GSO/Guilford Pols

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Urban development | Main | Maybe Chicago-style politics not really so tough »

Jul 06, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef01538fb3f704970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The company you keep:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Brod

I agree completely, and for that reason the biggest missed opportunity of early 2009 wasn't something Obama did, but something he said. Yes, it was understood at the time that the stimulus package was woefully inadequate, but the real problem was that Obama pretended (or honestly believed) otherwise. His reaction to the stimulus wasn't grudging acceptance, with a promise to try to get more and an implied threat aimed at those who'd oppose him. It was confidence and certainty that the bill would work.

As a result, when it became obvious that the stimulus was insufficient, Obama couldn't credibly push for more or even blame the Republicans for diluting the impact of the 2009 bill (which they did). After all, he was on record proclaiming the bill's awesomeness. He neutered his own economic policy from that point on.

Dan

Hear, hear.

bubba

"As a result, when it became obvious that the stimulus was insufficien....."

The stimulus was a complete and abject failure. If the stimulus had been five times as great, it would still have been a failure, albeit on a more massive scale.

There's a whole truckload of credible evidence that the stimulus had the opposite effect of what was intended, yet there are still those alternately clued folks who insist otherwise.

Andykins is becoming as irrelevant as Krugman these days.

Andrew Brod

Irrelevant, no doubt. But clearly correct.

For what it's worth, Bubba doesn't point to evidence; he points to some op-ed articles. And fair enough--we already knew that support for stimulus among economists wasn't unanimous. Yes, we know there's a letter by 200 economists opposing the stimulus. The conservative blog post to which Bubba links conveniently omits mention of the letters by hundreds of other economists supporting it. I'd prefer to use reason than just tally up how many people agree with me.

If you follow Bubba's links, you might note that the opinions of these economists have an interesting common denominator, namely the belief that the problem is businesses' reluctance to invest and hire. I guess this is what you claim if you don't like fiscal stimulus but you know you need to come up with an economics-ish reason for not liking it. Because if that's what's wrong, then shoveling more money at businesses makes sense.

There's just one problem with that. The data (e.g. cue the irrelevant Krugman!) show that businesses are sitting on piles of cash. Their reluctance to hire isn't because they're cash-poor; it's because consumers aren't spending. Why hire when so few people are buying? So while cutting business taxes might be good policy in general, they wouldn't have been stimulative.

But hey, the whole cut-more-taxes thing fits a meme, right?

Andrew Brod

Oops:

So while cutting business taxes might be good policy in general, doing so wouldn't have been stimulative.

polifrog

Dr. Brod, your focus on minutiae is interesting in that it clouds long term Keynesian failure but we have discussed this before.

Can you point to a recession in which Keynesian solutions worked?

With the current dismal showing of Keynesian solutions your claim that the "stimulus package was woefully inadequate" does not cut it.


Andrew Brod

Can you point to a recession in which Keynesian solutions worked?

The Great Depression.

That one doesn't quite qualify as minutiae, but whatever.

bubba

"With the current dismal showing of Keynesian solutions your claim that the 'stimulus package was woefully inadequate' does not cut it."

Notice Andykins can't come out and admit that the stimulus was a failure. Instead, he prefers to talk about other things, like "it was woefully inadequate", or "businesses are sitting on piles of cash" as an excuse for the massive failure of his faith-based economic belief system.

We could have spent 10 times the amount of the stimulus, and there's absolutely no evidence that the end results we be any different. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the "more cowbell" approach he and his fellow lunatics endorse would have relegated this nation to a permanent third world economic status.

But that's not important for people like Andykins. After all, they have a entitled rigid mindset and an increasingly failing economic worldview to prop up.

Andrew Brod

I realize that Bubba needs everything to be in black and white. Go away, gray! Nix the nuance! But it's hardly avoiding the subject to say that the stimulus was good in that it was better than nothing (and better than anything Bubba would have advocated) but bad in that it was insufficient. I think many people can wind their way through that maze of logic.

10 times the stimulus? Yeah, that might have been a bad idea. But we do indeed have evidence that a larger stimulus would have worked for this type of downturn. I refer you once again, to the Great Depression.

Bill Yaner

And I'd refer him once again to the massive borrowing needed to fund our participation in WWII - the greatest stimulus effect this country has ever seen.

