.

As I tried to make clear in the religion analogy, I don't have theories on how macroeconomics (which seems to be the type of economics relating to curing recession/depression) should work. I have questions and doubts about all the schools.

Also as noted, the specific problem I have with Keynes is that if his theories don't work, you end up in a deeper hole that's even harder to get out of. Since (I know you'll hate it, but...) Keynes cure has not fully ended a recession/depression short of a wartime economic bubble, it puts me in mind of the first person to test a parachute, except you're throwing the whole country out of the plane.

I also note that recent recessions seem to have ended, regardless of who is in office, in generally the same time period.

Quote:
(and you) Have failed to propose any suggestions or explain your rationale, in your own words. In other words: have not addressed the topic of the thread.

The question I originally had was whether the current conservative response to recession (...lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation.) was any more or less successful than the current liberal response (Deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector, easy monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand, and mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption.)

I said, "Now if you could show that recessions didn't go away during conservative administrations, and did go away during liberal administrations, that might support the point of the cited article. However, that doesn't seem to be the case."

You and KPO dragged us off into the Great Depression and Keynes. I should have stayed on my topic, but got distracted.

I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.

"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."

ELVISCHRIST

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:29 PM

Geezer, if you don't have any information that persuades you one way or the other, why is it that you specifically point out Keynesian economics as not being something you can believe in?

You don't seem to have any problem believing in Hayek or others, despite your own assertion that nobody knows and that all economic beliefs are akin to acts of faith.

So what is your underlying bias that prevents you from accepting that, in your own estimation, Keynes is every bit as valid as any other economic school of thought?

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm still looking for an answer to whether conservative or liberal response to recession, as proposed in the article KPO cited, has worked better in the recent past.

Again the responces by both have been the same...stimulus.

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

KPO

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:06 PM

Quote:
No. It ignores that completely. It just shows that federal spending increased greatly.

And so did revenue. Keynes doesn't call for tax and spend in recessions. He calls for deficit spend. But we've covered this already...

Quote:
Actually, spending as a percent of GDP increased quite a bit, as shown above.

Greater spending does not necessarily mean greater debt, and deficits. Deficit = Spending - Revenue.

Quote:
And if debt/GDP stayed level, why'd the deficit go up?

If debt goes up 10%, and GDP goes up 10%, debt/GDP stays the same. You can trust me on this, I'm a maths tutor.

Quote:
Or that the economy turned around DESPITE what Roosevelt was doing, and would have recovered sooner with less intervention. So I could say that your data proves Hayek or Rothbard was right.

Yeah, this tells me that you're not even looking at the data. How exactly could the data I provided back up Hayek or Rothbard?

Quote:
Who knows?

Graphs, number and data are not your thing, are they. That's fine, but why get into economics debates, insisting other people's conclusions are unreasonable, when you have no idea? Just because YOU don't understand doesn't mean other people can't.

Anyway, this is a graph showing how GDP growth (red line) tracked spending (blue line) during the GD:

I think any honest person who knows how to read a graph will conclude that there's probably a relationship there. An even better graph is this one, deficits vs GDP:

Early deficits are driven by the drop in GDP, and the collapse in revenues. But after that, the causal relationship is the other way around, and is undeniable - deficits are creating growth.

Quote:
Yep.

Lots of stuff you and SignyM have ignored as well. You really want to go there?

Look, I don't really expect you to answer my questions, because I know you can't (especially the first 2). But any question of yours that you want me to answer I will - or I'll tell you why I ignored it. I'll only answer one, so choose your best one.

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

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:15 PM

Geezer is literlly doing everything he can to stay willfully ignorant in this thread.

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

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE