ugrant, it seems like you take a "fair and balanced" approach to the facts. Much like fox news.
As far as I know, WWII itself was the best evidence of the power of deficit spending. I see that you credit Reagan not only with the fall of the Soviet Union, but also with the good economic times of the Clinton years. Maybe Reagan also brings rain in spring.
Can't bring yourself to credit Clinton's policies for the surplus in the 90s, eh?
Mainstream economists think that the 2009 stimulus has modestly increased growth in the 3rd and 4th quarters. See, e.g., http://www.google.com/search?q=sifma+2009+outlook&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Your "war bonds" question seems like a Palin remark. What the heck does it mean?
1969 AUCTION LEAGUE - CHAT ONLY
by ugrant » Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:16 am
Geez, read my post again, Franky. I didn't credit Reagan with the boom years of the 90s, I pointed out your earlier post about deficit spending would seem to show you think it would account for it. I was responding to your assertion that most economists think deficit spending results in a heated up economy, using the only examples I could think of. If you have any others, please share. I do not agree with your assertion of "most economists." Lots, yes. Most, nope.
As for WWII, I think you would have to agree that after 1945 the US economy was the only one not in tatters and that to rebuild their economies (and infrastructure) every other nation had to rely on the US to do it. That was a unique event. WWII caused the economy to boom after the war because the US was the only one left standing.
Sarah Palin now? You think I'm a Republican? Ha! I'm a card carrying Democrat, have been since the seventies.
War Bonds were sold to the people of the US to finance the war. That was deficit spending where the interest went to the citizens of the US, not to other countries. Simple enough for you?
Btw, you jumped on Bush for huge deficits - so how come the economy isn't booming now because of his deficits?
Rather than attempt to label and try to marginalize me, why don't you stick to the issue and either refute or illuminate with facts and argument?
As for WWII, I think you would have to agree that after 1945 the US economy was the only one not in tatters and that to rebuild their economies (and infrastructure) every other nation had to rely on the US to do it. That was a unique event. WWII caused the economy to boom after the war because the US was the only one left standing.
Sarah Palin now? You think I'm a Republican? Ha! I'm a card carrying Democrat, have been since the seventies.
War Bonds were sold to the people of the US to finance the war. That was deficit spending where the interest went to the citizens of the US, not to other countries. Simple enough for you?
Btw, you jumped on Bush for huge deficits - so how come the economy isn't booming now because of his deficits?
Rather than attempt to label and try to marginalize me, why don't you stick to the issue and either refute or illuminate with facts and argument?
- ugrant
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Held
by GFDWARF07 » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:21 am
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/1969/league/boxscore.html?group_id=11141&g_id=416
This from another league I am in. I don't have him but Held hit 4 HRs in one game last eve - all solos. Great box score line 4 4 4 4. He now has 22 in 149 ABs. Guess that supports the earlier arguments - can we reopen bidding on him through a special directive from the commish? :)
This from another league I am in. I don't have him but Held hit 4 HRs in one game last eve - all solos. Great box score line 4 4 4 4. He now has 22 in 149 ABs. Guess that supports the earlier arguments - can we reopen bidding on him through a special directive from the commish? :)
- GFDWARF07
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by franky35 » Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:50 pm
ugrant, on WWII spending, I was pointing out that deficit spending prior to and during the war caused increased employment during the buildup and US involvement in the war. Thus, the classical Keynesian view is that the New Deal had insufficient deficit spending, but the massive deficit spending during the war pulled the US out of the Depression. This happened during the war, not after the war. During the Eisenhower years we ran a surplus.
Regarding Bush deficits, they did help the economy during the Bush years. The collapse (or near collapse) of the financial system at the end of the Bush administration was a failure of the private sector (mostly banking and insurance). Even Greenspan admitted that the collapse proved the need for tighter regulation of the markets.
The logic of deficit spending to stimulate the economy is simple. If there are 100 workers and 12 of those workers are unemployed, and if the government borrows money to employ 3 workers, then there will be only 9 unemployed workers. A multiplier effect occurs when a private sector job is created to provide goods and services for those 3 newly employed workers. Do you agree that when we borrow money to hire 3 new workers, we will have at least 3 fewer unemployed workers (at least in the short run)?
[Note the above situation is simplified, of course it is true that some stimulus spending went to tax cuts, some to states so fewer state employees would be fired, and some in incentives to private citizens to buy goods and services (like cars).]
Since you're a Democrat, what policy areas do you prefer the Democrats over the Republicans?
Finally, since you and Sneeze are sooo worried about the deficit. I guess then that you want a return to Clintonomics. Is that right?
And, since the deficit is so important, Clintons tax and spending policies were vastly superior to those of Reagan and Bush I and II since all 3 Republican presidents ran massive deficits in good times and bad. Is that right?
Finally, I'll remark that you have a strange idea that stimulus spending in year 1 creates jobs in year 5 (e.g., deficit spending by Bush created jobs now). Stimulus spending is effective only in the short term - the goal of Keynesian stimulus spending is to kickstart the economy until the private sector recovers. Which goes back to my initial question (which you have avoided), isn't it logical to deficit spend in times of high employment and run surpluses in flush times?
