• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Hey poligaf I have another favor to ask. I'm looking for articles that help explain why deficit spending doesn't "crowd out" private spending and articles that help illustrate that private spending isn't always as effective as public spending.

Black Mamba posted this link which includes this
The standard argument for how deficits reduce growth is that they do so by pushing up interest rates
and thereby crowding out private investment. This argument is only plausible when the economy is near full employment,
however, since otherwise there would be no reason a budget deficit would need to result in higher interest rates. In a period in
which the economy is operating below its full employment level of output, like the present, the economy is not supply
constrained. Additional demand from a deficit can be met by additional output, so there is no reason that it must crowd out
private investment.
Click to expand...
but I was looking for a bit more detail/studies to back this up.

The stuff you guys posted was great (even EV's stuff). I feel like a have a much better grasp on the debt and feel much more comfortable talking about the subject and demonstrating why "conventional wisdom" is a bunch of crap though it makes all the deficit talk all the more grating because I can't even stand Obama harping on it.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
Am I the only one who wishes that there was a World Politics thread to talk about politics around the world in general? I mean sure America, France, Sweden, and Canada are nice but there is a whole world out there.

Correa just got reelected, Chavez has returned (ridiculous situation if you ask me), shit is regularly happenin in South Africa. I know you can say "that's what the off-topic is for!" but like the purpose of this thread, there are just some small things that aren't really thread worthy but are interesting for discussioin for some.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
He's a somewhat respected member of his field, he should be using his voice to point out that the framework is inherently wrong. So yeah, he is right if we were playing a board game with ridiculous rules and limitations, but this is real life, and economic policy has real consequences on society. People listen to him, so either he has been misled and is wrong, or he is lying and squandering a perfectly good platform to bring some sense to the situation.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the argument has already been lost. Those who don't adapt lose everything.

Look, I want the gov't to increase spending right now in a big way. But reality is that that fight is over. If you keep fighting on that and that alone, you could lose bigger.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
zero shift said:
Am I the only one who wishes that there was a World Politics thread to talk about politics around the world in general? I mean sure America, France, Sweden, and Canada are nice but there is a whole world out there.

Correa just got reelected, Chavez has returned (ridiculous situation if you ask me), shit is regularly happenin in South Africa. I know you can say "that's what the off-topic is for!" but like the purpose of this thread, there are just some small things that aren't really thread worthy but are interesting for discussioin for some.
Click to expand...

I'd love that. But i'd be really hard to keep it focused.

Black Mamba said:
Unfortunately, the argument has already been lost. Those who don't adapt lose everything.

Look, I want the gov't to increase spending right now in a big way. But reality is that that fight is over. If you keep fighting on that and that alone, you could lose bigger.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily you don't have to argue for more government spending, you do what Obama did in the SOTU layout discreet proposals that people like (that cost money) and fight against cuts that people don't like. The people only in the abstract want to cut deficits. If you keep it focused on the programs you can insure things don't get cut and maybe even increased.

Don't play ball with republicans, don't propose your own cuts. Let them propose theirs, like in the ryan budget, and play their game "just say no"

Doing nothing is more progressive than cutting.
You saw how they folded on the fiscal cliff with out cutting ANYTHING.

With the sequester, the day after it goes into effect have Obama give a speech in which he calls on congress to immediately restore the cut spending so out military and health care system isn't hurt (though he could leave out unproductive spending that was cut)
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I'd love that. But i'd be really hard to keep it focused.



Not necessarily you don't have to argue for more government spending, you do what Obama did in the SOTU layout discreet proposals that people like (that cost money) and fight against cuts that people don't like. The people only in the abstract want to cut deficits. If you keep it focused on the programs you can insure things don't get cut and maybe even increased.

Don't play ball with republicans, don't propose your own cuts. Let them propose theirs, like in the ryan budget, and play their game "just say no"

Doing nothing is more progressive than cutting.
You saw how they folded on the fiscal cliff with out cutting ANYTHING.

With the sequester, the day after it goes into effect have Obama give a speech in which he calls on congress to immediately restore the cut spending so out military and health care system isn't hurt (though he could leave out unproductive spending that was cut)
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But you see, you are reframing the discussion from one of deficits to specific programs.

That is what I mean when I said "If you keep fighting on that and that alone, you could lose bigger."

