US Budget deficit shrinks to $680B

[Vteckidd]

Charles Kolb: Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong

http://www.redstate.com/socrates/201...l-these-years/

IM sure you can find articles that claim it works.

Your claims that

Keynes theory is the most widely accepted economic theory

Is not true. But, prove me wrong. What gave you this idea, what specifics back up this claim. FYI in my ECON 101-102 classes , they touched on Keynes and what it was, but the books were overwhelmingly on capitalistic style economics, and never advocated deficit spending

[.blank cd]

Charles Kolb: Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong

Keynesian Economics: Still Failing After All These Years | RedState

IM sure you can find articles that claim it works.

Your claims that


Is not true. But, prove me wrong. What gave you this idea, what specifics back up this claim. FYI in my ECON 101-102 classes , they touched on Keynes and what it was, but the books were overwhelmingly on capitalistic style economics, and never advocated deficit spending

Your articles look like you google searched Krugman wrong and Keynesian wrong, and went with the first two articles you saw.

Even the commenters on the red state article were bashing the article for how wrong it was. LOL.

And capitalist style economics huh?

[Vteckidd]

Your articles look like you google searched Krugman wrong and Keynesian wrong, and went with the first two articles you saw.

Even the commenters on the red state article were bashing the article for how wrong it was. LOL.

And capitalist style economics huh?

You can READ!

Like usual, you missed my point. My point wasnt to show you some article to prove im right, my point was to show you 1 other econmist, and 1 other article (from a well known conservative) who offering different points of view. So your "Paul Krugman says it ....." holds little to no weight with me because A) Its THEORY not fact B) Economists are split on what works, but majority dont feel Keynesian Econ works.

I should say I prefer supply side to KE, I think historical data proves it. I think there is more evidence that KE doesnt work, than it does work. But I also realize we will debate that topic for the next 40 pages and I dont care to.

All I was showing was that its not the wildly most accepted economic policy. Matter of fact, 4 of the last 5 presidents, have done THE OPPOSITE.

[.blank cd]

You can READ!

Like usual, you missed my point. My point wasnt to show you some article to prove im right, my point was to show you 1 other econmist, and 1 other article (from a well known conservative) who offering different points of view. So your "Paul Krugman says it ....." holds little to no weight with me because A) Its THEORY not fact B) Economists are split on what works, but majority dont feel Keynesian Econ works.

Ah the good ol' theory vs. fact defense, which comes from not knowing what theory actually means. Lol

I should say I prefer supply side to KE, I think historical data proves it. I think there is more evidence that KE doesnt work, than it does work. But I also realize we will debate that topic for the next 40 pages and I dont care to.

All I was showing was that its not the wildly most accepted economic policy. Matter of fact, 4 of the last 5 presidents, have done THE OPPOSITE.

And all I'm showing you is that it is your opinion that Keynesian Economics doesn't work, when in fact the opposite is true. It's like the old evolution debate. It's definitely a theory in the literal sense, but it's the most widely accepted theory among scientists, and theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Same is true with KE.

I'm not trying to change your mind, you can believe whatever you want. This is just how the majority of actual US economists count the beans.

Government deficit spending is a central point of controversy in economics, with prominent economists holding differing views.[1] The "mainstream economics" position is that deficit spending is desirable and necessary as part of countercyclical fiscal policy, but that there should not be a structural deficit: run deficits during recessions to compensate for the shortfall in aggregate demand, but run surpluses in boom times so that there is no net deficit over an economic cycle, i.e., only run cyclical deficits. This is derived from Keynesian economics, and gained acceptance (especially in the Anglo-Saxon world) during the period between the Great Depression in the 1930s and post-WWII in the 1950s

[Vteckidd]

Ah the good ol' theory vs. fact defense, which comes from not knowing what theory actually means. Lol


And all I'm showing you is that it is your opinion that Keynesian Economics doesn't work, when in fact the opposite is true. It's like the old evolution debate. It's definitely a theory in the literal sense, but it's the most widely accepted theory among scientists, and theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Same is true with KE.

I'm not trying to change your mind, you can believe whatever you want. This is just how the majority of actual US economists count the beans.

Sigh

I can post data and charts that refute KE, just like you can prob post articles and charts showing KE works.

Go look at Japan, Greece, Germany post and pre ww2, Look at the US in the Obama administration. Id rather have the clinton and Bush Jr economies than any of those scenarios.

[BanginJimmy]

Id rather have the clinton and Bush Jr economies than any of those scenarios.

Cant agree with you on this. W and Clinton economies were based on bubbles, not sound fundamentals. We all know the end results of those bubbles.

We need to get back to the economy we had in the 50's and 60's. Sound fundamentals and massive expansion of the middle and upper classes which leads to high demand from stable companies. The question is how do we get back to that and I dont have an answer. That period was based on manufacturing and today the American worker is too expensive for most of the manufacturing industry. I tend to think that if the US is going to see another golden age, its going to come on the back of a new technology and/or service that isnt feasible to import.

[Vteckidd]

Cant agree with you on this. W and Clinton economies were based on bubbles, not sound fundamentals. We all know the end results of those bubbles.

We need to get back to the economy we had in the 50's and 60's. Sound fundamentals and massive expansion of the middle and upper classes which leads to high demand from stable companies. The question is how do we get back to that and I dont have an answer. That period was based on manufacturing and today the American worker is too expensive for most of the manufacturing industry. I tend to think that if the US is going to see another golden age, its going to come on the back of a new technology and/or service that isnt feasible to import.

Would you take 10 years of stagnation and massive spending

or

8 year cycles of incredible booms, and then 1-2 years of busts.

Id take the boom and bust cycle. Mainly because 50-60s economy isnt feasible anymore, americans dont want to work those jobs anymore, unions have destroyed american manufacturing.

[Vteckidd]

Back to the topic, 680 Billion isnt something im excited about, I think its still shitty, and it wasnt like Obama came together with the GOP to lower the deficit. The lowering was artificial and was mainly over policies BOTH SIDES didnt want (sequester), stim running out yet we still have stagnant economy and extremely high UE, higher taxes.

Im not happy because the outlook is not good, this news is nothing to be happy about. The only reason people are happy is because every other sector of the economy is doing worse. its the only good data they have. Its kind of like the monthly UE numbers taht get released. You can be dumb and happy an think that going from 7.1 to 7.2 is amazing, but if you actually understood why it did that, its nothing to be happy about.