Support NeoGAF

[Avon Barksdale]

First post of the season:

SEAN FUCKING COUTURIER BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!

Wrong thread, LOL.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

conservatives have twisted this quote

“We were directed at the time . . . to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election,” David Nieland, the lead investigator on the Colombia case for the DHS inspector general’s office, told Senate staffers, according to three people with knowledge of his statement.

into vindication and proof for the #bengahzi #irs #fastandfurious conver ups

#mostcorruptadministration

Best line from the story

The Post sent two reporters to Cartagena but were unable to locate the woman.

good use of bezo's money sending two reporters to colombia to find a prostitute


in summary

a 25 year old dude may or may not have had sex with a colombian prostitute, this is proof of a benghazi coverup

 

[benjipwns]

when Obama drives the deficit ... down

What did he have to do with it? Congress' decision to operate only on continuing resolutions and not budgets while not passing much of anything else is the key contributor here.

 

[kehs]

 

[AntoneM]

What did he have to do with it? Congress' decision to operate only on continuing resolutions and not budgets while not passing much of anything else is the key contributor here.

True, it's not like any spending cuts were ever enacted or that reduced unemployment reduces the amount of government expenditures.

Same o'l do nothing Obama.

 

[benjipwns]

The spending cuts that Congress enacted?

 

[Aaron Strife]

The spending cuts that Congress enacted?

You think Romney would have been ok with tax increases?

 

[zero shift]

What the hell is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"? I thought progressive just replaced the world liberal because the word liberal became a slur, but I guess I am wrong?

 

[CygnusXS]

What the hell is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"? I thought progressive just replaced the world liberal because the word liberal became a slur, but I guess I am wrong?

Progressivism is a type of liberalism, but only one of a broad spectrum of "liberal" ideologies.

You're thinking of the particular US uses of the terms.

 

[benjipwns]

Then I guess we'll just credit Obama for six of the top nine deficits in American history, with the other three being 1943-1945.

A former President called this the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Then I guess we'll just credit Obama for six of the top nine deficits in American history, with the other three being 1943-1945.

A former President called this the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Does that mean in sixty years, most people will consider Obama one of the best President's, aside from a few kooks who everybody looks at weird while they rant? Then I'll take it.

 

[benjipwns]

What the hell is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"? I thought progressive just replaced the world liberal because the word liberal became a slur, but I guess I am wrong?

A liberal wants limited, controlled, government with expansive individual rights including strong private property rights and thus low taxes, minimal welfare programs, etc.

A progressive wants a powerful state to twist the dregs of society to the whims of the betters. So they support most anything that expands the power of the "betters" over the masses.

There's a cultural alignment between the two in that both liberals and progressives are generally fine with abortion, homosexuals, PD, birth control, etc.

 

[Black Mamba]

Then I guess we'll just credit Obama for six of the top nine deficits in American history, with the other three being 1943-1945.

A former President called this the soft bigotry of low expectations.

He inherited the large deficit.

The tax raises went a long way to closing the deficit.

Regardless, we should have increased the deficit a lot more.

 

[benjipwns]

He inherited the large deficit.

That he helped make bigger after spending years and millions of dollars seeking the responsibility for it. (While criticizing it!)

But, I'm trying to minimize the blame here on the poor guy.

 

[JesseEwiak]

That he helped make bigger after spending years and millions of dollars seeking the responsibility for it. (While criticizing it!)

But, I'm trying to minimize the blame here on the poor guy.

Why should he be blamed? The deficit should've been larger to help the population at large.

 

[Black Mamba]

There might be a worse idea than cutting spending during a depression, but I doubt it.

The fundamental economic question of the last five years has been a simple one: how much does stimulus work? The answer, according to a new paper by Daniel Riera-Crichton, Carlos Vegh, and Guillermo Vuletin, is much more than we previously thought. And that means austerity has also hurt more than we thought — so much so that it might even be self-defeating.

That's right: cutting spending in a slump might actually make debt problems worse.

It's all about the fiscal multiplier. Stimulus, you see, is measured by how much one dollar of government spending increases GDP. But in a normal economy, it doesn't. That's because the Federal Reserve has its inflation target that it's determined to hit (or at least not overshoot). Government spending, though, can flood the economy with money, raising prices in the process. So the Fed, in turn, would either raise rates to offset this spending it doesn't want, or wouldn't cut rates like it otherwise would have.