JB

Unfortunately it wasn't just the GOP that opposed a larger stimulus. It was also people like Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, and Evan Bayh (who left the Senate to do Greater Things, and now shills for the always wonderful U.$. Chamber of Commer$e.)

Thanks a lot, guys.

I'm sure their daddies still love them but as far as I'm concerned Evan Bayh, (like Mark "Who's The Real Dick Here?" Halperin) has disgraced his family's good name.

bubba

"But it's hardly avoiding the subject to say that the stimulus was good in that it was better than nothing (and better than anything Bubba would have advocated)but bad in that it was insufficient. I think many people can wind their way through that maze of logic....."

Not a chance. We are worse off because of this monstrous boondoggle.

Stanford's John Taylor certainly winds his way through the convoluted maze of nonsense advocated by Andykins.

Noteworthy:

"Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers. Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view."

Stop relying on your absurdly concocted garbage in-garbage out models that supposedly rationalize your analysis, and get out in the real world more. You might actually learn something of value about the actual effects of the non-stimulus, Andykins.


sean coon

what i read from dr. brod was that the stimulus failed. that makes me believe he's living in reality, noticing the same unemployment and woes as the rest of us. amazingly, bob, the two of you are in agreement.

whereas andrew believes more stimulus would have made a difference, you believe... what exactly would you have done, bob? or would you have done nothing?

Andrew Brod

Ah, a conservative cites John Taylor. Some things never go out of style.

Sean, your tongue may be planted firmly in your cheek, but it's not quite right to say that Bubba and I agree on this. And I'd say that it's much less muddy than "Andrew believes X and Bubba believes Not X." To be sure, politics is replete with examples of economic (and other) policies not working, followed by opponents saying we obviously shouldn't have done it and proponents saying we obviously should have done more of it.

But this is different, and it's different because of what competing a priori predictions said about how the two camps understand (or fail to understand) the economy in a deep downturn like this.

Those who opposed stimulus of any kind said it wouldn't work because it would lead to sky-high inflation and interest rates. Those who believed the 2009 stimulus would be inadequate said that even after it was implemented, inflation and interest rates would be very, very low. It's obvious to any fair-minded observer that the former prediction has been refuted by the data. Even after some increases based on spottily positive economic news, the 10-year T-bill yield is still only a tad above 3%, which is very low by historical standards.

So yeah, the stimulus didn't work in the sense of pulling us out of recession (it definitely did work in the sense of mitigating disaster), but to some people that fact is just a means of pushing their agenda. And fair enough. All's fair in love and economics. But let's be clear about the difference.

bubba

"....what i read from dr. brod was that the stimulus failed. that makes me believe he's living in reality, noticing the same unemployment and woes as the rest of us. amazingly, bob, the two of you are in agreement."

No,he did NOT say the stimulus failed. Quite the opposite.

We would be enjoying positive employment growth (instead of the continued job losses) and higher GDP growth at this point had the government spending stimulus never existed, but lower taxes been implemented instead .

Excerpt from the first link:

"Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services."

From the second:

"The understandable temptation to take action in time of recession should not lead lawmakers to take counterproductive actions. Barro and Redlick's data show that the CBO's multiplier overestimates the return on government spending almost by a factor of two. Thus, while the stimulus may appear to be a wise investment, it is really no wiser than a junk-rated mortgage-backed security; though the investment claims a good rate of return, in reality the return isn't worth it because money is lost.

If stimulus funds are a bad investment, is there anything Congress can do to help the economy? Perhaps. In their recent research, Christina and David Romer look at the impact of tax cuts on the economy and conclude that the tax multiplier is about 3: $1 of tax cuts raises GDP by about $3.21 This finding suggests that the economy might get more bang for the buck with tax cuts rather than spending hikes."

bubba

Here's the link for higher GDP growth I left out of the last post.

sean coon

thanks for the elucidation, andrew. i don't know what else could have been done as we stared into the abyss in late '08, aside from applying a bigger package. dropping taxes even farther would've been like trying to get 200 million taxpayers, corporations and businesses included, to fill that chasm by each tossing a single stone into the void, hoping to raise the earth to a solid plain to get to a promised picnic on the other side.

such an approach would rely on everyone pulling themselves out of the terrifying financial state we found ourselves within and immediately begin to reinvest in the country by hiring, spending, etc. i don't care how much any small businessperson (i'm including myself) or corporation would be promised in tax savings come the following tax season(s), there's no way the global recession's climate would've allowed that kite to sail.

along these lines, we kinda need to stop pretending that larger companies don't take advantage of recessions to reduce overhead, add more responsibilities to already stressed out workers and bank the same or greater profits. compare the stock market with the unemployment rate for your proof.

and bob, if you're going to make such a comparison between stimulus funding of programs and dropping taxes, then you need to include the value of extending unemployment benefits.

bubba

"Ah, a conservative cites John Taylor. Some things never go out of style."