Arguing specifics makes it harder to cut but if you argue in the abstract continually, you end up with cuts you wouldn't otherwise (like education).
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Also where did the notion that progressives need to want a giant government spending program come from?

I want the government to be spending on things that matter and aren't being produced by the private sector as to move production to its best possible output. I have no problem cutting government spending when its unproductive (subsidies to oil, tax breaks to millionaires, lost of Military spending, etc)

So I don't think its fair to say progressives want a larger government, just a different one. While it could end up being more expensive it doesn't by definition have to be
 
N

Nert

Member
Speaking of other thread ideas, is there still anyone that was interested in starting a political book club thread? This could accommodate books with a fairly large range of subjects, including economics and comparative politics. I've been reading more again now that the election is over and it'd be fun to discuss some things in greater depth.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
I agree 100%. But you see, you are reframing the discussion from one of deficits to specific programs.

That is what I mean when I said "If you keep fighting on that and that alone, you could lose bigger."

Arguing specifics makes it harder to cut but if you argue in the abstract continually, you end up with cuts you wouldn't otherwise (like education).
Click to expand...

Which is why we need to stop arguing things in the abstract. Obama needs to cut out all the deficit talk. I don't mind him saying things like "this will be paid for or something" but you're contributing to the problem by continuing to talk about deficit problems.

How much did people worry about the deficit when voting in 2004? Not at all because nobody really talked about it. Obama only has himself to blame when he buys into the republican framing. He's not gaining any votes by doing so.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
And I still think he's right. Within the framework that only $X dollars will be spent (not can be or should be, but will be), we'd be better off cutting spending in the areas mentioned (SS, medicare, military) than the other things like education and infrastructure right now.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that Klein is operating within the framework in which you place him. He is not regrettably assuming that increasing net spending to is a political impossibility and then asking what to do about it (and even if he were, he'd still be doing it wrong). He is affirmatively advocating for reducing net spending and redistributing it away from retirement insurance and health care and towards discretionary spending like education and research. He specifically identifies "the trends in government spending" itself as the thing to worry about (i.e., increasing entitlement spending), not the lack of political will to increase total net spending, and he is looking at this long term, not short term. Lest you have any doubts about how long term he is thinking, he includes the following graph extending into 2050:

mbAjYpJ.jpg


He, quite simply, believes that the US government spends too much now and will spend too much in the future in absolute terms on retirement insurance and health care. Or, to put it differently, that the US government takes care of its elderly too well, and that we should consciously decide to treat ourselves worse in old age. Nowhere, of course, does he explain to his readers the necessity of doing so. Because he can't. Accordingly, he does a huge disservice to his readers by making them believe a choice between education/research and health care/retirement must be made.

If Klein wanted to be helpful, he would write half of his articles about how to reduce private sector health care prices. That's all that needs to be discussed, and that holds true even if one assumes that only $X dollars will be spent (not can be or should be, but will be).
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Link said:
You can't just add a percentage like that without considering other variables. You don't think the Democratic candidate wouldn't get that 3% right back if they were white?
Click to expand...
Yeah, considering Obama lost about that much because of his race, there's no way it won't go both ways. (Though as older people die out and demographics shift around, that effect will diminish anyway)
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
empty vessel said:
If Klein wanted to be helpful, he would write half of his articles about how to reduce private sector health care prices. That's all that needs to be discussed, and that holds true even if one assumes that only $X dollars will be spent (not can be or should be, but will be).
Click to expand...

He's written an enormous amount about this. I haven't read Klein regularly for a while, but it's a frequent topic of his, and one he wrote about constantly. Here's is a long and detailed article on US healthcare prices. He's written scores.

And this latest article (and graph) fits directly into that context. I do think Klein often entangles policy and politics in a way that is not helpful. (i.e., politics limits our choices to X, Y, Z, so we'll just talk about those). And there's a bit of that in the article you quote. But I think you are ascribing much to the piece that is not actually there.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Talon said:
I'm saying that the city and the community was all too happy to effectively economically segregate the city.

Heck, even in Hyde Park the unofficial motto is "Black and White Hands, working together to keep out the poor."
Click to expand...


Some kind of guns for bootstraps program?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
Why do liberals get to make racist jokes but conservatives can't? ;_;

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-h...bc-panel-sits-around-and-tells-race-jokes-air
Click to expand...

