patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome says

What is the Keynesian prescription for "creating that demand"? Please state this as well.

It could come from any number of areas. Building/updating infrastructure is a common prescription. Food stamps should also qualify. Or unemployment insurance.

uomo_senza_nome says

Not really. You want an example?

lol. This is getting completely ridiculous. If I were to say it's often sunny in San Diego, would you hurry up and post that it was cloudy last Tuesday??

uomo_senza_nome says

According to Keynes, saving is bad bad bad. Spending is good good good.
Keynes has basically disparaged the whole act of saving right there in that one sentence.

No he hasn't. You are completely misinsterpreting him. As I think you are aware because this whole post seems to be somewhat tongue in cheek.

uomo_senza_nome says

So you're agreeing that Dan hasn't really presented any strawman, but you just told that he presented it?
This is the very definition of Ad Hominem.

No--it was a strawman. I'm just sorry I brought it up.

tatupu70 says

Building/updating infrastructure is a common prescription. Food stamps should also qualify. Or unemployment insurance.

Who gets to decide this building/updating infrastructure? The Government? We all know that the Government is fiscally irresponsible. So Keynes recommends that we rob money from the savers and then go spend it on the economy.

Food stamps and unemployment insurance provide no long term benefit to the society. They do ensure the society doesn't degenerate into complete chaos. They're stop gap measures.

So where is real, sustainable Keynesian prescription?

tatupu70 says

No he hasn't. You are completely misinsterpreting him.

What the fuck?

I stated what Keynes said. I did not pull that statement out of my ass you know. What do you want as proof then, that Keynes thought savings was bad?

tatupu70 says

No--it was a strawman. I'm just sorry I brought it up.

You still haven't pointed to the exact statement which Dan said, that you think is a strawman.

So far you've just said:

tatupu70 says

When someone writes a sentence about what "others believe" or what "Keynesians think", what follows is often a strawman.

Please cut and paste the exact statements that Dan has said, which you believe are strawmen. We would like to see. Stop evading the question.

tatupu70 says

I knew you would come back with this

It should be obvious what arguments I will make since I systematically follow good reasoning. If you cannot predict my response, you're not using logic. Naturally, the converse of this statement is not necessarily true. You can predict my responses without being logical in yours.

It's irrational people who are chaotic an unpredictable.

tatupu70 says

Increasing productivity is good (although you need to make sure the gains are distributed across society. Something the US is not good at). Shrinking GDP is not.

The P in GDP stands for "product", which means what our economy produces. Increasing productivity increases the GDP. Do I really have to explain a truism?

So, by saying "Shrinking GDP is not [good].", you are agreeing with me that productivity not aggregated demand is the basis of a good economy. If only you could put down your dogma to see that you have reached the same conclusion as I have.

As for income equality, for the ten thousandth time, that's an orthogonal issue. Nobody is disagreeing with you on that, but it's irrelevant to the Keynesian vs Austrian debate. Keynesian economics does not promote income equality. At least Austrian economics indirectly does by maximizing each person's productivity and letting them keep more of the fruits of their labor. And I mean "labor" not "rent-seeking". You'd have more equality under Austrian economics, but that's an entirely different story.

tatupu70 says

I wasn't specifically talking about housing, but since you brought it up--how would that help matters at all? You aren't the problem. The problem is the other 50% of the people that have no demand.

Elizabeth Warren did a study that compared the discretionary spending of a typical 1970s family to one today. What she discovered to her surprise was that the 1970s family had much more discretionary income -- that is, income after paying taxes and buying necessities. The reason for this is that families today spend far more on three necessities: housing, health insurance, and schooling (particularly college) -- I don’t use the term education because you don't pay for that.

These three industries are starving American families of their income that they would have spent on other things. According to what you have said in this thread, it would be a very bad thing for the cost of housing, health insurance, and schooling to drop. I say that's complete bullshit because money spent on these items is money that can't be spent on other things.

Falling prices are not a bad thing. In a healthy economy the prices of all goods and services should fall with time asymptotically approaching an efficient minimum. In fact, the only goods that should rise in price are diminishing resources like fossil-based fuels. But I don't see you bitching and moaning that gas prices have fallen, and they have fallen due to "lack of demand" rather than "increased productivity". So you should be jumping up and down like an angry leprechaun about lower gas prices. That is, if you actually consistently applied your theory to reality.

In fact, rising gas prices are a good thing because they make green technology more competitive and cause people to reduce their consumption of oil, which in turns decreases the likelihood of war, increases political stability, and reduces the risk of a sudden, sharp shortage of oil.

tatupu70 says

And by credible--you mean one that you agree with?

