1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

I cannot say this any better.

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by Woolleybugger, Jul 6, 2012.

  1. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    IRP you made the mistake of using the term "Mainstream Economics".... The reality is that Lukey is LESS WELL versed in both Austrian and Marxist economics than you, Wooley or I AS WELL.

    For example this piece of nonsense:

    Well if "wealth" is "productive value" (notice how he begs the question of what is wealth) then Lukey's definition of "private sector" INCLUDES


    • the whole of the VA healthcare system
    • All of the National Highway Interstate System
    • Pell grants and other GOVERNMENT funding for education
    • the National Institute of Health were a lot of the basic research for wealth creating biological creations is done
    • The old NASA which invented the microprocessor
    • DARAPA which invented the internet

    etc. etc.

    So his notion of "the private sector" is essentially a meaingless one.

    Notice though how he seeks to define this away

    Not by demonstrating that the building of a road fails to create wealth, but simply by saying "That's not part of the private sector".

    And then says


    IOW his whole line of "economic reasoning" is that


    Because I say the government cannot create wealth - it cannot create wealth and therefore cannot grow the economy​

    Its as fudanmentally ignorant of the study of how economies works as it gets. Precisely because it is outside the realm of actual ECONOMIC Activity, and purely ideologica.
     
  2. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Pardon me. I must have missed where he is running on his record...
     
  3. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Um cherry picking the notion of value created by labor does not make something Marxist.

    And yet that is PRECISELY the logic you used here. And you INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT the inconvenient fact that Smith used EXACTLY THE SAME LINE OF REASONING.


    OK maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you did not intentionally leave out that inconvenient fact. Maybe you are just fundamentally ignorant of Smith's analysis
     
  4. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Notice how YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION


    That the POLITICS of the game make factual but more complex campaign slogans ineffective HAS NO BEARING ON THE FACTS,

    I'll ask again

    your claim is that Obama's policies have been ineffective.


    NAME A POLICY THAT OBAMA HAS PUT INTO EFFECT, that is CURRENTLY ACTIVE That is Ineffective (or which was ineffective in the past when it operated).

    JUST ONE.
     
  5. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    One of the things not well covered is that Adam Smith was very much opposed to excessive rents. He believed land and capital were inherently productive and deserved rents commesurate with that productivity, but that those rents ought not come at the cost of detracting from the VALUE OF LABOR.

    Which is something Lukey would call "Marxist" precisely because of his ignorance of basic economics. Lukey claims to have a BA in economics. He might well have. I remember interviewing a Comp Sci candidate from Clemson Univ back in the 1980s. He had an impressive GPA and claimed a lot of "programming languages" as his knowledge. But I asked him to solve a fairly fundamental Comp Sci problem around a structure called "linked lists". He claimed that he was unfamiliar with this basic concept of CompSci. And yet he had a 3.75 GPA and was within 2 mos of Graduation.

    I suspect Lukey is a bit of the same.



    BTW more on Rents. They are called Rents, because if you think about it, a farmer is essentially "renting his land back to himself".

    Because if the ROI that she can get out of the land is LESS than what she can charge as RENT for that land, then she should instead rent out the land. And if the Farmer next door to her is instead LEASING the land he tills and generates a similar ROI for a similar product, then to accurately assess the Cost Of Goods Sold for BOTH farmers, you have to allocate part of the revenue generated to the RENT of the land.

    Its a mechanism for evaluatiing "opportunity cost" of an asset.


    Note also that given the way the Tax Law is structured, because ACTUAL Rent can be counted as a COGS, but the passive economic form of rent cannot, it is not unusual for a corporation to DIRECTLY own very little of the capital assets it has in production. Instead it creates the factory/facility, gets it operational, and then sells it off to a passive investment entitity like a retirement fund. Microsoft for example did this with its initial buildings at its current HQ. About 6mos after building the 4 initial buildings, it sold the land and buildings to a Teachers Retirement fund. That way it got to write off the Rent as COGS and the Retirement Fund got to write down the "depreciation" as a Capital Cost that it could offset against other investments in ways MSFT could not.


    But of course Lukey doesn't understand sh!t like that.
     
  6. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    What makes Keynesian econ "right" is its predicive ability and its long term track record.

    As for the people I respect - Whats stunning is the Robert Lucas is fundamentally a Keynesian (his work was the genesis of the New Keynesian school).

    Malpass is a partisan hack

    and Friedman doesn't say what Lukey claims he says.