The funny thing is MHP's class is in the Hillel building here on campus and she's good friends with the jewish community here at our school, which is like 1/3 jewish.

Intent matters. But conservative's don't seem to get that.

I'd also like to see the context in what provoked this question. The clip just starts out "give me your favorite race joke" I feel like something is missing
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
the funny thing about that article, Oblivion, is that they quoted the Klan joke as if there is any group of people who would be offended by that BUT Klan members. Are they a group that should be protected from scorn or some shit? lol
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Amir0x said:
the funny thing about that article, Oblivion, is that they quoted the Klan joke as if there is any group of people who would be offended by that BUT Klan members. Are they a group that should be protected from scorn or some shit? lol
Click to expand...

One of the comments claims that if Fox had made the same joke about Herman Cain and the Klan the left would have freaked out.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
I have to agree with Klein on the spending issue. We can keep spending high while the economy is still weak, but once it recovers I hope deficit reduction comes from entitlements and not from investments in the future. Heck even now I'd take a reduction in entitlements in return for an equal increase in science, education, etc.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Giant Panda said:
I have to agree with Klein on the spending issue. We can keep spending high while the economy is still weak, but once it recovers I hope deficit reduction comes from entitlements and not from investments in the future. Heck even now I'd take a reduction in entitlements in return for an equal increase in science, education, etc.
Click to expand...

Once the economy recovers the deficit will shrink naturally without any cuts and no one will care anymore.

That is why repubs are so desperate to push thru cuts asap.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Amir0x said:
the funny thing about that article, Oblivion, is that they quoted the Klan joke as if there is any group of people who would be offended by that BUT Klan members. Are they a group that should be protected from scorn or some shit? lol
Click to expand...

If one were to be really generous, one could make the argument that the right wingers were angry cause the libs were implying that the Republican party is full of members from the KKK.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
I know Kelton & the MMTers are popular among some here (mostly EV). And Krugman is obvious popular.

What does PoliEconGAF think of Steve Keen? He seems to have a very interesting take. He got into a little online battle with Krugman a while back. I think Keen has some views that need more respect.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
GhaleonEB said:
He's written an enormous amount about this. I haven't read Klein regularly for a while, but it's a frequent topic of his, and one he wrote about constantly. Here's is a long and detailed article on US healthcare prices. He's written scores.

And this latest article (and graph) fits directly into that context. I do think Klein often entangles policy and politics in a way that is not helpful. (i.e., politics limits our choices to X, Y, Z, so we'll just talk about those). And there's a bit of that in the article you quote. But I think you are ascribing much to the piece that is not actually there.
Click to expand...

The story of health care costs rising indefinitely doesn't match up with forecasted inflation in the future. Either other costs will catch up or the costs will bend especially given what the US pays relative to the rest of the world. The economic downturn and supposed structural changes bringing down costs now makes it likely the fear about health care is wrong for the future.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
BSsBrolly said:
My Republican friends on Facebook are starting to lose it. First a see a picture stating liberals hate a navy seal, along with a pictures srating they worship and mourn the death of Chris Dorner.

Now a see one showing a picture of some naked woman with a caption reading "researchers have found out Obamas mom did porn, that's a first for US presidents."

Ugh, I'd find this funny if I didn't pity their ignorance...
Click to expand...

Obama derangement syndrome
 
J

Jimothy

Member
Link said:
McCain has become Joe Paterno: A lifelong career that will only be remembered for its sad ending.
Click to expand...

McCain is an incredibly fascinating person; a supposed Maverick who bucked the establishment with his views on immigration and torture, who turned into a politician who will be remembered for being on the wrong side of history on virtually every major political issue of the 21st Century.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Jimothy said:
McCain is an incredibly fascinating person; a supposed Maverick who bucked the establishment with his views on immigration and torture, who turned into a politician who will be remembered for being on the wrong side of history on virtually every major political issue of the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

Except torture. He got that one right. Of course, he learned the lesson the hard way.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Jimothy said:
McCain is an incredibly fascinating person; a supposed Maverick who bucked the establishment with his views on immigration and torture, who turned into a politician who will be remembered for being on the wrong side of history on virtually every major political issue of the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

I don't think McCain has approached McCarthy levels of recognition, so he won't be remembered too well, if at all.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
He was the Republican nominee for President in 2008. He'll be remembered for that, if nothing else. Just like Mitt Romney will be known as the nominee in 2012.
Click to expand...

