Krugman, W, malaise, and GOP's American Way. Ole.

[ksen]

However with it on larger scales it will always be debated on when you need to look the affects and how long.

Why would it be debatable on a larger scale? Especially given you acknowledged it's happening in Kansas.

 

[SimpleDon]

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

Free market is a contradiction in terms. Greed is not good when combined with commerce. Freely trading leads to capital in the hands of the very few in the same way that free exercise of power leads to political domination by the very few. Both are antithetical to the every notion of society in that society is reduced the smallest number holding both power and money. Humans are social beings. Humans are not beings who desire being dominated else there would be no humans, at their core, resist domination to the end. Government is meant to control excess which, for the economy, is to regulate it in ways that increase the breadth of benefits for the most citizens.

My observations were not about whether what republicans believe are viable, they're not, rather it is about from whence the emergence of Double down on W candidate phenomenon arose. It certainly isn't from the minds of the mental midgets running as Krugman's article seems to suggest. Besides W'ism is about trickle down and not about free market so putting a herring in the trail ends any discussion about why republicans are so set on giving their masters, big business and big military, gifts.

Let me suggest Krugman has the right idea about how the economy works, but, he has badly missed how politics work. The public mood of the base is the genesis for the for what those who would lead spout. Gird your loins its a year about trickle and fear versus inclusion and peace. In a good economy good values like getting along and fairness trump fear and greed. I'm putting my money on Democrats.

It seems to me that since he left the academic world Krugman is coming around in his economics to embracing a more heterodoxical view. That is, a view opposed to the mainstream, neoclassical synthesis economics. While he still considers himself to be a New Keynesian, the synthesis part of the mainstream, he has adopted some of modern money theory and the idea that like Keynes he believes that the economy is now certainly demand lead, not supply lead, the very basis of supply side economics, to state the obvious. Always a good idea here.

He has admitted that he like most of the mainstream economists frame their papers to conform to the mainstream. This they feel that they have to do in order to be published the more prestigious journals and to advance in academic economics. Heterodoxical economists aren't published in mainstream journals. He maintains that these concessions were ones only tone in the papers and didn't affect the research itself. I don't buy this, how could it not?

But yes, Krugman is right about how the economy works. These are details.

But I disagree that he doesn't understand politics. Economics and politics can't be separated, at least at the policy level. The Republicans understand this, too. This is why while they cry about the government meddling in the economy that they are so desperate to control the government to meddle in the economy for their and their benefactors' benefits. From the very beginning regulating the economy has been, along with providing security, the main job of the government and the main reasons why governments were formed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

However with it on larger scales it will always be debated on when you need to look the affects and how long.

Why would it be debatable on a larger scale? Especially given you acknowledged it's happening in Kansas.

Because a 1% decreate in Kansas's tax rates weren't going to cause a major shift in in behavior. A company wasn't going to move to Kansas to save 1% on the tax rates. However potential with financial transactions a 1% might have more bearing on the national level for example. Kansas would need to do a lot more to become business friendly.

 

[ksen]

Why would it be debatable on a larger scale? Especially given you acknowledged it's happening in Kansas.

Because a 1% decreate in Kansas's tax rates weren't going to cause a major shift in in behavior. A company wasn't going to move to Kansas to save 1% on the tax rates. However potential with financial transactions a 1% might have more bearing on the national level for example. Kansas would need to do a lot more to become business friendly.

Still doesn't make it debatable.

Just look at the data for when supply side policies were enacted and how the economy and government deficits behaved afterwards. The former always is lower and the latter is always higher.

That goes for the state level and the federal level.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because a 1% decreate in Kansas's tax rates weren't going to cause a major shift in in behavior. A company wasn't going to move to Kansas to save 1% on the tax rates. However potential with financial transactions a 1% might have more bearing on the national level for example. Kansas would need to do a lot more to become business friendly.

Still doesn't make it debatable.

Just look at the data for when supply side policies were enacted and how the economy and government deficits behaved afterwards. The former always is lower and the latter is always higher.

That goes for the state level and the federal level.

But the whole goal of supply side economics isn't just to balance the budget.

 

[ksen]

Still doesn't make it debatable.

Just look at the data for when supply side policies were enacted and how the economy and government deficits behaved afterwards. The former always is lower and the latter is always higher.

That goes for the state level and the federal level.

But the whole goal of supply side economics isn't just to balance the budget.

I didn't say balancing the budget was the whole goal.

But I continually hear supply-siders talking about how their policies will cause faster economic growth which, as one of the side effects, will in turn lower government deficits.

And yet whenever it's tried economic growth gets slower and deficits get bigger.

How much more falsified can a theory get before it's properly shitcanned?

 

[coloradoatheist]

But the whole goal of supply side economics isn't just to balance the budget.

I didn't say balancing the budget was the whole goal.

