Worst . . . argument . . . ever . . .

[as seen on tv]

Yesterday one of the dimmer PJ lights (regarding economics) began thumping his chest in multiple threads to assert that the government shutdown “would cause a worldwide recession”. Really. He actually said that, as a rationale to keep spending money we don’t have, with constantly escalating debt limits.

First of all “very little” of what the government buys comes from overseas. Maybe some oil. Possibly copy machines, PCs and some vehicles. But a few weeks delay of THOSE purchasing programs is not about to send the world’s economy into a death spiral.

Rather, what I assume this economic-illiterate had in mind was “consumer spending”. The 20% of government workers who are non-essential would put off buying new PCs, foreign cars, french wines, and Italian sweaters. They might even delay international vacations.

I concede this point. If people aren’t getting a paycheck, they can rethink those electronics upgrades, new cars, and vacations. But I refuse to use this as a rationale for spending money we don’t have. We have a global responsibility to Nissan, Sony, and British Air to keep adding to the national debt? That’s effing ridiculous.

This reasoning comes from the same crowd who believes it’s none of America’s business if dictators gas their civilians en masse, or al Qaeda blows up shopping malls and schools as a rehearsal for the next attack on US soil. We have no obligation to human rights and freedom, just to sustain the cash flow and lifestyles of trading partners?

You might think I’m agitated. I’m not. I’m not even amused, even though this is hilariously flawed logic.

I appalled at the pathetic level of reasoning some people attempt to foist on others.

 

[Sickofleft]

I am not sure that is the worst arguement I heard yesterday. Someone on here claimed that "Republicans were going to cost lives by delaying or attempting to delay Obamcare" and that it was nothing short of murder. They were quoting some asshat.

Sooooo.......just saying........

Can we stop pretending that the shutdown is not a gift to the Democrats? I mean they wanted it. Allowing them to change the narrative from how bad this legislation is, how bad and inept this Presidents foreign policy is to...."golly those Republicans must hate you"......

If they could only get it to last until Nov. 2014............. I figure the public will be pretty pissed off about what a piece of shit legislation they have saddled this country with by then and it will be the Democrats that will pay the price for it.

 

[Arkady]

Yesterday one of the dimmer PJ lights (regarding economics) began thumping his chest in multiple threads to assert that the government shutdown “would cause a worldwide recession”. Really. He actually said that, as a rationale to keep spending money we don’t have, with constantly escalating debt limits.

First of all “very little” of what the government buys comes from overseas. Maybe some oil. Possibly copy machines, PCs and some vehicles. But a few weeks delay of THOSE purchasing programs is not about to send the world’s economy into a death spiral.

Rather, what I assume this economic-illiterate had in mind was “consumer spending”. The 20% of government workers who are non-essential would put off buying new PCs, foreign cars, french wines, and Italian sweaters. They might even delay international vacations.

I concede this point. If people aren’t getting a paycheck, they can rethink those electronics upgrades, new cars, and vacations. But I refuse to use this as a rationale for spending money we don’t have. We have a global responsibility to Nissan, Sony, and British Air to keep adding to the national debt? That’s effing ridiculous.

This reasoning comes from the same crowd who believes it’s none of America’s business if dictators gas their civilians en masse, or al Qaeda blows up shopping malls and schools as a rehearsal for the next attack on US soil. We have no obligation to human rights and freedom, just to sustain the cash flow and lifestyles of trading partners?

You might think I’m agitated. I’m not. I’m not even amused, even though this is hilariously flawed logic.

I appalled at the pathetic level of reasoning some people attempt to foist on others.

You need to step back and look at the big picture. Everyone's spending is someone else's income. So, US consumers buy fewer Japanese PCs. Then Japanese consumers buy fewer iPhones or movie tickets to Hollywood offerings, or medical devices made here in the US, etc. It's possible to get into a self-reinforcing cycle, where human psychology amplifies the effect (e.g., a $1 drop in income worries you enough to cause you to drop spending by $1.01, which is a $1.01 decrease in other people's income, encouraging them to drop spending by $1.02, and so on, until you get massive economic declines).

