Corner turned in Iraq?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

No, you are wrong. Google Money Multiplier. My definition is correct. And, the original.

You have CONSTANTLY USED MONEY MULTIPLIER. Now, you are switching to multiplier.

But, if you are going to use the multiplier, you still have to use it correctly. You fail to factor in the marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....yet, WE NEVER HEAR YOU MENTION THIS.

Sorry, but econ is about MATH..it isn't about you stating that spending is good.

Your understanding and application of econ is rudimentary at best.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, you seem to be believing the propaganda, demagoguery, and indeed out and out lies that your side put out about Iraq. The "HELL HOLE" you refer to before the Samarra bombing, etc. did NOT include any significant numbers of roadside bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, etc. There was no significant anti-government or anti-American violence. There was a ton of infrastructure building--schools, hospitals, etc.--good news of many kinds--that the God damned leftist media failed to report, in short, things were moving toward good. The ONLY semblance of a hell hole at all was the leftovers from Saddam and the effects of shock and awe and ground combat, and by a year after the fall of Saddam, much of that was cleaned up.

You refer to the badness of the constitution? That too is bullshit put out by YOUR side in this country. The Sunnis/Saddamists indeed were stripped of their out of proportion power and influence. There was proportional representation (with them as a 20-25% minority) and protections for the minorities, including the Sunnis.

The thing that inflamed the Sunnis was when al Qaeda committed atrocities on them in the name of the Shi'ites--supposedly in retaliation for the Samarra bombing, etc. which al Qaeda perpetrated and blamed on the Sunnis against the Shi'ites. Yeah, the hate was there already, but it didn't manifest itself as violence until after Samarra.

No problem on the harshness. Hell, I call you gullible and worse all the time.

Everything you said here is factually incorrect. I don't have the interest or patience to correct it all. And what would be the point? You believe this version of recent history, it suits you. How could I disprove it? Root around the internet and find contradictory news accounts? You would just dismiss those as media misinformation.

Harlan, you are simply wrong. These are not even opinions. They are the clear cut facts of recent history. I ask you AGAIN, what could you possibly disagree with--try a few SPECIFICS instead of this tired "it's all wrong" crap.

You have presented a view of recent history unsupported by everything I have read, everything I've heard from interviews of soldiers and journalists in the field. If these are "clear cut facts", provide references to supporting material.

[bobblehead]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

[Freak Out]

Got to love it baby.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...al-841407.html


US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

By Patrick Cockburn
Friday, 6 June 2008

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.

The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source.

The fact that Iraq's financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

The funds are under the control of the Iraqi government, though the US Treasury has strong influence on the form in which the reserves are held.

Iraqi officials say that, last year, they wanted to diversify their holdings out of the dollar, as it depreciated, into other assets, such as the euro, more likely to hold their value. This was vetoed by the US Treasury because American officials feared it would show lack of confidence in the dollar.

Iraqi officials say the consequence of the American action was to lose Iraq the equivalent of $5bn. Given intense American pressure on a weak Iraqi government very dependent on US support, it is still probable that the agreement will go through with only cosmetic changes. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the immensely influential Shia cleric, could prevent the pact by issuing a fatwa against it but has so far failed to do so.

The Grand Ayatollah met Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the main supporter of the Iraqi government, earlier this week and did not condemn the agreement or call for a referendum. He said, according to Mr Hakim, that it must guarantee Iraqi national sovereignty, be transparent, command a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Critics of the deal fear that the government will sign the agreement, and parliament approve it, in return for marginal concessions.

[Freak Out]

Turkey has joined the Axis powers.

Turkey, Iran launch coordinated attacks on Kurds

By SUZAN FRASER – 19 hours ago

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkey and Iran have been carrying out coordinated strikes on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq, a top Turkish general said Thursday in the first military confirmation of Iranian-Turkish cooperation in the fight against separatists there.

Gen. Ilker Basbug, Turkey's land forces commander, said the two countries have been sharing intelligence and planned more coordinated attacks in the future against the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and PEJAK, the group's Iranian wing.

"We are sharing intelligence with Iran, we are talking, we are coordinating," CNN-Turk television quoted Basbug as telling reporters on the sidelines of a security conference in Istanbul.

"When they start an operation, we do, too," the general said. "They carry out an operation from the Iranian side of the border, we from the Turkish side."

The report did not give any details on the strikes or the targets. The general said no coordinated action had taken place in the past few months.

"We haven't done it in the past one or two months, but we can do it again," he said.