But I continually hear supply-siders talking about how their policies will cause faster economic growth which, as one of the side effects, will in turn lower government deficits.

And yet whenever it's tried economic growth gets slower and deficits get bigger.

How much more falsified can a theory get before it's properly shitcanned?

I think if you got 10 economists talking about that you wouldn't have the same answer. Somebody had asked one time, during the period of 1980 to 2007 what country had the best economic record. If you are argument is true, almost every other country should be beating the US

 

[dismal]

What's most remarkable here is the certainty with which ksen knows what would have happened in Kansas without the tax cuts.

I'm thinking he stole some sort of Kansas almanac from the future from Biff Tannen.

 

[fromderinside]

Free market is a contradiction in terms. Greed is not good when combined with commerce. Freely trading leads to capital in the hands of the very few in the same way that free exercise of power leads to political domination by the very few. Both are antithetical to the every notion of society in that society is reduced the smallest number holding both power and money. Humans are social beings. Humans are not beings who desire being dominated else there would be no humans, at their core, resist domination to the end. Government is meant to control excess which, for the economy, is to regulate it in ways that increase the breadth of benefits for the most citizens.

My observations were not about whether what republicans believe are viable, they're not, rather it is about from whence the emergence of Double down on W candidate phenomenon arose. It certainly isn't from the minds of the mental midgets running as Krugman's article seems to suggest. Besides W'ism is about trickle down and not about free market so putting a herring in the trail ends any discussion about why republicans are so set on giving their masters, big business and big military, gifts.

Let me suggest Krugman has the right idea about how the economy works, but, he has badly missed how politics work. The public mood of the base is the genesis for the for what those who would lead spout. Gird your loins its a year about trickle and fear versus inclusion and peace. In a good economy good values like getting along and fairness trump fear and greed. I'm putting my money on Democrats.

This public mood of the base is an artificial creation of the media. Even just thinking about what the "base" thinks amounts to gearing yourself to the lowest common denominator and certainly the acceptance it buys will not allow for sufficient leadership to deal with problems our society is facing. I think Krugman understands that and perhaps YOU DON'T.

What's more, the so called "free market" should rightly be called the unregulated and uncontrolable market where our environment gets sold out in every possible way. We had leaders in Paris nodding and agreeing to carbon reduction and we now have a government putting up property all over the country for petroleum development (drilling). Something seems to be telling me our government is two facing us again.

As a press guy 50 years ago I know that news follows fact slowly closing in on it over anywhere from a few days to several decades. After that amount of time news becomes history. The persons participating in republican movement, if we can call what any party is in america a movement, are those tending to past methods and self protection. That those wanting to lead this bunch as it exists today reflect a certain kind of nationalism, purity, and a certain kind of operation self centered and force using, only reinforces what I just wrote. The press, whatever that is, is something for elite piddling. Piddling by elites has never been a favorite of collective american sentiment.

What you and i are looking at are two separate and different things. Public mood is press synthesized. Public sentiment is driven by what lies under such characterizations and it is not monolithic nor can it be categorized in media ways. If fear is a top concern then segregation and isolation and retribution are the public moods. If past loving is a top motive then reconstruction of old ways are a priority. I don't think the press is really capturing that. Do you?

 

[fromderinside]

... But I disagree that he doesn't understand politics. Economics and politics can't be separated, at least at the policy level. The Republicans understand this, too. This is why while they cry about the government meddling in the economy that they are so desperate to control the government to meddle in the economy for their and their benefactors' benefits. From the very beginning regulating the economy has been, along with providing security, the main job of the government and the main reasons why governments were formed.

Yes a full belly tends to be an incumbent vote. As for policy political drivers only bend the here and now economic issues. So as we get to feel better fed we'll let up on the banks a bit and, and this is an important and, incumbents and water smoothers will tend to be elected. The important part of that and is what is costing republicans. They want to focus on external fear, to make terrorism and existential threat and to separate us from our heritage so we can protect ourselves. What they should be about is reducing terrorism to a law enforcement issue and making nice with labor.

Its against their nature to consider mad men killing as something not state related, not requiring a state solution. Republicans will loss the poor vote and the economically inclined middle class vote while retaining the white ethnic labor vote.

Democrats should be favoring increasing support for law enforcement as Clinton did in the nineties to gain leverage against the fear mongers, something they will probably fail to do.

So there you have it the winning positions which won't be adopted by either party.

As for economic argument holding sway that is passing as people feel better. What remains are the existential fear arguments which, too, will decline as we gain advantage over ISIS. Mosul will be back in Iraqi hands by May which is plenty of time to impact electoral mood. So democrats will hold the WH, gain back the Senate, and make up a bit of ground in the House. I'm looking to the twin Clinton presidency.

As for Krugman's intellectual integrity I think it is entirely possible for one to frame results to audience without losing import of the data, much less changing the data.

