Positive thought for the Future

Yeah, but undocumented immigrants that I see in supply here don't share your view.

No, just like anything, there is always a worse time or place.

place, just at a bad time."

Y'know, that is a nice trite saying, and pretty much on the money. Problem is however, that so many think things are hunky dory. They think they can p rint eighty billion a month forever. They think they can make all governmen ts friendly. They think that we have any wealth left., They think the bsnke rs are not going to do it again as soon as the time is right. They think th e government cares about them. They think big companies are honest.

THAT'S the problem, the ignorance of the problem by people who are either b rainwashed, or born into it and think it is normal, or actually who are par t of the problem.

at place, just at a bad time."

m is however, that so many think things are hunky dory. They think they can print eighty billion a month forever.

Nobody who knows anything about deficit-financed pump-priming stimulus spen ding thinks anything of the sort. You can't run a deficit forever, and the point of the spending is to get the economy running close to capacity, and once you've got there pump-priming spending becomes an inflation-driving ba d thing, and has to stopped.

The people - like James Arthur - who think that they can claim that anybody thinks that it can run forever - are those who are convinced that it can't work, and thus persuade themselves that it isn't working and is just some kind of left-wing pork-barrel.

A better electoral system might help. Scandinavia and German have proportio nal representation, more than two political parties, and coalition governme nts. I saw how that worked in the Netherlands, and it does seem to lead to rather more rational decision making in government, and better outcomes for the population as a whole, as opposed to that fraction of the population t hat can pay for loads of television advertising for their favourite candida te.

going to do it again as soon as the time is right. They think the governmen t cares about them. They think big companies are honest.

brainwashed, or born into it and think it is normal, or actually who are p art of the problem.

Sadly, you are clearly part of the problem, rather than part of the solutio n.

You can't run a deficit forever, and the point of the spending is to get the economy running close to capacity, and once you've got there pump-priming spending becomes an inflation-driving bad thing, and has to stopped.

Actually governments can run a deficit forever. The U.S. government has run a deficit every year since 1940 except for a year under Eisenhower and another year under Clinton. And could have run a deficit those years without causing any major problem.

Dan

Only a small deficit. Nowhere near enough to support effective pump-priming stimulus spending. Hoover did do some stimulus spending during the Great Depression, but nowhere near enough to have any significant effect. Size does matter.

But you did not qualify your statement. As shown above you made an absolute statement that was wrong. So now you add qualifiers.

And the pump priming has not worked very well. Keynesian theory sounds good, but has not really worked. There has been very little multiplier effect.

Dan

get the economy running close to capacity, and once you've got there pump- priming spending becomes an inflation-driving bad thing, and has to stopped .

has run a deficit every year since 1940 except for a year under Eisenhower and another year under Clinton. And could have run a deficit those years wi thout causing any major problem.

ming stimulus spending. Hoover did do some stimulus spending during the Gre at Depression, but nowhere near enough to have any significant effect. Size does matter.

ute statement that was wrong. So now you add qualifiers.

The statement was made in a specific context - that of paying for deficit-f unded stimulus spending. That does imply a significant deficit.

Your response tries to equate signficant, unsustainable deficits with trivi al failures to balance the budget. You were practicing the genteel art of m isunderstanding what was being said in the hope of scoring a hollow debatin g point, and you are coming across as a trivial twit

ood, but has not really worked. There has been very little multiplier effe ct.

There has been less multiplier effect than there should have been. The stim ulus money should have been pumped into social security payments and unempl oyment benefits, which go to people who can be relied on to promptly spend all the money they get.

The US Congress is organised to let the people who own the country run the country, so most of the stimulus spending ended up in the pockets of the we ll-off, who don't have the same compulsion as the poor to spend it immediat ely, and are disinclined to invest it when the economy is in recession, whi ch does tend to reduce the multiplier.

The stimulus spending did what was needed - it stopped the economy shrinkin g at 1.6% per quarter, as it did in the first quarter after the GFC hit. Th e same thing happened in 1929, and without stimulus spending the economy ke pt on shrinking at roughly that rate for the next four years, so it ended u p 25% smaller before Roosevelt turned it around.

It was slower doing what it should have done - getting the economy growing again - because it was smaller than it should have been, in part because it was misdirected, and in part because people took a while to realise just h ow much liquidity the GFC had taken out of the whole international economy.

Keynesian theory worked fine, but the practice wasn't as good as it should have been - though a whole lot better than Hoover's in 1929.

-funded stimulus spending. That does imply a significant deficit.

So you are saying that the U.S. has not been running significant deficits u ntil Obama was elected?

You should be able to state your position clearly and precisely.

vial failures to balance the budget. You were practicing the genteel art of misunderstanding what was being said in the hope of scoring a hollow debat ing point, and you are coming across as a trivial twit

You are coming across as someone who can not think clearly and who wants to excuse false statements made without thinking of what you said.

good, but has not really worked. There has been very little multiplier ef fect.

imulus money should have been pumped into social security payments and unem ployment benefits, which go to people who can be relied on to promptly spen d all the money they get.