Regarding Bush deficits, they did help the economy during the Bush years. The collapse (or near collapse) of the financial system at the end of the Bush administration was a failure of the private sector (mostly banking and insurance). Even Greenspan admitted that the collapse proved the need for tighter regulation of the markets.
The logic of deficit spending to stimulate the economy is simple. If there are 100 workers and 12 of those workers are unemployed, and if the government borrows money to employ 3 workers, then there will be only 9 unemployed workers. A multiplier effect occurs when a private sector job is created to provide goods and services for those 3 newly employed workers. Do you agree that when we borrow money to hire 3 new workers, we will have at least 3 fewer unemployed workers (at least in the short run)?
[Note the above situation is simplified, of course it is true that some stimulus spending went to tax cuts, some to states so fewer state employees would be fired, and some in incentives to private citizens to buy goods and services (like cars).]
Since you're a Democrat, what policy areas do you prefer the Democrats over the Republicans?
Finally, since you and Sneeze are sooo worried about the deficit. I guess then that you want a return to Clintonomics. Is that right?
And, since the deficit is so important, Clintons tax and spending policies were vastly superior to those of Reagan and Bush I and II since all 3 Republican presidents ran massive deficits in good times and bad. Is that right?
Finally, I'll remark that you have a strange idea that stimulus spending in year 1 creates jobs in year 5 (e.g., deficit spending by Bush created jobs now). Stimulus spending is effective only in the short term - the goal of Keynesian stimulus spending is to kickstart the economy until the private sector recovers. Which goes back to my initial question (which you have avoided), isn't it logical to deficit spend in times of high employment and run surpluses in flush times?
- franky35
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Sneezedoc » Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:13 pm
My problem is not so much with the actual deficit Franky, but where the money is going. Do you really think "cash for clunkers" was a good deal for the auto industry? It was a "blip" in revenue for them, an unsustainable blip. If we can't compete in the car industry, let 'em close down. Who said we must make cars in the US? I don't feel I should support other companies' failures. I am pissed off about the bailouts to the finance industry even when Bush started them: I really believe that this is a slow bleeding downward spiral when I would really rather have some of these financial institutions shut their doors and let natural causes take their course (even though it might be short term more severe).
And when do you trust a guy in the role of Treasury Secretary who doesn't pay his own taxes?? I would have thought Obama would ran on a "change platform" would not let this happen.
Of course my biggest personal issue is health care reform (as it is what I do for a living). You can say what you want but I will tell you that I know you are going to get a lot less intelligent, qualified Americans going into medicine if you take away incentives for them to work for profit (which is where Obama's plan is heading us). Never mind that 1/3 of the people who are uninsured in this country (15 million of the 45 million) make over 80,000/year and CHOOSE not to take insurance. That is their choice and I don't feel like the government with all the other major problems going on right now needs to tackle this one issue. And why are the congressmen/senators and president NOT going to be part of the new government plan and instead have their own gold plated insurance: because the new plan is the first step to socialized medicine which is horrible medicine. You can tell me anything you want about the healthcare in other countries: why does every foreign dignitary come HERE for medical care if our system is so "horrible"?
And when do you trust a guy in the role of Treasury Secretary who doesn't pay his own taxes?? I would have thought Obama would ran on a "change platform" would not let this happen.
Of course my biggest personal issue is health care reform (as it is what I do for a living). You can say what you want but I will tell you that I know you are going to get a lot less intelligent, qualified Americans going into medicine if you take away incentives for them to work for profit (which is where Obama's plan is heading us). Never mind that 1/3 of the people who are uninsured in this country (15 million of the 45 million) make over 80,000/year and CHOOSE not to take insurance. That is their choice and I don't feel like the government with all the other major problems going on right now needs to tackle this one issue. And why are the congressmen/senators and president NOT going to be part of the new government plan and instead have their own gold plated insurance: because the new plan is the first step to socialized medicine which is horrible medicine. You can tell me anything you want about the healthcare in other countries: why does every foreign dignitary come HERE for medical care if our system is so "horrible"?
- Sneezedoc
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by franky35 » Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:21 am
My strongest opinion on health care reform is end of life counseling/planning. It is both the morally and economically correct thing to do. The rest of it is too complex for me, but medicare costs need to be controlled to prevent significant increases in the medicare tax. I pretty much agree that malpractice suits are a scam that should be stopped.
Cash for clunkers was great for automakers since it was a one time gift of a couple billion. Whether it was a good deal for US taxpayers is a different question andI don't have an opinion on that.
The bailout of the financial industry saved us from an economic collapse, which would have cost us trillions and resulted in great misery. Anarchy is not actually a good system of government.
Cash for clunkers was great for automakers since it was a one time gift of a couple billion. Whether it was a good deal for US taxpayers is a different question andI don't have an opinion on that.
The bailout of the financial industry saved us from an economic collapse, which would have cost us trillions and resulted in great misery. Anarchy is not actually a good system of government.
- franky35
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: 1969, 1986, 1999
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests