APP - Obamanomics failure worse after revisions.

Talk about projections. By all measures the Keynesian methods are rebuilding our economy after the debacle and disaster that were the Bush, Supply Side Economic years and you want us to go back to what cause the economic disaster if the first place?

Yea...right....I suppose you have some ocean front property in Nebraska you want to sell me too?
 
Talk about projections. By all measures the Keynesian methods are rebuilding our economy after the debacle and disaster that were the Bush, Supply Side Economic years and you want us to go back to what cause the economic disaster if the first place?

Yea...right....I suppose you have some ocean front property in Nebraska you want to sell me too?

LOL you're a koolaid sipper

I used to believe in keynesian bullshit when I was young and as dumb as you are.
 
LOL you're a koolaid sipper

I used to believe in keynesian bullshit when I was young and as dumb as you are.
Well I guess where I differ from you is I never believed in Supply Economics. It has never been demonstrated to work, where as Keynesian system has passed the test of time. Though it certainly understandable why wealthy persons in upper economic brackets would detest the Keynesian model, there's no question it does work.

George H. W. Bush was right that SSE is Vodoo Economics and his son proved it.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionYZZ3c5-A"]YouTube- Keynesian Economics is a Failure - Why is Obama trying it again? Repeal the Stimulus Package[/ame]
 
I fail to see how your being older and dumber is something to brag about. :dunno:

if you folks ever had real arguments, your insults mught be worth getting ruffled over, but the modern liberal is a walking cliche who can only parrot the latest huffpo or Kos message.

failures
 
lol mott is a lightweight. You're so ignorant, you don't don't even understand why your ideas about economics are wrong. I forgot more about economics than you'll ever know about the subject. I gave up on the business and finace world because I saw that you couldn't rely on anyone in the corporate world to be honest. I was right.

I might not have the paper that says I learned, but I assure you libbie morons, I learned more than the average dumbass who had mommy and daddy to pay their bills.

You idiots can't even google up some keynesian propaganda you're such failures
 
The problem with Keynesian economics is it is based on a false credit economy. The government spends money it does not have boosting the economy with artificially inflated demand. These effects are temporary - the economy invariably goes into a slump as soon as government spending diminishes. That is why countries experience post war depressions - the economy is artificially stimulated under the demand for war-level production, which in turn demands high levels of employment. When the war ends, so does the demand for high level production, and in turn, high employment demands. The economy slumps from the combined weights of decreased demand and the need to pay back the money spent during the war.

Prior to WWI, countries weathered their post war depressions naturally, paid back the debts, and moved on. But the WWI post war depression was far more extensive than others due to the extensive level of the war itself, plus that additional factor of the Treaty of Versailles driving Germany's economy to complete collapse. Other mistakes made at the beginning of the slump (ie: Keynesian attempts to control the depression) resulted in the Great Depression - which in reality was a simple post war depression magnified by mistakes made in trying to avert it.

Since then we have never managed to actually pull ourselves out of the mud pit. Keynesian economics under FDR were instated in an attempt to mitigate the depression, but it was not until we moved the economy to a partial war footing under the lend-lease act, and later full blown war footing as we entered WWII ourselves that the depression was overcome with increased economic activity. The economy started to flag again after WWII, but the combined factors of the Korean War, Vietnam, and cold war kept us on a semi-war footing until recently.

After Vietnam we slumped again to be treated with massive deficit spending to keep things afloat. Of note is the start of credit spending on the part of the general populace during this time also. Also of note is how both parties used their own techniques, from mandating new definitions of fair lending practices, to easing banking regulations in order to make high risk lending profitable. But the core purpose of these moves made under various administrations and under various congresses with various majorities had one overriding purpose: to continue artificial stimulation of the economy through credit spending on the part of the people as well as the government.

And THAT is the basis of Keynesian economics: artificial stimulation of demand. But the problem is it is ARTIFICIAL. It is the creation of a FALSE economy under the theory that the economy will eventually grow enough to take over without additional stimulation. But history has shown this theory to be completely false. Every single time the economy has been left to grow on it own and deficit spending diminished (it has yet to be eliminated), every time credit levels under the latest banking laws max out, the economy goes into a slump. Even the dot.com bubble economy is an example of this: dot.com was as much the result of extending credit as growth of new companies, and the bubble crash was the direct result of reaching the upper limits of the credit bubble.

The latest crisis was/is nothing more than the latest brick in the wall of Keynesian failure. No, it is NOT the result of "failed policies of conservative economics" as the mindless "lets make the government dig us out again" morons would have us believe. It is/was the result of the latest Keynesian maneuvers to keep the economy going through credit spending running into its inevitable ceiling. Specifically, bank made mortgage loans to people who had no genuine ability to pay them off, laws were changed to allow banks to sell said bad mortgages as high-end investment packages, and when the bottom fell out the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Along come the Keynesians with their bullshit theory and start building up the next house of cards. What Keynesians will not admit, or cannot fathom, is the current crisis, which they are ONE MORE TIME!!! trying to address with Keynesian policies, is the direct result of Keynesian policies instated at the LAST crisis, which was the result of Keynesian policies from the previous crisis, going all the way back to Keynesian policies trying unsuccessfully to avert the post war depression following WWI. Keynesians are the working definition of insanity.