Now that's a Straw Man argument! Here's the form:

Person A - Dan
Person B - Tatupu
Position A (Dan's) - Arguments should reference credible sources.
Position B (Tatupu's deliberate misinterpretation of Dan's position) - Arguments should reference sources who's facts and conclusions support those of Dan.

See, it's clearly a Staw Man argument, you hypocrite. And that's how you argue against a Straw Man argument.

As a bonus, I might actually give an example of a creditable and a non-creditable source. Since I'm a nice guy, I will.

Back in the thread In Soviet Russia Bachmann is a professor of current affairs, Shrek used Wikipedia as his go to source. I tore apart the credibility of Wikipedia by showing some of the ridiculous claims it made. In contrast, the source I used was The American Political Science Review, which has a much better reputation. Now, I don't always agree with The American Political Science Review or any other source, but at least the sources I quote would be respected in a court of law. I doubt Wikipedia would be.

tatupu70 says

Because I most definitely DID provide a defintion.

No honey, you didn't. The closest you came is a vague description of one of the properties of demand in the form: Demand is not just desire to buy something. It's also having the ability to pay for it.

That's hardly a definition. A definition is what I gave, repeated below.

Demand:
An economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. Holding all other factors constant, the price of a good or service increases as its demand increases and vice versa.

Notice the difference?

Now personally, I find it silly that we have to argue definitions of Standard English words. Do you really think that the typical reader here doesn't understand the concept of supply and demand?

Well, since you keep harping on it… Do you object to my definition of demand? It kicks the ass out of your vague description.

tatupu70 says

I'm sorry I ever brought it up.

That's good. Once you feel that way about everything you've brought up, you can start listening and learning. But first, you must unlearn all the crap in your head. Letting go of misconceptions is much harder than learning new ideas. Congratulations, you have taken your first step into a larger world.

tatupu70 says

Who thinks this? According to you it's amazing how people believe this so it must be some population much greater than zero.

All Keynesians. That's why we have more people working on mortgage backed security derivatives and other such nonsense than on building infrastructure and goods. That's why we tax labor instead of rent-seeking. That's why we squeeze the middle class instead of the venture capitalist.

The philosophy of our government is "Labor bad. Hedge funds good.".

uomo_senza_nome says

Food stamps and unemployment insurance provide no long term benefit to the society. They do ensure the society doesn't degenerate into complete chaos. They're stop gap measures.

No shit Sherlock. That's the point. The economy needs a short term boost to get things moving again. Government spending during bad times to replace lost demand. Government saving during good times to put a regulator on the economy.

I don't know what you are asking about a real, sustainable presecription. Why should there be any?? That's a whole different policy discussion.uomo_senza_nome says

Please cut and paste the exact statements that Dan has said, which you believe are strawmen. We would like to see. Stop evading the question.

You've got to be kidding. I've done it 3 times now. Read my post at 9:10 am. I'm not sure how addressing the same question 3 times can be construed as evasion, but whatever...

uomo_senza_nome says

I stated what Keynes said. I did not pull that statement out of my ass you know. What do you want as proof then, that Keynes thought savings was bad?

Yep--I didn't say you misquoted him. You misrepresented what he meant. He was not making a judgment on savers vs. debtors--just stating that the economy grows faster when the velocity of money is high. It's not an earth shattering concept.

tatupu70 says

He was not making a judgment on savers vs. debtors--just stating that the economy grows faster when the velocity of money is high.

That's stupid.

Velocity of money will be super high during a hyperinflation. So according to you, Keynes thinks Hyperinflation is freaking awesome? because during a hyperinflation, things are exploding when valued in dollars.

Keynes did not respect savers. I've proven this with a statement of Keynes himself. He said "saving is a negative act". What more do you need? Please prove it otherwise if you can.

tatupu70 says

You've got to be kidding. I've done it 3 times now. Read my post at 9:10 am. I'm not sure how addressing the same question 3 times can be construed as evasion, but whatever...

Are you saying everything that you quote as Dan said in your 9.10 am post are strawmen?

tatupu70 says

You've got to be kidding. I've done it 3 times now.

Nope. You asserted that I made many Straw Man arguments, but didn't point them out since they don't exist. When called on your b.s., you repeatedly refuse to support your accusations and merely repeated your assertions. Then you made a blatant Straw Man argument yourself, which I pointed out specifically in the manner you should have done had I really made any such Straw Man arguments.

Game over man! Game over!

Dan8267 says

So, by saying "Shrinking GDP is not [good].", you are agreeing with me that productivity not aggregated demand is the basis of a good economy. If only you could put down your dogma to see that you have reached the same conclusion as I have.