For example, I'm a sensory psychologist, at one level, specializing in touch and hearing, the places where columnar organization of sensory cortex and lateral inhibition principles were discovered. Vision dominates sensory research in publications and academic interest yet even these people, the promoters of seventeen cortical areas parsing out stuff, came to realize it was all as Mountcastle discovered in skin sense physiology a cortex organized in columns and levels and as discovered by Mach and von Bekesy, sound type,s processing organized in terms of lateral inhibition, . The mainstream has the microphone and speakers. But receivers readily recognize and really appreciate the truth.

 

[fromderinside]

What's most remarkable here is the certainty with which ksen knows what would have happened in Kansas without the tax cuts.

I'm thinking he stole some sort of Kansas almanac from the future from Biff Tannen.

... and ...?

 

[arkirk]

What's most remarkable here is the certainty with which ksen knows what would have happened in Kansas without the tax cuts.

I'm thinking he stole some sort of Kansas almanac from the future from Biff Tannen.

... and ...?

Supply side economics is a notion that if you give a half million monkeys a million dollars tax free, they will start making more gizmos and increase the economy gizmo-wise. That is gizmos the million monkeys fail to invent and start making...that is gizmo wise and environment foolish.! For the benefit of the Dismals and Maxes...supply side economy relies on the myth that rich people are bright enough to keep things going. They clearly suffer from environmental blindness and social amorality....I believe that is called affluenza.

 

[ksen]

What's most remarkable here is the certainty with which ksen knows what would have happened in Kansas without the tax cuts.

I'm thinking he stole some sort of Kansas almanac from the future from Biff Tannen.

Hey, make like a tree and get out of here!

 

[fromderinside]

I salute you for your charity sir.

Translation for dismal :devil-smiley-029:

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Its not just Kansas. Jindal of Louisiana rammed through massive tax cuts and Louisiana is now reaping massive deficits. Ditto Oklahoma.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/
Louisiana’s budget shortfall is projected to reach $1.6 billion next year and to remain in that ballpark for a while. The downturn in oil prices has undoubtedly worsened the problem, forcing midyear cuts to the current budget. But economists, policy experts and lawmakers of both parties, pointing out that next year’s projected shortfall was well over a billion dollars even when oil prices were riding high, turn to a primary culprit: the fiscal policy pushed by the Jindal administration and backed by the State Legislature.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So I just wanted to make sure people also think Keynesian policies are also considered bunk because the supply side policy of government running a surplus to stir up the economy is wrong?

 

[fromderinside]

So I just wanted to make sure people also think Keynesian policies are also considered bunk because the supply side policy of government running a surplus to stir up the economy is wrong?

Yes we always read conservative analyst's stuff to understand liberal economic policy.
The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

Yes Clinton did get a tax increase passed that resulted in a balanced budget.

No, it was Bush who insisted we focus on increasing home ownership. It was Bush policy that tanked Freddie and Fannie. Clinton's economy slows as the result of a high tech bubble related to Y2K. Remember the "Irrational exuberance" comments of Greenspan in ought-96?

...and I thought ignorance was just tea party "I wanna, I wanna" pouting.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So I just wanted to make sure people also think Keynesian policies are also considered bunk because the supply side policy of government running a surplus to stir up the economy is wrong?

Yes we always read conservative analyst's stuff to understand liberal economic policy.
The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

Yes Clinton did get a tax increase passed that resulted in a balanced budget.

No, it was Bush who insisted we focus on increasing home ownership. It was Bush policy that tanked Freddie and Fannie. Clinton's economy slows as the result of a high tech bubble related to Y2K. Remember the "Irrational exuberance" comments of Greenspan in ought-96?

...and I thought ignorance was just tea party "I wanna, I wanna" pouting.

Except it was both parties who had no problem with the home ownership bubble. I can find quotes from Democrats who said the GSEs were doing a good thing and the government shouldn't curtail them.

I'm also curious, is there a problem with the myriad of of other countries that have bigger budget deficits and bigger percentage of debt to GDP?

 

[Horatio Parker]

So I just wanted to make sure people also think Keynesian policies are also considered bunk because the supply side policy of government running a surplus to stir up the economy is wrong?

State govts can't create money. Deficits by the fed govt are expansionary, but state govts are budget constrained. At the federal level, surpluses are contractionary.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So I just wanted to make sure people also think Keynesian policies are also considered bunk because the supply side policy of government running a surplus to stir up the economy is wrong?

State govts can't create money. Deficits by the fed govt are expansionary, but state govts are budget constrained. At the federal level, surpluses are contractionary.

I was talking about it on the national level not a state government level since we were talking Reagan and his tax changes.

States don't have as much leeway usually on their rates because they are low compared to the national level. Another discussion topic would be that state and federal tax levels should actually be reversed