Bottom line: the economy can NOT be forever artificially supported. For economic growth to occur consistently, the level of artificial support must also grow. But we cannot spend on credit forever - it MUST eventually be repaid. We are already at the point it is questionable whether the debt CAN be repaid. But if it can not be repaid, the only alternative is complete collapse.
 
Last edited:
lol mott is a lightweight. You're so ignorant, you don't don't even understand why your ideas about economics are wrong. I forgot more about economics than you'll ever know about the subject. I gave up on the business and finace world because I saw that you couldn't rely on anyone in the corporate world to be honest. I was right.

I might not have the paper that says I learned, but I assure you libbie morons, I learned more than the average dumbass who had mommy and daddy to pay their bills.

You idiots can't even google up some keynesian propaganda you're such failures
Actually I suspect it's the other way around. The Keyensian economic system has been around for about 80 years. The US is the worlds largest Keynesian system and it was worked well for a very broad swath of the American population for many years. Supply Side Economics not only benefits only those at the very top of the economic ladder it has never even been demonstrated to work. For exampe, show me one year where supply side economic inspired regressive tax cuts have resulted in increased revenues, one of its most fundamental predictions, just show me one year.

So the Keynesian model may have it's flaws but it has passed the test of time. That's one hell of a lot more then can be said for SSE which is not only economically unjust and has not demonstrated that it performs as predicted but it certainly hasn't been time tested as the Keynesian model has.
 
Actually I suspect it's the other way around. The Keyensian economic system has been around for about 80 years. The US is the worlds largest Keynesian system and it was worked well for a very broad swath of the American population for many years. Supply Side Economics not only benefits only those at the very top of the economic ladder it has never even been demonstrated to work. For exampe, show me one year where supply side economic inspired regressive tax cuts have resulted in increased revenues, one of its most fundamental predictions, just show me one year.

So the Keynesian model may have it's flaws but it has passed the test of time. That's one hell of a lot more then can be said for SSE which is not only economically unjust and has not demonstrated that it performs as predicted but it certainly hasn't been time tested as the Keynesian model has.



Like I said, you're a failure at your own game
 
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fa...rge+changes+in+fiscal+policy_October_2009.pdf

We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy,
both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD
countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more
likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for
fiscal adjustments those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are
more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon
tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on
the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with
simple regression analysis.
 
if you folks ever had real arguments, your insults mught be worth getting ruffled over, but the modern liberal is a walking cliche who can only parrot the latest huffpo or Kos message.

failures

The modern Liberal tries to explain things to Conservatives but run into the Conservative mental block. Be it the wars or economics we've seen the result, yet, Conservatives keep espousing the same tired, worn out arguments.

The current situation regarding wars and the current situation regarding the financial crisis are a direct result of Conservative stewardship over the first eight years of this century.

That is not opinion. That is fact. Regardless of anything one may say were aggravating circumstances the fact remains there was a Conservative President in the White House for those eight years and in both cases, war and the economy, we witnessed miserable failure.

That is the only "real argument" one has to make. Everything else is supplemental.
 
The latest crisis was/is nothing more than the latest brick in the wall of Keynesian failure. No, it is NOT the result of "failed policies of conservative economics" as the mindless "lets make the government dig us out again" morons would have us believe. It is/was the result of the latest Keynesian maneuvers to keep the economy going through credit spending running into its inevitable ceiling. Specifically, bank made mortgage loans to people who had no genuine ability to pay them off, laws were changed to allow banks to sell said bad mortgages as high-end investment packages, and when the bottom fell out the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Conservative economics, a la Greenspan, resulted in banks making deals which the government was not privy to. That is what caused the massive failure. Had the government used proper oversight the amount of money available to loan would have been less because those so-called "financial instruments" would have been scrutinized and found to be the gambling racket they were.

It was select private interests, the uber-wealthy, that pumped money into the banks which the government was ultimately responsible for but knew nothing about. Back room deals. No government oversight. Conservative, Greenspan, "the market will work it out", kind of thinking. Commonly known as stinkin' thinkin'.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The problem with Keynesian economics is it is based on a false credit economy. The government spends money it does not have boosting the economy with artificially inflated demand. These effects are temporary - the economy invariably goes into a slump as soon as government spending diminishes. That is why countries experience post war depressions - the economy is artificially stimulated under the demand for war-level production, which in turn demands high levels of employment. When the war ends, so does the demand for high level production, and in turn, high employment demands. The economy slumps from the combined weights of decreased demand and the need to pay back the money spent during the war.