Either way, the Fed's actions would keep the economy from being any bigger with more government spending than it would be without it.

But this calculus changes when there's a recession, especially if interest rates are at zero. In that case, the Fed wouldn't want to neutralize stimulus spending. So GDP would grow at least as much as spending does — what economists call a multiplier of one — and maybe more since there could be spillover effects.

Think about it like this: spending money on roads and bridges might boost the economy more than just the money the government directly spends. That's because the newly-paid construction workers will go out and spend their money too — and so on, and so forth. Indeed, even the oh-so-orthodox International Monetary Fund estimates that the fiscal multiplier might be as high as 1.7 right now.

Riera-Crichton, Vegh, and Vuletin took this analysis a step further. They focused squarely on countries that, between 1986 and 2008, had both been in a recession and increased spending. This last point is critical. Stimulus, remember, is supposed to be countercyclical: the government spends more when the economy shrinks. But historically-speaking, countries have actually cut spending about half the time that they've been in a slump. So counting all that austerity as "stimulus," as most do, gives us a misleadingly low estimate of the multiplier, something like 1.3. But it turns out, based on this new better sample, that the multiplier is really around 2.3 during a garden-variety recession, and 3.1 during a severe one.

That's not quite a free lunch, but, economically-speaking, it's a free mid-morning snack.

This leaves us in an upside-down world where smaller deficits might actually make our debt problems worse. When interest rates are zero, spending cuts can cripple the economy so much that GDP falls more than the government saves. And that means the debt-to-GDP ratio might increase even though government spending is decreasing — like it has in Greece. That's why the IMF thinks infrastructure spending would almost pay for itself right now, and why Larry Summers and Brad DeLong have been saying the same for years now.

We can't afford austerity right now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...been-an-even-bigger-disaster-than-we-thought/

 

[benjipwns]

Why should he be blamed? The deficit should've been larger to help the population at large.

Ask Aaron and Antoine, they're the ones wanting to toss the deficit dropping all on Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...been-an-even-bigger-disaster-than-we-thought/

Man, the Washington Post is now down to publishing religious gibberish to promote trickle down economics, they must be really hurting from the Vox exodus.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Deficit started at 1.4 tril and kept going down while he was in office... Dunno where you're getting this notion that it ever increased during his time unless you count the first deficit as his own (it was Bush's budget technically).

The debt increased though.

 

[benjipwns]

(it was Bush's budget technically).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

 

[Black Mamba]

Man, the Washington Post is now down to publishing religious gibberish to promote trickle down economics, they must be really hurting from the Vox exodus.

huh? Advocating more spending is related to trickle down economics?

And there's a link to a study in there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget

Almost everything spent in the spending for 2009 was passed by Bush.

Most of the ARRA did not kick in til the 2010 and 2011 budgets.

Your own link says it only resulted in $200 billion of total deficit (not spending, just deficit).

 

[zero shift]

A liberal wants limited, controlled, government with expansive individual rights including strong private property rights and thus low taxes, minimal welfare programs, etc.

A progressive wants a powerful state to twist the dregs of society to the whims of the betters. So they support most anything that expands the power of the "betters" over the masses.

There's a cultural alignment between the two in that both liberals and progressives are generally fine with abortion, homosexuals, PD, birth control, etc.

I should have specified that I meant "liberal" in the American sense.

 

[pigeon]

I don't understand why this argument is even happening.

a. The deficit is going down because the economy is improving.
b. Since the deficit doesn't matter, this is a topic of no interest.
c. The only reason we're discussing it is because you're buying into conservative talking points aimed at shrinking the size of the government. Deficit hawkery:Randianism::Welfare enforcement:racism.

 

[benjipwns]

huh? Advocating more spending is related to trickle down economics?

And there's a link to a study in there...

Uh, yeah. It's the very essence of trickle down economics.

Almost everything spent in the spending for 2009 was passed by Bush.

Most of the ARRA did not kick in til the 2010 and 2011 budgets.

So then it IS wrong to attribute government spending and deficits singlehanded to individual Presidents based solely on the years of their terms of office.

I don't understand why this argument is even happening.

Lots of defenders of Congress in PoliGAF apparently.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't understand why this argument is even happening.

a. The deficit is going down because the economy is improving.
b. Since the deficit doesn't matter, this is a topic of no interest.
c. The only reason we're discussing it is because you're buying into conservative talking points aimed at shrinking the size of the government. Deficit hawkery:Randianism::Welfare enforcement:racism.

