I got an idea.Lets not give any tax dollars to the rich, or small business, or homeowners or banks, or churches, or yact builders, or unwed mothers, or foign countries in need of disaster relief, or the homless.That's pretty much the essence of libertarianism actually. The reason why is every time its done, you get the problems in your cartoon and NEVER solve any of the problems you set out to solve... mosty they just get worse.
Sounds to me like this is the comic strip from which Paul Krugman learned his economics.
Guess that's why it makes so much sense.
That is if 70 years of very failed Keynesian economics made sense.
Right. Let's see. Hoover implements the economic policies you advocate. End result = Great Depression. FDR saves the economy by doing the opposite.George W Bush mirrors Hoover and implements the same policies. End result = near collapse of the banking industry and worst recession since the Great Depression. Obama saves the economy by doing the opposite.I wouldn't exactly tout right wing success in economics. It ain't your strong suit.,
Let me see, Ben Bernake implements the policy you advocate.How are those low interest rates working out? Oh yeah, dollar value dropped 32 cents. How did that stimulus work out? Ask goldman sachs CEOs with thier 100 million dollar bonuses.And quess what, when the "stimulus" of the new deal and WWII ended what happened? Massive recession? Yup. Just remember, George Bush pushed the Keynesian policy... look where that got us. Why don't you actually go take ECON 101 and maybe macro economics at a real live school before you get into this with me.
Bernanke was a part of the Bush economic team before he was chair of the Fed. That requires a simple google search, not even an entire class. And if those low interest rates would have been accompanied by some actual regulations on banks (so they can't take federal money at 0% and lend it out at 29%) some of the Bush disaster might have been averted. I don't remember the part in Keynesian economics where only millionaires get tax cuts, and companies are rewarded for shipping jobs to other countries.But, hey, you're the expert.
Just to give you a little hint at what the "stimulus" of the New Deal and admitedly nessessary stimulus factor the war time economy did... the GDP contracted 12.7% in 1946 and again 2.6% in the early 50s.In 08-09 it shrunk 3.9%Yeah, that stimulus stuff sure works! But OMG, look, after the 58 recession when the Austrian perspective was used... by JFK none-the-less on through the 80s and 90s by both Reagan and Clinton it never contracted more than 2.5%. Oh wait... except with Carter in 79 when it contracted 3.2%.Here, go educate yourself and go look it up.But lets take an example of an economy that doesn't listen to the morons that George Bush and Barak Obama listen to, lets look at Switzerland... an economy based on banking in fact, whose GDP contracted a whoping 1.2% during the height of the recession and today is expanding and dispite having a drastically smaller population and no natural resources to speak of is the richest per capita country on the planet with the highest individual income in per capita on planet Earth. Guess there might be something to that Austrian Perspective huh?Schools out.
Bernanke was a part of the Bush economic team before he was chair of the Fed.Yes, he was. I thought I'd made it pretty freak'n clear dude that both Bush and Obama are following the exact same no difference play book. You know, the book that failed. They even have pretty much the same team, that should tell you something.And if those low interest rates would have been accompanied by some actual regulations on banks (so they can't take federal money at 0% and lend it out at 29%) some of the Bush disaster might have been averted.No arguement there. I say we shouldn't have loaned them a dime. I quit the Republican party I was so mad bush passed first stimulus.I don't remember the part in Keynesian economics where only millionaires get tax cuts, and companies are rewarded for shipping jobs to other countries.Thats because Keynes didn't talk about that, thats the Laffer curve which is just another form of "stimulus" where instead of taxpayer funds being injected into the economy it is simply not confiscated in the first place hoping those savings act as stimulus.Obama is trying that too with his proposed tax cuts. Problem is, the Laffer curve as tried by Reagan and Bush and Obama doesn't work. You have to just cut spending, you can't "stimulus" your way out of government debt.Your ignorance of economics is really showing here.
As a matter of fact, Arthur Laffer sited JM Keyens as his primary source in his arguement for supply side economics- not FA Hyek or the Austrian School.The Laffer Curve is real, at some point you tax citizens and capital so much there isn't anything left over for investment or GDP growth and tax revenues do suffer... but when translated to supply side economics it turns into desaster.Just look at defacits and debt from Reagan, Bush and Obama as evidence.To pay down debt, you HAVE to cut spending for every corisponding cut in taxation and to grow GDP to free the taxation liquidity trap you HAVE to cut services or you get boom and bust recession.
Ah I see I started talking about numbers again and your eyes glalzed over and you transitioned out of this arguement.Well, nice chating muheh. Any time you need an econ lession just tool on over to my blog and I'll save you 50 bucks a credit hour.
Post a Comment