Prior to WWI, countries weathered their post war depressions naturally, paid back the debts, and moved on. But the WWI post war depression was far more extensive than others due to the extensive level of the war itself, plus that additional factor of the Treaty of Versailles driving Germany's economy to complete collapse. Other mistakes made at the beginning of the slump (ie: Keynesian attempts to control the depression) resulted in the Great Depression - which in reality was a simple post war depression magnified by mistakes made in trying to avert it.

Since then we have never managed to actually pull ourselves out of the mud pit. Keynesian economics under FDR were instated in an attempt to mitigate the depression, but it was not until we moved the economy to a partial war footing under the lend-lease act, and later full blown war footing as we entered WWII ourselves that the depression was overcome with increased economic activity. The economy started to flag again after WWII, but the combined factors of the Korean War, Vietnam, and cold war kept us on a semi-war footing until recently.

After Vietnam we slumped again to be treated with massive deficit spending to keep things afloat. Of note is the start of credit spending on the part of the general populace during this time also. Also of note is how both parties used their own techniques, from mandating new definitions of fair lending practices, to easing banking regulations in order to make high risk lending profitable. But the core purpose of these moves made under various administrations and under various congresses with various majorities had one overriding purpose: to continue artificial stimulation of the economy through credit spending on the part of the people as well as the government.

And THAT is the basis of Keynesian economics: artificial stimulation of demand. But the problem is it is ARTIFICIAL. It is the creation of a FALSE economy under the theory that the economy will eventually grow enough to take over without additional stimulation. But history has shown this theory to be completely false. Every single time the economy has been left to grow on it own and deficit spending diminished (it has yet to be eliminated), every time credit levels under the latest banking laws max out, the economy goes into a slump. Even the dot.com bubble economy is an example of this: dot.com was as much the result of extending credit as growth of new companies, and the bubble crash was the direct result of reaching the upper limits of the credit bubble.

The latest crisis was/is nothing more than the latest brick in the wall of Keynesian failure. No, it is NOT the result of "failed policies of conservative economics" as the mindless "lets make the government dig us out again" morons would have us believe. It is/was the result of the latest Keynesian maneuvers to keep the economy going through credit spending running into its inevitable ceiling. Specifically, bank made mortgage loans to people who had no genuine ability to pay them off, laws were changed to allow banks to sell said bad mortgages as high-end investment packages, and when the bottom fell out the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Along come the Keynesians with their bullshit theory and start building up the next house of cards. What Keynesians will not admit, or cannot fathom, is the current crisis, which they are ONE MORE TIME!!! trying to address with Keynesian policies, is the direct result of Keynesian policies instated at the LAST crisis, which was the result of Keynesian policies from the previous crisis, going all the way back to Keynesian policies trying unsuccessfully to avert the post war depression following WWI. Keynesians are the working definition of insanity.

Bottom line: the economy can NOT be forever artificially supported. For economic growth to occur consistently, the level of artificial support must also grow. But we cannot spend on credit forever - it MUST eventually be repaid. We are already at the point it is questionable whether the debt CAN be repaid. But if it can not be repaid, the only alternative is complete collapse.
 
Conservative economics, a la Greenspan, resulted in banks making deals which the government was not privy to. That is what caused the massive failure. Had the government used proper oversight the amount of money available to loan would have been less because those so-called "financial instruments" would have been scrutinized and found to be the gambling racket they were.

It was select private interests, the uber-wealthy, that pumped money into the banks which the government was ultimately responsible for but knew nothing about. Back room deals. No government oversight. Conservative, Greenspan, "the market will work it out", kind of thinking. Commonly known as stinkin' thinkin'.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You just do not get it, do you? The amount of money made available for loans was a direct result of the government coming at the situation from two directions. On the one hand we had the democrats pushing CRA regulations which required lending in sectors that were high risk. From the other direction we had republicans pushing new regulations that made high risk lending profitable.

And it was the HIGH RISK aspect of the loans, not the amounts, that tipped over the apple cart. One more time for the "I don't care what the truth is, it's all the conservatives fault anyway" crowd:

If those loans had been paid back then the crisis never would have happened. The banks that bought the packaged mortgages would have gotten their money back, plus interest. The banks that made the loans would have gotten their money. The people that got the loans would have gotten their houses, and everuyone would have been happy.

Proof: the crisis did not rear it's ugly head until AFTER mortgage defaults shot through the roof. And when that happened, examination of the books showed that the number of the types of mortgages which were being defaulted on were too numerous to be supported by the mortgages being paid. When those figures became apparent, the house of cards came tumbling down.

It was the high level of DEFAULTS, not the loans themselves that triggered the crisis. And the level of defaults was the result of who the loans were made.

Addendum:
Another factor was the artificially low interest rates. Had rates been higher, the good mortgages would have stood a better chance of carrying the bad paper. Yes, bank profits would have been way down, even showing heavy losses, and prices of bank stocks would have reflected those figures. But the incidence of outright failures would have been much lower, and it would not have hit the rest of the economy as hard as it did - if at all.

Of course, higher rates would have negated any chance of making high risk loans in low income sectors, so both parties strongly approved of (still do for that matter) artificially depressed interest rates.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top