    Allen Meltzer, John Taylor, Robert Lucus, David Malpass, and Milton Friedman (of course).[/QUOTE]
     
  7. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Yes, I believe that is the President's position - that he just "failed to tell a story" that we would all fall for, I mean believe. Which is, essentially, what you attempt to do here - tell a story that we'll believe about your anti-capitalist agenda. But, of course, it is a fairy tale. Your whole economic frame of reference is wrong. Yes, there was economic activity that resulted from the government spending. Was it sustainable? Was it "stimulative" in that it engendered further economic activity that was self sustaining? Apparently not.

    Again, the whole theory that aggregate demand is insufficient so we need government to spend and induce demand is bullshit. The reason we have insufficient aggregate demand is because governments all around the world have been borrowing and spending in a Keynesian orgy designed to prove big government and entitlements for all is the utopia and would produce a self sustaining prosperity that would pay for it all. And it proved (naturally) to be ultimately unsustainable. It just pulled more and more economic activity from the future into the present. And all we have to show for it is unsustainable bureaucracies and massive debt. Governments don't grow economies, they just grow government.

    That's what Obama's "stimulus" did (largely) and that's what "cash for clunkers" did and now that that spending is the new baseline and the economy is flat again. Now the aggregate demand is even MORE sated and you guys want to do even more (fake) Keynesian demand to take us higher. It is absurd. And a fraud on its face. We need to let the private economy find its natural (read: sustainable) level and that will require a restructuring of government spending and debt levels. It will also require a restructuring (and paying down) of consumer debt. There will be economic pain involved. And the best way to weather it is to cut regulations and free our entrepreneurs to create new products that will induce new demand and ESPECIALLY sell into foreign markets.

    That is the only way out of this mess, and the more we follow your (bad) advice, the further we get from the ultimate solution to our economic problems. Repent sinner - before it is too late...
     
  8. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    I know Lucas by name and reputation but I am not that familiar with his work in macroeconomics. I did have a passing familiarity with his work on "rational expectations." I took a look at the Wikipedia article on Lucas and I am more interested.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas,_Jr.

    In particular, as I said, I am really more well-versed in economic sociology. In all honesty, the four "giants" of economic sociology are Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Thorstein Veblen, and Joseph Schumpeter. (Of those four, only Marx was a proponent of "socialism" and even Marx did not really know what "socialism" would look like when he was writing.) What linked all of them together was an interest in the evolving relationships between the means of production and the relations of production that made up the economy and how this was connected to the state and society as a whole. What makes Lucas interesting (based on the Wikipedia article) is that he was interested in establishing microeconomic foundations for macroeconomic theory. In short, he is interested in the intersection between market institutions and economic behavior. This is exactly what economic sociology is concerned with. But economic sociology tends to "complicate" simple microeconomic assumptions about human behavior in a way that is closer to reality (in my opinion). In any case, I assume that Lucas may have a tendency to hold "Hayekian" microassumptions. But I would have to read him.

    As to Friedman himself, I agree that Friedman does not say exactly what Lukey says. I think that this article by Krugman on Friedman is a pretty good read in that respect.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/feb/15/who-was-milton-friedman/?pagination=false

    As to Meltzer, John Taylor, and David Malpass, I will take a look starting with the Wikipedia articles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_H._Meltzer

    Vis a vis Meltzer, I am guessing that Lukey liked his stands on AIG and cap and trade. Not sure where Meltzer stands as a theorist on issues.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_(economist)

    Vis a vis Taylor, it looks like he - like Lucas - is a neo-Keynesian.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Malpass

    Vis a vis Malpass, I will grant Lukey that he does have a background in economics but it looks to me that he spent much more time as a policy analyst and investment banker than he did as a "theorist." So, I don't know exactly where he stands as a theorist. I do wonder why Lukey is not a little more skeptical about a guy that was so involved with Bear Stearns when Bear Stearns collapsed. (I am not surprised that he lost his Senate bid.)


    [/QUOTE]
     
  9. DefeatObama

    DefeatObama Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    10
    well it's hard to argue that obamacare is either currently active or ineffective since it's not fully implemented or had a chance to bankrupt us or ration care yet. though both are inevitable.

    why don't you get me the metric by which 'jobs saved' is calculated. while you're at it 'kept things from getting worse' is measured how?

    and degs evidently satisfied with record unemployment. nothing says 'success' like people becoming so frustrated they just stop looking and the masterminds captializing on that misery by promoting a statistic demonstrating their 'success' that cashes in on their misery. gotta love the statists.....

    now these aren't exactly policies but the white house's unilaterally overturning the clinton administrations welfare reform - at this point an expectation by the food stamp president - and unilaterally imposing temporary amnesty for criminal aliens while ignoring it's constitutional obligation to defend our borders, doesn't sit well with me.

    standing idly by while iran goes nuclear doesn't thrill me... nor does a half assed effort in afghanistan - biding time till the retreat date rolls around...

    mostly though I think the divider-in-chief annoys me the most by setting groups of americans against each other... be it latino's defeating their enemies; bitter gun clingers; cops acting stupidly; house budget chairmen acting in good faith being portrayed as granny killers.....

    passing himself as hussein-6pack bothers me too... (don't be late)... the millionaire who touts himself as his brothers keeper actually observes his halfrican brother living on about 20 bucks a day in the 3rd world while auntie illegal and the drunkel live on the dole here in America. wouldn't you figure he'd fork over a royalty check from his partially true bio's?

