Quantcast
Romney or Obama and why

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

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.



Around the Network
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).



Badassbab said:

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).

I don't know if that was your intended implication, but you've implied that the "right" don't listen to facts, and only have blind faith in the markets. This is not true.