In other words, you have nothing of substance to say about what Taylor, your academic better, said about the topic.

It's easy to understand your difficulty here.

"...then you need to include the value of extending unemployment benefits."

How far do you think we should extend them?

Why hasn't the current Administration and Senate cronies pushed for further extensions?

From your NPR link, here's what Jeffery Mirron said:

"We shouldn't be thinking so much that this is going to cure the recession, that this is going to stimulate a lot. It's a small amount of money. So that means that the effect on the deficit is also very small. People have exaggerated that. But it also means the degree to which it's stimulating is very, very small, as well.

The negative is it does create an incentive for people not to take jobs, for them not to, in particular, lower their wage demands - to be willing to take jobs that they don't necessarily want, which aren't as good as their previous jobs but would provide some level of employment.

And there's evidence that supports that, and it's also common sense."

Perhaps that's why we don't hear about this issue anymore from "progressive" political panderers and victimization experts politicians.

sean coon

bob, the administration gave up the push for further unemployment benefits as part of the deal to extend the bush tax cuts.

no one is suggesting that extending unemployment benefits will "cure the recession." people are suggesting that the bang for the buck is huge. unlike with money saved from lowered taxes, unemployment checks go directly to pay rent, buy food, etc. in other words, it directly helps those who need it -- both in paying for essentials and circulating funds into the economy. unemployment funds don't get reinvested into the stock market or high yield savings accounts.

"small amount of money"... that's fucking pretentious. half my friends in town make just a bit more than the weekly unemployment check. all around the country in towns like greensboro, single people -- hell, even families on a tight budget -- can use unemployment to survive. it's one tool of many to battle a recession.

now, you don't want to have a conversation about the stagnation of american wages, do you?

bubba

"...people are suggesting that the bang for the buck is huge."

Mirron says it isn't.Is he right, or is he just another Andykins who doesn't leave the Ivory Tower often enough?

"'small amount of money'... that's fucking pretentious."

Don't blame me. You provided the link, titling it "the value of extending unemployment benefits". You really should read your links before you complain about what is actually said in them.

Andrew Brod

1. Miron is wrong. It's well established among mainstream macroeconomists that unemployment benefits are highly stimulative. Mark Zandi of Moody's, who was a McCain advisor in 2008, is one example; check out his table on p. 5, which features a column headed "Bang for the Buck."

2. Miron's claim that unemployment benefits create a disincentive to search for work is precisely right. However, what he neglects to mention is that the size of that effect is quite small. It might be big enough to matter in a normal recession, but not in this one. So what we have is something that's quite true in theory but unimportant in practice. Ivory tower indeed.

3. Christina and David Romer look at the impact of tax cuts on the economy and conclude that the tax multiplier is about 3: $1 of tax cuts raises GDP by about $3.21 This finding suggests that the economy might get more bang for the buck with tax cuts rather than spending hikes.

Funny, that's not what Christina Romer says her research implies.

sean coon

bob, you can cherry pick and set up strawmans all you like. i expect it. miron was NPR's counterpoint to temper the thesis and further the discussion, which of course you refuse to do yourself. his argument is right up your alley as he attempts to shift the conversation into one-tool-fits-all territory.

but hey, i understand how difficult it must be for you to understand how a conversation on a talk show is produced to be interesting and potentially head down unscripted paths (how LIBERAL of NPR!). linking to a koch family foundation funded think tank and the sort must be so much more satisfying. not to sift through issues and solutions, of course, but to ram a political point home (fap, fap!)

sean coon

andrew... calling the link to the horse's mouth, "hilarious," just doesn't do it justice. all apologies to christina romer. i'm sure she does not resemble a philly.

it's 2011... we all have our own google machines, personal interweb publishers and twitbooks. when will people stop trying to twist reality to fit their agendas?

rhetorical question...

bubba

1."It's well established among mainstream macroeconomists that unemployment benefits are highly stimulative."

