6493 replies to this topic

[brvheart]

strategy, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:53 PM, said:

as h has said repeatedly, unemployment benefits and other similar transfer payments are the least damaging of the various stimuli (that is probably not the right plural). I think it is completely absurd that the right is choosing this issue to make a stand, especially since it alienates so, so many voters and (again) so many economists, even right-leaning ones, think it is basically harmless.this was something dr. cowen said in the podcast. just fyi.

I wasn't speaking about unemployment benefits in particular. I agree with you again. Stupid move by the repubs. They just want to stop the bleeding and are taking a stand against all major expenditures.My point was directed at the specific question you asked. I think there is a big difference between tax cuts (with or without spending reductions) and straight expenditures.

[CaneBrain]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:04 PM, said:

I wasn't speaking about unemployment benefits in particular. I agree with you again. Stupid move by the repubs. They just want to stop the bleeding and are taking a stand against all major expenditures.My point was directed at the specific question you asked. I think there is a big difference between tax cuts (with or without spending reductions) and straight expenditures.

yes but they have chosen to take a stand on:1) free health care for 9/11 responders2) unemployment and not on:1) the AMT tax I happen to agree that we should not undo the AMT because it helps a lot of people but it will cost the government 1000x as much as the above two issues and we have not proactively decided how to pay for it. It seems less like the GOP has a principled stand on this and more like grandstanding when they can.

[LongLiveYorke]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:59 PM, said:

For Strat: LLY, I'm not trying to rip on you.

No one thought that, including myself. And I was serious about being an idiot, but only when it comes to economics. I know almost nothing about it, and I can just repeat what I hear and what makes sense in my head at the time.

[LongLiveYorke]

brvheart, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 1:29 PM, said:

The bolded is probably a fair point, but then I would need to know who agrees with you. Krugman?

Well, yes, I do like Krugman, but I'd never use him to convince a Republican of a point because they don't like to listen to him.I also like these guys:Dean BakerJoseph StiglitzNouriel Roubini

[ShakeZuma]

yorke: all you need to know is that mk is wrong about EVERYTHING(except for laura marling)

[CaneBrain]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:32 PM, said:

Well, yes, I do like Krugman, but I'd never use him to convince a Republican of a point because they don't like to listen to him.I also like these guys:Dean BakerJoseph StiglitzNouriel Roubini

His brother Hugo was excellent in Inglourious Basterds.

[El Guapo]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

yes but they have chosen to take a stand on:1) free health care for 9/11 responders2) unemployment and not on:1) the AMT tax I happen to agree that we should not undo the AMT because it helps a lot of people but it will cost the government 1000x as much as the above two issues and we have not proactively decided how to pay for it. It seems less like the GOP has a principled stand on this and more like grandstanding when they can.

Every year they put a patch on the AMT. If they didn't it would affect something like 27 Million Americans. It needs to be fixed. It was put in place to tax 155 families that had so many write offs they paid no tax. It was not created with an inflation adjustment.

[CaneBrain]

El Guapo, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:51 PM, said:

Every year they put a patch on the AMT. If they didn't it would affect something like 27 Million Americans. It needs to be fixed. It was put in place to tax 155 families that had so many write offs they paid no tax. It was not created with an inflation adjustment.

We put off lots of things we should do today. That's the American way (of governance).

[FCP Bob]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:54 PM, said:

We put off lots of things we should do today. That's the American way (of governance).

Is that the platform of the Procrastination Party ?

[AmScray]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 8:33 AM, said:

Bill Clinton has more cool in his pinky than the last four GOP presidents put together.

I don't know about that. Clinton always struck me as a bit of a kicked-puppy with an intense need to be loved and accepted. You cannot possibly be cool when you're a 'pleaser' and always burying your nose up everyone's anus. Like, lets say the ex-Presidents of the past few decades are walking down an alley when they're confronted by a group of attackers.Jimmy Carter hands over his wallet.Reagan covertly undoes the snap on his holster. Bush 1 takes the cue from Reagan and starts to maneuver accordingly. Clinton sheds a single, lonely tear and starts talking about their pain and how he understands why they need to do what they've done.Bush 2 is confused but realizing there's a problem, starts flailing around and wildly swinging at everyone.Obama tells them that if they don't knock this stuff off, he won't loan them any money at the next family reunion. A president cannot possibly be worth shit unless he's at least a wee bit of an ass kicker. That's a presidents *only* job; to be volatile, unpredictable and possible dangerous in the eyes of the world. In this country, we leave the planning and intellectual stuff to our Jewish 'advisers'. None of the (D)'s have ever been much more than weeping bitches, simply because one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon and since one cannot be both poon and ass-kicker, the (D)'s fall very short in the testosterone category, invariably coming off as twirling, wrist flopping homos. Since this is America and not Europe, they must make hollow overtures to look like 'a mans man', so we wind up with pictures of John Kerry awkwardly holding a shotgun or Hussein throwing a baseball like a girl, somewhat oblivious to the fact that everyone sees through their fiction and straight into their estrogen-laden souls. I hope that fat dego from New Jersey runs. I'd probably vote for him, if for no reason other than the Whitehouse hasn't had a fattie in office since William Howard Taft and I support dietary diversity.

