[AlphaNeo36]

Is that what constitutes proof these days?

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

Is that what constitutes proof these days?

What? You mean actual evidence? What constitutes proof for keynesian economists? Their policies failing to produce the results that their **** models predict?

Oh, that's right, now according to the keynesians, its just that the stimulus wasn't big enough.

[SuperSupra619 (Banned)]

I think he means can you source the figure, or provide the data or show how they obtained and modeled the data...I can make a random graph like that in 1 minute in Excel

[AlphaNeo36]

Or how the inability to foresee the future with 20/20 hindsight disproves an entire theory on macroeconomics.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

Or how the inability to foresee the future with 20/20 hindsight disproves an entire theory on macroeconomics.

wtf? foresee the future with hindsight? Even assuming no one event proves that keynesian economics doesn't work, we still have 75 years of data that show it.

Originally Posted by SuperSupra619

I think he means can you source the figure, or provide the data or show how they obtained and modeled the data...I can make a random graph like that in 1 minute in Excel

Google "stimulus projections" and 1000000000000000000000 links come up. Its not hard

[SuperSupra619 (Banned)]

Sorry, I can't look at a ****ty graph like that and instantly know what to google. You post a figure, then source it. CTR + C the link, then CTR + V it onto these forums. Very, very easy thing to do.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by SuperSupra619

Sorry, I can't look at a ****ty graph like that and instantly know what to google. You post a figure, then source it. CTR + C the link, then CTR + V it onto these forums. Very, very easy thing to do.

yea, or you guys could just right click the picture and see where it came from. its not hard.

[licence2kill]

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...-Recession.pdf

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...-Recession.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...867030644.html

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

You've posted a few strawman arguments, and pushed the meme that deficit spending is great

Another person who doesn't know the definition of strawman, calls me out on nonexistent strawmen and immediately delivers a classic strawman. What a piece of work you two are.

Originally Posted by madgoat

Evidence suggests that the net effect of deficit spending is actually negative. How bout that?

You can't possibly be that dishonest, can you? Although you already know this, I'll do my part for a productive discussion and point it out. You can't compare two different types of data like that. The projected numbers are based on one set of assumptions, the actual numbers on a whole different set. You need to compare the actual numbers with those based on the same set of data(1):

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Another person who doesn't know the definition of strawman, calls me out on nonexistent strawmen and immediately delivers a classic strawman. What a piece of work you two are.



You can't possibly be that dishonest, can you? Although you already know this, I'll do my part for a productive discussion and point it out. You can't compare two different types of data like that. The projected numbers are based on one set of assumptions, the actual numbers on a whole different set. You need to compare the actual numbers with those based on the same set of data(1):

Um what? Actual numbers aren't based on any assumptions. And there's only two possible conclusions when looking at the graph I posted:
~Stimulus hurt the economy
~the projections were bad

either way, why are we continuing to use the same flawed theories that have proven inaccurate/ineffective in practice?

[Bill Watterson]

I love how Gonzo ignores any mention of fiscal vs monetary. He knows he has no where to stand.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by madgoat

And there's only two possible conclusions when looking at the graph I posted:
~Stimulus hurt the economy
~the projections were bad

I'd say they're both pretty right on. The stimulus flopped, and everybody but Gonzo and probably frank wherever he is has admitted it by now including Obama who had a quick chuckle about (after all what's a trillion dollars right?) it and moved on to the next thing. Meanwhile the American people and their children and grandchildren will be paying the bill for decades to come.

No point in arguing with Gonzo about things like this, he's a straight up socialist. He's to be defeated, not debated.

[EpShot]

the govt literally paid contractors/police/people to work. Yet people seem to be suggesting that unemployment is higher because of this. Perfect logic you go thar..


./heads back to vacation

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by EpShot

the govt literally paid contractors/police/people to work. Yet people seem to be suggesting that unemployment is higher because of this. Perfect logic you go thar..


./heads back to vacation

Maybe you should take some econ classes at the local CC. Only way government can spend money is by creating inflation or taking it out of the hands of private citizens. It's inherently inefficient.

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by madgoat

Maybe you should take some econ classes at the local CC. Only way government can spend money is by creating inflation or taking it out of the hands of private citizens. It's inherently inefficient.

doesn't address the point I made. So i'll go ahead and turn that around, though I suggest you take high school English to brush up on your reading comprehension.

[licence_to_kill]

Originally Posted by madgoat

Maybe you should take some econ classes at the local CC. Only way government can spend money is by creating inflation or taking it out of the hands of private citizens. It's inherently inefficient.

they still teach the treasury view?

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by EpShot

doesn't address the point I made. So i'll go ahead and turn that around, though I suggest you take high school English to brush up on your reading comprehension.

See, its now clear you don't understand basic economics because if you did, you'd realize exactly how my post addresses yours.

[inkjt510]

You claim that the only way the government could spend money would be by printing it or collecting it in taxes. I think EpShot's claim is that the money would be put to better use in the hands of the government employing people instead of sitting in Bill Gates' bank account

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by inkjt510

You claim that the only way the government could spend money would be by printing it or collecting it in taxes. I think EpShot's claim is that the money would be put to better use in the hands of the government employing people instead of sitting in Bill Gates' bank account

[EpShot]

wtf?

all i said is that people were paid to work. this by definition raises employment. Whether or not it is the most efficient way is moot. People are claiming unemployment is higher after more people were hired to work. Its complete logic fail.