ECONOMIC SHOWDOWN ! Paul vs Paul

[Citizen]

Cit - you are completely out of your realm here. Move on...

uh huh, about what I expected. You do see how YOU changed your question though, so at least thats a good thing.

 

[Spamature]

Nice dodge - you know that if you don't work in Germany you are looked down upon by the hard workers who make up the vast majority of the population. It's why socialism works in Northern Europe and it doesn't in Southern Europe. And you said their lack of a minimum wage was irrelevant because people are (effectively) compensated at union scale. But the report I heard quoted immigrants making the equivalent of two euros an hour - why would they do that if they could collect a generous permanent dole?

And Krugman specifically mentioned Japan - go back and rewatch it. Neither, however, mentioned Germany. So I'm sticking with you as the cheater here (notwithstanding your effort to rewrite the facts to suit you - which is par for your course, I might add).

And the government simply cannot run a "stimulative" fiscal policy while running a surplus. It can become less anti-stimulative if they reduce the surplus but any time the government is running a surplus it is going to produce a drag on the economy. Conversely, any time they run a deficit, it is "stimulus." And, beyond a certain point, all more "stimulus" does is crowd out the private sector (that is going to have to pay more taxes to cover it).

Germany Germany Germany Germany...

Here is what he has to say about Germany and their austerity delusion.

January 9, 2012, 10:38 am
Germans and Aliens

The Times has an article today about Germany’s faith in austerity as the answer to depression. It’s sad reading for anyone hoping that Europe will get its act together; it’s especially galling that Germans remain so committed to belief in expansionary austerity, despite the thorough empirical debunking the notion has been given over the past year and a half (see, e.g., this IMF working paper (pdf)).

But the Germans believe that their own experience shows that austerity works: they went through some tough times a decade ago, but they tightened their belts, and all was well in the end.

Not that it will do any good, but it’s worth pointing out that Germany’s experience can only be generalized if we find some space aliens to trade with, fast.

Why? Because the key to German economic affairs this past decade has been a truly massive shift from current account deficit to surplus:




Now, other countries within Europe could emulate Germany’s past if Germany herself were willing to let its current account surplus vanish. But it isn’t, of course. So the German demand is that everyone run a current account surplus, just like they do — something that would only be possible if we can find someone or something else to buy our exports.

It remains remarkable to see with how little wisdom the world is governed.

 

[Lukey]

Germany Germany Germany Germany...

Here is what he has to say about Germany and their austerity delusion.

January 9, 2012, 10:38 am
Germans and Aliens

The Times has an article today about Germany’s faith in austerity as the answer to depression. It’s sad reading for anyone hoping that Europe will get its act together; it’s especially galling that Germans remain so committed to belief in expansionary austerity, despite the thorough empirical debunking the notion has been given over the past year and a half (see, e.g., this IMF working paper (pdf)).

But the Germans believe that their own experience shows that austerity works: they went through some tough times a decade ago, but they tightened their belts, and all was well in the end.

Not that it will do any good, but it’s worth pointing out that Germany’s experience can only be generalized if we find some space aliens to trade with, fast.

Why? Because the key to German economic affairs this past decade has been a truly massive shift from current account deficit to surplus:




Now, other countries within Europe could emulate Germany’s past if Germany herself were willing to let its current account surplus vanish. But it isn’t, of course. So the German demand is that everyone run a current account surplus, just like they do — something that would only be possible if we can find someone or something else to buy our exports.

It remains remarkable to see with how little wisdom the world is governed.

Not in the clip we have been discussing. Now that we have officially moved the goalposts to suit Degsme, lets look at your Germany piece. Krugman, on the one hand, says we should devalue the currency to make our exports more competitive and then he turns around and suggests (correctly) that everyone can't export more than they import in an effort to get us to just embrace socialism and give people free money to consume enough to get us to full employment. Personally I don't like either idea. I prefer we just stick with what got us here and get back to a smaller government, fewer regulations and more distributed (and less complex) tax structure. Let the countries that fall for the Degsme/Krugman socialist siren song of demand side economics buy the stuff we produce so we can succeed at their expense like the Germans.