[hblask]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:05 AM, said:

It's funny that the thing he has very little control over, the economy,

[hblask]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:05 AM, said:

Congress has only helped the economy with the stimulus and the financial bill (if you say these hurt today's economy, you're wrong), but they'll still receive the blame.

Please present a complete theory how taking money from the productive sector and transferring to the politically connected, lobbyists, and unions can improve the economy. I've asked many people many times, and nobody can offer a plausible theory.The financial bill just guarantees another crisis a decade from now, which people who weren't paying attention will again blame on "free markets."

[hblask]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 3:27 AM, said:

Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure,

Within 10 miles of my house, two roads were completely torn out and repaved, using stimulus dollars. They were in perfect shape before the project, and in the same shape two months later. No lanes or capacity were added, no change in traffic flow.For our next benefit, we are going to dig holes and fill them back in. That's the recipe for real economic growth.Oh, and less than 7% of the stimulus went toward anything that can even plausibly called infrastructure, even by the deluded standards of this administration.

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 7:02 PM, said:

Within 10 miles of my house, two roads were completely torn out and repaved, using stimulus dollars. They were in perfect shape before the project, and in the same shape two months later. No lanes or capacity were added, no change in traffic flow.For our next benefit, we are going to dig holes and fill them back in. That's the recipe for real economic growth.Oh, and less than 7% of the stimulus went toward anything that can even plausibly called infrastructure, even by the deluded standards of this administration.

There's a large project here to fix the Palmetto Expressway (worst road ever) and it is providing 1,000 jobs. Maybe you guys should take a look at your bridges. The idea that all construction is "digging a hole and filling it in" is ridiculous.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 5:07 PM, said:

There's a large project here to fix the Palmetto Expressway (worst road ever) and it is providing 1,000 jobs. Maybe you guys should take a look at your bridges. The idea that all construction is "digging a hole and filling it in" is ridiculous.

A large proportion of the infrastructure that came from the stimulus was wasted, and the infrastructure portion was a tiny portion of the stimulus. The rest went to gifts to unions, lobbyists, and political congressmen. Did they probably hit a few necessary projects along the way? It would be pretty hard not to, with that much money, but their hit percentage seems to be lower than if they had just listed random states and cities on a dartboard.

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 7:13 PM, said:

A large proportion of the infrastructure that came from the stimulus was wasted, and the infrastructure portion was a tiny portion of the stimulus. The rest went to gifts to unions, lobbyists, and political congressmen. Did they probably hit a few necessary projects along the way? It would be pretty hard not to, with that much money, but their hit percentage seems to be lower than if they had just listed random states and cities on a dartboard.

I'm sure it is about the same. Don't set up a system where you need extremely powerful political AND corporate/union and then act surprised when everyone gets a payoff post-election. For Bush it was Halliburton and other corporate interests. For Obama it was the stimulus. He has no choice if he wants a prayer of getting elected again in 2012. They cleanse their conscience by assuring themselves that a good portion of the money will go to good use.It's why I am so adamant that corporations and unions and lobbies not be allowed to inundate the political process with money. You have to get money out of politics. It's the only way to stop stuff like this; otherwise, you just have to accept it and move on. Some nobody named Rick Scott who had to pay a 1.7 billion dollar fine for Medicare Fraud at his hospitals won the GOP nomination for governor. This guy is a complete jackass who wants to bring the Arizona immigration law to Florida (I know you are a huge fan of that). He ran the most dirty, negative campaign I have ever seen.but he spent 50 million on a PRIMARY campaign (see, sometimes the rich don't create jobs with their wealth) and just hammered at his opponent until he broke. Even then, he only won 51-49 bc he is so ridiculous. I am sure he will spend 100 million trying to win the governorship (a position that Dems had no chance at if Scott loses the primary.....Rick Scott polls terribly with independents and liberals, of course, despise him.)