    ......off the top of my head...
     
  10. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    I knew that you were an evangelist at heart. :wink:

    Honestly, I don't think that you have much insight into entrepreneurs or what makes them tick. But that makes you like the Mittster. So I am not surprised. (And I "know" that I am right So there.)
     
  11. DefeatObama

    DefeatObama Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    10
    what the [Unwelcome language removed] are you talking about... if you want to be taken seriously you can't write this shit.... romney built a company and spent a career working with and as an, entrepreneur.

    and unless you consider inventing new ways to agitate a community and rabble rouse about the most entrepreneurial thing your president ever did was inventing a $300k patronage job for his wife(that was never filled when she left) to line their family pocket
     
  12. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    DO,

    I started. built, and sold two successful IT companies between 1995 and 2007. I do know something about small (high tech) businesses and what is involved. I also have an MBA. And I was successful enough that between 2001 and 2009 I was invited three times by the RNC to spend a $1K to $2K to have lunch with Dick Cheney in Bellevue, Washington. (I declined each time.)

    Mitt Romney was one of several partners who set up a "partnership." He and his partners (who were already quite well-connected) were successful in getting well-heeled one-percenters as clients. They hired some high-priced Wall-Street types. But in my eyes, they did not build companies (and in fact may have dismantled more than they built). When it comes to the day to day, nuts and bolts of building a company or running a non-finance business, Mitt is clueless,

    As to Obama, you have a very jaded view so it is pointless to discuss anything with you. Obama and his advisors know a lot more about building an economy from the middle out rather than the top down. Good entrepreneurs thrive in an environment like that. Romney only knows the top down.

     
  13. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    As long as you only measure what is seen...
     
  14. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Hm ad hominem and nothing else. What FACTS do you have to support your CLAIM of it being a "fairly tale"

    Never the stated goal, nor the intended goal. When you prime a pump, you don't expect to keep reusing the same water

    Actually demonstrably so. In fact what we saw was that when the stimulus grants to states and localities expired, THAT is when the layoffs at the state level took place. IOW this was economic activity that absent OTHER NEGATIVES would have been self-sustaining. After all, unemployment numbers have NOT turned back down.


    Again, other than you repeating this, WHAT FACTS do you have to support your claims? And the answer is... NOT A SHRED.


    Um FACTS MATTER Lukey. Since Cash for Clunkers has expired, BY DEFNITION it is not a "new baseline". So you are just spouting empty nonsense you cannot back up with VERIFIABLE FACTS
     
  15. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Right so you measure what cannot be Measured ROTFLMAO!!!
     
  16. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    You base the whole proof of your theory on running government spending through a Keynesian econometric model, entirely dependent on a fundamentally flawed "multiplier" effect that is, at best, a guess. So I really don't understand what you are laughing at (unless you don't understand how econometric models based on estimates work).

    And frankly, you keep saying my analyses are "superficial" yet you reject out of hand the existence of negative effects of big government spending processes, simply because you refuse to consider them. I think I am the one who should be laughing here...
     
  17. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    No. I base it on econometric measurements and how Keynesian models PREDICTED the outcomes measured. Whereas your "austrian school" predictions FAILED TO PREDICT THE MEASUREABLE OUTCOMES

    THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. Its kinda like my saying that the moon rotates around the earth, and you saying that I'm just using a model of physics to prove that but your model of physics, that involves angels pushing the moon is better.
     
  18. Woolleybugger

    Woolleybugger Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,604
    Likes Received:
    482
    Good job of pointing out to him that the Austrian school is more ideology than economics. The critique of them includes their reliance upon logic and ideas rather than data. In fact, from what I gather, they refuse to gather data or analyze it to prove their positions.
     
  19. OldGaffer

    OldGaffer Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,232
    Likes Received:
    186
    I didnt know that, I guess that explains all of Lukeys crazy ass assumptions. He just dreams them up.
     
  20. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    List all the current jobs that are the result of the Obama "stimulus" bill.
     

Share This Page