Too bad no one explained that to those who draw unemployment. Most of those folks receiving benefits cut back their spending from their normal income levels, not knowing how soon they'll be back to work.

2."It might be big enough to matter in a normal recession, but not in this one. So what we have is something that's quite true in theory but unimportant in practice."

The dis-incentive is GREATER, particularly if you can't find work anywhere near the payscale of your previous employment, particularly in a state with generous benefits like North Carolina.


3."Funny, that's not what Christina Romer says her research implies."

Of course not, after all the grief people like you have given her.


"Ivory tower indeed."

Ever drawn unemployment, Andykins? Or are you the "born with the golden spoon" type?

Andrew Brod

Oh, sorry. I didn't know this was about me. I thought it was about ideas and debate.

If you really want to know about my background, you can call me or email me. I'm easy to find and happy to talk to anyone, even you.

polifrog

Dr. Brod:

The Great Depression.

That one doesn't quite qualify as minutiae, but whatever.

No. The Great Depression was not minutiae.

But what I find interesting is that I am never referenced to any of these recessions...

recession of the early 2000's
recession of the early 1900's
recession of the early 1980's
recession of the mid 1970's
recession of the late 1960's
recession of the early 1960's
recession of the late 1950's
recession of the mid 1950's
recession of the late 1940's
recession of 1945
recession of 1937

...as a recession solved with Keynesian solutions. Many were relatively small and presumably more manageable.

No. One is almost ritually taken back to the Great Depression to find proof of Keynesian success. But was there Keynesian success?

Under Hoover government expanded by around 30% (Keynesian before Keynes was chic); the recession continued. Under FDR there was a tepid recovery but further Keynesian meddling likely produced one of the worst recessions in the period from the Great Depression to today, the recession of 1937.

With over a decade of Keynesian solutions attempted from 1929 to 1941 the lasting result was a structural recession. Keynesian solutions had stalled the economic cycle at the worst possible point and what had once been a recession had garnered the status of The Great Depression.

Enter WW2.

It is interesting to recognize that sometime in the past 20 years a shift occurred such that references to Keynesian success lead less frequently to the Great Depression than they once did and more frequently to WW2. This, I believe, represents the slow recognition that Keynesian solutions failed to usher our nation from the Great Depression.

As a result Keyneians now more frequently turn to the argument ending contention that WW2 represents a Keynesian success story.

Lets assume for a moment that WW2 was a Keynesian success. That Keynesians now rely on WW2, a wartime economy in which Government spending accounted for over 50% of GDP, as an example of Keynesianism pulling America from the grip of recession shows how far Keynesians will stretch to find a single success story. Really, Keynesians now argue with a straight face that recessions should be fought with the equivalent of not just wartime spending but World War spending when no such response was needed in recessions prior to the Great Depression.

Of course, I question if even WW2 was a successful Keynesian experiment. If stimulus spending is intended to prime our economy as Kenynesians argue, then how does gearing industry for war help? The recession of 1945 answers that for us. It does not. All the priming of the pump represented by WW2 resulted in ... wait for it ... the 1945 recession, not a Keynesian boom, at the close of the war.

Just imagine the state of our nation after the recession of 1945 had we not had a world of devastation to sell our wares to, a world that payed not just for our goods, but for the retooling of all that industrial wartime "stimulus" more accurately described as bad investments for a peacetime economy. Imagine if those broken nations had not been there to make our war debt manageable by offing us their markets. Imagine the state of our nation after the recession of 1945 had we been required to compete with even one functional industrial economy or if our cities and towns had been brought to the waste of theirs.

When being asked to believe that WW2 represented a Keynesian success, I am being asked to believe that Keynesian solutions require us not only to raise national spending to over 50% of GDP, but that we must also destroy the industrial capabilities of friend and foe alike, destroy their infrastructures, destroy their homes and cities, kill off a large part of their workforce, have them kill off a large portion of our workforce, and then have them pay for retooling our economy so that we may sell them goods, climb back from recession and give Keynes a pat on the back for a job well done.

Really? We have to do all this to make Keynesianism work?