 

[Lukey]

uh huh, about what I expected. You do see how YOU changed your question though, so at least thats a good thing.

You still have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[degsme]

You still have no clue what you are talking about.

He's talking about you changing definitions mid-stream to suit your ideology. We went from being on welfare to being below the poverty line and not working and on welfare.

He's talking about you rejecting data that has been broadly and repeatedly discussed and asking for it to be revalidated yet again, simply because it doesn't suit your biase rhetoric.


Now its not surprising you don't have a clue about what he means by that.... but that of course would mean you don't have a clue about how to construct a cogent and consistent arguement.. You sure you want to step up to that claim?

 

[degsme]

Nice dodge - you know that if you don't work in Germany you are looked down upon by the hard workers who make up the vast majority of the population.

Um no. In fact women who take time off work to raise children are not looked down upon.

Try again. And the person moving goal posts is you. Changing the definition of "being on welfare".... furhtermore your claim was that the USA's use of stimulus spending was NECESSARILy like Japans (which is not the invocation of Japan Krugman makes - so once again the "goal post moving" is yours). So it is perfectly legitimate to point out that it is more like Germany's.


And then back to the McCarthyist redefinition of socialism we go.

Try again

FACTS MATTER.

 

[Lukey]

Um no. In fact women who take time off work to raise children are not looked down upon.

Try again. And the person moving goal posts is you. Changing the definition of "being on welfare".... furhtermore your claim was that the USA's use of stimulus spending was NECESSARILy like Japans (which is not the invocation of Japan Krugman makes - so once again the "goal post moving" is yours). So it is perfectly legitimate to point out that it is more like Germany's.


And then back to the McCarthyist redefinition of socialism we go.

Try again

FACTS MATTER.

I said the PERMANENT WELFARE CLASS! No one in their right mind (which excludes you, apparently) is going to think that someone who uses subsidized public transportation, or who receives government paid child care services so they can work, is part of the "permanent" welfare class. And I didn't say US "stimulus" was "necessarily like Japan's" either. I merely pointed out that Japan has been running deficits and keeping their rates low for decades to no avail (and that we appear to be following in their footsteps). So again, it is, in fact, YOU, who is moving the goalposts. And, um, if facts matter so much to you, why do you feel the need to distort them so?

 

[degsme]

I said the PERMANENT WELFARE CLASS!

No you didn't even say that. You started out by asking what percentage were on welfare. https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?23534-ECONOMIC-SHOWDOWN-!-Paul-vs-Paul&p=332854#post332854

What is the percentage of their population in the welfare class?

You moved the goal posts two posts later... and now you are again moving them

Noone in their right mind (which excludes you, apparently) is going to think that someone who uses subsidized public transportation, or who receives government paid child care services so they can work, is part of the "permanent" welfare class.

And the 40% I cited who receive social welfare subsidies of one sort or an other are not talking about public transport or child care services so you can work. No these are direct Welfare supplements of one sort or another... and we've discussed and documented this before.

If you include things like public transit and child care subsidies it is 100% of the population.

And I didn't say US "stimulus" was "necessarily like Japan's" either. I merely pointed out that Japan has been running deficits and keeping their rates low for decades to no avail (and that we appear to be following in their footsteps).

Again not true. You are now weaselwording. You clearly associated Japanese RE Bubble and their FISCAL Response and equated it to Krugman's comments.

When Krugman was suggesting we float even more government debt (be like the Japanese) without it dawning on him that they have STILL never recovered from their collapsed real estate bubble that occurred over a decade before ours,

yet all Krugman was pointing out was that the USA is nowhere near broke.

 

[Lukey]

No you didn't even say that. You started out by asking what percentage were on welfare. https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?23534-ECONOMIC-SHOWDOWN-!-Paul-vs-Paul&p=332854#post332854


You moved the goal posts two posts later... and now you are again moving them

And the 40% I cited who receive social welfare subsidies of one sort or an other are not talking about public transport or child care services so you can work. No these are direct Welfare supplements of one sort or another... and we've discussed and documented this before.

