Average households pay $20,900 for war.

Originally posted by MacSwain
What an insulting small minded cretin. I gave merk a compliment and you got your egotistic little feelings hurt. oooh - itsy too bady-bady for de widdle tele. :'(

You think it went un-noticed that immediately after I paid him a compliment you posted 'with him' to show your "expertise" in macroeconomics and post ad hoc analysis. 🙂 How transpare ...[text shortened]... ve will be directed your way. It is just so damned hard to keep you girls happy! 😕

Whatever he says while the two of you discuss economics, I would advise that you use it as a contrarian indicator. He seems to be a part of the vast masses whos economics education amounts to a degree in mercantilism+.

It's not his fault though. If we could prevent befuddled ivory tower Marxists from teaching economics (or foreign policy) we could completely avoid all this deficits are bad nonsense. Return on Assets is what's important, not deficits. No doubt his professors would ruin most lessons by partaking in the favorite college pastime of interjecting the intellectual exercise of opining on the relative merits of socialism into what should be a useful learning experience.

Originally posted by MacSwain
What an insulting small minded cretin. I gave merk a compliment and you got your egotistic little feelings hurt. oooh - itsy too bady-bady for de widdle tele. :'(

You think it went un-noticed that immediately after I paid him a compliment you posted 'with him' to show your "expertise" in macroeconomics and post ad hoc analysis. 🙂 How transpare ...[text shortened]... ve will be directed your way. It is just so damned hard to keep you girls happy! 😕

Chill guy. I read your post. I'm saying you didn't do much research before running to Merk for help. And let's not get psychoanalytical, okay? I couldn't give a darn if you ask some one other than me. I'm not here to do your research for you either. Frankly, in the economics world, there are many more people who I have to impress, and honestly that's all I can handle.

Originally posted by Merk
Whatever he says while the two of you discuss economics, I would advise that you use it as a contrarian indicator. He seems to be a part of the vast masses whos economics education amounts to a degree in mercantilism+.

It's not his fault though. If we could prevent befuddled ivory tower Marxists from teaching economics (or foreign policy) we could completely ...[text shortened]... opining on the relative merits of socialism into what should be a useful learning experience.

Merk, if you cannot tell from my posts that I am not a socialist then your economics education is more lacking than I had first supposed. At first, I assumed you had a BA/BS in the subject. Now I'm starting to think you took a couple of classes in college before shuffling on to business school.

Economists have a great deal more to consider than private returns on their portfolios. Imagine if the objective of a macroeconomy were for GDP to grow as much as possible (analogous to achieving the highest return on assets). In that case, the best policy would be for the economy to save everything and consume only the subsistence level. Any consumption above that level would be wasteful since it necessarily results in a lower level of GDP growth. Fortunately, minimizing unnecessary consumption is not the best policy. From a macroeconomic view, the whole point of investing in and producing capital goods is so that consumption can grow over time.

Originally posted by telerion
Merk, if you cannot tell from my posts that I am not a socialist then your economics education is more lacking than I had first supposed. At first, I assumed you had a BA/BS in the subject. Now I'm starting to think you took a couple of classes in college before shuffling on to business school.

Economists have a great deal more to consider than privat ...[text shortened]... e point of investing in and producing capital goods is so that consumption can grow over time.

First, my apologies. I was rude to you in that post. My intent was to be rude toward college professors. And yes, it's plain to see that you're not a socialist.

The simple fact is, there's nothing in an economics degree that any Average Joe can't get from his local library (Not that I've ever even heard of a self taught economist) except for the typical quasi-socialist mentality that permeates almost any university campus and has caused many an economics major to get short changed. As I'm sure you've seen from damn near everyone who has appeared on a TV news program as an expert. Their positions tend to be heavily muddled with political viewpoints.


Economists have a great deal more to consider than private returns on their portfolios. Imagine if the objective of a macroeconomy were for GDP to grow as much as possible (analogous to achieving the highest return on assets). In that case, the best policy would be for the economy to save everything and consume only the subsistence level. Any consumption above that level would be wasteful since it necessarily results in a lower level of GDP growth. Fortunately, minimizing unnecessary consumption is not the best policy. From a macroeconomic view, the whole point of investing in and producing capital goods is so that consumption can grow over time.

I'm not argueing anything other than debts and deficits*. What I am doing is pissing straight onto the ignorant political shrine of deficits. (And debt for that matter)'

It's clear that Americas ROA is far too high for any concern over debt. I tend to get worked up immediately when people start speaking negatively about debt because we are under-indebted and have never had enough debt to attain that optimization thingy. Again, it's politics creeping into economics that really chaps me.

Please, accept my apology.

*Though I would say for maximum growth we should substitute save with invest - gotta grow capital and build infrastructure. 😉

Originally posted by Merk
First, my apologies. I was rude to you in that post. My intent was to be rude toward college professors. And yes, it's plain to see that you're not a socialist.

