New Campaign Slogan has ties to Socialism/Marxism

[deleted103644]

A high income tax is a disincentive to work. Consumption is partly unavoidable and partly leads to investment/savings= win/win.

As long as each additional unit of my labor gets me more money, where is the disincentive? I know I won't work at a 100% tax, but I don't see myself reducing my efforts for changes in a more moderate tax rate - might even work harder since I would still need money.

And everyone increasing savings at the same time --> depression, so not win win.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/the-paradox-of-thrift-for-real/

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

As long as each additional unit of my labor gets me more money, where is the disincentive? I know I won't work at a 100% tax, but I don't see myself reducing my efforts for changes in a more moderate tax rate - might even work harder since I would still need money.

I'm not rich, and as a .mil employee I don't earn near as much as some attendings here.

I do moonlight an extremely variable number of hours each month. Some months I'll only work an extra 30 hours. Others I'll take a solid week of vacation from the .mil and bring the monthly total up past 100 or 120. Most are somewhere in the middle.

I don't have student loan debt. I save that moonlighting money, or buy stuff like overpriced .30cal suppressors which I can't even keep in the state I live in, and of course pay taxes on it. Point being, it's 100% discretionary income. I don't need that money.

Already, every month, I am offered far more moonlighting hours than I can take, or want to take. I'm fully cognizant and grateful to have this kind of wonderful "problem" but what I'm getting at here is that I'm already at the tipping point where I am choosing to work less because the personal cost of that time (away from family, away from other stuff I like to do) exceeds the value of the extra dollars I'd get.

I do believe taxes should be higher across the board, for everyone, in conjunction with substantial spending cuts. If my taxes are raised by some non-trivial amount, I'm going to turn down more work. Maybe the net effect will be no change or an increase in government revenue - that answer's in the details.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I'm not rich, and as a .mil employee I don't earn near as much as some attendings here.

I do moonlight an extremely variable number of hours each month. Some months I'll only work an extra 30 hours. Others I'll take a solid week of vacation from the .mil and bring the monthly total up past 100 or 120. Most are somewhere in the middle.

I don't have student loan debt. I save that moonlighting money, or buy stuff like overpriced .30cal suppressors which I can't even keep in the state I live in, and of course pay taxes on it. Point being, it's 100% discretionary income. I don't need that money.

Already, every month, I am offered far more moonlighting hours than I can take, or want to take. I'm fully cognizant and grateful to have this kind of wonderful "problem" but what I'm getting at here is that I'm already at the tipping point where I am choosing to work less because the personal cost of that time (away from family, away from other stuff I like to do) exceeds the value of the extra dollars I'd get.

I do believe taxes should be higher across the board, for everyone, in conjunction with substantial spending cuts. If my taxes are raised by some non-trivial amount, I'm going to turn down more work. Maybe the net effect will be no change or an increase in government revenue - that answer's in the details.

Well said; at some point, it becomes not worth it even if you are being paid well for the extra work. Plus, being in a higher bracket, the govt will want a larger percentage of it.

 

[deleted103644]

I do believe taxes should be higher across the board, for everyone, in conjunction with substantial spending cuts. If my taxes are raised by some non-trivial amount, I'm going to turn down more work. Maybe the net effect will be no change or an increase in government revenue - that answer's in the details.

That's just it though - returning to Clinton era taxes isn't enough of a disincentive to work to matter for most people, including you in the relatively uncommon situation where you have control over how many extra hours you work and don't really need the extra money.

I agree there's a rate when work decreases significantly (mathematically speaking, the fact that 0% an 100% incomes result in zero tax revenue means there is a tax rate in between that maximizes it - aka the Laffer curve or the mean value theorem).

I disagree that we're anywhere near it - I've read some attempts to determine the value that said it would be around 70% and that seems about right to me. I'll complain about every tax increase just like anyone else, but it would take a rate like that for me to actually stop working as much.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

The entire debt increase under Obama can be explained by three things:

1) The bailout....

2) The stimulus....

3) Counter-cyclical government programs....

IE, 3 massive debt spending bills hidden under misleading names. #1 and #2 should be zero dollars since they didn't bailout anything (just transferred the debt to someone else), and they don't stimulate anything. #3 should be massively reduced since it actually does stimulate something, that being decreased work, innovation, and growth.

 

[Narcotized]

I'll let Krugman respond to that one....

And this is your source....

 

[deleted103644]

D712,

I let JohnnyDrama take this one and he has more than adequately shown how liberal zealots are just as illogical, irrational, and sheeplike as any religious fanatic. Literally, volumes could and have been written refuting every single thing he has to say regarding economics. I don't have the time nor desire to rewrite basic economic principles on a message board, but simply want to thank JD for perfectly exemplifying the answer to your question.