If you include things like public transit and child care subsidies it is 100% of the population.


Again not true. You are now weaselwording. You clearly associated Japanese RE Bubble and their FISCAL Response and equated it to Krugman's comments.



yet all Krugman was pointing out was that the USA is nowhere near broke.

But it is not sitting home collecting a check and doing nothing! What percent is THAT?

 

[degsme]

But it is not sitting home collecting a check and doing nothing! What percent is THAT?

And again, you are changing the goal posts. What percent does that in the USa?

 

[Spamature]

Not in the clip we have been discussing. Now that we have officially moved the goalposts to suit Degsme, lets look at your Germany piece. Krugman, on the one hand, says we should devalue the currency to make our exports more competitive and then he turns around and suggests (correctly) that everyone can't export more than they import in an effort to get us to just embrace socialism and give people free money to consume enough to get us to full employment. Personally I don't like either idea. I prefer we just stick with what got us here and get back to a smaller government, fewer regulations and more distributed (and less complex) tax structure. Let the countries that fall for the Degsme/Krugman socialist siren song of demand side economics buy the stuff we produce so we can succeed at their expense like the Germans.

That your and Paul's claim. BUT actual history doesn't jibe with that version. There were more govt regulations when the economy boomed after WWII and the top tax rates never dipped below 70%. And I don't get the idea that there should be no inflation. If you knew that it would cost you less to buy or produce something tomorrow (deflation) why would you invest in production today ? We would become a nation of eternal savers always waiting for the lower price that is just around the corner.

 

[degsme]

That your and Paul's claim. BUT actual history doesn't jibe with that version. There were more govt regulations when the economy boomed after WWII and the top tax rates never dipped below 70%. And I don't get the idea that there should be no inflation.

His notion is that if you take away monetary policy from the Fed, then they cease to have the right to expand or contract the money supply and thus you won't have inflation. Of corse this ignores that even with a specie currency youget inflation.....but then again, historical facts are not a strong suit in this discussion.

 

[degsme]

LOL! Next time check the whole thread before high fiving someone who turned out to be wrong!

Next time check your own comments before claiming you didn't move the goal posts.

 

[Spamature]

His notion is that if you take away monetary policy from the Fed, then they cease to have the right to expand or contract the money supply and thus you won't have inflation. Of corse this ignores that even with a specie currency youget inflation.....but then again, historical facts are not a strong suit in this discussion.

Did you see this ? Krugman did a follow up IAMA a day or so after the Paul vs Paul 'debate'

 

[degsme]

Did you see this ? Krugman did a follow up IAMA a day or so after the Paul vs Paul 'debate'

Nice! Thanks!!

Here's the Babysitting coop Recession story http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/babysit.html

 

[Lukey]

That your and Paul's claim. BUT actual history doesn't jibe with that version. There were more govt regulations when the economy boomed after WWII and the top tax rates never dipped below 70%. And I don't get the idea that there should be no inflation. If you knew that it would cost you less to buy or produce something tomorrow (deflation) why would you invest in production today ? We would become a nation of eternal savers always waiting for the lower price that is just around the corner.

More regulations in the 50's? You sure about that?

 

[Lukey]

Next time check your own comments before claiming you didn't move the goal posts.

"Welfare class" is not anyone who gets any welfare - never was, never will be. It is the people who sit home their entire lives and collect a check without ever contributing to society - period!

 

[Lukey]

And again, you are changing the goal posts. What percent does that in the USa?

More than they have in Germany (by a bunch).

 

[degsme]

Originally Posted by degsmeAnd again, you are changing the goal posts. What percent does that in the USa?

More than they have in Germany (by a bunch).

Well to make that assertion I assume you have independently verifiable data sources confirming that claim?

Hmmm I wonder why you didn't provide them...

 

[degsme]

"Welfare class" is not anyone who gets any welfare - never was, never will be. It is the people who sit home their entire lives and collect a check without ever contributing to society - period!

Hmm and how do you define "contributing to society"? Do these folks never consume nor produce anything? Sure they exist, Terry Schiavo after her heart attack meets that definition - but odds are that under your definition - so does Ann Romney.