I’d contend that consensus would say an even bigger stimulus is needed, we’re trying to fill 2-3 trillion dollar hole with 800 billion, and obviously with multipliers etc, we need to be closer to a trillion.[/quote]
I just got an image of a guy in overalls, slack-jawed, sunburned back, determined to fill a large hole in his yard by digging another hole to make use of the dirt. Of course, he then realizes that he now has to fill this new hole. This continues until he finally realizes that he has torn his entire yard to shreds.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Ok, there’s a giant credible consensus of not Karl Marx economists, and economic advisors, the CBO, the IMF, etc who say we need a stimulus.
[/quote]
All with no political agenda…
you forgot the greatest minds in economics. again, rhetoric with no logic or reason attached. good job. Keep posting links that fit your emotional arguments. Rationalization is much easier than reason.
[quote]
Obviously, sensible people are going to seriously consider the one side (expert fact-based consensus) and ignore the other (insane/moronic)[/quote]
There is no consensus. You are starting to sound like Al Gore. You can quote and link to Keynesians all you want. Their fundemental logic has been refuted, yet they remain politically popular. Why do you think that is? Maybe becuase they philosophy is more valuable as a political tool? Why you think political popularity must lead to sound economic policy is beyond me. If it did there would be nothing to correct.
I’d contend that consensus would say an even bigger stimulus is needed, we’re trying to fill 2-3 trillion dollar hole with 800 billion, and obviously with multipliers etc, we need to be closer to a trillion.
I just got an image of a guy in overalls, slack-jawed, sunburned back, determined to fill a large hole in his yard by digging another hole to make use of the dirt. Of course, he then realizes that he now has to fill this new hole. This continues until he finally realizes that he has tore his entire yard to shreds.[/quote]
lol. Where did you learn that a bust is a “return to normal”? a “correction of the boom”? nice. well at least you got the “boom” right.
Von Mises, Hayak, Smith, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, ect. Oh yeah, and logic.[/quote]
Generally, when one makes a claim that is far from the normal definition of a word, they explain themselves…
Name dropping doesn’t help. Go look it up, what did they ACTUALLY say?
[quote]
At least now I understand your strange logic. You seem to believe that the US needs to deflate much more than it already has. This is a fair opinion. I simply disagree.
Deflate is a relative. You do understand at least this don’t you? Or do you think that home prices should have continue to appreciat at the rate they were during the boom? How about tech stocks in the late 90s? Or maybe you just beleive that there is some magical point, rate, or price that must be protected at any cost? [/quote]
deflate is a relative? Of mine? nah. What you, perhaps are trying to argue is that economists are incorrectly guessing at the “real GDP”…
[quote]
The argument that the IMF “defies logic” is, however, pure ideological fanaticism. It’s one thing to argue that you disagree, it’s another to mis-understand their arguments or deny that they are experts. Further if you think that arguments about inflation are “conspicuously absent” you’ve simply proven that you either didn’t read the articles, or didn’t understand them.
What defies logic is that this or any artificial stimulous can possibly produce good greater then the long term damage it will inflict. As I said, you can argue one side of any policy. It’s worth as much as a shit sandwitch if you don’t weigh any perceived positives to short term and long term negatives. Simple enough for you? [/quote]
nah, this doesn’t “defy logic.” It is, apparently, outside of your ideological capacity to understand…that’s fine.
Nah, the reason you can’t argue intelligently is because you’re trying to compensate for your inability to argue authoritatively. Whereas I post articles, you drop names. Whereas I list and link to models and theories, you…drop names. See a pattern here?
I’d love for you to stop trying to “sound tough” and actually look some of this stuff up. Hayek probably WOULD disagree with the bill, but he died in 92 I think…so go do your research, find out what his followers are saying now and post actual economic thoughts/theories. Hell, I posted from cato…you could give it a shot yoruself. Don’t just name drop. Try both to understand their arguments and come prepared with their exact thoughts.
I’d contend that consensus would say an even bigger stimulus is needed, we’re trying to fill 2-3 trillion dollar hole with 800 billion, and obviously with multipliers etc, we need to be closer to a trillion.[/quote]
Well the markets didn’t like what they heard today from Fed Chairman and Sec. of Tres. That is a given. Two things I don’t understand. 1) All this time to prepare a"stimulus" package, but no one knows how or where it is to be spent, only that it will transparent. 2)People are saying the last 8 years this, the last 8 years that…Didn’t the Dems in Congress/Senate have to approve/vote for the things that got passed. Bush didn’t make the laws. The Legislature did. And if they didn’t like them they should have voted “NO”.