The PKK, which has bases in northern Iraq, has been fighting for self-rule in southeastern Turkey since 1984. Tens of thousands of people have died in the conflict. The main rebel camp is on Mount Qandil, which sits on the Iraqi-Iranian border.

In recent months, the Turkish military has launched several airstrikes on Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq. In February, it staged an eight-day, ground offensive.

Iran also has shelled northern Iraq. Tehran says rebels from PEJAK, the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, a group fighting for Kurdish rights in Iran, also have bases on Mount Qandil.

In northern Iraq, PKK spokesman Ahmad Danas told The Associated Press that the group knew about the contacts between Turkey and Iran. But he said the strikes failed to dislodge the rebels.

"The sites bombed in the Mount Qandil area and other sites inside Iraqi territory have no impact on us because we had already left those sites," he said. "Militants have movable sites in rocky mountains that cannot be targeted."

The United States has labeled the PKK a terrorist organization and supports Turkey's fight against the group by providing intelligence on the rebels. But it also has urged restraint on Turkey, fearing the fight could undermine efforts to calm Iraq.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after meeting with the Turkish foreign minister Thursday that the U.S., Turkey and Iraq are "on the same page about the desire to see the PKK not capable of carrying out attacks against Turkey."

"The PKK is an enemy of Iraq; it's an enemy of the United States; it's an enemy of Turkey; it's an enemy of the region," Rice said.

Associated Press writer Yahya Barzanji in Kirkuk, Iraq, contributed to this report.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

No, you are wrong. Google Money Multiplier. My definition is correct. And, the original.

You have CONSTANTLY USED MONEY MULTIPLIER. Now, you are switching to multiplier.

But, if you are going to use the multiplier, you still have to use it correctly. You fail to factor in the marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....yet, WE NEVER HEAR YOU MENTION THIS.

Sorry, but econ is about MATH..it isn't about you stating that spending is good.

Your understanding and application of econ is rudimentary at best.

Tyrone, I haven't ever used the term "Money Multiplier". That was you saying that. If you think otherwise, show me where I said it.

I have always said merely "Multiplier" or "Keynesian Multiplier".

The thing you are talking about exists in the banking industry, but is a different thing altogether than what I have been talking about and really has no application outside of the banking industry.

The real Keynesian Multiplier, on the other hand, is the heart and soul of the economic philosophy behind tax cutting and government spending, deficit and otherwise. And it works.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I watched a good discussion with a reporter who just returned from 5 years in Iraq.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...el-of-nbc-news

I thought his assessment was generally positive. But he pointed out that the Iraqi government estimates that half a million barrells of oil are unaccounted for every day. That strikes me as insane, maybe he has the number wrong. But both corrupt government officials and militia groups are robbing the country blind. The pilfering is done both of crude oil, and of truck shipments of gasoline.

Well, I guess the money stays in country and helps the economy. But it feeds rogue elements.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

No, you are wrong. Google Money Multiplier. My definition is correct. And, the original.

You have CONSTANTLY USED MONEY MULTIPLIER. Now, you are switching to multiplier.

But, if you are going to use the multiplier, you still have to use it correctly. You fail to factor in the marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....yet, WE NEVER HEAR YOU MENTION THIS.

Sorry, but econ is about MATH..it isn't about you stating that spending is good.

Your understanding and application of econ is rudimentary at best.

Tyrone, I haven't ever used the term "Money Multiplier". That was you saying that. If you think otherwise, show me where I said it.

I have always said merely "Multiplier" or "Keynesian Multiplier".

The thing you are talking about exists in the banking industry, but is a different thing altogether than what I have been talking about and really has no application outside of the banking industry.

The real Keynesian Multiplier, on the other hand, is the heart and soul of the economic philosophy behind tax cutting and government spending, deficit and otherwise. And it works.

Tex,

You have used the term on the jsonline board and here. I have neither the time nor inclination to lookup your mistakes. Bobble has tried to clue you in, but you resist actually learning.

Second, you as always, fail to address anything the REAL POINT..which is that the multiplier, even yours, follows strict math..and you dont' ever produce your formula to show that it will work. The multiplier can have negative effects..just as it can have positive effects. But, you just NEVER address the possibility of the negative effects.

Finally, the importance of the keynesian multiplier is on POLICY.

A central tenet of the multiplier is consumers spending and also..SAVING. Please tell us about how much people are saving from the gov't rebate?

Another central tenet is that the gov't outlay allows business to hire more people and PAY THEM...which then results in more consumer spending. Again, please show us some concrete numbers on the amount of new jobs created because of either rebate.