That is, in essence, what a recession is: when too many people try to decrease spending at the same time, causing a decrease in income, causing people to want to decrease spending even more, and so on, in an accelerating fashion.

I'm not saying the government shutdown is a big enough factor to start that kind of negative self-reinforcing cycle on a global basis. But it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. The US government is the biggest single economic player on the entire planet, so if it suddenly draws down its spending significantly, that's as likely as any single factor to trigger a vicious global cycle. That's especially true at a time like this, with high global unemployment and mediocre GDP growth, meaning there's no sign that the private sector is well positioned to take up the slack. Standard economic doctrine says that the government should be INCREASING spending in a time like this, to get the ball rolling. It's Keynesianism 101. So, if we instead decrease spending significantly, we shouldn't act shocked if the results are horrible for us.

 

[Arkady]

I am not sure that is the worst arguement I heard yesterday. Someone on here claimed that "Republicans were going to cost lives by delaying or attempting to delay Obamcare" and that it was nothing short of murder. They were quoting some asshat.

Sooooo.......just saying........

Can we stop pretending that the shutdown is not a gift to the Democrats? I mean they wanted it. Allowing them to change the narrative from how bad this legislation is, how bad and inept this Presidents foreign policy is to...."golly those Republicans must hate you"......

If they could only get it to last until Nov. 2014............. I figure the public will be pretty pissed off about what a piece of shit legislation they have saddled this country with by then and it will be the Democrats that will pay the price for it.

Which person on here claimed that attempting to delay Obamacare was nothing short of murder? I want a specific name. Because, if you're referring to me, I expressly said I didn't think that was true. But I've gotten the feeling that reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit, so I guess it's possible you really did fail to follow what was written.

 

[Sickofleft]

Which person on here claimed that attempting to delay Obamacare was nothing short of murder? I want a specific name. Because, if you're referring to me, I expressly said I didn't think that was true. But I've gotten the feeling that reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit, so I guess it's possible you really did fail to follow what was written.

Gosh..........who was that....ummmmmm..........gee whiz...let me think.............

 

[Colorforms]

You need to step back and look at the big picture. Everyone's spending is someone else's income. So, US consumers buy fewer Japanese PCs. Then Japanese consumers buy fewer iPhones or movie tickets to Hollywood offerings, or medical devices made here in the US, etc. It's possible to get into a self-reinforcing cycle, where human psychology amplifies the effect (e.g., a $1 drop in income worries you enough to cause you to drop spending by $1.01, which is a $1.01 decrease in other people's income, encouraging them to drop spending by $1.02, and so on, until you get massive economic declines).

That is, in essence, what a recession is: when too many people try to decrease spending at the same time, causing an decrease in income, causing people to want to decrease spending even more, and so on, in an accelerating fashion.

I'm not saying the government shutdown is a big enough factor to start that kind of negative self-reinforcing cycle on a global basis. But it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. The US government is the biggest single economic player on the entire planet, so if it suddenly draws down its spending significantly, that's as likely as any single factor to trigger a vicious global cycle. That's especially true at a time like this, with high global unemployment and mediocre GDP growth, meaning there's no sign that the private sector is well positioned to take up the slack. Standard economic doctrine says that the government should be INCREASING spending in a time like this, to get the ball rolling. It's Keynesianism 101. So, if we instead decrease spending significantly, we shouldn't act shocked if the results are horrible for us.

How many more years of increased spending do you think we're going to need before we get this puppy rolling again? We've been at it for 5 years and our economic outlook is not improving appreciably, job growth is stagnant at best, and we are accruing debt so quickly that it won't be long before we can't afford the interest.

 

[jammer]

Gosh..........who was that....ummmmmm..........gee whiz...let me think.............

Don't hurt yourself SOL, we know how hard it is for you to have a thought of your own.