Aside from the elections you've been alive in, I bet you couldn't name more than five losing presidential nominees. And if you can, good luck with that for the general populace.

Congresspersons are hardly remembered.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
He was the Republican nominee for President in 2008. He'll be remembered for that, if nothing else. Just like Mitt Romney will be known as the nominee in 2012.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Outside of that he'll be known for being wrong on every major foreign policy issue from 2000-2010 (except for the surge of course, wink wink).
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
The story of health care costs rising indefinitely doesn't match up with forecasted inflation in the future. Either other costs will catch up or the costs will bend especially given what the US pays relative to the rest of the world. The economic downturn and supposed structural changes bringing down costs now makes it likely the fear about health care is wrong for the future.
Click to expand...

What does inflation have to do with it? Projections are typically in % GDP.

But sure, Stein's law applies here. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. It's still going to be the case that absent some huge change, like robot doctors, health care spending will continue to be a huge problem. We spent about 16% of GDP on it in 2008. That's supposed to get up to almost 20% by 2017. That obviously can't keep on forever - there's a hard ceiling at 100% of GDP, if nothing else - but health care spending at 25% of GDP would be a huge drag on the economy. To the extent that it can be delivered more efficiently it frees up lots of resources for other things, and so it's a much more tempting target for reform than all sorts of government programs which at least have a substantial positive impact.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Gotchaye said:
What does inflation have to do with it? Projections are typically in % GDP.

But sure, Stein's law applies here. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. It's still going to be the case that absent some huge change, like robot doctors, health care spending will continue to be a huge problem. We spent about 16% of GDP on it in 2008. That's supposed to get up to almost 20% by 2017. That obviously can't keep on forever - there's a hard ceiling at 100% of GDP, if nothing else - but health care spending at 25% of GDP would be a huge drag on the economy. To the extent that it can be delivered more efficiently it frees up lots of resources for other things, and so it's a much more tempting target for reform than all sorts of government programs which at least have a substantial positive impact.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if these forecast take any of this into account, but one major healthcare revolution I see coming in the future this gene therapy. As all genetic diseases are slowly eliminated costs should fall dramatically for some patients provide decent amount overall as a lifetime of complications is replaced by one procedure.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Dax01 said:
Aside from the elections you've been alive in, I bet you couldn't name more than five losing presidential nominees. And if you can, good luck with that for the general populace.

Representatives of Congress are hardly remembered.
Click to expand...

Well, Dewey (and Strom Thurmond), Stevenson (twice), Nixon (wouldn't really count him since he became President later), Goldwater, Humphrey (and Wallace! also VP so a little more high-profile), McGovern, Ford (was POTUS so doesn't really count), etc. But yeah, no doubt the general populace wouldn't know this. I just thought you meant by "remembered" as in history text books or things of that nature. I don't really expect average Joe in 75 years to remember John McCain, though McCain is more likely to be remembered in such a way than other failed nominees.

2008 was a momentous and historical election so McCain is much more likely to be remembered because of his nomination because of this. He's also an esteemed veteran who was tortured in Vietnam - yeah, I think he'll be remembered. People like Romney, Kerry, Dole - maybe not because those elections weren't necessarily important historically.

As far as the general populace goes? The "general populace" would probably have trouble naming presidents - not just failed nominees - that served prior to their birth. Maybe pre-FDR would be a better time frame here, I guess, because I would hope people could name the post-war presidents easily.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Giant Panda said:
I have to agree with Klein on the spending issue. We can keep spending high while the economy is still weak, but once it recovers I hope deficit reduction comes from entitlements and not from investments in the future. Heck even now I'd take a reduction in entitlements in return for an equal increase in science, education, etc.
Click to expand...

I think you should ask yourself why deficit reduction is something you want at all. If you can't articulate a reason for desiring it, you should reconsider why you are advocating trading welfare benefits for increases in education and science education.

