By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 15 March 2012
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:



The jury is still out on whether or not the Bush tax cuts created jobs or simply increased the Budget deficit and added to the national debt. Both sides of politics: Republicans and Democrats engage in class struggle arguments to justify their political positions: basic assumptions or political rhetoric aimed at the common voting American.

letting people keep their own money in no-way increased the debt. the only possible way to add to the deficit is to spend.

spending is what adds to the debt, not letting people keep their own money.

 

sorry i just hate when people say that, as if the government is entitled to our money, or that its already theirs.

Unfunded tax cuts? They definitely increase the deficit. Just like any entity, the Federal Government has a series of constant expenses, spending that is ongoing, and the best way to get further into debt is to have ongoing expenses and yet your revenue stream dries up, which is what happens to troubled businesses all the time, except this time the Federal Government did so willingly.

A real debate would be the efficacy of supply-side economics, or rather, is it better for money to trickle down than to trickle up? Welfare money is just as good as that extra $20,000 you get to keep because of a lower capital gains tax, but who spends it more effectively?

 


That's.. a debate that's been had a long time ago though in academic circles.... and has been pretty well decided ever since Jimmy Carter.

I mean.. consider this... the stimulist was carried out by what you'd consider "Right wing supply side economists."

Stagflation disproves keynsianism, because in a keynsian system, stagflation can't exist.

It's no different then a republican asking for a debate on abortion or something.

Keynsian economics is a niche right now that's been disproven time and time again... and actually doesn't call for huge social welfare programs or government control in the first place.  Except specific times of crisis.

Support for Keynsian economics is more or less anti-intellectualism.

Monetism, I have extreme doubts for, but at least it's consistant at this point.

 

The problem with both... but espiecally Keynsianism is they rely too much on statistical formulas for something that's a "Social Science".

Which economics is.  C+I+G+X-M=Y, Ignores P.

In otherwords people.  People are the foundation of the economy, and Keynsian economics totally ignores consumer confidence.  Or rather, the effect of MASSIVE government spending and deficits on consumer confidence. 

The government massivly spends on stimulius, and if that money goes to the people... it stays dead in the water, because even the poorer and lower middle class will mostly save, because they know the economy sucks and they might end up out of a job soon.

The stimulus goes to buisnesses...they don't hire more people... because they know the stimulus is going to end, and there aren't any customers to replace government money.

 

Keynsian economics expects people to go "Yay! the government is saving us, look at that broad GDP number that's up.  Let's ignore the man behind the curtain!"


Honestly, say what you want about people... they're smarter then that.

 

All you can do in times of poor economics to not make it much worse... is to modestly increase your budget to help those out of work... since there are more of them, not extend unemployment, but create a second tier of it.... and wait for "acceptence."

 

Then real growth will happen again.  As people realize "This is just the economy.  It's now or never on that bigscreen TV."  Then ironically... the economy gets better.