The simple fact is, there's nothing in an economics degree that any Average Joe can't get from his local library (Not that I've ever even heard of a self taught economist) except for the typical quas should substitute save with invest - gotta grow capital and build infrastructure. 😉

This thread has gotten a bit personal, and I recognize that my tone has contributed to that. I should therefore also apologize, both to you and especially to Mac.

In these sorts of discussions I often find myself beset on both sides if you will. Discussions of economics, like those of politics and religion, tend to be filled with a great deal of ideology. Personal experiences shape our outlook on the world, and because we each have, to varying degrees, close attachments to our experiences they often creep into otherwise objective discussion. Typically, I respond to what appears to me to be extreme ideological economic positions. I am just as likely to object to populist sentiments like "we need to put up a long wall on our Mexican border to protect American workers" as I am to uber-libertarian positions like "a free market is always the best solution." My positions are also not motivated by my support for either major American political party. I'm just as happy to discuss the pro's and con's of universal healthcare as I am reduced capital income taxation. For this reason, I seldom find many friends in online economic discussions.

Getting back to deficits and debt. Deficits are only important to the degree that they affect the stock of debt. That is, a policy of repeatedly running large deficits for a long time could be bad because eventually it increases debt to a troubling level. I agree with you that debt in and of itself is not a bad thing. While it does have a draw back of crowding out private investment (and I think that in many cases private investment would go to better use than government spending), overall it is a flexible instrument for smoothing spending across time. Just like with private debt or corporate debt, the important factor is not whether you are in debt, but rather how large your debt service is to your current and expected future income. In the case of the US for the last 25 years, the debt/GDP ratio has been roughly between 40% and 60% (I believe it has gone up a bit more in the last few years). That's very manageable. During WWII, our debt/GDP ratio was very high (well over 100% ). Consider if long-term government debt is paying 2.4% annually, then the economy needs to be growing around that rate. If it fails to do so initially, then it must make up for it with even more growth in the future. For a country like the US, that's not too hard (Our post-1945 economy boomed.). Often for small emerging countries, who because of greater perceived risk have a harder time securing cheap credit, 100% debt-to-GDP is a big problem.

Nevertheless, at some debt-to-GDP level, every country will run into problems. Eventually the debt service begins to catch up with new production. This is exacerbated by the risk premium. As smart lenders perceive an increased risk of default (or in a government's case, more likely risk that they'll devalue the investment by printing more of their own currency), the interest rate demanded increases. For this reason as the debt-to-GDP ratio climbs to a high rate, the debt becomes even harder to manage.

So my position is simply the following. Debt can be good or bad depending upon its size relative to national income. Because governments (at least in the US) tend to be short-lived as administrations change and Congressional power shifts, there is an argument for making current government more responsible for its spending (be it for war or medicare or whatever). It is very tempting for the government today to "buy" political favor now by borrowing and leave the bill for a future government (and tax base) to pay.

P.S. Most college econ professors are pretty level headed, but as you'll find anywhere, there are a few crazies.

Originally posted by uzless
You mean other than the fact you don't know what budget cuts have been implemented?

No..I couldn't find a thing to substantiate your claim. The real problem is: I do not believe you can either.

Now, suppose you show the facts that you based your original declaration on. In this post you broadened the field to include all "budget cuts". seems you are trying to move the goal-posts.

From the start, my only interest has been in your 'dubious' original post, (below) in which you clearly claimed "slashed spending on social programs":

Originally posted by uzless
”That would be true except the US government also slashed spending on social programs to partially offset the cost of the war.

Time to show YOUR research that proves "slashes to spending on social programs" your claim. If you can.

Originally posted by telerion
Deficits of 30% of GDP would be insane. I think you mean debt, not defecit. A debt of even 50% of GDP isn't too bad as long as you have a good reputation and favorable expected future growth.

Yes Debt as in overall long term debt...not deficit as in year over year revenue vs expenditure

Originally posted by MacSwain
[b
Time to show YOUR research that proves "slashes to spending on social programs" your claim. If you can.[/b]

Read Paul Krugman's book "The Great Unraveling" and do your own research.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000OZ28CE/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-9230861-4835931?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


It's your own country and you can't identify off the top of your head what kind of budgets have been implemented? Just what do you base you votes on come election time anyway??

I live in Canada and I can list off both Federal and Provincial budget cuts off the top of my head. I don't need an internet link to discover what my government is doing. Jebus.

Originally posted by uzless
Read Paul Krugman's book "The Great Unraveling" and do your own research.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000OZ28CE/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-9230861-4835931?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


It's your own country and you can't identify off the top of your head what kind of budgets have been implemented? Just what do you base you votes on co ...[text shortened]... f my head. I don't need an internet link to discover what my government is doing. Jebus.