If it takes rehashing WW2 for Keynesianism to work, I want no part of it. And when Keynesians rely on WW2 as an example of a Keynesian success story, they have lost their argument.


bubba

"I thought it was about ideas and debate."

It's an attempt to find out if you have some personal real life learning experience, and whether you were able to take away some resulting wisdom from that sort of experience.

Andrew Brod

A few points in response to Frog's distinctive brand of logic:

1. In retrospect, I answered your question too loosely. We were talking about dramatic fiscal stimulus, and in that more specific context the answer is indeed "The Great Depression." Had I answered your question as you worded it, the answer would have been "Every recession you can name." Automatic stabilizers such as unemployment benefits and recession-timed tax cuts beloved by Republicans both qualify as "Keynesian solutions." In 2001, Republicans waxed poetic about "Keynesian solutions," even if they didn't utter the K-word.

2. But of course we were talking about discretionary fiscal stimulus, and for that the only precedent is The Great Depression. One is almost ritually taken back to the Great Depression to find proof of Keynesian success, you wrote. Well yeah, I'm so focused on reasonable historical and economic interpretation that I guess I do make a ritual of it. You have a different approach, I realize.

The current downturn is the first one like the big one of 80 years ago. It's the first one to have been spawned by a financial crisis, and that matters. The intervening recessions were, as you note, small in comparison to both the Great Depression and the current one, and they were also qualitatively different.

3. The issue with WWII spending wasn't that it was military spending, but that it was spending. Sometimes, things are just that simple. The point isn't that we need a war to escape the current morass, but that WWII spending provides us with an idea of the scale of spending needed to escape it.

Besides, there are reasons to think that war isn't as stimulative as it used to be. Our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't (and aren't doing) much. Some saw that before the fact.

4. Now, I don't think we needed the federal government in 2009 to start accounting for 2/3 of GDP, as it did at one time during WWII. No one's called for that; that scale wouldn't have been necessary. But what we saw in the 1930s is that fiscal stimulus worked while it was tried, and didn't work when it was pulled back. Then in the 1940s, a massive stimulus occurred for other reasons, and that worked. The lesson is that fiscal stimulus in a downturn like this one (not all downturns!) needs to be aggressive and more sustained. No half-measures, baby.

Andrew Brod

As for Bubba, I take your point. It really has come down to be about me. Fair enough.

MojoNixon

Yeah, but I bet you have big arms because golden spoons have to be pretty damn heavy, Brod.

Andrew Brod

I do indeed.

But isn't the phrase a "silver spoon"? Hence Ann Richards' 1988 line about H.W.'s malapropisms: "He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

MojoNixon

Yes, but the Sideshow referenced a golden spoon.

Andrew Brod

Right--I was questioning his phrase.

So the June employment numbers are out, and they're not pretty. The private sector added only 57,000 jobs, and most of that was offset by government layoffs, yielding a net job gain of 18,000. Brutal.

This has set off a new round of what I described here: conservatives saying this proves that government shouldn't intervene and liberals saying it proves that government should intervene more. But as I noted, the latter argument is the more credible one, seeing as how opponents of intervention warned that it would lead to high inflation and interest rates, and none of that has happened. Their model is clearly not one that fits the abnormally depressed economy we have today.

Andrew Brod

Back to the topic of this thread.

I'm reminded again of Bill Maher's response to claims that Obama's a socialist: "A socialist? He's not even a liberal!"

bubba

"Yes, but the Sideshow referenced a golden spoon."

Don't you have some rich widows you need to shake down, noshow?

bubba

"But as I noted, the latter argument is the more credible one, seeing as how opponents of intervention warned that it would lead to high inflation and interest rates, and none of that has happened."

That's it?

That's your rationale in support of your whacked out analysis?

It's just one more ludicrous diversion used to explain why your side's approach is a complete and utter failure.

As always, we are NEVER surprised by that sort of thing.

sean coon

yeah, andrew, your SIDE is ridiculous, especially when speaking to, apparently, multiple bubbas.

Andrew Brod

I wouldn't say that's my entire rationale for supporting stimulus in an abnormally depressed economy, but it's a powerful indication of who understands this kind of economy and who doesn't. Care to guess which one you are, Bubba?

polifrog

... But as I noted, the latter argument is the more credible one, seeing as how opponents of intervention warned that it would lead to high inflation and interest rates, and none of that has happened. Their model is clearly not one that fits the abnormally depressed economy we have today.

