Let's get you on record: is it your contention that most leading economic indicators - and again, by that I mean the ones the economists use - have not been trending up for over 6 months?
Take a stand; don't wuss out....
Krugman: Third Depression Watch
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Let's get you on record: is it your contention that most leading economic indicators - and again, by that I mean the ones the economists use - have not been trending up for over 6 months?
Take a stand; don't wuss out....
Got no clues on the animals how could I predict an outcome?
This isn't prognostication, charver, it is simply recognizing the economic pattern we've entered. While Krugman and I disagree on the approach to get out of the pattern we can certainly both recognize the pattern.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
You misunderstood.
Damo, my understanding of Keynes is that it does not have to specifically be infrastructure; if he wrote that somewhere, I don't agree w/ that. For me, the most important part is that outstide stimulus is needed when the private sector is caught in a cycle of constriction.
That's something I agree with wholeheartedly. I think the U.S. was so deep in a period of constriction, and confidence was so low, that outside stimulus - spent basically anywhere - is what was needed, just to bring confidence back to a level of rationality.
That's something I agree with wholeheartedly. I think the U.S. was so deep in a period of constriction, and confidence was so low, that outside stimulus - spent basically anywhere - is what was needed, just to bring confidence back to a level of rationality.
I rarely agree with someone and commend him for his accolades in one breath (while acting incredulous that someone called me a fool for agreeing with him) and in the next breath call him a fool. That's what's weird and Damo's posts: "How dare you call me a fool for agreeing with Krugman! Krugman is a fool!"
You're scared; I get it. You don't know whether the economic indicators have been trending up or not.
Seriously - why insert yourself into a discussion like this, in such an opinionated way, when you don't even know that basic fact? It's really the basis for the rest of the debate, and you don't even know it.
Basically Keynes said that say, spending in Iraq wouldn't help resolve this. His goal was getting money into people's pockets to spend, hence watching one guy dig a hole, then filling that hole in... while it isn't effective infrastructure spending it is still spending on infrastructure. His theory was to get money into the economy, and that the best way to do it was to employ people who would spend that money.
In some ways I can see how that can work, but I can also see that spending a ton of cash to get only 50 people employed to attempt to create something to make... well, isn't effective. Better to get them working on digging holes, more people get employed, it has better effect and you have to pay an equal amount of people to fill those holes back in.
LOL any spending will do!!
these idiots don't even understand their OWN economic theory
That's correct. Absent outside stimulus in a climate of fear like we experienced in '08 & '09, the constriction could continue indefinitely.
from wiki:
Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[4]
^ Blinder, Alan S. (2002). "Keynesian Economics". The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved 2008-04-09
Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[4]
^ Blinder, Alan S. (2002). "Keynesian Economics". The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved 2008-04-09
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
projecting again....i do know...you don't. you can't give a single cite and all you do is mock those who do. those who give citations you call them stupid and ignorant on the economy. yet you offer nothing but your opinion as proof.
i know you believe you're smarter than everyone and don't need evidence or facts to back up your opinion, but really, i wouldn't be running around telling others they shouldn't inject themselves into the discussion when you offer nothing but opinion...i mean you even ridiculed SF and he knows a lot more about about the economy than you do.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
spending on infrastructure is a great tool to stimulate the economy, obama's stimulus was a failure in that regard. there are plenty of areas spending could be cut and reroute those fund to infrastructure. further, cleaning up corruption in contracts etc....would go along way to helping us build our infrastructure.
Googling all that time, and you still couldn't find anything?
It's funny you mentioned SF, because he added in that thread the other day that indicators HAVE been trending up for over 6 months. And since he knows so much, I would think you would agree.
Since you say you know, you must know that they have been trending up...