If that's what you were saying, then I probably would agree with you. You've spent all your time in an imaginary battle with the forces of Keynes instead. If anyone is blinded by dogma, it's you.

Dan8267 says

Increasing productivity increases the GDP

Not necessarily. If you increase productivity by 100% by automating all factories and laying off the workers, but all the gains are hoarded by the top 1% of the population and not shared with the former workers, then increasing productivity will almost certainly not increase GDP. Prices will go down, but demand will go down faster. The supply demand curve intersection will end up at a point with fewer sales.

Dan8267 says

As for income equality, for the ten thousandth time, that's an orthogonal issue.

Income inequality is NOT orthogonal. It is extremely important to all discussion about how we got here and how we can fix the economy.

Dan8267 says

According to what you have said in this thread, it would be a very bad thing for the cost of housing, health insurance, and schooling to drop.

Again--that's not what I said. That's what you would like me to have said--but you're wrong.

Dan8267 says

But I don't see you bitching and moaning that gas prices have fallen, and they have fallen due to "lack of demand" rather than "increased productivity". So you should be jumping up and down like an angry leprechaun about lower gas prices. That is, if you actually consistently applied your theory to reality.
In fact, rising gas prices are a good thing because they make green technology more competitive and cause people to reduce their consumption of oil, which in turns decreases the likelihood of war, increases political stability, and reduces the risk of a sudden, sharp shortage of oil.

You've pretty much answered your own exception there. Gas is mostly made overseas so it is a drain on the US economy. Lower prices are a smaller drain so are good.

Dan8267 says

Now that's a Straw Man argument! Here's the form:
Person A - Dan
Person B - Tatupu
Position A (Dan's) - Arguments should reference credible sources.
Position B (Tatupu's deliberate misinterpretation of Dan's position) - Arguments should reference sources who's facts and conclusions support those of Dan.
See, it's clearly a Staw Man argument, you hypocrite. And that's how you argue against a Straw Man argument.

Dan, Dan, Dan. Really. Please give up the strawman argument discussion. You clearly don't get it. That was not a strawman.

If you don't like wiki fine. That's your prerogative. But to dismiss everything is pretty short-sighted and dumb. Anyways, for the 4th time--do you disagree that having the ability to pay is required to qualify as demand?

Dan8267 says

All Keynesians. That's why we have more people working on mortgage backed security derivatives and other such nonsense than on building infrastructure and goods. That's why we tax labor instead of rent-seeking. That's why we squeeze the middle class instead of the venture capitalist.

Ahhh.. Here we go. Thank you. Saying all Keynesians believe, " the ridiculous proposition that you can have a zero percent of the population producing actually goods and services and still have a robust economy if you just have enough monetary units or if you just keep increasing the number of monetary units." is the essence of a strawman argument. Build a strawman (Keynesians believe you can have zero % of the population producing...) then knocking it down.

And to say that hedge fund managers are Keynesian is beyond absurd, or that we aren't building infrastructure because of Keynes is equally ridiculous. Infrastructure projects are the very essence of Keynesian economics.

uomo_senza_nome says

Keynes did not respect savers. I've proven this with a statement of Keynes himself. He said "saving is a negative act". What more do you need? Please prove it otherwise if you can.

Keynes was talking about the macro economy. If you don't get this, then there's no need to have any further discussion.

Dan8267 says

Game over man! Game over!

Yes it is. You lost.

tatupu70 says

Keynes was talking about the macro economy. If you don't get this, then there's no need to have any further discussion.

What the heck is the macro economy if you remove out all the human participants?

So you're saying that some humans deciding to save is OK, but all humans deciding to save is NOT OK?

Why is that?

tatupu70 says

" the ridiculous proposition that you can have a zero percent of the population producing actually goods and services and still have a robust economy if you just have enough monetary units or if you just keep increasing the number of monetary units." is the essence of a strawman argument.

To be sure, Krugman honestly believes that easy monetary policy and massive fiscal policy will kick start the economy. He argues from the viewpoint that 2% inflation is good because the middle class is hurting with stagnant wages. But the problem is -- you can't centrally plan the economy. An economy is a dynamic complex system. To reduce it to static mathematical models ignores several long term unintended consequences.

Massive fiscal policy from a deficit-spending government is robbery from the saver class. Easy monetary policy hurts a large section of fixed income savers (especially the pensioners). Krugman can ignore away all these effects, because his static mathematical models say so.

Krugman genuinely believes that his prescriptions will save the economy. But Krugman also has this myopic view that deflation is always bad, which is clearly not the case.

uomo_senza_nome says

What the heck is the macro economy if you remove out all the human participants?
So you're saying that some humans deciding to save is OK, but all humans deciding to save is NOT OK?
Why is that?