But in any event I think both Frank the Great and TheLaughingStock are correct. Still, we should take measures to reduce health care prices (implement Medicare for all). The solution to deficits caused by rising health care costs (if you insist on caring about deficits notwithstanding being unable to articulate why) is to greatly expand entitlement benefits, not to curtail them. But we should address the problem of excessive health care prices in its own right, even if the government operated no programs that provided health care, because it represents an extreme inefficiency and market failure (if we are to pretend that health care is a market). It doesn't matter who is paying too much for health care. It just matters that everybody is, and that has to be addressed.

speculawyer said:
I know Kelton & the MMTers are popular among some here (mostly EV). And Krugman is obvious popular.

What does PoliEconGAF think of Steve Keen? He seems to have a very interesting take. He got into a little online battle with Krugman a while back. I think Keen has some views that need more respect.
Click to expand...

I think Keen is great, far better than Krugman. Keen unlike Krugman actually understands banking. My impression of Krugman is that his conclusions about what actions to take in the real world are often (not always) right, but for the wrong reasons. It actually makes one wonder about the power of cultural academic indoctrination, and here I'm not talking about crude brainwashing, but about the power that various models and equations that Krugman learned from educational authorities and which he then adjusts and "applies" to get the right answer wields over him. After seeing this process repeated over and over, the feeling that all Krugman is really doing is intuiting his answers and then justifying them after the fact becomes overwhelming. His gut gets him to the right answers despite having the wrong models and a faulty understanding of both the monetary and banking systems. It reminds me somewhat of the use of epicycles to accurately predict the movement of celestial objects while preserving the model that set the earth at its center. It works, but its really a charade.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
Well, Dewey (and Strom Thurmond), Stevenson (twice), Nixon (wouldn't really count him since he became President later), Goldwater, Humphrey (and Wallace! also VP so a little more high-profile), McGovern, Ford (was POTUS so doesn't really count), etc. But yeah, no doubt the general populace wouldn't know this. I just thought you meant by "remembered" as in history text books or things of that nature. I don't really expect average Joe in 75 years to remember John McCain, though McCain is more likely to be remembered in such a way than other failed nominees.

2008 was a momentous and historical election so McCain is much more likely to be remembered because of his nomination because of this. He's also an esteemed veteran who was tortured in Vietnam - yeah, I think he'll be remembered. People like Romney, Kerry, Dole - maybe not because those elections weren't necessarily important historically.

As far as the general populace goes? The "general populace" would probably have trouble naming presidents - not just failed nominees - that served prior to their birth. Maybe pre-FDR would be a better time frame here, I guess, because I would hope people could name the post-war presidents easily.
Click to expand...
Yeah, remembered as in, thirty or forty years from now, an average person will say, "Oh! John McCain! Yeah, I remember him." I don't think he'll approach McCarthy levels of common knowledge.
 
C

cashman

Banned
Dax01 said:
Aside from the elections you've been alive in, I bet you couldn't name more than five losing presidential nominees. And if you can, good luck with that for the general populace.

Congresspersons are hardly remembered.
Click to expand...

hmm,

Mondale
William Jennings Bryan
Henry Clay
Goldwater
Ross Perot
Dewey

booom
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Giant Panda said:
I'm not sure if these forecast take any of this into account, but one major healthcare revolution I see coming in the future this gene therapy. As all genetic diseases are slowly eliminated costs should fall dramatically for some patients provide decent amount overall as a lifetime of complications is replaced by one procedure.
Click to expand...

There's still going to be the general problem that the main effect of good health care is to make sure that someone is around to consume more health care later on. Something's going to get you eventually, and the better our medicine the more things we can treat you for before you go.
 
W

watershed

Banned
Oblivion said:
So...I'm gonna just drop this here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/life-in-ohio-a-continuing-series-feb18.html
Click to expand...

http://avon-oh.patch.com/blog_posts/animals-cant-talk

This is the original article, its a bit longer and equally amazing. I love the comments as well. I honestly thought this was satire when I first read it.

Edit:
Choice quote
Dogs, cats, whales, seals and deer are animals that might enhance a human’s life, but all cannot read, write or think. They are animals. Yes, people dress them, buy them extravagant blinge and do other strange things with them; however, animals are not human. They are on this earth like trees to make humans’ lives better. As humans we must be kind to them, eat them when hungry, feed them when they are, but remember they are here to enhance our lives.
Click to expand...

Ehh?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
928
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
732
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom