New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

I cannot say this any better.

Lukey

Senator
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


Are you working on that list of specific workers that the Obama "stimulus" bill employed? After all, you have to identify them before you can measure them. How's it coming? Feel free to list it in sections, as you identify them (rather than waiting until you have the complete list to post them).
 

degsme

Council Member
Are you working on that list of specific workers that the Obama "stimulus" bill employed? After all, you have to identify them before you can measure them.
Three million ain't gonna be listed. But we can point to specific groups of workers who are directly employed as a result of the AJRA. within 30 minuted drive of my house, I can bring you to almost a dozen infrastructure projects that would not be happening without the AJRA. And that's what the CBO went and looked at when they came up with their numbers. Same with the OMB. They actually dispatched accountants to each of the states to see what jobs were being protected by the AJRA.

As a result the OMB estimated 4.5 million jobs saved/created, CBO estimated 3.0 saved and created.

And before you spout another one of your bits about how Fiscal Multipliers are "just theory" - explain then how an economy works if not for fiscal multipliers?
 

degsme

Council Member
List all the current jobs that are the result of the Obama "stimulus" bill.
go look at the research that underpins the OBM and CBO estimates. They dispatched accountants to the individual states to see precisely how the $$ flowed.
 

degsme

Council Member
Mitt Romney was one of several partners who set up a "partnership."
Actually Bill Bain INVITED Romney to be one of the partners starting the consulting firm. And where Romney got the money to "buy in" is not at all clear. I suspect it was from Daddy Warbucks - But no one knows since Romney isn't disclosing financial records of that.
 

Lukey

Senator
go look at the research that underpins the OBM and CBO estimates. They dispatched accountants to the individual states to see precisely how the $$ flowed.
Estimates? ESTIMATES? I thought you told me your theories rely on measured outcomes...
 

degsme

Council Member
Estimates? ESTIMATES? I thought you told me your theories rely on measured outcomes...
Everything to do with policy at a scale above a few thousand people is an ESTIMATE. Even elections are estimates with very real MoEs. That you don't get this is telling about your maths...
 

degsme

Council Member
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.
Inevitable? How is bankruptcy inevitable? And since when have we NOT rationed care?

why don't you get me the metric by which 'jobs saved' is calculated.
Um by sending accountants out to the states where the grants were being spent and looking specifically at which jobs were funded by the additional spending.

and degs evidently satisfied with record unemployment.
Its nowhere near "record unemployment".

nothing says 'success' like people becoming so frustrated they just stop looking
a
In every downturn some people "stop looking" by either going back to school or retiring early. Again This is nothing unique or new to Obama


now these aren't exactly policies but the white house's unilaterally overturning the clinton administrations welfare reform
Never took place. Try again.

-
and unilaterally imposing temporary amnesty for criminal aliens while ignoring it's constitutional obligation to defend our borders,
No such Constitutional obligation, nor is the immigration issue a threat to our borders. Add in that Article II Section 2 OF THE CONSTITITON explicitly gives POTUS "the power to grant reprieves for Offenses against the United States" and you don't have much of a case here.

What you really are whining about is that the GOP Congress thought that if it simply refused to cooperate in any sort of productive negotiations with The POTUS that somehow this would prevent Obama's authority as Executive. While it does hamstring the WH ability to act, it does not stop it. And in its temper tantrum, the Congress has basically painted itself into the lowest approval ratings in history and handed Obama on a silver platter, the ability to act unilaterally.

You don't like that becaues your views are in the minorty and are outplayed. sucks.

standing idly by while iran goes nuclear doesn't thrill me.
As opposed to? (BTW how is it "standing idly" to have mroe effective alingment on this with the PRC and Russia than under GWB? or is that StuxNet was just nothing)

.. nor does a half assed effort in afghanistan
-
Again any factual evidence of this being "half-assed" Or is it just more political spin by someone who hated Obama since before he was the nominee?

mostly though I think the divider-in-chief annoys me the most by setting groups of americans against each other..
Really? Obama Set latinos against??? perhaps those seeking to deny then "No taxation without representation"?

As for House Budget Chairmen acting in good faith? Where? I see ZERO evidence of Ryan acting in "good faith". Particularly since many of the claims in his budget leave out well known but inconvenient facts.

So off the top of your head you've listed a bunch of factually unsupportable opinion, some of which is contradicted by demonstrable facts. That's the very defintiion of bigotry.
 

Lukey

Senator
Everything to do with policy at a scale above a few thousand people is an ESTIMATE. Even elections are estimates with very real MoEs. That you don't get this is telling about your maths...
So Keynesianism's "predictive ability and its long term track record" is based on its adherents' ability to run numbers through a Keynesian econometric model and "prove" that it achieved its objectives. That is what we commonly refer to as a "joke."
 

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmeEverything to do with policy at a scale above a few thousand people is an ESTIMATE. Even elections are estimates with very real MoEs. That you don't get this is telling about your maths...
So Keynesianism's "predictive ability and its long term track record" is based on its adherents' ability to run numbers through a Keynesian econometric model and "prove" that it achieved its objectives. That is what we commonly refer to as a "joke."
Nice strawman. An estimate does not necessarily mean it was run though a "keynesian econometric model". If I track a grant to the state Department of Ed. And we know from previous data within this state that for every $1 in grants to the state we have $0.85 going into the classroom teacher's salary. Then the rest is just math. But since that math is based on the AVERAGE teacher's salary it is an... wait for it.... ESTIMATE.

Still waiting for you to explain how an economy works if there is no such thing as a Fiscal Multiplier.

Without a Fiscal Multiplier, where does the Velocity of Money metric come from?
 