 

[Minotaur]

Another visual from a bubble. I take it you have been informed on how long these attacks to the fragile economy are going to linger? While you are dreaming of butterflies and sweet little consumer bliss put the date of Oct. 17th into the back of your mind. Just do it and don't ask questions.

 

[Sickofleft]

Don't hurt yourself SOL, we know how hard it is for you to have a thought of your own.

Ha! Good one, pretty funny coming from a guy whose most complicated thought is "I like apples and fire bad".....

 

[Jen]

Yesterday one of the dimmer PJ lights (regarding economics) began thumping his chest in multiple threads to assert that the government shutdown “would cause a worldwide recession”. Really. He actually said that, as a rationale to keep spending money we don’t have, with constantly escalating debt limits.

First of all “very little” of what the government buys comes from overseas. Maybe some oil. Possibly copy machines, PCs and some vehicles. But a few weeks delay of THOSE purchasing programs is not about to send the world’s economy into a death spiral.

Rather, what I assume this economic-illiterate had in mind was “consumer spending”. The 20% of government workers who are non-essential would put off buying new PCs, foreign cars, french wines, and Italian sweaters. They might even delay international vacations.

I concede this point. If people aren’t getting a paycheck, they can rethink those electronics upgrades, new cars, and vacations. But I refuse to use this as a rationale for spending money we don’t have. We have a global responsibility to Nissan, Sony, and British Air to keep adding to the national debt? That’s effing ridiculous.

This reasoning comes from the same crowd who believes it’s none of America’s business if dictators gas their civilians en masse, or al Qaeda blows up shopping malls and schools as a rehearsal for the next attack on US soil. We have no obligation to human rights and freedom, just to sustain the cash flow and lifestyles of trading partners?

You might think I’m agitated. I’m not. I’m not even amused, even though this is hilariously flawed logic.

I appalled at the pathetic level of reasoning some people attempt to foist on others.

Democrats here are definitely not the sharpest crayon in the box.

 

[Arkady]

How many more years of increased spending do you think we're going to need before we get this puppy rolling again? We've been at it for 5 years and our economic outlook is not improving appreciably, job growth is stagnant at best, and we are accruing debt so quickly that it won't be long before we can't afford the interest.

As you should be aware, we, as a nation, eschewed the conventional wisdom about increasing government spending to combat a recession, and instead went with a counter-productive policy of government austerity.

I suppose it's possible that you've spent so much time entombed without the Fox News alternate universe that you honestly weren't aware of this. So I'll give you the numbers. On Obama's watch (the four years ending with FY 2013), government discretionary spending has grown by a paltry 0.37% per year. That's not enough even to keep up with inflation, much less population growth. Even if you count the massive spending of Bush's last budget year, the five-year rate of government spending growth has been 3.96%. That's extraordinarily low. To put it in perspective, the average annual growth under GW Bush was 8.91%, under GHW bush it was 5.21%, and under Reagan it was 7.00%. And that doesn't even really tell the story of the extent of government austerity, since it doesn't factor in the massive decrease in state and local spending during that time.

To get a sense for the net impact of state and local spending cuts, and the way federal spending has fallen far short of offsetting that, look at employment. Five years ago, 22,568,000 people worked for various governments in this country (federal, state, municipal, county, etc.) Today, that number is 21,831,000. In five years, we'd expect a natural rate of government payroll expansion of a little over 5%, just to keep pace with the increasing demand for services brought about by population growth. So we're talking about 1.9 million fewer government jobs than we'd have in a "neutral" situation, much less true government stimulus. That's AUSTERITY.

The expected impact of austerity in an economy like this one is that even when the economy finally does begin growing again, it will be expected to grow at far below normal levels for many years. That's exactly what has happened. So yes, as you said, "we've been at it" for years. But "it" isn't what you think it is. What we've been at is contracting the government, at exactly the time when orthodox economic wisdom would call for expanding it. The results, predictably, haven't been particularly good.

