Corner turned in Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle guys, prebombing wasn't exactly nirvana, but post bombing is when it really went to shit.

The country was headed to hell in a hand basket with or without the Samara bombing. That event accelerated the violence.

Half of the success of late is due to a successful anti-insurgency strategy. The other half is that violence has a tendency to burn itself out. Most of the ethnically integrated territory has been cleansed. 3 Million people have been displaced. The combatants have been seperated.

[texaspackerbacker]

All we can say for sure is one of us lives in a land of make believe.

Almost everything you say is factually incorrect, utter nonsense.

Unless I'm the crazy one.

Harlan, you're pulling the same weak shit that pathetic dumbasses like Hoosier and Tyrone try to get away with.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as "factually incorrect"?

All I said is verifiable/verified fact--much of it even by your sick leftist mainstream media--albeit grudgingly and under-reported.

[Harlan Huckleby]

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as "factually incorrect"?

I tried to end this nicely. Now you are forcing me act like a bitch:

You are so misinformed and uninformed that I don't care to discuss this issue with you further.

It's over. Scram. And you were a lousy lay.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All we can say for sure is one of us lives in a land of make believe.

Almost everything you say is factually incorrect, utter nonsense.

Unless I'm the crazy one.

Harlan, you're pulling the same weak shit that pathetic dumbasses like Hoosier and Tyrone try to get away with.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as "factually incorrect"?

All I said is verifiable/verified fact--much of it even by your sick leftist mainstream media--albeit grudgingly and under-reported.

the irony meter just exploded when you label others dumbasses.

This coming from a the man who refuses to learn what the money multiplier is.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, I gave you credit for NOT being the same type of idiot as the others I mentioned.

The FACTS are all lined up against you and your little fantasy of negativity; You can't even begin to counter them; So you wimp out and act like the other whiny little testicularly challenged imbeciles.

I ask you one more time, SPECIFICALLY WHAT among the facts I cited do you see as wrong?

Tyrone, you pathetic piece of crap, if have either the balls or brains to discuss any specifics of economics, bring it on--but you won't--because you don't.

[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.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Harlan, I gave you credit for NOT being the same type of idiot as the others I mentioned.

The FACTS are all lined up against you and your little fantasy of negativity; You can't even begin to counter them; So you wimp out and act like the other whiny little testicularly challenged imbeciles.

I ask you one more time, SPECIFICALLY WHAT among the facts I cited do you see as wrong?

Tyrone, you pathetic piece of crap, if have either the balls or brains to discuss any specifics of economics, bring it on--but you won't--because you don't.

Well, what a surprise, it took about a month before you start spewing your nonsensical crap...and hurling invectives. Perhaps you need to readjust your meds.

Econ: How can one discuss it when you can't even get the fundamentals correct? When you can actually describe the MM correctly, then we might have something to discuss.

[bobblehead]

from wikipedia:

Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation. Keynes's macroeconomic theories were a response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America.

Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches :

a reduction in interest rates.
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.[1]
---------------------

This is pretty much as I have argued all along...gov't spending on INFRASTRUCTURE has a positive effect on the overall economy and gov't revenues, but transfer of wealth (ie...tax one group hand to another) spending does not.

Gov't handouts spending thru deficit has a slight benefit in times of recession as well, but the long term cost of borrowing outweighs it as a normal policy.

If I look for it, I could find the hauser study which shows that no matter what the gov't sets tax rates at, they recieve 19.5% of GNP, but when taxes are high, GNP is depressed while when they are low it is stimulated.

So, to liberals, tax increases only harm the economy.

To compassionate conservatives, debt spending to hand to people who haven't produced is a very short lived positive, with long term negatives.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

[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.

[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.