Keynsian spending

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
I read a recent Krugman column so this was on the brain. The basic Keynesian belief is when the econony is in trouble the gov't needs to step in and help the economy out with spending correct? Then when the econony is good we reduce spending.

So in our supposed good/excellent econony Krugman and our two Democratic Presidential candidates are proposing massive gov't spending on infrastructure.

What is the Keynesian argument for this other than a general belief that it's always a good time for more gov't spending?
 
Technically, the economy is still bad, and we could use the specific infrastructural maintenance, rather than just paying people to pick-up trash and dig ditches.
 
All that does is provide an excuse to continue to spend the money already budgeted for infrastructure on vote buying.
Surely you recall in the aftermath of Katrina that it was discovered that the billions budget for maintaining and improving the levees had been rerouted to social programs right?
 
I think spending was the right move in '08. At that point in an economy, businesses have no confidence, and there is a level of panic & fear which I think only gov't investment can counter.

But I'd tend to agree that now - even though things aren't great - it's time to look at where we can cut & start to act in a fiscally responsible way. It's actually a little dismaying to hear so little talk about the debt. Hillary hasn't mentioned it at all, and Trump has only given it some lip service.

To me, the debt is a far greater threat to us than ISIS, who they talk about all the time.
 
Dems don't care about the debt, and never will. The GOP is willing to cave on the debt, because Dems won't let them cut anything from entitlements, or to reform Social Security. Of course, now that Douchebag Donald is the GOP, it means that neither party cares.
 
Thing1 said:
I think spending was the right move in '08. At that point in an economy, businesses have no confidence, and there is a level of panic & fear which I think only gov't investment can counter.

But I'd tend to agree that now - even though things aren't great - it's time to look at where we can cut & start to act in a fiscally responsible way. It's actually a little dismaying to hear so little talk about the debt. Hillary hasn't mentioned it at all, and Trump has only given it some lip service.

To me, the debt is a far greater threat to us than ISIS, who they talk about all the time.
Click to expand...

The spending did nothing mainly because most of it went to paying union teachers who would otherwise have been laid off (along with the non union ones). And before you get started remember that they had been closing schools in these areas due to a declining student population.
When porkulous dried up they got laid off anyway as they were not needed to begin with.
 
Celticguy said:
The spending did nothing mainly because most of it went to paying union teachers who would otherwise have been laid off (along with the non union ones). And before you get started remember that they had been closing schools in these areas due to a declining student population.
When porkulous dried up they got laid off anyway as they were not needed to begin with.
Click to expand...

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what that bill was supposed to accomplish. It was never supposed to create careers or even long-term jobs. It was to get people employed at least until the worst of the crisis passed, whether by saving their jobs or creating new ones. And "porkulus" shouldn't be a slam. It was supposed to be for pork.
 
Thing1 said:
I think spending was the right move in '08. At that point in an economy, businesses have no confidence, and there is a level of panic & fear which I think only gov't investment can counter.

But I'd tend to agree that now - even though things aren't great - it's time to look at where we can cut & start to act in a fiscally responsible way. It's actually a little dismaying to hear so little talk about the debt. Hillary hasn't mentioned it at all, and Trump has only given it some lip service.

To me, the debt is a far greater threat to us than ISIS, who they talk about all the time.
Click to expand...

Debt?

What debt?

Didn't you hear? Obama paid down the debt with his phenomenal economic policies and roaring economy. You are a racist for claiming there is debt.
 
Thing1 said:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what that bill was supposed to accomplish. It was never supposed to create careers or even long-term jobs. It was to get people employed at least until the worst of the crisis passed, whether by saving their jobs or creating new ones. And "porkulus" shouldn't be a slam. It was supposed to be for pork.
Click to expand...

And it failed at that which is why they added "or saved" to the narrative. And as I pointed out, it failed at that as well.
 
Celticguy said:
And it failed at that which is why they added "or saved" to the narrative. And as I pointed out, it failed at that as well.
Click to expand...

They never added "saved." That was the measure set up w/ the CBO from the beginning. And it met the goals in terms of saved & created.

It's just a right-wing talking point that it "failed." It did what it said it was going to do.
 
What gets me here is that Trump, a Democrat, has said he will spend double the public money on infrastructure and "public investment" that Hillary will. I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised.
 
cawacko said:
I read a recent Krugman column so this was on the brain. The basic Keynesian belief is when the econony is in trouble the gov't needs to step in and help the economy out with spending correct? Then when the econony is good we reduce spending.

So in our supposed good/excellent econony Krugman and our two Democratic Presidential candidates are proposing massive gov't spending on infrastructure.

What is the Keynesian argument for this other than a general belief that it's always a good time for more gov't spending?
Click to expand...


The whole "government needs to step in during a slowing economy" is a myth perpetuated by statists and big government types. The government just takes. It must take out of the economy in order for it to do anything. So this notion that the government can "stimulate" the economy is farce that has been taught to too many generations.

If it were an effective means of economic growth then we should have GDP of over 10%. We do not.

Look at the great depression of 1920. People don't hear about it much because it flies in the face of statist goals. But, there was a pretty severe depression in 1920. What did Calvin Coolidge do? He cut government spending. The government did nothing. What did they economy do? It rebounded. Ever hear of the roaring 20s?

This notion that we can only thrive at the hands of some wizards of smart is a myth and you suffer for it economically, spiritually, culturally and most of all you erode your freedoms.

But, it gives you a personal sense of comfort so I guess that is something as long as you don't have to personally pay the piper
 
cawacko said:
What gets me here is that Trump, a Democrat, has said he will spend double the public money on infrastructure and "public investment" that Hillary will. I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Trump's proposals will cost almost as much as Hillary's. AND he is putting in a massive tax cut - he'll be worse for the debt, just based on the proposals.

He also said he'd eliminate the debt, which many economists say is impossible at t his point; and of course he offered no specifics on how.
 
Thing1 said:
Trump's proposals will cost almost as much as Hillary's. AND he is putting in a massive tax cut - he'll be worse for the debt, just based on the proposals.

He also said he'd eliminate the debt, which many economists say is impossible at t his point; and of course he offered no specifics on how.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the rest of his plan. I'm trying to understand why a supposed Republican is saying he wants to double public investment spending over what the democrat proposed.
 
Thing1 said:
They never added "saved." That was the measure set up w/ the CBO from the beginning. And it met the goals in terms of saved & created.

It's just a right-wing talking point that it "failed." It did what it said it was going to do.
Click to expand...

"Turns out there were no shovel ready jobs"
It did what Bo intended but it did nothing for which it was billed to do. Just the first in a long line of lies from bo.
 
Celticguy said:
"Turns out there were no shovel ready jobs"
It did what Bo intended but it did nothing for which it was billed to do. Just the first in a long line of lies from bo.
Click to expand...

Please. For starters, there WERE some shovel-ready jobs, just not as many as anticipated.

But it didn't matter. The idea was just to keep people working and get people working, to start to turn the economy. The economy was in a freefall. The private sector was supposed to take over, as it did - the jobs were never supposed to be careers or long-term. It didn't matter what they were, as long as people were working.

You guys spin it like it was supposed to save the economy on its own. What you forget is that all of you were predicting it would tank the economy further.
 
Let's all ignore the fact that the worst issue facing the Stimulus, was the rush to get money to each state that came begging.

There were quite a few Red states that created very few jobs, but used to money to balance their budgets.

Then they bragged about a balanced budget, while hailing the failure of the Stimulus.
 
This isn't about the stimulus. It's about why Keynesian supporters feel the need for massive public spending in a supposed good/excellent econony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top