the romney record

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Johnny Retro said:
Lets be more like Japan! Interest rates have to stay at 0% forever or the economy will dive into a depression? Fuck it! Print print print!
The delusional liberal arts student who studied 1 semester of kenyes and thinks by saying "aggregate demand will boost the economy" makes him smart. So how much more stimulus do we need to create this "aggregate demand"? Im pretty sure we're still at 8.2% unemployment with a labor force shrinking. Do we need another 700bil? 2tril? How much more money do we need to print to create this aggregate demand?

"Obama’s economic team, Paul Krugman, and other aggregate-demand elves have spent the last three years on the aggregate-demand vs. unemployment problem, heedless of the collateral damage their theories do to the economy. Hayek warned that efforts to goose aggregate demand cause “a very extensive misallocation of resources which is likely to make later large-scale unemployment inevitable.” Subsidies from Washington steer workers into phony jobs"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2012/03/28/friedrich-von-hayek-predicted-the-limp-obama-economy/
Click to expand...

let's do contractionary economics! oh, wait. even romney says that's a dumb idea.

maybe rawn pawl economics? let it all burn to the ground? the my lai approach? yeah, more suffering is awesome.

or we could do the no drama obama approach, spend our way back to stability, then level off spending, then work on paying down the debt once we are in a better position to do so. just like we are doing so far.
 
B

budleydoright

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
lol, like bush ever flew one of those. where are his records?

.
Click to expand...
I too laughed at what an ass bush was as a president but he did more to further the extreme right agenda and transfer wealth and power to the people that put him in office than all who came before him. So now in hindsight and in light of the current mess we are still trying to get out of you can see how brilliant his administration was. Too bad they are working toward the destruction of our middle class.
 
Johnny Retro

Johnny Retro

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
let's do contractionary economics! oh, wait. even romney says that's a dumb idea.

maybe rawn pawl economics? let it all burn to the ground? the my lai approach? yeah, more suffering is awesome.

or we could do the no drama obama approach, spend our way back to stability, then level off spending, then work on paying down the debt once we are in a better position to do so. just like we are doing so far.
Click to expand...
So in your fairytail land printing more money will create "aggregate demand"..which we have done with little success. So somehow, someway we will have a surplus enough to pay down 20 trillion in debt? There has only been a few times in our countries history with a surplus GDP. So now, under some wrath of god, we will start to see a huge demand of commodities and consumer goods just because we are printing money? That's a laughable notion. Kenyesian economics is obviously failing. I suggest you read up on Austrian Economics


http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/b4mismac.htm

In the Austrian formulation, the conception of a capital structure consisting of many stages of production gives scope to the market forces that relate current employment of labor to the future output of consumption goods.[SUP](4)[/SUP] While some capital goods are specific to a particular stage of production, others can be shifted from one stage to another so as to vary the temporal relationship between labor input and consumable output. To acknowledge the possibility of such intertemporal variation is to warn against the simplistic doctrine of derived demand [Hayek, 1941]. Replacing the judgment of the economist that laboring to increase productive capacity is preferable to laboring to satisfy consumption demand more directly with the recognition that market participants themselves have preferences that relate future consumption to present consumption rids the classical insight of its normative content. The economics of a capital-using economy as spelled out by the Austrian school allowed Mill's fourth fundamental proposition to develop into a comprehensive investigation of the market forces that tailor intertemporal production processes so as to match intertemporal consumption preferences.
Demand for commodities is not demand for labor. In Austrian translation: Changes in the demand for consumption goods is not accompanied by proportionate changes in the demand for labor. Rather, a decrease in present consumption demand, for instance, signifies an increase in savings which, in turn, gives strength to future consumption demand. The demand for labor does not simply mirror the decrease in present consumption demand but rather reflects the change in the preferred intertemporal pattern of consumption. Both labor and non-specific capital goods are reallocated away from late stages of production that were meeting demands for present consumption, which are now weakened, and into early stages of production so as to meet demands for future consumption, which are now strengthened. The market process that results in such a restructuring is guided by changes in the prices of consumption goods, capital goods in each of the stages of production, and labor.
Although there is an adequate basis, as provided by the Austrian theory of capital and interest, to reject the simple notion of derived labor demand, there is no simple alternative notion. A decrease in present consumption demand may signify an increase in liquidity preference rather than a decrease in time preferences. In either instance, the corresponding increase in future consumption demand is necessarily a demand of unspecified dimensions. Just what will be demanded as well as just when are matters for speculation. The quality of such speculation affects both the current and the future demand for labor in each of the stages of production. And further complicating the market process illuminated by the Austrian school, what appears to be an increase in savings, as gauged by a decrease in the rate of interest, may instead be the result of monetary manipulation.
Sorting out the possible complications in the market process that governs the economy's structure of production results in a natural blending of macroeconomics, growth theory, and business-cycle theory. The market process that maintains a particular structure of production in the face of unchanged intertemporal consumption preferences is the focus of macroeconomics proper; the (same) market process that alters the structure of production in response to a shift in intertemporal consumption preferences is the focus of economic growth; the (similar) market process through which monetary manipulation induces a temporary stimulant to economic growth in spite of unchanged intertemporal consumption preferences is the focus of business-cycle theory. Explicit attention to the capital structure and its relationship to intertemporal consumption preferences provides a unification of theories that is absent in the more conventional formulations in which capital considerations remain suppressed.[SUP](5)[/SUP]
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Johnny Retro said:
So in your fairytail land printing more money will create "aggregate demand"..which we have done with little success. So somehow, someway we will have a surplus enough to pay down 20 trillion in debt? There has only been a few times in our countries history with a surplus GDP. So now, under some wrath of god, we will start to see a huge demand of commodities and consumer goods just because we are printing money? That's a laughable notion. Kenyesian economics is obviously failing. I suggest you read up on Austrian Economics