Nope--that's not what I'm saying. It's pretty simple--just read what I write. That's what I'm saying.

tatupu70 says

Not necessarily. If you increase productivity by 100% by automating all factories and laying off the workers, but all the gains are hoarded by the top 1%

Those are a lot of IFs and they don't reflect reality. Yes, the top 0.1% does horde much of the gain of technology, but it is never 100%.

tatupu70 says

Income inequality is NOT orthogonal. It is extremely important to all discussion about how we got here and how we can fix the economy.

It is orthogonal to the discussion of whether simply increasing aggregate demand is the solution or stopping the accounting fraud, realizing the losses quickly, and reallocating resources is the solution.

We can discuss income inequality all you want. There is nothing in Paul Krugman's plan to fix the economy by battling imaginary space aliens that will address income inequality.

Seriously man, you waffle on the issues worse than John Kerry and Mitt Romney at an all you can eat IHOP buffet. Try to keep track of your own arguments so you don't contradict yourself. If you can't even agree with yourself, why should we?

Dan8267 says

Now that's a Straw Man argument! Here's the form:

Person A - Dan
Person B - Tatupu
Position A (Dan's) - Arguments should reference credible sources.
Position B (Tatupu's deliberate misinterpretation of Dan's position) - Arguments should reference sources who's facts and conclusions support those of Dan.

See, it's clearly a Staw Man argument, you hypocrite. And that's how you argue against a Straw Man argument.

tatupu70 says

Dan, Dan, Dan. Really. Please give up the strawman argument discussion. You clearly don't get it. That was not a strawman.

Holy shit! Did Tatupu just deny that he made a Straw Man argument when I showed with mathematical precision that his argument is the quintessential example of a Straw Man argument? I never understood how someone could just tell a lie that is so obviously a lie. It is trying to argue that "ax^2 + bx + c = 0" isn't a quadratic equation. It meets the fucking definition!

I mean it's one thing to repeat a factual lie like some statistic. But to lie about something self-evident like "atmospheres don't contain air" takes some kind of psychopathic disorder.

Tatupu, you bullshitted about my making a Straw Man argument and then made one yourself. To save face, admit you mistake and learn from it. You're like a child that refuses to admit he broke the vase when his parents question him about it. The parents know he broke the vase and want the kid to just admit to it. There's a lesson in honesty here.

tatupu70 says

But to dismiss everything is pretty short-sighted and dumb.

I don't dismiss everything. I dismiss Wikipedia. If there is a factual statement on Wikipedia that happens to be true, then it should be damn easy to find a reputable site that also makes that statement. Given that Wikipedia mixes truths with falsehoods with no regards to accuracy means you cannot trust a statement simply because it appears on Wikipedia. And the reader should not have to do the research to find out which of your Wiki quotes are accurate and which are hogwash. You the writer have the burden of proof. As such, it never makes sense to quote Wikipedia. Go to a real source.

By the way, this is the second Straw Man argument you made. Again, here's the form.

Person A: Dan.
Person B: Tatupu.

Dan's actual argument: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Tatupu's deliberate misinterpretation: No source is reliable.

The thing about Straw Man arguments is that they are almost always intentional deception used by people with no real defense. It's rare that someone accidently makes a Straw Man argument, and when it does happen by accident, the offender typically apologizes for misinterpreting the statement and then addresses the real argument made by person A.

tatupu70 says

Yes it is. You lost.

Ironically, that's the best argument you have ever made.

uomo_senza_nome says

Krugman honestly believes that easy monetary policy and massive fiscal policy will kick start the economy. He argues from the viewpoint that 2% inflation is good because the middle class is hurting with stagnant wages.

Yes, he honestly does believe that. And Krugman is one of the smartest Keynesians there are. He's no dummy. But he does have a blind spot. He unquestioning accepts the principles that mild inflation is always good and that the way to get out of a depression is to suddenly and increase aggregate demand regardless of what demand you are increasing: hospitals or bombs, no difference.

I say it's much better for society to build hospitals than bombs. Hospitals have a return on investment. Bombs just destroy wealth. It does matter on what the government spends our money.

It also matters how the government gets it. Net inflation is always a bad thing, as is net deflation. The only time inflation should be used is to counter past deflation, and the only time deflation should be used is to counter past inflation so as to keep the money supply constant. I don't give a flying fuck what the money supply is. We can increase it a billion, trillion fold if you like. But whatever you make it, keep it fucking constant. The only reason that bankers increase the money supply is because it is a mechanism that steals money from savers and wage earners and gives it to that 1% your always bitching about.