Lukey

Senator
Nice strawman. An estimate does not necessarily mean it was run though a "keynesian econometric model". If I track a grant to the state Department of Ed. And we know from previous data within this state that for every $1 in grants to the state we have $0.85 going into the classroom teacher's salary. Then the rest is just math. But since that math is based on the AVERAGE teacher's salary it is an... wait for it.... ESTIMATE.

Still waiting for you to explain how an economy works if there is no such thing as a Fiscal Multiplier.

Without a Fiscal Multiplier, where does the Velocity of Money metric come from?
There are all sorts of "fiscal multipliers." Sometimes it is more than one, sometimes less than one, and sometimes it is "zero" (i.e. one for one - no multiplier). And they are infinitely variable so a transaction with a positive multiplier today may produce a negative multiplier tomorrow. My guess (more like informed opinion) is that the various government spending multipliers (on average) decline as the overall size of government increases. And, with respect to your example, you do not account for the loss of wages (and/or other economic output) that does NOT occur because the government has taken $1 out of the private economy to grow the public sector by hiring a (likely as not, unneeded) teacher. That is at the heart of the flaw in your reasoning, that the government can more effectively invest that $1 than the private sector can, and/or that it can do so independent of all other transactional decisions in the economy. And the failure to measure that which is "not seen" is the fundamental flaw in the Keynesian econometric models that "prove" this kind of big governmentism works when all observational knowledge of how political economies operate tells us that the exact opposite is in fact the case.
 

degsme

Council Member
There are all sorts of "fiscal multipliers." Sometimes it is more than one, sometimes less than one, and sometimes it is "zero" (i.e. one for one - no multiplier). And they are infinitely variable so a transaction with a positive multiplier today may produce a negative multiplier tomorrow.
And your FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support this claim? non-existant as usual... once again you hide behind weasel words: "may" "sometimes"

Using your line of reasoning the computer you posted that with could not operate since the complexity and statistical probabilities of just the quantum mechanics involved in Quantum Tunneling used in the powersupply, are outside our ability to calculate perfectly. and "sometimes" an electron will migrate through the insulator off into space and the next one "may" fail to tunnel...

and yet the overall statistically supported modeling of the Zener diode in your power supply works, as do the statistical ESTIMATES of the hundreds of millions of transistors in the CPU and other components.

What is also curious is that you have now magically gone from claiming Fiscal Multipliers are a "Keynesian myth" to admitting they exist. All, perhaps, because you got challenged to show how the econometrics of money velocity works without them.

My guess (more like informed opinion) is that the various government spending multipliers (on average) decline as the overall size of government increases.
Setting aside that you have yet to demonstrate any sort of "informed opinion" in pretty much anything, mainly making up your claims out of straw, you are further engaged in yet another strawman. Government spending, as a fraction of the Economy and on a per-capita basis, is dramatically lower than it has been in the historic past. That means that we are not in the realm of "unknown fiscal multipliers".

Secondly, while it may be that a particular Fiscal Multiplier declines associated with the overall size of government, simply a "decline" is meaningless. the Altitude of Mt. Everest "declines" dramatically more rapidly than the downslope on back 9 of the Auburn Hills KS Golf Course. But even AT ITS BASE, the height of Mt Everest is higher than the highest point of the Auburn Hills Golf Course.

And we know that the Fiscal Multiplier for things like Child Care subsidies is 3.5+ whereas the FM for tax cuts to the upper quintiles is UNDER 0.7 So even if the Child Care subsidy FM declines at a rate THREE TIMES GREATER than that of upper quintile tax cuts, the Upper Quintile Tax cut FM will NEVER BE higher than that for Child Care subsidies.

And, as for your example, you do not account for the loss of wages (and/or other economic output) that does NOT occur because the government has taken $1 out of the private economy to grow the public sector by hiring a (likely as not, unneeded) teacher.
Because as the $1 Trillion in free cash sittting in the private sector shows, there is no lack of capital to be spent growing the private sector. QED no such "loss of wages" exists in the current economic equilibrium.

yes in some theoretic future where the US Government revenue collection and/or borrowing was so huges that private sector cash was scarce you could BEGIN to make that arguement. But we are about 60% of GDP and tens of trillions of dollars of borrowing from that point. So raising it is just a strawman. It is not an "unseen". It is simply not a factor at this scale or meta-equilibrium point of the economy

That is at the heart of the flaw in your reasoning, that the government can more effectively invest that $1 than the private sector can,
When did you stop beating your wife? Try an accurate statement.

The data CLEARLY SHOWS

that IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES the Government can spend more efficiently than the private sector.

But even that is NOT at the core of Keynesian spending as a way out of a liquidity trap. The core of the Keynesian theory about liquidity traps is altogether something different. And clearly you don't seem to understand the difference. If you did, you would not make such bullsh!t claims.
 

Lukey

Senator
Three million ain't gonna be listed. But we can point to specific groups of workers who are directly employed as a result of the AJRA. within 30 minuted drive of my house, I can bring you to almost a dozen infrastructure projects that would not be happening without the AJRA. And that's what the CBO went and looked at when they came up with their numbers. Same with the OMB. They actually dispatched accountants to each of the states to see what jobs were being protected by the AJRA.

As a result the OMB estimated 4.5 million jobs saved/created, CBO estimated 3.0 saved and created.

And before you spout another one of your bits about how Fiscal Multipliers are "just theory" - explain then how an economy works if not for fiscal multipliers?
Would those be the ones the states t substituted federal dollars for state dollars to pay for?

http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-stimulus-failed-to-boost.html
 
Top