Not a sheep at all - if you have any concise counter arguments that have a firm foundation in both mathematics and empirical evidence (direct sources like FRED, etc, not graphs from random blogs), I'd be happy to change my mind.

I notice you didn't really argue against anything I said, just called me names.

Seriously, back it up and you could convince me. But it needs to be well-written and founded on reasonable assumptions.

For the past ten years or so I've been following him, Krugman's had a pretty good track record. He's shrill, no question, but you should read his blog even if you disagree with it. I read the WSJ editorial page religiously before the paywall...

 

[deleted103644]

And this is your source....

I've actually tried to find a good source of counter arguments against Krugman, but most of them have been far less convincing than he is.

And he isn't my direct source, he's just already done the legwork so why should I replicate his efforts? The sources are in his blog post.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I've actually tried to find a good source of counter arguments against Krugman, but most of them have been far less convincing than he is.

And he isn't my direct source, he's just already done the legwork so why should I replicate his efforts? The sources are in his blog post.

Yopu do realize that there is another entirely valid theory to Economics... The Austrian School of thought. And these brilliant scholars don't agree with Krugman at all.


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

 

[BLADEMDA]

It is important to point out that Austrians do not argue that fiscal restraint or "austerity" will bring about economic growth.[43] Rather, they argue that all attempts by central governments to prop up asset prices, bail out insolvent banks, or "stimulate" the economy with deficit spending will only make the misallocations and malinvestments worse, prolonging the depression and adjustment necessary to return to stable growth.[43] Austrians argue the policy error rests in the government's (and central bank's) weakness or negligence in allowing the "false" credit-fueled boom to begin in the first place, not in having it end with fiscal and monetary "austerity". It is also important to point out that Austrians do not argue that all recessions are caused by excessive and unsustainable credit expansion or that an excessive and unsustainable credit expansion is only possible with fractional reserve banking.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[deleted103644]

Yopu do realize that there is another entirely valid theory to Economics... The Austrian School of thought. And these brilliant scholars don't agree with Krugman at all.


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

I'm aware, but I'd argue the valid part.

They assume too much rationality and try to derive all macro behavior from micro models - a noble effort and I'm a big fan of the math they use, but if you have a pretty theory that doesn't match the facts, you need to reconsider the theory.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'm aware, but I'd argue the valid part.

They assume too much rationality and try to derive all macro behavior from micro models - a noble effort and I'm a big fan of the math they use, but if you have a pretty theory that doesn't match the facts, you need to reconsider the theory.

Ditto. That's exactly how I feel about your views entirely: they don't match the facts.

I believe this crisis was caused by easy credit from the govt. and Freddie MAc/Fannie Mae. All one had to do was fill out a form- no proof necessary for a loan. Fannie was glad to buy up the note. The banks then joined in on this mess.

So our govt. responds with bailouts, massive federal spending (stimulus) and more easy credit.

What we need is responsible govt. and allow the free markets to work. This would result in Shorter recessions and healthier recoveries without the massive public debt.

IMHO, it is Krugman and the Keynesians who are utterly flawed in their economic thinking.

Govt, isn't the solution it is the problem.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.review.net/section/detail/hayek-not-keynes-got-it-right/


Hayek, not Keynes, got it right

 

[deleted103644]

Ditto. That's exactly how I feel about your views entirely: they don't match the facts.

I believe this crisis was caused by easy credit from the govt. and Freddie MAc/Fannie Mae. All one had to do was fill out a form- no proof necessary for a loan. Fannie was glad to buy up the note. The banks then joined in on this mess.

So our govt. responds with bailouts, massive federal spending (stimulus) and more easy credit.

What we need is responsible govt. and allow the free markets to work. This would result in Shorter recessions and healthier recoveries without the massive public debt.

IMHO, it is Krugman and the Keynesians who are utterly flawed in their economic thinking.

Govt, isn't the solution it is the problem.

The difference is I'm open to pretty much any solution that might work, you've already decided on your solution and fit the facts to meet your predetermined conclusion.

The problem was much bigger than Fannie and Freddie, but that's all the antigovernment crowd can focus on because it's the only part that fits their worldview.

As for Krugman, well, the problem seems to be his predictions keep coming true and the Austrians keep saying things that don't happen and then forgetting about it.

http://articles.businessinsider.com...aul-krugman-spending-cuts-government-spending

The Austrian model works well most of the time, but is seriously failing at the extremes.