How about this? How about if we change the mechanism of inflation such that the newly created money is given to the people in perfect proportion to the amount of money they already have. I.e., the purchasing power of your money isn't affected after the money supply is increased. Similarly, the amount of debt you have is increased proportionally. The net result is zero transfer of wealth and more monetary units. Somehow, I suspect you won't like that.

Inflation is theft. It's not a legal tax because I get no representation in the Federal Reserve. I cannot vote Fed board members out of office. I have no say in what the rate of inflation is. Hell, the Fed no longer even reports the rate of inflation.

Meanwhile, the real cause of the financial crisis, ramped fraud and low interest rates, continue unabated.

uomo_senza_nome says

But the problem is -- you can't centrally plan the economy. An economy is a dynamic complex system. To reduce it to static mathematical models ignores several long term unintended consequences.

Sure--but you can't just ignore it either. You try to control it as best you can. You assume (incorrectly IMO) Krugman's motives and desires. He uses models at times to help understanding, sure.

Massive fiscal policy, when used correctly, is the least painful of evils. Krugman does not ignore the evils--he understands the trade-offs and chooses the course that he feels best manages them.

My guess is that Krugman believes that unemployment is the biggest hindrance we face and our policies should be to lower it. From that viewpoint--deflation is bad.

If you are from the camp-I have a job, F*&# everyone else, then your viewpoint is obviously different. And deflation is OK for you.

Dan8267 says

Tatupu, you bullshitted about my making a Straw Man argument and then made one yourself. To save face, admit you mistake and learn from it. You're like a child that refuses to admit he broke the vase when his parents question him about it. The parents know he broke the vase and want the kid to just admit to it. There's a lesson in honesty here.

Dan--I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I have done it several times on pat.net. In this case, I'm not wrong. You can BS about mathematical precision all you want. I didn't say no source is reliable--I said that you shouldn't dismiss all of wiki because you may have found one listing you didn't like. fyi--you still haven't answered whether you think having the ability to pay should be part of the definition of demand. Why is that?

Dan8267 says

The thing about Straw Man arguments is that they are almost always intentional deception used by people with no real defense. It's rare that someone accidently makes a Straw Man argument, and when it does happen by accident, the offender typically apologizes for misinterpreting the statement and then addresses the real argument made by person A.

So, now that I've explained why your argument was a strawman 4-5 times, do you admit your mistake? If it was an accident, no problem. If it was hyperbole, I understand. Just get over it.

tatupu70 says

you still haven't answered whether you think having the ability to pay should be part of the definition of demand. Why is that?

You are delusional. I clearly gave my exact a href="/post/1208460#comment-796673">definition of demand and it did not use the word "ability" but rather "willingness". Now willingness is influence by how much money a person has, but no I did not use the word "ability" in my definition. I would pay $100 million for a house if I had $100 quadrillion, but I don't. What matters is my willingness given the money I have.

So, are you saying my definition sucks ass? If so, make your case or shut up.

tatupu70 says

now that I've explained why your argument was a strawman 4-5 times

What color is the sky in your world?

If you think that you have even identified what the real and false arguments in the alleged Straw Man (and learn how to fucking spell it already) argument are, then you are a pathological liar. Furthermore, you made two easily identifiable Straw Man arguments yourself on this page so far and when you are called out on you transparent hypocrisy, instead of correcting yourself you continue to lie about them. The other readers on Patrick.net are stupid enough to be fooled by your lies. They can compare the definition of Straw Man argument provided as a link to the arguments you and I have made and see which ones match. It's not that hard.

By repeating lies that everyone knows are lies, you simply make yourself look worse. At this point, it is clear you didn't make an honest mistake. When you constantly repeat lies, that indicates the presence of bad intentions.

The only thing that you've proved here is that the more often a person cites Wikipedia, the dumber he is.

Dan8267 says

Geeze, I've only been calling this the Second Great Depression since 2007, five years ago.

I've been calling it The Greater Depression since 2007. Mine is more accurate.

tatupu70 says

Massive fiscal policy, when used correctly, is the least painful of evils.

This may be correct sometimes in a working economy. But "massive fiscal policies" cause massive distortion in any economy. Today American economy plainly does not work because of huge previous distortions. As it is today first of all it needs massive clean up. It needs to get rid of all pretend business it has. BTW, that means deflation. Any fiscal policy that tries to slow down the process only extends the pain and is doomed in the long run.

tatupu70 says

Nope--that's not what I'm saying. It's pretty simple--just read what I write. That's what I'm saying.

what the heck man?

Seriously.

You said macro economy. What do you mean by that word "macro economy"? Please enlighten us.

tatupu70 says

You try to control it as best you can.