Revisionism, Bubba.

He has repeated this a number of times. I ignored it then as nuttery and I try to ignore it now as nuttery.

Foisting revisionism on people who are not paying attention is easy and the usual nature of economics. The reality is that he forgets the attention the crash garnered. We all know both "sides" he points to were arguing both sides of the inflation/deflation debate.

He is not accustomed to not getting away with his revisionist nitwittery.

Account Deleted

These people really make this argument more interesting.

(note Mike Munger in the opening of the second video.)

bubba

"Care to guess which one you are, Bubba?"

The correct one, Andykins.

On the other hand, you're not in the same solar system when it comes to being correct, despite what your peanut gallery pal suggests. In fact, you're not even in the same dimension.

PF is absolutely on target.

bubba

Paul Ryan is also on target when he says

"The Keynesian playbook has not only been exhausted, its results have been discredited. The Keynesian economic policy hinges on the notion that the potential short-term benefit to economic activity from debt-financed government spending can outweigh the longer-term cost of higher government debt. Keynes famously discounted these costs by remarking that 'in the long run, we are all dead.'

There is a point, however, where the build-up in debt is so large that these longer-term fiscal concerns start to bleed into the present, impacting short-term economic activity. The extreme example is a sudden, full-blown debt crisis like the one that Greece is now experiencing. But there is also a more subtle stagnation that can grip a debt-burdened economy – it’s a crisis of uncertainty and waning confidence in policymakers’ willingness to deal with the government’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Investors and businesses make decisions on a forward-looking basis. They know that today’s large debt levels are simply tomorrow’s tax hikes, interest rate increases, or inflation – and they act accordingly.

It is this debt overhang, and the uncertainty it generates, that is weighing on U.S. growth, investment and job creation today."

polifrog

Dr. Brod, you said in part one in response to my request for an example of Keynesian success:

1. In retrospect, I answered your question too loosely. We were talking about dramatic fiscal stimulus, and in that more specific context the answer is indeed "The Great Depression."

How does that square with what you said in part four:

But what we saw in the 1930s is that fiscal stimulus worked while it was tried, and didn't work when it was pulled back.
which is an admission of no net recovery as a result of one the greatest Keynesian experiments of all time by one of the greatest Keynesian experimenters of all time, FDR.

You further contradict yourself by claiming:

Well yeah, I'm so focused on reasonable historical and economic interpretation that I guess I do make a ritual of it.
when as shown above neither your historical nor economic interpretations are reasonable and are in fact contradictory.

::

You then turn to the many smaller recessions our nation has experienced and say:

Had I answered your question as you worded it, the answer would have been "Every recession you can name.
Yet is it not the case that since the advent of Keynesian solutions those smaller recessions have been generally increasing in length with each new recession in direct contradiction with Keynesian expectations?

::

In part 3 you say:

The issue with WWII spending wasn't that it was military spending, but that it was spending. Sometimes, things are just that simple. The point isn't that we need a war to escape the current morass, but that WWII spending provides us with an idea of the scale of spending needed to escape it.
If it were really that simple WW2 would have been followed by an economic expansion not the recession of 1945. The fact that WW2 spending lead to the recession of 1945 shows that we were reliving the our prewar failed Keynesian stimulus experience in which "fiscal stimulus worked while it was tried, and didn't work when it was pulled back". The economic success you seem to be relying on for proof of Keynesian success followed the recession of 1945 and was the result not of war spending but of the war itself creating markets and destroying competitors.

Therefore if you argue the WW2 represents a Keynesian success story then you have to accept the war as a whole rather the your piecemeal preference.

Andrew Brod

It's my Sabbath, and I believe I should try to say nice things today.

Frog, your understanding of economics is... creative.

bubba

"Frog, your understanding of economics is... creative."

Really?

Like arguing that a failed concept of government stimulus would magically become successful if only we would spend just a little unspecified amount more?

Actually, that is a little more than "creative". It would have to be "magic" for that sort of thinking to work.

Here's a hint, Andykins: You, Krugman, Cone, Obama, Geithner, and other wishful thinkers on our economy have no magical powers.

You just have your economic snake oil.

Andrew Brod

You're a lovely human being, Bubba.

The comments to this entry are closed.