It's kind of like trying to use Newtonian physics on an event horizon.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The difference is I'm open to pretty much any solution that might work, you've already decided on your solution and fit the facts to meet your predetermined conclusion.

The problem was much bigger than Fannie and Freddie, but that's all the antigovernment crowd can focus on because it's the only part that fits their worldview.

As for Krugman, well, the problem seems to be his predictions keep coming true and the Austrians keep saying things that don't happen and then forgetting about it.

http://articles.businessinsider.com...aul-krugman-spending-cuts-government-spending

The Austrian model works well most of the time, but is seriously failing at the extremes.

It's kind of like trying to use Newtonian physics on an event horizon.

A janitor understands the solution: Stop spending money you don't have! 100% of GDP and counting is our debt. Do you need a PhD in economics to understand the dangers of that much spending?


As for the recovery I believe govt. makes things worse just as often as they help out. In this case, we are out of money so how about creating reasonable tax policy and business friendly environment? Then, allow the American businesses to solve the ecconomic problem.

Too simple for Krugman or you? Well, too bad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

It's hard to understand why this smear of Friedrich Hayek was tacked onto their essay. But if they want to take a poke at a "defunct economist," they'd do better to take on John Maynard Keynes, the man who invented the modern macro policy that has brought PIIGS, and much of the rest of the world, to the brink of bankruptcy. It was Keynes who taught us that spending creates prosperity. It was Keynes who assured us that productivity doesn't matter -- just spend and let the multiplier create wealth. It was Keynes who chided "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."

There's more to the financial crises than just Keynesianism. But Keynes did indeed preach the kinds of fiscal and monetary irresponsibility that have crucial factors. And none of what has happened would have surprised Hayek, had he seen it. It's surprising that Johnson, who usually is careful in his analysis, would make such a bad argument. If the idea was to blame "free market fundamentalism" for the crisis, it falls entirely flat. Fiscal irresponsibility by governments, burgeoning and unsustainable welfare states, currency manipulations by central banks, and control fraud by a protected financial system are not the free market. They are exactly the things Hayek warned us against.


http://www.hillsdale-econ.com/content/hayek-or-keynes

 

[BLADEMDA]

The arrogance of economists like Krugman never cease to amaze me. Liberals like JD buy into the rhetoric without a second thought.

A guy who loses his job and is maxed out on his credit cards needs to tightem his belt not get another credit card. According to Krugman the unemployed guy should get a second and third credit card so he can buy stuff which will help get him back to work. The problem with that theory is the DEBT will be guaranteed while the ability to find work then pay off that MASSIVE debt (old credit card plus new credit card ) may not occur. This would lead the unemployed guy even worse off.

This is what Krugman is asking us as a nation to do. Take on massive amounts of new debt because 100% of GDP isn't enough him. Krugman wants us to borrow and print our way to prosperity. Hogwash.

Govt. was NEVER the solution to our problems because govt. and govt. policies created these MASSIVE problems in the first place. But, Liberals like Krugman simply won't allow common sense into their Keynesian view of economics.

 

[scarshapedstar]

A guy who loses his job and is maxed out on his credit cards needs to tightem his belt not get another credit card. According to Krugman the unemployed guy should get a second and third credit card so he can buy stuff which will help get him back to work. The problem with that theory is the DEBT will be guaranteed while the ability to find work then pay off that MASSIVE debt (old credit card plus new credit card ) may not occur. This would lead the unemployed guy even worse off.

If the US government mints one multi-trillion dollar coin, the debt is easily repaid.

Do you dispute this? If not, how does this fit into your 'nations are just like working stiffs' argument?

I'm just trying to figure out how you think this analogy is so amazingly airtight and convincing.

 

[deleted103644]

Yeah, you really can't just point to the example of a janitor paying his credit card bill and say its directly equivalent to the financial situation of the government.

I'm also really not a typical liberal, I'm mainly a skeptic.

Your arguments are simplistic and lack logic. Give me an actual economic model that backs your hypotheses and evidence validating them and we can talk.

Krugman favors IS-LM.

 

[Narcotized]

Krugman wants us to borrow and print our way to prosperity. Hogwash.

Krugman is basically like Obama; no left-brain capabilities whatsoever. He says what big government people want to hear, and the liberal religion then praises him like he is Allah. Fact is the guy is pretty much of an idiot; never looking at all the full consequences of his actions, only looking at those special interests that benefit.

Every special interest derived action (union benefits, handouts, bailouts, work programs, entitlements, rent control, wage and price control, stimulus, you name it) benefits some specific seen special interest and sticks it in the rear of far more "unidentified" citizens. Liberals and Krugman have yet to figure out you can't create something out of nothing, and continually ignore the costs to their poorly yielding debts.