So, let me turn your question around on you. We've been trying austerity for years and our economic outlook is not improving appreciably, job growth is stagnant at best, and we are accruing debt so quickly that it won't be long before we can't afford the interest. How many more years of government austerity do you think we're going to need before we get this puppy rolling again?

 

[Colorforms]

As you should be aware, we, as a nation, eschewed the conventional wisdom about increasing government spending to combat a recession, and instead went with a counter-productive policy of government austerity.

I suppose it's possible that you've spent so much time entombed without the Fox News alternate universe that you honestly weren't aware of this. So I'll give you the numbers. On Obama's watch (the four years ending with FY 2013), government discretionary spending has grown by a paltry 0.37% per year. That's not enough even to keep up with inflation, much less population growth. Even if you count the massive spending of Bush's last budget year, the five-year rate of government spending growth has been 3.96%. That's extraordinarily low. To put it in perspective, the average annual growth under GW Bush was 8.91%, under GHW bush it was 5.21%, and under Reagan it was 7.00%. And that doesn't even really tell the story of the extent of government austerity, since it doesn't factor in the massive decrease in state and local spending during that time.

To get a sense for the net impact of state and local spending cuts, and the way federal spending has fallen far short of offsetting that, look at employment. Five years ago, 22,568,000 people worked for various governments in this country (federal, state, municipal, county, etc.) Today, that number is 21,831,000. In five years, we'd expect a natural rate of government payroll expansion of a little over 5%, just to keep pace with the increasing demand for services brought about by population growth. So we're talking about 1.9 million fewer government jobs than we'd have in a "neutral" situation, much less true government stimulus. That's AUSTERITY.

The expected impact of austerity in an economy like this one is that even when the economy finally does begin growing again, it will be expected to grow at far below normal levels for many years. That's exactly what has happened. So yes, as you said, "we've been at it for five years." But "it" isn't what you think it is. What we've been at is contracting the government, at exactly the time when orthodox economic wisdom would call for expanding it. The results, predictably, haven't been particularly good.

So, let me turn your question around on you. We've been trying austerity for 5 years and our economic outlook is not improving appreciably, job growth is stagnant at best, and we are accruing debt so quickly that it won't be long before we can't afford the interest. How many more years of government austerity do you think we're going to need before we get this puppy rolling again?

You expect forwarding a false premise to aid you in your point? There is no indicator that even begins to prove your "austerity" claim. Obama, in 5 years, has outpaced all other presidents in growing the debt. That doesn't happen under austere conditions. If you're not willing to have a rational conversation, that's fine. But don't pass this BS off as intelligent discussion.

 

[as seen on tv]

I am not sure that is the worst arguement I heard yesterday. Someone on here claimed that "Republicans were going to cost lives by delaying or attempting to delay Obamcare" and that it was nothing short of murder. They were quoting some asshat.

Sooooo.......just saying........

Can we stop pretending that the shutdown is not a gift to the Democrats? I mean they wanted it. Allowing them to change the narrative from how bad this legislation is, how bad and inept this Presidents foreign policy is to...."golly those Republicans must hate you"......

If they could only get it to last until Nov. 2014............. I figure the public will be pretty pissed off about what a piece of shit legislation they have saddled this country with by then and it will be the Democrats that will pay the price for it.

these would be the same people who cheered when marijuana was declared a "medicine" i suppose

 

[as seen on tv]

You need to step back and look at the big picture. .

the big picture is that you can't continue to spend money you don't have. whether your an individual worker or a business or a government. the end result is disaster

 

[as seen on tv]

Democrats here are definitely not the sharpest crayon in the box.

republicans haven't handled the government that well either. once you send someone to congress, you can expect their main intersest will be looking after their own interest

 

[as seen on tv]

As you should be aware, we, as a nation, eschewed the conventional wisdom about increasing government spending to combat a recession, and instead went with a counter-productive policy of government austerity.