Wrong. You try to control what you can and you don't control what you cannot.

Rule of law as imposed by a proper government is a form of control that we can control. Self-regulation is a myth and properly established laws regulate the way people interact to ensure there's honesty and fairness.

But how the heck can you centrally plan the whole f-ing economy? The Soviets tried they failed. The Argentinians tried, they failed.

Yes unemployment is a big problem but IT IS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM.
Too big to fail banks are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Why the heck is Krugman not arguing to break up the big banks like Simon Johnson is?

Why should unemployment have the highest priority over everything else (such as massive misallocation of capital and labor due to misguided government and monetary policies)? Why aren't the policies that led to this disaster in the first place, not getting fixed yet?

These are not easy questions, but we shouldn't be afraid to ask them just because Keynesian dogma is super-pervasive.

uomo_senza_nome says

But how the heck can you centrally plan the whole f-ing economy?

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your points. Who is advocating centrally planning the whole economy? Krugman is not. I am not.

uomo_senza_nome says

Yes unemployment is a big problem but IT IS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM.
Too big to fail banks are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Why the heck is Krugman not arguing to break up the big banks like Simon Johnson is?

I would argue that unemployment is a much larger problem than the TBTF banks. I agree they should be broken up--really they should never have been allowed to get TBTF in the first place, but we're here now. I would guess that the problem now is that's it's nearly impossible to break them up until they are healthy.

uomo_senza_nome says

Why should unemployment have the highest priority over everything else (such as massive misallocation of capital and labor due to misguided government and monetary policies)? Why aren't the policies that led to this disaster in the first place, not getting fixed yet?

IMO, unemployment is the largest problem, so it should have the highest priority. And misallocation of capital is NOT solely a government policy problem. The free market does this on its own quite well, thank you. The lack of regulation has been addressed. It's hard to fix the free market problems though--banks and S&Ls need to figure out how to design compensation policies so their execs act in the company's best interest rather than their own. That's not the government's job.

uomo_senza_nome says

These are not easy questions, but we shouldn't be afraid to ask them just because Keynesian dogma is super-pervasive.

I agree we should talk about them. What does Keynesian economics have to do with it?

uomo_senza_nome says

what the heck man?
Seriously.
You said macro economy. What do you mean by that word "macro economy"? Please enlighten us.

I'm saying that what's good for the macro economy in the abstract doesn't mean that it's the best policy for individuals. And I'm certain Keynes wasn't making a judgment on savers.

I don't even think he was advocating an economy with no savings--he was just saying that saving is a drain. Look at Japan. It's a concept.

Dan8267 says

By repeating lies that everyone knows are lies, you simply make yourself look worse. At this point, it is clear you didn't make an honest mistake. When you constantly repeat lies, that indicates the presence of bad intentions.
The only thing that you've proved here is that the more often a person cites Wikipedia, the dumber he is.

OK--I'm done with you. You are more interested in name calling than trying to have a discussion. You are the most guilty of what you accuse others of doing. Dogma has overtaken your thought process and you can't have a rational discussion.

You may now have the last word. And I'm sure the last insult.

Dan8267 says

It should be obvious what arguments I will make since I systematically follow good reasoning. If you cannot predict my response, you're not using logic. Naturally, the converse of this statement is not necessarily true. You can predict my responses without being logical in yours.

Comment: I believe you mean inverse rather than converse. Not a big deal, just the terminology of logic, for which you claim such expertise. And since it occurs in the same paragraph that you talk about how you "systematically follow good reasoning," I feel like it would have been more impressive had you used the correct terminology.

yes, yes, I know, I said back on ignore. I read this on a break at work, and also truth be told last time I unignored, I hadn't put it back yet. I see your shrek like pattern continues.

GameOver says

Krugman is lucky that over half this country's population is mentally-impaired and thus INCAPABLE of remembering how many times he's been WRONG due to excessive BROWN-NOSING of his Beloved Chocolate Messiah.

Actually Krugman has been fairly critical of Obama. Especially for not doing a big enough stimulus.

As for much of this thread which I haven't read in it's entirety, the critics of Krugman miss the fact that when he advocates inflation it is as the least bad solution, given the intractable mess we are already in. The austrians are critical of this, but it seems like what they advocate is total destruction of the economy and starting over. Which is what would have happened if things had taken their natural course since 2008. Even if this would have been better in the long run for some distant future middle class, so ?

When we are in a situation that doesn't have any good solutions, it's very easy to criticize the path that is taken.

marcus says

Comment: I believe you mean inverse rather than converse. Not a big deal, just the terminology of logic, for which you claim such expertise.