 

[pgg]

If the US government mints one multi-trillion dollar coin, the debt is easily repaid.

Do you dispute this? If not, how does this fit into your 'nations are just like working stiffs' argument?

I hope you don't really believe this, and this is just the beginning of some rhetorical point you were about to make.


If the US government prints $15 trillion and "pays off the debt", what has actually happened is that the amount of circulating currency has just been increased by a HUGE %. I don't know exactly what that % is, because I don't know off the top of my head what the current US money supply (M0, M1, etc) is. But say for the sake of argument that the US government prints $X and the amount of physical and electronic "dollars" in the world doubles as a consequence. This roughly means that the actual value / purchasing power of those dollars halves.

In effect, by slashing the value of every citizen's and corporation's dollars in half, the government has confiscated 1/2 their wealth and used that wealth to make a payment toward the debt.

TANSTAAFL

Whether the government takes the $15 trillion from the people via taxes, or prints the $15 trillion, the nation's wealth is transferred to the debt holders.

This is why I keep saying over and over again that inflation is just a flat (regressive) tax that disproportionately affects the assets and purchasing power of poor people. And why I'm genuinely and perpetually astonished that it's the democratic party, which fashions itself the champion of the poor, which is so enthusiastic about continued inflation and QE.

They keep telling us that 3% inflation, year over year, is good. It lets the government sustain deficit spending, essentially funding programs with a hidden regressive tax. It's diabolically brilliant ... if your objective is to slowly transfer wealth from the poor masses - who by definition lack the wealth to protect their assets in, say, the stock market, which tends to inflate with the currency, to a point.


Some other guys once found themselves stuck in a debt spiral and tried to print money to finance its deficit, and it literally bankrupted every single person in the country as their currency became worthless.

 

[metalephrine]

It is comforting to blame one "side" or the other for our problems but the real issues are two fold.

The first being human greed, if there is a buck in it someone will find it, period.
The second is capitol flows, if anyone would look at history then they would see as any nation or economy would have huge disruptions as new sources of capitol are found. We are in a situation now in which capital can flow across borders in moments and wherever it can make a buck it will. The huge amounts of chinese capital fueled our housing boom, capital will ALWAYS go where it can make money, regardless of the distortion of the local economy. A classic example is spain after conquering the new world.

Nation states just do not have the ability to regulate these inflows at this time thus the huge upswings and crashes. The answer will be international regulation of capital. Hard to do given the disparate views and goals of nation states but it will have to happen. And before I hear from the NWO black helicopter crowd regulation means commonly agreed rules made between parties, not one made up and enforced by some supragovermental body.

 

[deleted103644]

Krugman is basically like Obama; no left-brain capabilities whatsoever. He says what big government people want to hear, and the liberal religion then praises him like he is Allah. Fact is the guy is pretty much of an idiot; never looking at all the full consequences of his actions, only looking at those special interests that benefit.

Every special interest derived action (union benefits, handouts, bailouts, work programs, entitlements, rent control, wage and price control, stimulus, you name it) benefits some specific seen special interest and sticks it in the rear of far more "unidentified" citizens. Liberals and Krugman have yet to figure out you can't create something out of nothing, and continually ignore the costs to their poorly yielding debts.

*sigh*

Krugman has no love for Obama. You should read his posts during the 2008 election. Just because he thinks the Republicans have gone insane doesn't mean he likes Obama.

And what special interests is Krugman fighting for? He doesn't really have any incentive to pander to special interests - he's a popular columnist and a Nobel prize winning economics professor. He's not even a Washington insider - he's stepped on enough Democratic toes that they don't really like him.

I know you're not really putting any thought into this, so I'll stop trying.

Pgg, if you have any good anti-Krugman references I'd be curious to see them though. You've been putting some thought into your responses to me, and I appreciate that.

 

[Narcotized]

so I'll stop trying.

The left-brain people on this board would be so appreciative. You make a numerical mind ache with agenda based fairy tales.

 

[deleted103644]

I hope you don't really believe this, and this is just the beginning of some rhetorical point you were about to make.

I believe he was just making the point that governments are not equivalent to janitors, not proposing we do that.

 

[yappy]

You cannot have a discussion about Krugman without discussing supply side Keysenian economics. This is an interventional mode where the public sector, through the use of monetary and fiscal policy, will alleviate sticky situations like liquidity traps and also soften the down region of business cycles.

So these interventions allow the economy as a whole to avoid being hit too hard and allow for some directed public spending. If placed right public spending will cause a multiplier effect where dollars will have velocity again - invigorating the economy. GDP is also a good measure of economic health; the public dollars can be thought to offset some losses in the other areas as well as seep into other areas of the economy through economic activity:

GDP = consumption + Investment + Gov spending + net exports.