I'm just corrected facts. Of course I already mentioned earlier that the deficit is too small right now

 

[Black Mamba]

Uh, yeah. It's the very essence of trickle down economics.

No, you have it completely backwards.

Trickle down was a belief that tax cuts, regulation cuts, and spending cuts would generate growth. Not spending increases. Spending increases, at least during economic downturns, is Keynesian.

So then it IS wrong to attribute government spending and deficits singlehanded to individual Presidents based solely on the years of their terms of office.

I don't think you should blame an entire budget on any President. After all, there are mandatory payments (SS, medicare, etc) in them and then there are economic downturns and other things.

But facts need to be correct. Bush signed off on over 90% of the 2009 budget. Obama will almost certainly do the same for the 2017 budget. 2009 is under Bush's term, 2001 is under Clinton, and so on.

Also remember, the 2009 fiscal year started on October 1, 2008. Not the first of January.

 

[benjipwns]

No, you have it completely backwards.

Trickle down was a belief that tax cuts, regulation cuts, and spending cuts would generate growth. Not spending increases. Spending increases, at least during economic downturns, is Keynesian.

Deficits are.

Tax cuts can create deficits just as well as spending increases. Reagan and Bush were perfect Keynesians because they did both.

In either case, the notion is that money aggregated (from the lower classes) at the top and then distributed politically will "trickle down" and benefit the lower classes. It's bunk, especially when you use the same thing as an independent and dependent variable.

But facts need to be correct. Bush signed off on over 90% of the 2009 budget. Obama will almost certainly do the same for the 2017 budget. 2009 is under Bush's term, 2001 is under Clinton, and so on.

Also remember, the 2009 fiscal year started on October 1, 2008. Not the first of January.

But no 2009 budget was signed until March 2009. After ARRA was enacted. So we can't give Bush all the credit for saving the global economy can we?

My point was that the whole thing is silly since Congress didn't even pass budgets after that for Obama to sign or not. Nobody really did much of anything actively, Obama especially, for the deficits to come down they just did by circumstance. (Which ironically was Cheney's argument.)

I should have specified that I meant "liberal" in the American sense.

Mostly just means Democrat. But the affinity or usage of it as an epithet by a Limbaugh is the difference. "Conservative" without any definition is much more popular than "liberal" without any definition for whatever reason, so Democrats try to get away from it.

 

[Black Mamba]

Deficits are.

Tax cuts can create deficits just as well as spending increases. Reagan and Bush were perfect Keynesians because they did both.

No, this is incorrect. In trickle down theory, tax cuts lead to revenue increases and deficit reduction.

Of course, the theory is stupid.

You're also wrong to claim they're "perfect Keynesians." While it was Keynesian to cut taxes and raise spending, two things of note. Reagan increased taxes too (like on social security) which Keynesians would oppose and how you cut taxes matter (Keynesians argue against cutting at the top and specifically only want cuts at the bottom to drive consumer spending). Keynesian, yes, but far from perfect.

Bush was closer than Reagan, though.

But no 2009 budget was signed until March 2009. After ARRA was enacted. So we can't give Bush all the credit for saving the global economy can we?

No legal semantics thing called a "budget" was signed. There was still a budget. Money was spent and acquired in 2008 and 2009 before that budget was passed.

A budget is simply revenues minus expenditures. Bush signed a budget off that was estimated to spend $3.1 billion for fiscal year 2009. It was $400 billion higher because of automatic increases (ie unemployment) that was not predicted and a small amount of the ARRA.

And again, the ARRA almost entirely came into action during the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years.

Bush helped save the economy with TARP, Obama with ARRA and stuff.

My point was that the whole thing is silly since Congress didn't even pass budgets after that for Obama to sign or not. Nobody really did much of anything actively, Obama especially, for the deficits to come down they just did by circumstance. (Which ironically was Cheney's argument.)

The idea of an budget bill is silly. He passed appropriations/spending bills. A budget bill is nothing but some fake political thing. Spending bills is what matters.

And again, the fiscal cliff deal helped reduce the deficit as did the ACA, so it's not all "circumstances."



You are way too focused on an official piece of legislation that says "budget" on it. Those mean nothing. For someone who is always so critical of the "game of politics," you're being swept up in it all of a sudden.