Definition of Inverse
Negating both the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement. For example, the inverse of "If it is raining then, the grass is wet." is "If it is not raining, then the grass is not wet.".

Definition of Converse
Switching the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement. For example, the converse of "If it is raining, then the grass is wet." is "If the grass is wet, then it is raining.".

Applying the definitions to my statement.

Original Statement
If you cannot predict my response, you're not using logic.

Inverse
If you can predict my response, you are using logic.

Converse
If you're not using logic, you cannot predict my response.

If the converse is false, then…
If you're not using logic, you still could predict my response.

Conclusion: I know the correct usage of the terms, Marcus. You do not. And yes, I am an expert in logic; it's what I do for a living.

You couldn't even follow the most rudimentary logic that I do for shits and giggles. Don't think that you could follow the far more complex and detail logic I do every day at work all day long.

Seriously, challenging me to a match in logic is like challenging Pavarotti to a singing match, or Babe Ruth to a baseball match, or Mozart to a symphony composition match. I'm damn good at what I do for a living. Anyone who isn't good at thinking and performing meticulous logic quickly and accurately does not last six months in a field as competitive as software development. And you can't bullshit computers. They don't work unless your code is right.

marcus says

And since it occurs in the same paragraph that you talk about how you "systematically follow good reasoning," I feel like it would have been more impressive had you used the correct terminology.

So, Marcus, now that I've shown you what the correct terminology is and that I've used it correctly, are you impressed?

Rank amateurs should not armchair quarterback.

bgamall4 says

You aren't a libertarian if you are for taxing the rich.

I'm not a Libertarian. I believe in the core philosophy of Libertarianism that adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not harming others or infringing on other people's rights. However, as I've stated before, Libertarians suffer from two deficiencies.

First, Libertarians don't believe in the concept of public property. Yet this concept is absolutely essential for dealing with the economics and environmental protection of land, the oceans, and the atmosphere. No one created any of these three things, yet we all depend on each of them to live. Hence, the only logical philosophical stance is to consider these three things (and other things as well) as public properties owned by the whole of mankind.

For example, privatizing the oceans is not a good idea as a private owner may very well be content with destroying the oceans to extract maximum short-term profit.

Second, Libertarians do not understand or accept Game Theory, the branch of mathematics that deals with conflicts of interests. As such, Libertarians such as Ron Paul tend to follow ideologies unquestioningly applying their principles regardless of the circumstances. Principles should guide goals, not actions. Goals plus environment determine actions.

That's why if I formed a party, it would be called the Rationalist Party, not the Libertarian Party. Nevertheless, the Libertarian Party is closer to my philosophies when it comes to civil rights and international affairs, which are more important than economic issues even in these times. It's easier to recover from recessions than tyrannies.

As for taxation, as I have previously proposed, the income tax should be used only as it was originally intended, as a transfer of wealth from the richest to the poorest by means of funding social services. Today, however, the income tax is regressive as shown by Mitt Romney's tax returns, and it is used for general funding which turns the Treasury into a pig's trough of special interests.

Furthermore, my opinion is that the federal income tax should be a function of the rich-poor gap. The greater the inequality, the greater the gradation and maximum rate of the tax. This will put a maximum level of inequality and force the rich, if they want to become richer, to truly rise all boats.

Dan8267 says

correct terminology

Okay. Well the way you said it was closer to negating the inverse ( "You can predict my responses without being logical in yours" ), but I will grant you that after thinking about it, I realize (and half remember) that converse and the inverse are equivalent to eachother.

Which by the way is something that you failed to mention in your response.

Dan8267 says

So, Marcus, now that I've shown you what the correct terminology is and that I've used it correctly, are you impressed?

Actually I'm glad you asked.

I find that without any exceptions the people who impress me with their reasoning NEVER say things like:

Dan8267 says

I systematically follow good reasoning

or

Dan8267 says

Don't think that you could follow the far more complex and detail logic I do every day at work all day long.

marcus says

Well the way you said it was closer to negating the inverse

No, I said it correctly.

marcus says

I realize (and half remember) that converse and the inverse are equivalent to eachother.

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent. They are different statements.

Statement: If you are a dog, then you are an animal. (True)
Inverse: If you are not a dog, then you are not an animal. (False)
Converse: If you are an animal, then you are a dog. (False)
Contrapositive: If you are not an animal, then you are not a dog. (True).