This isn't meant to be some sort of long term economic plan so concerns like deficit or long term debt are not appropriate. It is meant to keep the bottom from falling out or spur growth like in post depression times. As other areas of the economy grow you can dial down the Gov spending item in the GDP function and begin to look at ways to go into the black.

 

[Narcotized]

This is Krugman, the man you are tying your wagon to.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-aliens-attack-earth-requiring-massive-defens

A guy that thinks every person in America needs to increase their $50,000 share of the government debt on useless projects like digging ditches and needless wars. The guy is a joke, and quoting him as a source of anything other than comic relief is a shot of all credibility.

I can't believe any station would give this fool airtime, except that he preaches the liberal mantra of big government. I would think anyone reading this board can figure out creating money, ie inflation, to spend on useless projects, or taxing money from the productive sectors to spend on useless projects can only be a very bad idea.

Please don't embarass yourself with more Krugman references... Hey, I have an idea; let's add to the $50,000 every man, woman, and child owes to Uncle Sam's creditors by paying people to dig and fill in ditches... That is just friggin brilliant.

 

[deleted103644]

Your argument out of incredulity doesn't work very well, and you should know better. Just because something is counter intuitive does not make it wrong.

I know you probably don't think that WWII had anything to do with the end of the Great Depression, but I have yet to see that hypothesis effectively refuted. If you'd read the article instead of reactions to it, you'd know that was Krugman's point - that a similar stimulus would work today, although ideally without Nazis or actual war.

 

[countingdays]

I'm not an economist, but I have common sense.
The multiplier effect just doesn't work when a high percentage of consumption is of imported goods (unless the trade is reasonably balanced).
You know what would produce a lot of jobs, consumption of US goods, and decrease our trade deficit in one swoop? US energy production. Wow. Rick Perry was right about one thing.

 

[pgg]

Your argument out of incredulity doesn't work very well, and you should know better. Just because something is counter intuitive does not make it wrong.

I know you probably don't think that WWII had anything to do with the end of the Great Depression, but I have yet to see that hypothesis effectively refuted. If you'd read the article instead of reactions to it, you'd know that was Krugman's point - that a similar stimulus would work today, although ideally without Nazis or actual war.

It was the postwar economic boom that made the massive expenditures of WWII bearable and not crippling in the long term. That postwar prosperity was largely a function of the US being the last country standing intact. Europe was in ruins. Russia had just buried 20,000,000 men in the prime of their productive working lives. In addition to the military casualties, huge numbers of civilians were killed tooo.

The US had fewer civilian casualites from WWII than we did on 9/11. Our infrastructure was not only untouched, but in top form because of the wartime industrial buildup. We were the Wal-Mart and Home Depot of the world while they rebuilt.

The wars we're fighting now won't have the same kind of postwar benefit, because instead of wrecking our future competitors' infrastructure and killing their work force, we're borrowing money from them to build schools in Afghanistan.

It's incorrect to claim that the money spent during WWII was responsible for ending the depression. Absent the violent destruction of our economic competitors, that expenditure would've made things far worse, after the brief spending spree was done.

Also, we weren't staring down the barrel of declining global oil production in 1945.

 

[pgg]

I'm not an economist, but I have common sense.
The multiplier effect just doesn't work when a high percentage of consumption is of imported goods (unless the trade is reasonably balanced).
You know what would produce a lot of jobs, consumption of US goods, and decrease our trade deficit in one swoop? US energy production. Wow. Rick Perry was right about one thing.

I agree with you 100%. The US desperately needs to do something about the trade deficit, most of which is oil. And our economic, industrial, and scientific infrastructure (still by far the best in the world) is in a good position to do it.


I do have a few quibbles about that chart though, which shows "recoverable" fossil fuels in billion barrels of "oil equivalent" ...

There's no mention of recovery costs, environmental damage, or pollution. We have lots of coal. It can even be converted to liquid fuel via the Fischer–Tropsch process. But efficiency is roughly 25%. CO2 emissions may or may not be a concern, depending on what you might think about global warming, but they're very high.


Oil isn't going to "run out" ... and we can make liquid hydrocarbon fuels from our huge coal reserves. But even so, energy costs have nowhere to go but up. At best, this will be a huge drag on our economy if we aggressively take the lead in developing renewable energy sources, expanding nuclear power production, and leveraging our domestic sources of natural gas and coal. At worst, doing what we're doing now (nothing), any economic recovery is going to hit a very hard ceiling the instant global demand picks up again.