Your opinion but not mine. I think the stimulus money was spent as payback for union support of Obama's campaign. If the stimulus money had gone to unemployment benefits, we would have had more unemployment. It would be di fficult to pump the stimulus money into SSBN benefits without changing the way benefits are calculated.

e country, so most of the stimulus spending ended up in the pockets of the well-off, who don't have the same compulsion as the poor to spend it immedi ately, and are disinclined to invest it when the economy is in recession, w hich does tend to reduce the multiplier.

ing at 1.6% per quarter, as it did in the first quarter after the GFC hit. The same thing happened in 1929, and without stimulus spending the economy kept on shrinking at roughly that rate for the next four years, so it ended up 25% smaller before Roosevelt turned it around.

THe stimulus money did very little. It changed the recession from a quick and sharp recession to a long lasting less sharp recession. The recovery w as very weak compared to other recessions.

I think the stimulus money did nothing as far as the housing market. We ha d a bubble where more houses were built than what the market needed. The o nly solution for that is time.

g again - because it was smaller than it should have been, in part because it was misdirected, and in part because people took a while to realise just how much liquidity the GFC had taken out of the whole international econom y.

d have been - though a whole lot better than Hoover's in 1929.

I disagree. Keynesian theory expected one dollor of government spending to create about 3 dollors of private enterprise spending. In fact for each d ollor of government spending there was an increase of less than a dollar of private enterprise spending. In other words it did not work.

Dan

it-funded stimulus spending. That does imply a significant deficit.

until Obama was elected?

Why would you think that?

But not at unnecessary length.

rivial failures to balance the budget. You were practicing the genteel art of misunderstanding what was being said in the hope of scoring a hollow deb ating point, and you are coming across as a trivial twit

to excuse false statements made without thinking of what you said.

Dream on.

ds good, but has not really worked. There has been very little multiplier effect.

stimulus money should have been pumped into social security payments and un employment benefits, which go to people who can be relied on to promptly sp end all the money they get.

ck for union support of Obama's campaign. If the stimulus money had gone t o unemployment benefits, we would have had more unemployment. It would be difficult to pump the stimulus money into SSBN benefits without changing th e way benefits are calculated.

You may think that the stimulus money was spent as a payback for union supp ort, but in fact it was spent in the US - and in every other advanced indus trial country - as a mechanism to keep the economy from shrinking.The union s were happy to see the money spent - as was everybody else who doesn't hav e an ideological objection to Keynesian economics, but repaying their suppo rt wasn't a significant motivation.

Obama may have been happy to have done something that met with their approv al, but the fact is that the governements of ever other advanced industrial country did pretty much exactly the same kind of thing.

the country, so most of the stimulus spending ended up in the pockets of th e well-off, who don't have the same compulsion as the poor to spend it imme diately, and are disinclined to invest it when the economy is in recession, which does tend to reduce the multiplier.

nking at 1.6% per quarter, as it did in the first quarter after the GFC hit . The same thing happened in 1929, and without stimulus spending the econom y kept on shrinking at roughly that rate for the next four years, so it end ed up 25% smaller before Roosevelt turned it around.

k and sharp recession to a long lasting less sharp recession. The recovery was very weak compared to other recessions.

It did quite a lot. It changed what would have been a catastrophic depressi on into a mild recession. The recovery may have been slow compared with oth er recessions, but the initial reaction to the GFC was much worse than anyt hing since the stock-market crash of 1929, and there's evidence that the GF C took an unprecedentedly large chunk of liquidity out of the international economy.

You are comparing cute little kitten recessions with a roaring lion depress ion.

had a bubble where more houses were built than what the market needed. The only solution for that is time.

Not exactly. The people who had been working on building the unnecessary ho uses needed to be be given something else useful to do. It's one of the rou tine tasks that come up after any bubble bursts.

ing again - because it was smaller than it should have been, in part becaus e it was misdirected, and in part because people took a while to realise ju st how much liquidity the GFC had taken out of the whole international econ omy.

uld have been - though a whole lot better than Hoover's in 1929.

to create about 3 dollars of private enterprise spending.

suggests that 1.73 is the highest that's likely to be seen in reality. Some Italians thought that it could get up to two in certain specific situation s.

less than a dollar of private enterprise spending. In other words it did n ot work.

It worked - just not as well as it would have done if it had been better di rected.

Stimulus spending still encourages the economy, even if the multiplier is l ess than one, but obviously the authorities should be allowed to direct the stimulus where it has the maximum effect, rather than into the pockets of the politically influential well-off.

If one thinks clearly, it does not take many words to state them concisely.

Dan

How would you know? Who is "them" in the above sentence?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 19:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman Gave us:

Reading interpretation problems again, BiilyChump?

State them words, idiot.

('those' would be correct in my line, but 'them' is correct in his usage.)

Grow the f*ck up, child.

isely.

Even you know which word he should have used. Quite why you want to claim that you think that "them" might be correct in any usage escapes me - presumably you needed something offensive to say, even if it happened to be wrong.

As far as I can see, what he posted was a contraction of

"If one thinks clearly, it does not take many words to state one's ideas co ncisely."

where "them" was intended to represent the ideas.

It's also false proposition. Some very clear ideas don't lend themselves to concise representation in natural language, which is what makes mathematic s so difficult to write about. English doesn't have a single word for the e xclusive OR relationship, so we are stuck with "if and only if" where the D utch can say "mits".

Bill, I fear you're wasting your time trying to teach English to this imbecile, who has problems constructing a coherent sentence.

Sorry I switched from singular to plural. It should have read :

You should be able to state your position(S ) clearly and precisely.

If one thinks clearly, it does not take many words to state them ( Your positions ) concisely.

Dan