Now I agree that something needs to be done and done quickly. But when your 2 top people (Pres and Sec of Tres.) come on TV with No answers, its kinda hard to believe they even have a solution. Just throwing money at it indiscriminately is not going to solve anything. These people are smart enough to know what the “rightest” thing to do for the American people. The question is, Will they do it?
[quote]danc2469 wrote:
Well the markets didn’t like what they heard today from Fed Chairman and Sec. of Tres. That is a given. Two things I don’t understand. 1) All this time to prepare a"stimulus" package, but no one knows how or where it is to be spent, only that it will transparent. 2)People are saying the last 8 years this, the last 8 years that…Didn’t the Dems in Congress/Senate have to approve/vote for the things that got passed. Bush didn’t make the laws. The Legislature did. And if they didn’t like them they should have voted “NO”.
Now I agree that something needs to be done and done quickly. But when your 2 top people (Pres and Sec of Tres.) come on TV with No answers, its kinda hard to believe they even have a solution. Just throwing money at it indiscriminately is not going to solve anything. These people are smart enough to know what the “rightest” thing to do for the American people. The question is, Will they do it?[/quote]
I think the market reacted to a lame presser by Geithner, where he revealed next to nothing. He may have a solution, but it was hard to tell today, on the other hand we may have a bottom in the market, which would be good.
lol. Where did you learn that a bust is a “return to normal”? a “correction of the boom”? nice. well at least you got the “boom” right.
Von Mises, Hayak, Smith, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, ect. Oh yeah, and logic.
Generally, when one makes a claim that is far from the normal definition of a word, they explain themselves…
[/quote]
Then explain yourself. Economics 101 my friend.
I don’t need to look it up, I’ve already read them. You should do the same if you are truly interested on economics. You should add Haslett and Sowell to the list as well.
No idea what this means.
[/quote]
The argument that the IMF “defies logic” is, however, pure ideological fanaticism. It’s one thing to argue that you disagree, it’s another to mis-understand their arguments or deny that they are experts. Further if you think that arguments about inflation are “conspicuously absent” you’ve simply proven that you either didn’t read the articles, or didn’t understand them.
What defies logic is that this or any artificial stimulous can possibly produce good greater then the long term damage it will inflict. As I said, you can argue one side of any policy. It’s worth as much as a shit sandwitch if you don’t weigh any perceived positives to short term and long term negatives. Simple enough for you?
nah, this doesn’t “defy logic.” It is, apparently, outside of your ideological capacity to understand…that’s fine.
[/quote]
Then please help me understand. Let’s see you work through this logically. Please explain how an artificial stimulous can possibly create more good than harm. In order to do this you must look at then the short term effects. I can make your argument for you and then refute it, but I would much rather hear it from you. So let’s start there Einstien.
not a straw man, but nice avoidence. Is my inference correct? In your reality is there no long term consequence to spending money you don’t have on needs not supported by the general populace? If the answer is yes, then there is nothing more to discuss. In your reality, you are correct. See how easy this is?
First off posting links is not arguing authoritatively. If I post more links, do I win? I think not.
I am trying to provide you with the logic and reason i am using to form my opinion. I not concerned with consensus or anyone else’s opinion if I cannot work out the logic of it. In this case I am either not bright enough to work through the logic, or the logistical trail does not exist in the information provided.
If you see some flaw in my logic, please indicate where. You won’t be able to do this effectively by posting a link, so you may have to think for yourself.
I am trying to act tough. I am attempting to put you in your place. I am not an expert in economics. I would consider myself a student. You are mearly a bystander.
Is that all I have to do? Post a bunch of links? What are the rules to this game? Who ever posts the most links wins? Again, I am trying to provide a logistical trail for my thought process. I am not trying come up with a democratic solution by vote.
[quote]
Hell, I posted from cato…you could give it a shot yoruself. Don’t just name drop. Try both to understand their arguments and come prepared with their exact thoughts. [/quote]
And how exactly have you done what you have just described. You post a link, I acknowledge the usefulness of a detailed onesided arguement. I ask you to think about and comment on the long term effects. You decline. You request that I find an ariticle for you to read rather than just discussing the issue at hand.