Perhaps you are incorrectly remembering these rules. I hear memory is the first thing to go when you get old. If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

Once you grasp elementary zero-order predicate logic, we'll start on first-order predicate logic and how it applies in relational database systems.

marcus says

I find that without any exceptions the people who impress me with their reasing NEVER say things like:

That is because you never hang out with software developers. I'm far more capable and humble than most. I don't think you'd be able to make it in the software business culture if you find me hard to deal with. You should see the people I work with. They tolerate fools far less graciously than I do. And I hear Silicon Valley is even worse.

In comparison, I've treated you with kiddie gloves.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

The cure is CANNIBAL ANARCHY!

True, that would lower the unemployment rate.

Dan8267 says

The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

Fail

A statement P --> Q is logically equivalent to
its contrapositive ~Q --> ~P
(not Q implies not P)

(check this with any simple example if you don't know this, although you certainly should. e.g. let P be all electricity in your apartment or house is out and let Q be your wired lights don't work

The inverse ~P --> ~Q (of P -->Q) is in fact the contrapositive
of Q --> P ( the converse
of the original P -->Q )

I didn't read the rest of your bs above except this.

Dan8267 says

That is because you never hang out with software developers. I'm far more capable and humble than most. I don't think you'd be able to make it in the software business culture if you find me hard to deal with. You should see the people I work with. They tolerate fools far less graciously than I do. And I hear Silicon Valley is even worse.

Your adding insult to injury to yourself here.

I worked for a software company before, and I dissagree.

marcus says

Fail

A statement P --> Q is logically equivalent to
its contrapositive ~Q --> ~P
(not Q implies not P)

(check this with any simple example if you don't know this, although you certainly should. e.g. let P be all electricity in your apartment or house is out and let Q be your wired lights don't work

The inverse ~P --> ~Q (of P -->Q) is in fact the contrapositive
of Q --> P ( the converse
of the original P -->Q )

I didn't read the rest of your bs above except this.

And that's the problem. Had you actually read my post before replying to it, you would have read my statements:

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

As well as the examples that show the converse and inverse are different statements. That's why there are two terms, not one.

Marcus, why are you such a grumpy old man? You should be happy to learn something from us young whippersnappers! You remind me of the two critics on the Muppet Show, particularly the one on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/14njUwJUg1I

Oh wait, they didn't have t.v. or electricity when you were young. Did they?

You once told me as part of your description of how awesome you are that you can admit when you're wrong.

Dan8267 says

As well as the examples that show the converse and inverse are different statements

?????

The inverse and the converse are logically equivalent and have exactly the same logical meaning.

Dan8267 says

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

Marcus, you really need to read all the words in a posting before getting your panties in a bunch. I stated the correct laws even before you bitched about your misinterpretation of my words. Merely copying and pasting something you don't understand from the Web isn't good enough to prove your smart.

Okay, you said something that is correct. Bravo.

That doesn't mean this isn't wrong

Dan8267 says

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

It's okay though. I know you well enough by now to know that you won't admit you were wrong.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

It's more than that a statement and it's contrapositive have the same truth value. They literally say what is logically the same thing.

tatupu70 says

I don't even think he was advocating an economy with no savings--he was just saying that saving is a drain. Look at Japan. It's a concept.

So you're saying Japan's deflation is totally bad. That's your demonstration of Keynes' point on savings correct? Please at least agree on this so that we can move forward.

Japan's deflation also means that they can buy stuff from foreigners for cheap because their Yen is overvalued compared to other currencies. So it's not all bad that they've had deflation

Of course if you're an export oriented economy (classic example being Germany), a strong currency can totally f--k you up with today's currency system.

What we need is a system where the medium of exchange is completely separate and not tied to the wealth reserve (store of value).

In such a system, savers are never discouraged and are never cheated upon and more importantly -- are never FORCED/COERCED TO TAKE RISK, purely because that is "in the best interests of everyone". In this case, the "everyone" is pretty much the debtor class.

I don't like Krugman but it is correct that this is a depression, since the cause of it was not so much the normal business cycle, but the popping of an asset bubble (house prices).
The popping of a leveraged asset has led to depressions, like the tsunami following an earthquake.
In this case, the increased leverage risk assumed by the banks multiplied the losses from the asset bubble popping, with disastrous effects.
The reason Bernake is putting so much liquidity into the system by buying over $2 trillion of bonds is because he is a student of depressions, and he sees the similarity to our situation. Of course he will never utter the word depression to describe our present pickle. He would be foolish to.
If we don't have a repeat of 12 years of FDR following Hoover, we should be OK.
The reaction of politicians to an economic emergency is usually what determines how severe and how long the depression lasts. So far the bad moves by Obama and Pelosi have lengthened this one by several years.

clambo says

So far the bad moves by Obama and Pelosi have lengthened this one by several years.

Hasn't BB discredited these bs claims of yours in other threads.