 

[thepotatoman]

Deficits are.

Tax cuts can create deficits just as well as spending increases. Reagan and Bush were perfect Keynesians because they did both.

In either case, the notion is that money aggregated (from the lower classes) at the top and then distributed politically will "trickle down" and benefit the lower classes. It's bunk, especially when you use the same thing as an independent and dependent variable.

The economic theory of trickle down economics is not the same as the economic theory of stimulus. In its implementation, it happened to become a form of stimulus, but if they cut spending at the equal rate they cut taxes, it would not be stimulus while still being trickle down economics.

And part of keynesian theory is to slow growth when it's going too fast, which makes much of Reagan's and Bush's stimulus anti-keynesian too.

 

[benjipwns]

No, this is incorrect. In trickle down theory, tax cuts lead to revenue increases and deficit reduction.

Of course, the theory is stupid.

But it's the same theory. Revenue increases don't come from magic with tax cuts, they're supposed to come from the boosted economy. Same as deficit spending is supposed to boost the economy.

The "Cheneysian Theory" is that you can outpace the deficit with the boom (and thus revenues).

No legal semantics thing called a "budget" was signed. ... A budget bill is nothing but some fake political thing. Spending bills is what matters. ... You are way too focused on an official piece of legislation that says "budget" on it. Those mean nothing. For someone who is always so critical of the "game of politics," you're being swept up in it all of a sudden.

I cut out all the rest because I don't really have a disagreement, but I do have one here.

I think that the law should require Congress with passing a budget resolution just as it tasks the President with submitting one. It lets one party off the hook from having to make a formal statement regarding upcoming appropriations. Why have the President submit a budget proposal if Congress is just going to conveniently roll over the previous budget while adding new or changing appropriations later?

Essentially I'm arguing for it to be considered a supply bill. It's not anything actually binding but it represents the actual power of blocs.

And part of keynesian theory is to slow growth when it's going too fast, which makes much of Reagan's and Bush's stimulus anti-keynesian too.

Yeah, well, almost nobody's ever followed that part intentionally because it's not politically ideal unlike the other half.

 

[Black Mamba]

But it's the same theory. Revenue increases don't come from magic with tax cuts, they're supposed to come from the boosted economy. Same as deficit spending is supposed to boost the economy.

The "Cheneysian Theory" is that you can outpace the deficit with the boom (and thus revenues).

I don't know where to go from here. You're literally arguing Keynesian fiscal theory and "trickle-down economics" is the same. At no point does Keynesian policy argue to always cut taxes; in fact it often argues to increase taxes!

And no, you're still wrong about the boosted economy part. trickle-down economics was based on the Laffer curve which did not solely rely on tax decreases boosting the economy. There are numerous reasons such less shirking.

And again, who you reduced taxes on matter. They are completely different in this regard, as trickle-down economics says to reduce taxes on suppliers (corporate, capital gais, high income) and Keynesian on demanders (workers).

I cut out all the rest because I don't really have a disagreement, but I do have one here.

I think that the law should require Congress with passing a budget resolution just as it tasks the President with submitting one. It lets one party off the hook from having to make a formal statement regarding upcoming appropriations. Why have the President submit a budget proposal if Congress is just going to conveniently roll over the previous budget while adding new or changing appropriations later?

Essentially I'm arguing for it to be considered a supply bill. It's not anything actually binding but it represents the actual power of blocs.

I don't really care about this. As long as it's understood what a budget actually is (revenues minus expenditures) and nothing more.

Yeah, well, almost nobody's ever followed that part intentionally because it's not politically ideal unlike the other half.

Irrelevant. All this really means is that no one has actually enacted Keynesian policy properly, yet (which is exactly why we have had problems, but I digress).

 

[pigeon]

Under such a law, what would be the consequence of not passing a budget resolution?

I think the multiple veto points makes a supply bill system difficult to implement. It's hard to identify a result that somebody won't be motivated to force.

 

[benjipwns]

"Keynesian" and "trickle down" policy is based around the same fundamental assumption. That elite economic management leads to a rising tide that lifts all boats.

The Laffer Curve wasn't even created by Laffer, it's in The Means to Prosperity for freakin' sake, and Laffer credits it to ibn Khaldun.

Though in fairness, all Keynes really cared about was fixing the animal spirits by boosting the nonsensical concept of aggregate demand. The problem is people latched onto this because it says you can get something out of nothing. Which is why you can have such religious nonsense that purports to show how politics is more efficient than prices.

