Paul Krugman's Despair

How much is lost in the taking of the wealth in order for government to redirect it to those "arguably" wealth-creating enterprises?

Most Keynesians believe it whole heartedly. Government spending, they say, leads to consumption which drives producers to create more wealth.

 

Because the ability to move goods and people and information, an educated populace, and energy efficiency create the potential for greater overall economic growth.

I'd have to see a survey, but good for them.

 

Firstly congratulations for dropping the ridiculous 1920/1929 comparison. I'm guessing you've realised how ridiculous that was. You're still pushing this massive post WW2 advantage thing however.

What you said was "America was the only major free market economy left intact after WW2", so America "had the western world all to ourselves" presumably right after the war. And then I showed you US exports over the periods which could be described as "after the war" and "right after the war" and actual US exports show that the first and only thing that (after some prodding) you offer as an advantage wasn't actually any advantage. Then you post some graph that shows America's share of global trade from the 1950s onwards? What's the point of that and what do you think it means?

 

While you can not consider recessions over until the Dow gets back to previous levels or the Cubs win a World Series or any other random standard you want to apply, everybody that matters goes with the NBER. Using the Dow when related to the 1929 crash is, like your 1920/1929 comparison, either deceitful or clueless as with all the FDR-era regulation on the financial system, the more equitable distribution of wealth after its 1920s inequality-high era and of course the once-in-a-lifetime artificial 1929 Dow high, the 1929 number was never going to be topped for a considerable length of time.

And I'm delighted that you agree with me that government spending can return America to full employment. I agree with you that spending on military stuff is wasteful but imagine how useful it would be to spend enough to re-employ Americans by rebuilding all our lousy infrastructure!

 

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' to my question?

 

Sure you can - if you don't mind that it is only temporary, causes massive debt and usually much higher inflation to boot.

BTW - I think you are a troll.


Have a very nice day.

 

I already answered your question on the previous page. And just because I've shown that you're being either deceitful or clueless in this debate doesn't make me a troll. Other than government deficit spending to get us out of the current mess, how are we going to get out of it?

 

I see, so you can just speculate, but cannot be bothered to come up with a calculation for how much wealth is lost in the forced transfer of it and the redistribution of it. As for your assertions, government "stimulus" spending is more likely to create boondoggles like Solyndra or bridges to nowhere than lead to wealth creation.

And, like any good progressive, you speculate, without any reason or other supporting evidence, that these things (movement of goods and people, education, and energy efficiency) would not exist without government intervention.

 

1) So typing 'yes' or 'no' is too much to ask of you?

Gotcha.

and 2) Study Austrian School economics - to answer your last question.


Have an exceptionally happy day.

 

It's my opinion, but you asked the question, and there IMO is logic and evidence to support it.

 

Deficit spending won't get us out of this current mess. What will "get us out" of this current mess is less government intervention while people and businesses pare down debt and repair their balance sheets.

 

I already answered you previously. Your entire reply was "exports", that's the only thing you came up with. I then posted a graph of historical exports showing how silly this claim was.

Austrian economics is a fringe cult that's only taken seriously by a bunch of right-wing/libertarian nuts in America and maybe a tiny tiny handful of nuts further afield. According to Austrians we should be seeing hyperinflation right now, right?

 

It's going to take a long time for that to happen and the economy will lose trillions of dollars of potential output in the meantime. Why not take advantage of all the money the world wants to lend us and put people back to work rebuilding America's infrastructure? Add on policies to redistribute income downwards to make up for the massive upward redistribution over the past few decades and you'd help people pare down that debt much quicker. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars already, the businesses who need to pare down the debt are the banks and investment banks who blew the financial system up and are still insolvent.

 

And where is your link to where a well respected Austrian Schooler like Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers or Marc Faber said 'we should be seeing hyperinflation right about now'?

 

Note to the board...Dick Dastardly (apparently) cannot answer 'yes or no' questions.

Strange, since he will type far more characters explaining why he won't - rather then just typing two or three with a simple 'yes' or a 'no'.

 

I doubt I could agree much more other then to add 'and governments balance their budgets'.

Though you probably meant that with 'less government intervention'.

 

http://vodpod.com/watch/1340994-peter-schiff-on-2009-2010-hyperinflation

 

1. I answered you.

2. You replied with a ridiculous claim.

3. I posted facts that rubbished your claim.

4. You continued asking me the question I answered in (1).

 

Your link does not produce a quote for me.

Can you copy and Paste it?

 

And was that answer 'yes' or 'no'?

It's simple.

All you need to do is type y-e-s or n-o.

Come on...you can do it.

 

I already answered your question bud and then I demolished your reply, so it's your move next.

And just google Peter Schiff Hyperinflation and you'll get endless videos of him and the other clowns you mentioned warning about impending hyperinflation.

 

1)So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
Your answer will probably show how you 'demolished' nothing.

Last time I will probably ask.

2) Peter Schiff gas warned about hyperinflation many times.

But where exactly did be warn since the Great Recession started that hyperinflation would be here by now?

You made the statement that Austrian Schoolers said it.

It is up to you to prove it or it means nothing.

 

Actually...why am I wasting my time with you?

Think whatever you wish...you will anyway.

I have things I would much rather do then waste my time with a sophomoric, Keynesian obsessed, troll (not that all Keynesians are trolls by any means) who has not even got the maturity to answer simple yes or no answers and insists on playing adolescent games.

Think whatever you want pal - I sincerely and honestly do not respect you nearly enough to care.


Bye bye now.

 

Are you telling us here that the US export advantage is the explanation for the post war success and not the government spending?

So far your most recent graph has shown US participation in world trade.


How do explain the continued US gdp growth throughout the latter half of the 20th century while government spending remained high and while world trade participation also increased?

 

I said (paraphrasing) one of the reasons. Where did I say the main reason'.
There were tons of reasons: an economy turning more industrial, more workers as women got a taste of employment during the war and many liked it, much greater productivity, huge technological increases, world leader in imports and exports for many years - not the least of which was the shackles of much of the New Deal and it's terrible restrictions on free enterprise were finally removed (more or less).

All the major European countries and Japan were either destroyed and broke or flat broke. And China and Russia were communist.
They had to start virtually from scratch. To compare US standard of living and wealth to these countries during this period is - no offense - ridiculous.

Besides, to argue otherwise is pointless.

It is impossible to prove one way is better then another way that was never tried.
And it is impossible to prove that either more government spending or less government spending would have been better. You can argue and debate - but you can NEVER factually prove.
And I realize people on here love to debate theories to death...I don't.
I think it is a complete waste of time.

Have a nice day.