By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

SamuelRSmith said:
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
I suspect that Austerity in Europe means the same thing it does to Democrats AND Republicans in the US.

That is.... cut future projected spending INCREASES.

Outside of the few countries already on deaths door anyway.


That was my thought. Every article I've read about European austerity is simply about reducing the revenue-expense chasm by cutting future funds, rather than shuttering/firing/reducing actual spending today.


I was talking with a member of the Government the other day, and he seriously believed that the only country "cutting" more than Britain, was the USA.

Oh, he's a leading member of the Conservative party, too.


Cuts? Where? Its certainly not at the federal level. Some states are cutting back, but that is about it. Even then, the states cutting back are getting hounded by some insane factions. In Wisconsin, when Governor Walker broke up the public unions, the union backers came in and forced him into a recall election - they've spent tens of millions of dollars to try to get him impeached.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network

mrstickball said:

Cuts? Where? Its certainly not at the federal level. Some states are cutting back, but that is about it. Even then, the states cutting back are getting hounded by some insane factions. In Wisconsin, when Governor Walker broke up the public unions, the union backers came in and forced him into a recall election - they've spent tens of millions of dollars to try to get him impeached.


This is my point, these Governments literally have no idea what's going on. What I suspect he was talking about was those baseline cuts in the reduction in the growth of the military budget... which, if you looked at in just dollar terms, probably does amount to larger "cuts" than what our Government has introduced.

I mean, what were the baseline cuts? Like 5 points over 10 years or something? That's probably something like $70-$80 billion (pulling these numbers out my arse).



SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Flanneryaug said:

Tax cuts and spending are basically the same thing. Both raise the defecit. Also, you need to spend to get out of a recession, and then you cut once the economy is better.


No, you don't. Read up on the recession of 1921. The initial decrease was much larger than that of 1929's. The Government cut spending and taxes, and the economy was growing again by 1922. Look at every recession since, where the response has been more spending... and look at how long they last.

But we forget that Hoover attempted a response similar to Harding's, and things dragged through to 1932, bottoming out only until FDR was elected.

http://mises.org/daily/4197 

http://mises.org/daily/4350

Nope, hadn't been aware of that, I guess it's another historical myth. I do remember that part of the issue was the adherence to the gold standard from my Monetary Economics class, part of the issue that messed up Europe after the first world war by attempting to restore pre-war prices.

Of course, the issue with Keynesianism is that its tied to democracy, and improperly applied. Higher tax rates should be applied during the boom times to help slow the inevitable economic overheating (accumulating a surplus), set against tax cuts and stimulus spending during the



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:

Nope, hadn't been aware of that, I guess it's another historical myth. I do remember that part of the issue was the adherence to the gold standard from my Monetary Economics class, part of the issue that messed up Europe after the first world war by attempting to restore pre-war prices.

Of course, the issue with Keynesianism is that its tied to democracy, and improperly applied. Higher tax rates should be applied during the boom times to help slow the inevitable economic overheating (accumulating a surplus), set against tax cuts and stimulus spending during the

If we just had a market-based currency system, the boom-bust cycle would be vastly reduced, and there would be no need for all this economic-engineering from central planners.



Talking of tax-cuts and such, does anyone actually still think trickle-down economics genuinely helps the poor in the end?



Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Flanneryaug said:

Tax cuts and spending are basically the same thing. Both raise the defecit. Also, you need to spend to get out of a recession, and then you cut once the economy is better.


No, you don't. Read up on the recession of 1921. The initial decrease was much larger than that of 1929's. The Government cut spending and taxes, and the economy was growing again by 1922. Look at every recession since, where the response has been more spending... and look at how long they last.

But we forget that Hoover attempted a response similar to Harding's, and things dragged through to 1932, bottoming out only until FDR was elected.

http://mises.org/daily/4197 

http://mises.org/daily/4350

Nope, hadn't been aware of that, I guess it's another historical myth. I do remember that part of the issue was the adherence to the gold standard from my Monetary Economics class, part of the issue that messed up Europe after the first world war by attempting to restore pre-war prices.

Of course, the issue with Keynesianism is that its tied to democracy, and improperly applied. Higher tax rates should be applied during the boom times to help slow the inevitable economic overheating (accumulating a surplus), set against tax cuts and stimulus spending during the

FYI, Hoover pursued the same policies FDR did to rectify the Great Depression. Its an absolute myth that Hoover somehow sat on his hands while the economy went in the dumps. He raised taxes and implemented a lot that he could. The only difference was that he had less time to pursue FDR-style policies due to his defeat in the election.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rath said:
Talking of tax-cuts and such, does anyone actually still think trickle-down economics genuinely helps the poor in the end?


Depends on how you define "trickle down" economics. If you're only attempting to alleviate a rich man's burden, its not going to have a great effect. If you reduce government regulation and its burden on the economy for everyone, it tends to help everyone.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rath said:
Talking of tax-cuts and such, does anyone actually still think trickle-down economics genuinely helps the poor in the end?


Yes. Although a better way to help the poor is to cut taxes which directly hit the poor - low-level state income, fuel duties, sales taxes, property taxes.



Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Flanneryaug said:

Tax cuts and spending are basically the same thing. Both raise the defecit. Also, you need to spend to get out of a recession, and then you cut once the economy is better.


No, you don't. Read up on the recession of 1921. The initial decrease was much larger than that of 1929's. The Government cut spending and taxes, and the economy was growing again by 1922. Look at every recession since, where the response has been more spending... and look at how long they last.

But we forget that Hoover attempted a response similar to Harding's, and things dragged through to 1932, bottoming out only until FDR was elected.

http://mises.org/daily/4197 

http://mises.org/daily/4350

Nope, hadn't been aware of that, I guess it's another historical myth. I do remember that part of the issue was the adherence to the gold standard from my Monetary Economics class, part of the issue that messed up Europe after the first world war by attempting to restore pre-war prices.

Of course, the issue with Keynesianism is that its tied to democracy, and improperly applied. Higher tax rates should be applied during the boom times to help slow the inevitable economic overheating (accumulating a surplus), set against tax cuts and stimulus spending during the

Yeah... Hoover actually was all about the spending.  It's funny, his outgoing speech he basically said "Well I may be faulted for not getting us out of this, but the one thing that can't be said is that I didn't try anything."

Also worth noting about Hoover... as is important to certain economic beleifs today.

He saw Wallstreet as unproductive captial and industry as productive captial... and pushed for counter cylical budgetary policy.

http://foundationsofecon.blogspot.com/2011/02/hoover-was-keynesian.html

 

Hoover was a Keynsian before Keynes.



Rath said:
Talking of tax-cuts and such, does anyone actually still think trickle-down economics genuinely helps the poor in the end?


Not really. I guess i depends on how it's implemented. Over the last 30 odd years with the liberalisation of the financial sector the rich got very very rich, while for everyone else wages stagnated (adjusting for inflation).  But most people didn't really care or noticed because the quality of life seemingly improved, technology in all sectors (cars, sound systems, PCs, washing machines  etc) kept improving, lots of escapist activities to take one's mind of things like gym, sport, movies, pubs, clubs, games and so on.

There's a lot of interesting arguments on the issue as those on the left tend to refer to cherry picked statistics to support their arguments while on the right there's more of a belief in the individual and market fundamentalism (like faith like religious fundamentalism but the invisible hand instead of God).