Oh...you are so wrong. You made an unsubstantiated claim. I do not have to prove your lie...which is what it is if you can not show proof...hop to it! I am waiting for you to give proof or apologize for the (misleading? being kind here) post. And you post some link to stupid book reviews...is this where you get facts? 😀 btw..not my country 🙂 thanks anyway!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacSwain
No..I couldn't find a thing to substantiate your claim. The real problem is: I do not believe you can either.

Now, suppose you show the facts that you based your original declaration on.

From the start, my only interest has been in your 'dubious' original post, (below) in which you clearly claimed "slashed spending on social programs:

Originally posted by uzless
”That would be true except the US government also slashed spending on social programs to partially offset the cost of the war."

Time to show YOUR research that proves "slashes to spending on social programs" your claim. If you can.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Oh...you are so wrong. You made an unsubstantiated claim. I do not have to prove your lie...which is what it is if you can not show proof...hop to it! I am waiting for you to give proof or apologize for the (misleading? being kind here) post. And you post some link to stupid book reviews...is this where you get facts? 😀 btw..not my country 🙂 thanks an earch that proves [b]"slashes to spending on social programs" your claim. If you can.[/b]

I gave you the frickin research. Read the damn book. Not clear enough for you?

My bad though on the country.


You know, there was a time when people actually read books instead of internet links consisting of a couple of pages of largely unsubstantiated information. Just because you read something on a website doesn't make it a fact. Read the books by the actual people who do the research. I've given you a highly respected economist from Princeton who writes Op-Ed articles for the New York Times.

If that's not good enough for you well, cest la vie.

Originally posted by uzless
I gave you the frickin research. Read the damn book. Not clear enough for you?

My bad though on the country.


You know, there was a time when people actually read books instead of internet links consisting of a couple of pages of largely unsubstantiated information. Just because you read something on a website doesn't make it a fact. Read the bo ...[text shortened]... p-Ed articles for the New York Times.

If that's not good enough for you well, cest la vie.

Just as I thought .. You had no facts from the beginning. You are just a propagandist, not a very good one at that.

If there were "horrible" slashes to the social programs...it would be in a bill passed by lawmakers. A "highly respected" economist from Princeton, or anywhere else for that matter, does not write budgets allocating funds - Elected bodies of government do. No one has to read a book to find a budget cut, you look at recorded budgets which have been adopted by vote.

My, you are hopeless. 🙂 Try not to make up stuff in future.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Just as I thought .. You had no facts from the beginning. You are just a propagandist, not a very good one at that.

If there were "horrible" slashes to the social programs...it would be in a bill passed by lawmakers. A "highly respected" economist from Princeton, or anywhere else for that matter, does not write budgets allocating funds - Elected bodies ...[text shortened]... ve been adopted by vote.

My, you are hopeless. 🙂 Try not to make up stuff in future.

In fairness to uzless, Krugman was/is a brilliant economist so there's no need for the quotations. On the otherhand, Krugman has become a hack in the last decade. He really doesn't do any good research anymore. Instead he decided to go Rambo on George Bush, becoming his "worst nightmare." At one time though, he was a contender for future Nobel laureate. Too bad. Same thing happened to Joe Stiglitz and Milton Friedman, except they made sure to cash in on the prize first.

Originally posted by MacSwain
. No one has to read a book to find a budget cut, you look at recorded budgets which have been adopted by vote.

Post this website.

Also post the website that compares the previous years budget to the current one and shows increases and decreases in funding.

Also, since this website is likely a government run website, post a website that interprets the data from an unbiased perspective.


You said you looked for proof of my claim and couldn't find any. I assume then that you found the type of website described above and found no evidence. Please post this website(s) so we can substantiate your claim.

Originally posted by telerion
In fairness to uzless, Krugman was/is a brilliant economist so there's no need for the quotations. On the otherhand, Krugman has become a hack in the last decade. He really doesn't do any good research anymore. Instead he decided to go Rambo on George Bush, becoming his "worst nightmare." At one time though, he was a contender for future Nobel laureate. ...[text shortened]... ed to Joe Stiglitz and Milton Friedman, except they made sure to cash in on the prize first.

book is from 2003 and is a series of his articles from the Times. The book isn't a Bush Basher but it does talk about some of the craziness from the Bush Admin.

He has a new book out now but I can't speak to its content.

I posted Krugmans 2003 book because it's written in plain language..soemthing i'm sure MacSwain would appreciate. There are plenty of others.

Originally posted by uzless
Post this website.

Also post the website that compares the previous years budget to the current one and shows increases and decreases in funding.

Also, since this website is likely a government run website, post a website that interprets the data from an unbiased perspective.


You said you looked for proof of my claim and couldn't find any. I assum ...[text shortened]... ed above and found no evidence. Please post this website(s) so we can substantiate your claim.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS: 1789–2012
(in millions of dollars)

2001 1,991,426 1,863,190
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006
2005 2,153,859 2,472,205
2006 2,407,254 2,655,435
2007 estimate 2,540,096 2,784,267

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html