P.S. Keynes firmly believed that the rewards should go to the workers not the investors. Keynes also believed that fiscal policy should be aimed at the lower income segment..as they were more apt to spend it. NOT FAT CATS. Pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

[bobblehead]

P.S. Keynes firmly believed that the rewards should go to the workers not the investors. Keynes also believed that fiscal policy should be aimed at the lower income segment..as they were more apt to spend it. NOT FAT CATS. Pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

Keynes was wrong on the last part, the investors have no incentive to invest/create jobs if they can't reap the rewards. In a perfect world both ends benefit from the investment, not just one side, although I would concede that nowdays it is split closer to this:

Investor 50% workers (as a group) 25% gov't 25%

I would like to see it get to investor 40% workers 50% gov't 10%

mind you i'm spitballing numbers based on my perception of present conditions.

The only way to get to my numbers is to lower taxes, strain employment (ie drop unemployment to 2%) thus forcing the investors to fork over more to the employees. Simple supply and demand in the workforce.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

P.S. Keynes firmly believed that the rewards should go to the workers not the investors. Keynes also believed that fiscal policy should be aimed at the lower income segment..as they were more apt to spend it. NOT FAT CATS. Pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

Keynes was wrong on the last part, the investors have no incentive to invest/create jobs if they can't reap the rewards. In a perfect world both ends benefit from the investment, not just one side, although I would concede that nowdays it is split closer to this:

Investor 50% workers (as a group) 25% gov't 25%

I would like to see it get to investor 40% workers 50% gov't 10%

mind you i'm spitballing numbers based on my perception of present conditions.

The only way to get to my numbers is to lower taxes, strain employment (ie drop unemployment to 2%) thus forcing the investors to fork over more to the employees. Simple supply and demand in the workforce.

Bobble,

the point isn't the redistribution of wealth...which keynes falls into alignment with the redistrubitionists...it is that Tex doesn't fully understand or employ keynes correctly.

YOu can't do econ without math..it isn't just...gov't spending is good. It would be like me coming to you as a financial planner and you say to me...dont' worry about retiring at age 60...just save money...we know saving money will be good for you. Of course we know that..but, we have to know...what amount i need to live on, growth rate, inflation, etc.

You can't employ keynes..and then suddenly rebuke his other tenets. Economists like keynes have a system...and you have to use the whole thing. If you don't..well, then you don't get to spout off saying the multiplier works cause keynes said so..blah, blah, blah.

P.S. I'm definitely with you on rewards. But, i'm guessing my distribution would be a bit different than yours. But, the point remains that Tex doesn't understand this..or acknowledge that keynes view was the fiscal policy should be directed at lower income..not at benefiting the rich.

And, he can't, using keynes...show how jobs are created thru rebates.

[bobblehead]

I usually hate "compromising" with 2 ideas, but I have to in this case with you and tex. I'm probably closer to him on overall economic theory, but I have said all along and always will, that only infrastructure spending has a keynesian multiplier effect.

I also agree, the rebates won't help long term, but as a short term boost they will acheive the goal of smoothing out a rough time in the economy and save some jobs by slowing the bleeding. Thats not the same as creating jobs though. Long term, that money will not pay for itself and its only a viable strategy if you pay it back later so its available again when you need it. In my lifetime, the only politician that has tried to balance a budget and cut spending is newt gingrich.

I disagree that keynes is a redistributionist, he is more of an advocate of a strong middle class. I don't think he ever wanted to play robin hood as it seems you represented. I am not so much rejecting his philosophy as I think you aren't portraying it accurately. As I said earlier, low unemployment, low taxes, its a winner everytime, and I believe THAT is how keynes viewed "helping" the lower class.

I'm not sure if tex understands it or not, I am sure he has his own take on it that I disagree with. He and I both agree that low taxes and a strong economy trump redistribution every time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I usually hate "compromising" with 2 ideas, but I have to in this case with you and tex. I'm probably closer to him on overall economic theory, but I have said all along and always will, that only infrastructure spending has a keynesian multiplier effect.

I also agree, the rebates won't help long term, but as a short term boost they will acheive the goal of smoothing out a rough time in the economy and save some jobs by slowing the bleeding. Thats not the same as creating jobs though. Long term, that money will not pay for itself and its only a viable strategy if you pay it back later so its available again when you need it. In my lifetime, the only politician that has tried to balance a budget and cut spending is newt gingrich.