Next to the deficit/debt, a comprehensive, aggressive energy policy and long term plan is the most important thing a president & Congress could do.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Back to NC - why on earth is it legal to amend a constitution without a general election vote? Isn't it a little too convenient to put your own party's legislation on your own party's primary ballot?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Bill Clinton thought so little of President Obama — mocking him as an “amateur” — that he pressed his wife last summer to quit her job as secretary of state and challenge him in the primaries, a new book claims,
“The country needs you!” the former president told Hillary Clinton, urging her to run this year, according to accounts of the conversation included in Edward Klein’s new biography of Obama.
The title of Klein’s explosive, unauthorized bio of Obama, “The Amateur” (Regnery Publishing), was taken directly from Bill Clinton’s bombshell criticism of the president, the author said.

Christopher Sadowski
RUN, BABY, RUN! A new book says Bill Clinton implored wife Hillary last summer to challenge President Obama.




“Barack Obama,” Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, “is an amateur.”
The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama’s re-election.
But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president’s home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.
“The economy’s a mess, it’s dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does,” Bill said.
Bill Clinton insisted he had “no relationship” with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.
Obama, Bill Clinton said, “doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”
But Hillary resisted the entreaties, according to two of the guests interviewed for the book.
“Why risk everything now?” a skeptical Hillary told her husband, emphasizing that she wanted to leave a legacy as secretary of state.
“Because,” Bill replied, his voice rising, “the country needs you!”
“The country needs us!” added Bill.
He later even joked about the prospect of having two Clinton presidential libraries — about the only time that Hillary cracked a smile.
“I want my term [at the State Department] to be an important one, and running away from it now would leave it as a footnote,” Hillary argued.
She said she had the option of running again in 2016.
But Bill wouldn’t let go.
“I know you’re young enough!” Bill said, his voice booming. “That’s not what I’m worried about. I’m worried that I’m not young enough.”
“I’m the highest-ranking member in Obama’s Cabinet. I eat breakfast with the guy every Thursday morning. What about loyalty, Bill? What about loyalty?” she responded.
“Loyalty is a joke,’’ Bill shot back. “Loyalty doesn’t exist in politics.”
Bill’s verbal battle with Hillary over the presidency, if anything, intensified when daughter Chelsea showed up with her husband, Marc Mezvinsky.
“You deserve to be president,” Chelsea said.
Bill was clearly pleased that Chelsea was on his side and vowed to have allies commission polls on a Hillary-Obama matchup.
“What are you trying to do — force my hand?” Hillary said.
“I want everyone to know how strong you poll,” Bill said.
Hillary said, “Go ahead and knock yourself out.”
The book’s explosive claims were shot down last night by spokesmen for the White House and the Clintons, who closed ranks last night.
Bill Clinton’s spokesman Matt McKenna said the excerpts were “totally and completely false” and called Klein “a known liar.”
Phillipe Reines, a spokesman for the secretary of state, noted that Hillary Clinton challenged the veracity of an earlier book Klein wrote about her, “Truth About Hillary.”
White House spokesman Eric Schultz accused Klein of making up facts to sell books.
“Nobody in their right mind would believe the nonsense in this one, especially since both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton have been loyal and supportive of the president at every turn.”
Klein, a former editor of The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, defended the book and his earlier one as factually sound.
Meanwhile, today's daily presidential Rasmussen Poll shows Mitt Romney ahead of the president with 50 percent to Obama's 43 percent. It is the highest level of support the presumptive Republican nominee has received in his matchup with Obama as well as his largest lead.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bill_blockbuster_an_amateur_XJHYdaV5LT1vpr5I39IKrN#ixzz1uaF9mJU2

 

[deleted103644]

It was the postwar economic boom that made the massive expenditures of WWII bearable and not crippling in the long term. That postwar prosperity was largely a function of the US being the last country standing intact. Europe was in ruins. Russia had just buried 20,000,000 men in the prime of their productive working lives. In addition to the military casualties, huge numbers of civilians were killed tooo.

The US had fewer civilian casualites from WWII than we did on 9/11. Our infrastructure was not only untouched, but in top form because of the wartime industrial buildup. We were the Wal-Mart and Home Depot of the world while they rebuilt.

The wars we're fighting now won't have the same kind of postwar benefit, because instead of wrecking our future competitors' infrastructure and killing their work force, we're borrowing money from them to build schools in Afghanistan.

It's incorrect to claim that the money spent during WWII was responsible for ending the depression. Absent the violent destruction of our economic competitors, that expenditure would've made things far worse, after the brief spending spree was done.