[dapokerbum]

hblask, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 4:13 PM, said:

A large proportion of the infrastructure that came from the stimulus was wasted, and the infrastructure portion was a tiny portion of the stimulus. The rest went to gifts to unions, lobbyists, and political congressmen. Did they probably hit a few necessary projects along the way? It would be pretty hard not to, with that much money, but their hit percentage seems to be lower than if they had just listed random states and cities on a dartboard.

At first look, I swear this said "unicorns" ...

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 5:21 PM, said:

I'm sure it is about the same. Don't set up a system where you need extremely powerful political AND corporate/union and then act surprised when everyone gets a payoff post-election. For Bush it was Halliburton and other corporate interests. For Obama it was the stimulus. He has no choice if he wants a prayer of getting elected again in 2012. They cleanse their conscience by assuring themselves that a good portion of the money will go to good use.It's why I am so adamant that corporations and unions and lobbies not be allowed to inundate the political process with money. You have to get money out of politics. It's the only way to stop stuff like this; otherwise, you just have to accept it and move on. Some nobody named Rick Scott who had to pay a 1.7 billion dollar fine for Medicare Fraud at his hospitals won the GOP nomination for governor. This guy is a complete jackass who wants to bring the Arizona immigration law to Florida (I know you are a huge fan of that). He ran the most dirty, negative campaign I have ever seen.but he spent 50 million on a PRIMARY campaign (see, sometimes the rich don't create jobs with their wealth) and just hammered at his opponent until he broke. Even then, he only won 51-49 bc he is so ridiculous. I am sure he will spend 100 million trying to win the governorship (a position that Dems had no chance at if Scott loses the primary.....Rick Scott polls terribly with independents and liberals, of course, despise him.)

This is where the founders were wise. They knew that if you started allowing the govt to hand out goodies that those goodies would go to the highest bidder. The only answer is to quit asking for federal solutions to local problems, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Too many people think their own welfare is good for the nation and it's only those other people's welfare that is bad for us.

[LongLiveYorke]

hblask, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 6:56 PM, said:

Okay...?

hblask, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 6:58 PM, said:

Please present a complete theory how taking money from the productive sector and transferring to the politically connected, lobbyists, and unions can improve the economy. I've asked many people many times, and nobody can offer a plausible theory.

The Stimulus bill, which I was talking about, didn't take money from the productive sector of today, which is the point I was making. I'm not sure what your rebuttal is rebutting.And I don't need to make a complete "theory" for several reasons. One, there is no such thing as a complete economic theory. One has never existed and one will never exist. There are models, and every model has errors. Some are more accurate than others.Besides, why do I need to make a theory when I can instead produce concrete evidence that taking money from the rich as a higher proportion can produce an economically strong country. See, for example: America, United States of, 1776 -> present. For further evidence, see: Europe, countries of -> ~ 1800's to present.Also, I have chosen to ignore the "politically connected, lobbyists, and unions" part of your comment on the grounds that it's silly.

hblask, on Monday, August 30th, 2010, 7:02 PM, said:

Within 10 miles of my house, two roads were completely torn out and repaved, using stimulus dollars. They were in perfect shape before the project, and in the same shape two months later. No lanes or capacity were added, no change in traffic flow.For our next benefit, we are going to dig holes and fill them back in. That's the recipe for real economic growth.Oh, and less than 7% of the stimulus went toward anything that can even plausibly called infrastructure, even by the deluded standards of this administration.

Oh my god, one example that you are sure is a waste because you looked at it! Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.I mean, for a person who always says, "evidence matters," sometimes you choose to live in a world very different from the real one.

[akoff]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

Okay...?The Stimulus bill, which I was talking about, didn't take money from the productive sector of today, which is the point I was making. I'm not sure what your rebuttal is rebutting.And I don't need to make a complete "theory" for several reasons. One, there is no such thing as a complete economic theory. One has never existed and one will never exist. There are models, and every model has errors. Some are more accurate than others.Besides, why do I need to make a theory when I can instead produce concrete evidence that taking money from the rich as a higher proportion can produce an economically strong country. See, for example: America, United States of, 1776 -> present. For further evidence, see: Europe, countries of -> ~ 1800's to present.Also, I have chosen to ignore the "politically connected, lobbyists, and unions" part of your comment on the grounds that it's silly.Oh my god, one example that you are sure is a waste because you looked at it! Besides, even if the government were digging holes and filling them in, that can still have an economic benefit. I know you'll disagree and say that it's part of your fundamental theory, but you'd be wrong. For example, the biggest turn around in American history came as a result of America paying a lot of people to build big machines to dig holes and fill them back in and then destroying those machines.I mean, for a person who always says, "evidence matters," sometimes you choose to live in a world very different from the real one.

hmmm where to begin....somewhere in this thread you stated you didn't understand ecomomics, you have proved that with this comment.