When is Reality more important than your Political Ideology? With graphs.

Alright, so the premise of this thread is to separate ideology from reality. We all know conservatives are "fiscal" and their belief is that tight fiscal policy, low taxes, etc creates economic growth. Right now, the Republicans in Congress are trying to force spending cuts, trying to force balanced budget agreements, prevent the debt ceiling from being raised, etc. And when you talk to people on this forum, they speak as if this ideology has actually been used in America. They speak with such conviction that cutting spending works, that balancing the budget works, that deficits are disastrous, increasing the money supply will create hyperinflation, etc, etc. I mean, the way they speak you would think they would have some data to back up their claims, that they can say "hey, look at this period of time where we cut spending and it lead to economic growth".

But that time never comes. There is no data, there is no evidence, there is absolutely nothing that provides any type of proof that their ideology works in the real world, especially with a developed country. They have some small countries like Hong Kong that have the flexibility to strive with low debt as they function with high external debt, but they have no proof that a developed country the size of ours can function with their beliefs.

One of the biggest "fiscal conservatives" they point to is Ronald Reagan. While his mystique might represent "conservatism", his actual results were as anti fiscal conservative as they come. He spent, increased debt, increased the money supply more than any President in the past 70 years. And it's absolutely ironic that they consider him the model for economic success.

So my question is when does actual data change your perception of your political ideology?

For instance, let me throw out some facts...

1) The national debt has increased 55 out of the last 56 years.
2) Government Spending has increased 57 out of the last 58 years
3) The Money Supply has increased 53 of the last 53 years

So as you try to say your political ideology is so superior, please show when your ideology was used and why austerity, balanced budgets, limiting the money supply, etc has been used to success. And let me caution you, if you are going to use nominal terms to prove your point, you are going to have to prove why nominal terms in 1950 or 1980 didn't matter then as they do now. So tread lightly.

There is literally nothing that is happening right now, that has not happened in the past 60 years.

Money Supply



Government Spending



Government Debt

 

Another compelling graph. Why has our economy become worse as public sector employment grown slower? Hmmmm.... why did fiscal conservative Ronald Reagan increase public sector sector employment so much if reducing government was his ideology?

 

Rediculous questions.

1st reagan had a Democratic House for all of his eight years and a democratic Senate for six of them. 2nd in 1960 bread could be had for 25 cents a loaf it is now upwards of two dollars for that same loaf. My parents could and frequently did buy Gas for 17 cents a gallon the same gallon of gas is now varying between 3 and three doolars a gallon in low gas tax states. Third the last tiem anyone used an austerity plan was in the 1920's and it worked brilliantly and took less than a year before things were booming again and the roaring twenties got ff to a booming start. After 8 years of Keynesian claptrap under Roosevelt unemployment was still well into Double digits. About the only thing you've done since 1960 is change the increments on the measuring stick and make it all but impossible for the poorest workers to save any money. Oh and you've managed to increase the price of housing by a factor of ten.

 

Obamacare that is why. Or do you not believe employers or haven't checked out the part time to full time ratio yet?

Funny you should mention Reagan, and then have a post about monetary policy doesn't affect inflation. Do you know what inflation was when he took office? What it was when he left? Did Volker restrict the money supply for any of those years?

Your graphs just show that a) growth of spending did slow under Reagan despite his congress and b) government employee levels rose as spending growth slowed and while we were posting GDP growth above 4%.

For Obama, just the opposite. He ha had a congress that has slowed his spending. The spending increase since the pelosi congress is super high and even Obama had the good sense to delay the added costs of obamacare so it wouldn't be blamed on him.

 

The GOP is an Ayn Rand Worshipping Cult.

They live in their own reality.

 

Flawless reasoning. Also, there would be no national debt if it weren't for Demicrats and you can't supply a year there would have been if there was no new deal or war on poverty.

- - - Updated - - -

The greatest years of personal median income growth in the 90s saw a decline in government workers. Your correlation doesn't add up. How many people should be hired to work for government now do you think? Would they be doing anything in particular, or as long as they are getting paid it is fine?

Finally, what is with the creepy old bald side in your avatar? He has one of those "I molest children" smiles, it bugs me out. Is that bernacke's brother? Looks like bernacke.

 

Lol, There was no decrease in public sector employment after 1991 in the 90s. And it's hilarious how you say "my correlation is not adding up", yet out of a 63 year graph, you pick couple years with out even understanding the graph to prove your point.

Can't write better comedy than this.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this really your refute to the data? Lmao.

 

Obamacare? Goodness, you guys are embarrassing.

 

When my political ideology is not reality.