Also, we weren't staring down the barrel of declining global oil production in 1945.

But what caused the post War boom? Shouldn't it have been smothered by our massive post WWII debt?

And the entire world was out of the great depression after WWII, not just us.

 

[Narcotized]

I agree with you 100%. The US desperately needs to do something about the trade deficit, most of which is oil. And our economic, industrial, and scientific infrastructure (still by far the best in the world) is in a good position to do it.


I do have a few quibbles about that chart though, which shows "recoverable" fossil fuels in billion barrels of "oil equivalent" ...

There's no mention of recovery costs, environmental damage, or pollution. We have lots of coal. It can even be converted to liquid fuel via the Fischer–Tropsch process. But efficiency is roughly 25%. CO2 emissions may or may not be a concern, depending on what you might think about global warming, but they're very high.


Oil isn't going to "run out" ... and we can make liquid hydrocarbon fuels from our huge coal reserves. But even so, energy costs have nowhere to go but up. At best, this will be a huge drag on our economy if we aggressively take the lead in developing renewable energy sources, expanding nuclear power production, and leveraging our domestic sources of natural gas and coal. At worst, doing what we're doing now (nothing), any economic recovery is going to hit a very hard ceiling the instant global demand picks up again.

Next to the deficit/debt, a comprehensive, aggressive energy policy and long term plan is the most important thing a president & Congress could do.

Great post, except you are arguing with a right-brained left-winged religious fanatic. Good luck.

 

[pgg]

But what caused the post War boom? Shouldn't it have been smothered by our massive post WWII debt?

1) We won. Winning a world war gives the victors a certain degree of leverage when it comes to "negotiating" trade agreements.
2) A lack of competition --> trade surplus.
3) Cheap and plentiful natural resources, particularly oil.

Note that none of those details will apply to the post Iraq/Afghanistan era. The only thing we're getting out of these conflicts is debt. Even the stated objectives of the wars (security) is debatable.

And the entire world was out of the great depression after WWII, not just us.

1) They had plenty of work to do cleaning up.
2) Tens of millions of dead people create a lot of job openings.


Wars don't improve a nation's economic prospects unless natural resources are seized and competitors' citizens are killed in large numbers while their infrastructure is destroyed.

This ought to be self-evident - because if the economic benefit from war came from temporary full employment and manufacturing of war materials, we could just borrow money to build bombs and drop them in the Nevada desert, right?


If you're squeamish about loud noises or killing people and breaking things, maybe we could spend money to bulldoze our own roads or destroy other perfectly functional capital, in order to jump-start the segment of our economy that builds roads or manufactures those capital goods. As blindingly stupid as this is ... we did exactly that that: Cash For Clunkers.

 

[Narcotized]

This ought to be self-evident - because if the economic benefit from war came from temporary full employment and manufacturing of war materials, we could just borrow money to build bombs and drop them in the Nevada desert, right?


If you're squeamish about loud noises or killing people and breaking things, maybe we could spend money to bulldoze our own roads or destroy other perfectly functional capital, in order to jump-start the segment of our economy that builds roads or manufactures those capital goods. As blindingly stupid as this is ... we did exactly that that: Cash For Clunkers.

Hey, you stole my line! lol. Pretty amazing the Klugmans of the world think using good resources to go bomb an ocean would build a strong economy. How friggin gullible does one have to be to believe that???

 

[deleted103644]

Great post, except you are arguing with a right-brained left-winged religious fanatic. Good luck.

Haha, every single one of those adjectives is inaccurate.

I'm actually rational and logical to a fault, so if you had replied with something coherent I might actually take you seriously.

 

[yappy]

You guys are not giving the proper treatment to these economic arguements because you're not providing context to the situation to which they were implemented.

It's like doing a case review on a patient who was given epi, discussing the adverse cardiac effects, then determine that epi is bad but ignore the anaphylaxis that it was given to treat!

Or the fallacy of taking things to extremes to prove some point...

"Oh so epi is good? Well what if I gave you 10mg of epi IV? Would that be good? No it would not. Therefore, epi is bad."

 

[deleted103644]

1) We won. Winning a world war gives the victors a certain degree of leverage when it comes to "negotiating" trade agreements.

What exactly did we win? This wasn't a victory like the imperial age when you would take all the gold of the conquered. Or even the end of WWI, when the Allies forced Germany to pay off their war debt (with lovely results).

2) A lack of competition --> trade surplus.

In order to have a trade surplus, you need cheap & efficient manufacturing (product of war effort) plus trade partners with money to spend (ie they can't all be destroyed).

3) Cheap and plentiful natural resources, particularly oil.