http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/b4mismac.htm

In the Austrian formulation, the conception of a capital structure consisting of many stages of production gives scope to the market forces that relate current employment of labor to the future output of consumption goods.[SUP](4)[/SUP] While some capital goods are specific to a particular stage of production, others can be shifted from one stage to another so as to vary the temporal relationship between labor input and consumable output. To acknowledge the possibility of such intertemporal variation is to warn against the simplistic doctrine of derived demand [Hayek, 1941]. Replacing the judgment of the economist that laboring to increase productive capacity is preferable to laboring to satisfy consumption demand more directly with the recognition that market participants themselves have preferences that relate future consumption to present consumption rids the classical insight of its normative content. The economics of a capital-using economy as spelled out by the Austrian school allowed Mill's fourth fundamental proposition to develop into a comprehensive investigation of the market forces that tailor intertemporal production processes so as to match intertemporal consumption preferences.
Demand for commodities is not demand for labor. In Austrian translation: Changes in the demand for consumption goods is not accompanied by proportionate changes in the demand for labor. Rather, a decrease in present consumption demand, for instance, signifies an increase in savings which, in turn, gives strength to future consumption demand. The demand for labor does not simply mirror the decrease in present consumption demand but rather reflects the change in the preferred intertemporal pattern of consumption. Both labor and non-specific capital goods are reallocated away from late stages of production that were meeting demands for present consumption, which are now weakened, and into early stages of production so as to meet demands for future consumption, which are now strengthened. The market process that results in such a restructuring is guided by changes in the prices of consumption goods, capital goods in each of the stages of production, and labor.
Although there is an adequate basis, as provided by the Austrian theory of capital and interest, to reject the simple notion of derived labor demand, there is no simple alternative notion. A decrease in present consumption demand may signify an increase in liquidity preference rather than a decrease in time preferences. In either instance, the corresponding increase in future consumption demand is necessarily a demand of unspecified dimensions. Just what will be demanded as well as just when are matters for speculation. The quality of such speculation affects both the current and the future demand for labor in each of the stages of production. And further complicating the market process illuminated by the Austrian school, what appears to be an increase in savings, as gauged by a decrease in the rate of interest, may instead be the result of monetary manipulation.
Sorting out the possible complications in the market process that governs the economy's structure of production results in a natural blending of macroeconomics, growth theory, and business-cycle theory. The market process that maintains a particular structure of production in the face of unchanged intertemporal consumption preferences is the focus of macroeconomics proper; the (same) market process that alters the structure of production in response to a shift in intertemporal consumption preferences is the focus of economic growth; the (similar) market process through which monetary manipulation induces a temporary stimulant to economic growth in spite of unchanged intertemporal consumption preferences is the focus of business-cycle theory. Explicit attention to the capital structure and its relationship to intertemporal consumption preferences provides a unification of theories that is absent in the more conventional formulations in which capital considerations remain suppressed.[SUP](5)[/SUP]
Click to expand...
Ut-oh

copy paste mission in progress
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Johnny Retro said:
Maybe you missed the first paragraph? And maybe you are too dense to actually read that wall of words and educate yourself. Maybe then you could have a sensible economics argument? Just throwin that out there..
Click to expand...
You copy pasted a description of austrian economics, I don't care. Rawn Pawl isn't going to sweep in and put us back on a gold standard. We are stratified by class, not ultimate individuals.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Johnny Retro said:
So in your fairytail land printing more money will create "aggregate demand"..which we have done with little success. So somehow, someway we will have a surplus enough to pay down 20 trillion in debt? There has only been a few times in our countries history with a surplus GDP. So now, under some wrath of god, we will start to see a huge demand of commodities and consumer goods just because we are printing money? That's a laughable notion. Kenyesian economics is obviously failing. I suggest you read up on Austrian Economics
Click to expand...
the ARRA did spur aggregate demand. not fairy tail stuff.

saner tax rates would help. some reduction in spending would help, but contractionary policy on the tail end of a recession is the stuff of mental retardation.

austrian economics? you mean the rawn pawl way? destroy it in order to save it? the my lai approach?

even lower on the IQ scale. unless, of course, you long for those agrarian days of yore where we all inhabit little huts on ranches in wyoming.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Johnny Retro said:
So a general increase in taxes for everyone? Or just the wealthy? What do you mean by foreign spending vs domestic spending? that's very vague.
Click to expand...
You have two choices at least for this election, one will promise to reduce taxes, and instead rob you by simply printing more money for military purposes, the other will tax progressively and liberally spend the revenue mostly at home. This is what the trends indicate anywho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top