I suppose it's possible that you've spent so much time entombed without the Fox News alternate universe that you honestly weren't aware of this. So I'll give you the numbers. On Obama's watch (the four years ending with FY 2013), government discretionary spending has grown by a paltry 0.37% per year. That's not enough even to keep up with inflation, much less population growth. Even if you count the massive spending of Bush's last budget year, the five-year rate of government spending growth has been 3.96%. That's extraordinarily low. To put it in perspective, the average annual growth under GW Bush was 8.91%, under GHW bush it was 5.21%, and under Reagan it was 7.00%. And that doesn't even really tell the story of the extent of government austerity, since it doesn't factor in the massive decrease in state and local spending during that time.

To get a sense for the net impact of state and local spending cuts, and the way federal spending has fallen far short of offsetting that, look at employment. Five years ago, 22,568,000 people worked for various governments in this country (federal, state, municipal, county, etc.) Today, that number is 21,831,000. In five years, we'd expect a natural rate of government payroll expansion of a little over 5%, just to keep pace with the increasing demand for services brought about by population growth. So we're talking about 1.9 million fewer government jobs than we'd have in a "neutral" situation, much less true government stimulus. That's AUSTERITY.

The expected impact of austerity in an economy like this one is that even when the economy finally does begin growing again, it will be expected to grow at far below normal levels for many years. That's exactly what has happened. So yes, as you said, "we've been at it" for years. But "it" isn't what you think it is. What we've been at is contracting the government, at exactly the time when orthodox economic wisdom would call for expanding it. The results, predictably, haven't been particularly good.

So, let me turn your question around on you. We've been trying austerity for years and our economic outlook is not improving appreciably, job growth is stagnant at best, and we are accruing debt so quickly that it won't be long before we can't afford the interest. How many more years of government austerity do you think we're going to need before we get this puppy rolling again?

"we've been trying austerity fo years"??????

this is just so insane. we've had astonishing deficits and increases in debt for the past decade. you are completely crazy

 

[Jen]

republicans haven't handled the government that well either. once you send someone to congress, you can expect their main intersest will be looking after their own interest

Agreed. They all failed to do the job we sent them to do, and we are paying the price for their failure to work it out.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

I am not sure that is the worst arguement I heard yesterday. Someone on here claimed that "Republicans were going to cost lives by delaying or attempting to delay Obamcare" and that it was nothing short of murder. They were quoting some asshat.

Sooooo.......just saying........

Can we stop pretending that the shutdown is not a gift to the Democrats? I mean they wanted it. Allowing them to change the narrative from how bad this legislation is, how bad and inept this Presidents foreign policy is to...."golly those Republicans must hate you"......

If they could only get it to last until Nov. 2014............. I figure the public will be pretty pissed off about what a piece of shit legislation they have saddled this country with by then and it will be the Democrats that will pay the price for it.

Yeah, I saw that one too.

About a silly an argument that I've ever seen.

Even on PJ.

 

[Arkady]

"we've been trying austerity fo years"??????

this is just so insane. we've had astonishing deficits and increases in debt for the past decade. you are completely crazy

I posted my numbers. If you're unable to cope with them, then just move along. But if you want to address them, step one is acknowledging that there's been a very significant decrease in total government employment since this crisis began, and markedly sub-par federal government spending growth (possibly also overall government spending decline, but I couldn't find a source for total government spending, the way there's one for total government employment). Deficits, of course, are up. However, that's not due to unusual government spending growth. Quite the opposite. It's due to poor revenue growth, partly due to uncommonly low taxes, and partly due to the economy being depressed (which, in turn, is partly due to government austerity).

 

[Arkady]

You expect forwarding a false premise to aid you in your point? There is no indicator that even begins to prove your "austerity" claim. Obama, in 5 years, has outpaced all other presidents in growing the debt. That doesn't happen under austere conditions. If you're not willing to have a rational conversation, that's fine. But don't pass this BS off as intelligent discussion.

I provided my indicators. Government employment is down. Federal spending growth rates are far below normal. Those are indicators. I understand why those indicators are uncomfortable for you: it may be your first exposure to them, due to your self-imprisonment behind the Fox News information firewall. But they're verifiable economic facts.