 

If it hasn't happened in 60 yrs it can't happen ever, is that your logic?

If a family spends beyond their means, they don't immediately go bankrupt, its a much slower process, but it eventually happens. The government can make this process go on much longer, but it can't stop it from happening eventually.

 

Did I say that was my logic?

The government is not a family and our country cannot go bankrupt.

Is that your logic?

 

My logic is that we have been over spending as a country for 60 years, and it will eventually catch up to us, either in the form of inflation, lowered standard of living, devalued dollar, or bankruptcy. You illustrate graphs that prove the spending, but for some reason you come to a very different conclusion. What do you think inevitably will happen if your graphs continue?

 

What lower standard of living? We've had almost a 900% increase in standard of living in the past 80 years. What is the maximum amount of money we can spend before your Apocalyptic theory takes place? Because people have been saying what you are saying decade after decade and they are always wrong. Spending will continue to increase, debt will continue to increase, the money supply will continue to increase and you guys will still be talking about bankruptcy and inflation, blah blah blah. Like I said, your political ideology is not represented in reality.

 

Ridiculous way to spell, "ridiculous" also.

And I think they are GREAT questions.

 

There are too many variables to be accurate with an exact number, but I do know such a number exists. Do you think such a number doesn't exist? If I can't give you an exact number, does that mean there isn't one?

 

It means you really don't know what you are talking about. And the reason you can't find an exact number is because no number does exist. Whether it's $1 or $100,000,000,000,000,000,000. It simply does not exist. As long as the country can increase it's productive capacity, these graphs will continue to rise.

You keep treating the country like a person or a family. That's the first thing you have to drop from your thought process.

- - - Updated - - -

What was absolutely ridiculous was Garyd's response, lol.

It's amazing that anyone can look at these graphs and still come to the conclusion that we have ever been fiscally conservative and that slashing govt spending and slashing public sector employment has ever worked. Absolutely amazing how far people will take their cult like ideologies.

 

Does it matter how much the country increases its productive capacity in relation to it's debt? Because if it does there would be a number ...

 

Correct.

And lies 'repeated' are often perceived as truth to many. I say keep talking-back and fighting for what's both good and right; the things that help people live happy and productive lives.

That's the most we can all do.

 

There would be a number if productivity was fixed or we reached our productivity capacity. And there is a number at any given moment but that number changes yearly as technology, innovation, and populations change.

If you understand the mathematics of it, you would understand why those graphs don't have sustained periods of decreasing.

The government needs to spend more money, needs to accumulate more debt. Just the simple math of it.

 

It's just despicable how everything they promote these days is attacking individuals whether it's destroying public sector unions, forcing the government to slash jobs, pensions, cut funding to education, etc. They complain about unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc.

When you look at something like the Great Depression, not having unemployment benefits and food stamps did not make them any better off, lol.

They have such a weird ideology driven by just a complete irrational fear of government. And the purpose of this thread was to show that you can believe Ronald Reagan or Republicans are "fiscal conservatives", but the data shows the complete opposite and it shows that, no one has applied their ideology to the real world in almost a century. Not a single person on this forum has been alive under a fiscal conservative. What's ironic is Obama is the closest thing to a fiscal conservative (data wise) we've seen in a century.

 

That's all very true.

 

Let me ask the question another way, is their a realistic "cap" to you on just how far we could advance technologically in 1 year or is the sky truly the limit here?

 

Of course there is a realistic "cap" to how much we can increase our productivity. That's why we target a sustainable 3-4% growth. And as you see the graphs, they are all balanced increases within a certain range. And real economic fundamentals can change the dynamics, like the tech boom creating times of high velocity which requires less involvement from government.

But there is no known cap to say 1000 years down the line and how long we can continue spending and adding on to debt. Operationally we can continue this to infinity.

 

O.K. so if we can say 3-4% growth yearly as a realistic cap to the innovative gains of society, doesn't that make a number exist for this year's sustainable debt level? And next year the same, again and again? What happens if you breach that number for 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? In short what happens if our level of debt is increasing at a higher rate than we are innovating? We can bank on a "BIG" breakthrough to carry us out, but if it takes too long for one of these big breakthroughs what happens? If you don't think it could take too long to innovate our way out, why not increase spending to infinity too, our only bottleneck would be how fast our mints could print the money.

 

There is no limit on the debt (other then are made up stupid arbitrary debt limit). So there is no such thing as "breaching that number". There is growth and inflation. It's a balancing act. Just because I advocate spending more does not mean giving every one $1 million would be effective. The point is though, that these graphs never have to change. They can continue increasing forever.