Also true during the Great Depression. Natural resource scarcity can cause a depression, but it doesn't mean that that is the cause of all depressions or that new resources automatically improve the economy. A depressed economy also depresses demand for resources (just look at what happened to oil prices during the most recent one).

Note that none of those details will apply to the post Iraq/Afghanistan era. The only thing we're getting out of these conflicts is debt. Even the stated objectives of the wars (security) is debatable.

I agree. I think too much of the money spent on those wars is being dumped overseas to be particularly helpful to the economy.

Then again, many of those soldiers would be unemployed if they were sent home.

1) They had plenty of work to do cleaning up.

That sounds Keynesian...

2) Tens of millions of dead people create a lot of job openings.

Don't know the exact numbers, but I highly doubt the drop in unemployment after WWII in the US was due to those dead from the war. Also, by that logic the Civil War should have resulted in an even bigger boom (don't know the numbers there and they'd probably be unreliable).

Wars don't improve a nation's economic prospects unless natural resources are seized and competitors' citizens are killed in large numbers while their infrastructure is destroyed.

This ought to be self-evident - because if the economic benefit from war came from temporary full employment and manufacturing of war materials, we could just borrow money to build bombs and drop them in the Nevada desert, right?


If you're squeamish about loud noises or killing people and breaking things, maybe we could spend money to bulldoze our own roads or destroy other perfectly functional capital, in order to jump-start the segment of our economy that builds roads or manufactures those capital goods. As blindingly stupid as this is ... we did exactly that that: Cash For Clunkers.

I know some people are still very angry about that program, but didn't it accomplish its goal? (And wasn't that expensive relative to other things, like our inexcusable bailout of Goldman at 100 cents on the dollar.)

 

[deleted103644]

You guys are not giving the proper treatment to these economic arguements because you're not providing context to the situation to which they were implemented.

It's like doing a case review on a patient who was given epi, discussing the adverse cardiac effects, then determine that epi is bad but ignore the anaphylaxis that it was given to treat!

Or the fallacy of taking things to extremes to prove some point...

"Oh so epi is good? Well what if I gave you 10mg of epi IV? Would that be good? No it would not. Therefore, epi is bad."

Yeah, I see the economy as being in distributive shock right now. There's enough volume (aka liquidity) in the vessels (aka corporate books), but there isn't enough getting to the places that count.

Just because a septic patient is euvolemic doesn't mean you don't pump them full of saline.

 

[midazme]

i wonder if there are economists with as much insight into our field as we seem to have into theirs, who sit around and argue about medical issues through anonymous postings on an online forum!

 

[BLADEMDA]

i wonder if there are economists with as much insight into our field as we seem to have into theirs, who sit around and argue about medical issues through anonymous postings on an online forum!

These economists are leaving every man, woman and child with massive debt to repay.
What are we up to now $50K per person of debt?

So, this isn't just an issue for theoretical debate when Krugman proposes more stimulus with OUR money.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

The national debt represents both an immediate and a long-term threat to the United States' status as the world's premier economy. Not only is it a painful burden on future generations, but a very real damper today on economic confidence, stability, and job creation. Its consequences are felt most keenly by millions of everyday Americans. But as dangerous as the debt is now, it is on track to grow twice as large as the nation's entire economy by 2035. Absent meaningful reforms to change the U.S.' debt trajectory, the consequences of uncontrolled federal borrowing—and the associated interest costs—will only worsen. Enter your date of birth below to calculate your lifetime share of the national debt, based on your age and the U.S.' long-term debt projections


http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/national-debt

 

[countingdays]

I know some people are still very angry about that program, but didn't it accomplish its goal? (And wasn't that expensive relative to other things, like our inexcusable bailout of Goldman at 100 cents on the dollar.)

What goal? To temporarily improve car buying, only to decrease it in the future.
That seems to be the goal to all tax, spend, and borrow programs- temporarily improve things for the present only to make them worse in the future.

Speaking of WWII. How did the Germans react to hyperinflation, and why do you not see the downside to the inevitable hyperinflation as we attempt to inflate away our debt?

 

[deleted103644]

What goal? To temporarily improve car buying, only to decrease it in the future.
That seems to be the goal to all tax, spend, and borrow programs- temporarily improve things for the present only to make them worse in the future.

Speaking of WWII. How did the Germans react to hyperinflation, and why do you not see the downside to the inevitable hyperinflation as we attempt to inflate away our debt?

Germany owed massive amounts of debt to the allied powers, but not in their own currency.

Our debt is in dollars. This is a huge difference.

Also, Weimar inflation was in 1923. Bruning deflation in the early 1930's was directly involved in Hitler's rise to power.