I disagree that keynes is a redistributionist, he is more of an advocate of a strong middle class. I don't think he ever wanted to play robin hood as it seems you represented. I am not so much rejecting his philosophy as I think you aren't portraying it accurately. As I said earlier, low unemployment, low taxes, its a winner everytime, and I believe THAT is how keynes viewed "helping" the lower class.

I'm not sure if tex understands it or not, I am sure he has his own take on it that I disagree with. He and I both agree that low taxes and a strong economy trump redistribution every time.

Bobble,

The point is whether i agree with tex or not, it is correctly using keynes..which he isn't. YOu just can't say spending is good without taking into consideration other factors. You just can't make a blanket statement that spending is good...it can also be bad.

Tex doesn't do the math for marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....after the spending..it can accelerate the problem.

My issue is simply saying spending is good.

I never said he was a redistributionist...just that he aligns or associates himself. He wrote about the hydro plant..saying that the workers should get the money over the investors. In Tex's world, that is redistibution.

Keyne's was also in favor of fiscal policy that favored the poor...as they are apt to spend the money. Tex certainly doesn't favor that...he would favor Reagan's trickle down.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I agree with you mostly. I still disagree with the hydroplant example. How are you gonna get investors if they don't benefit. However making the price of employees high (ie. wages) high isn't redistributionist in my book. However giving them the money instead of investors IS unrealistic. We both agree that the spread should be fair to both sides, we just disagree on the shades of "fair".

I'm not fully clear on fiscal policy that favors the poor, I could argue that I'm from that camp, you would probably disagree.

I agree simply spending money isn't good, I've been clear on that over and over.

Our disagreements seem to be minimal on this, I'm not entirely sure how you have aligned yourself with the left given your understanding of how things work....you're an enigma. (unless social issues are more important to you, then it makes sense, for me, its just that fiscal issues come first)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok, I agree with you mostly. I still disagree with the hydroplant example. How are you gonna get investors if they don't benefit. However making the price of employees high (ie. wages) high isn't redistributionist in my book. However giving them the money instead of investors IS unrealistic. We both agree that the spread should be fair to both sides, we just disagree on the shades of "fair".

I'm not fully clear on fiscal policy that favors the poor, I could argue that I'm from that camp, you would probably disagree.

I agree simply spending money isn't good, I've been clear on that over and over.

Our disagreements seem to be minimal on this, I'm not entirely sure how you have aligned yourself with the left given your understanding of how things work....you're an enigma. (unless social issues are more important to you, then it makes sense, for me, its just that fiscal issues come first)

Ok. I'm not giving you my position. I'm simply pointing out the stupidity coming from Tex.

Keyes..again, i'm not arguing in his favor..or that his position is right..just that if you are going to use Keynes as tex does then you have to understand his whole econ system. Otherwise you are just cherry picking facts to support his position.

As for my positions...when did i ever label myself. I've presented my thoughts. I have many. I am definitely on the liberal side for social issues...and that is why i can't vote for a the republican party of today. I had less issues with the party of Nixon and reagan.

As for econ issues...i'm not saying keynes is right..or what i believe. Econ is as much an art is it is science. I could present arguments in favor of keynes, yet i can point out what other economists see as problems.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, you are a God damned liar and a know-noting who won't admit that you know nothing. You whine like the little piss ant you are, and then when challenged to produce evidence, you can't/won't/don't because there is none.

But what the hell. This is America. There's freedom of speech even for scumbags like you.

The supreme irony, Bobblehead, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that these numbskulls of the left can't even comprehend that by most standards, what I have been expressing is closer to the liberalism they profess--sincerely in some cases, demagogically in others, than your positions.

[bobblehead]

I would say on taxes you side with me, on most of the rest you side with them.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

You keep making the argument--the tired old argument made by the Dem/libs--that you need to RAISE TAXES to pay for spending. You do NOT. If you do "raise taxes on the rich" to "pay for" spending programs for the poor, then yeah, it's a wash or worse--because of the tax increases. That was the case from the LBJ era to the Jimmy Carter era, and we all know what kind of a mess that left the country in.

Kennedy knew that you had to CUT taxes, even though he was horrendously liberal otherwise. Reagan, as some libs in here are so quick to point out, did not shirk from spending what was needed to rebuild the Carter-decimated military and still achieved huge economic success with his ttax cutting.

Your infrastructure only argument doesn't hold water unless you make the flawed assumption you keep making--tax increases to "pay for" the spending. Nope. It pays for itself, courtesy of the Multiplier.

[MJZiggy]

Tex, that's not what he said.