I mean a multiplier of 2 or 3? You've gotta be kidding me.

But more importantly it's easier to type Kenyesian, which, with a slight edit from an e to an a is what we should call Obama's economic policy.

Under such a law, what would be the consequence of not passing a budget resolution?

No Jello in the cafeteria. Special Eighth Amendment exemption.

 

[East Lake]

It seems to me like you stopped responding to the distinctions between the two, and now that it's elite management we're supposed to balk at it. Try something else?

Maybe people don't worship pricing and markets like some financial fundamentalist.

 

[benjipwns]

I always find the seeming projection of claiming someone "worships" prices/markets amusing.

As I explained the distinctions are meaningless. The underlying assumptions are the same in "both" theories. The only difference is in the propaganda and the fact that the "supply side" adds an additional step so as to always justify tax cuts.

Which is why Keynes can write:

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget. For to take the opposite view to-day is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more;—and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.

And still be entirely within his theory. There's no debate between the two sides that elites boosting aggregate demand politically either by cutting taxes to increase supply or deficit spending or just improving people's morale will improve the economy and thus trickle down the benefits of an improved economy to the lower classes.

They're just arguing over the best way to do something nonsensical.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Given that we have seen the actual benefits of government spending increases, I'm not sure how it's nonsense.

Also, you are framing with loaded language like "elites" rather than just acknowledging that there is a tax system and then discussing the best way to tune it.

I get that the libertarian view is that all of this is interference and thus "bad," but what I think libertarian thought has never ever addressed is the fact that even assuming completely free and fair markets, money is going to accumulate at the top and lead to political instability (and overreaction).

 

[benjipwns]

Given that we have seen the actual benefits of government spending increases, I'm not sure how it's nonsense.

When?

Also, you are framing with loaded language like "elites" rather than just acknowledging that there is a tax system and then discussing the best way to tune it.

So it's loaded language to be as accurate as possible? What's wrong with identifying the exploiting class?

is the fact that even assuming completely free a different fair markets, money is going to accumulate at the top and lead to political instability (and overreaction).

Assuming this is a fact (I don't see why it would be) why would you then seek to intentionally accumulate it at the top? I thought that was the problem you wanted to address?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's not accumulated at the top by progressive tax rates and government stimulus.

And yes, loaded language. You seem to be arguing against the power of government ("elites") and thus sidestepping the issue of the economic policy itself. As long as the government is "elite" you can dismiss what they do, since they are "elite" and therefore it's all wrong.

It's just simplistic and naive (and I guess disingenuous, since I don't think you're dumb).

You want to talk about limiting government power, that's a very different discussion than the best use of existing government power.

As far as stimulus working-- I'll point to the article and study linked above. Other than calling it "religious" you haven't really responded to it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Also, let me elaborate on the idea that a perfectly free market accumulates wealth at the top.

In any given competitive situation, which producer has the advantage-- the one with more capital, or the one with less?

Would you argue that free markets do not tend to oligarchy? Or is that a No True Scotsman thing? In which case, how do you prevent it from occurring? Government interference?

 

[benjipwns]

The United States has some of the most progressive tax rates in the world, enacted larger government stimulus, has the world's largest government, etc. and yet all we hear is talk about how we're entering a new Gilded Age ruled by the 0.1%. (Which was in reality a great time for broad wealth creation.)

Not just government elites, all corporate elites. When they misabuse their power for personal gain, yes, I consider it wrong.

I can't read the paper despite the link to a .pdf. (And despite NBER access.) But the idea of a positive multiplier is simply absurd on the face. Hows about I look for another avenue of getting to it to see how nonsensical it is and edit.

EDIT: Guess I don't have NBER access after all. For their papers anyway.

EDIT2: Fixed it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I do not understand how a positive multiplier is absurd on the face of anything. Money circulates. It doesn't take one hop and then stop.

How does current libertarian thinking address the abuse of monetary power? Unregulated markets tend to oligarchy, so what regulation?

 

[benjipwns]

Read the paper. Method is okay but they do some kinda unnecessary stuff for no clear reason. (Which is increasingly common I've noticed.) Lotta typos though. APK must have been their typist.

Problem is that it's still GIGO. But anyway as they state the only real takeaway is that under these assumptions (that multipliers improve the economy) different situations can result in different results.

I do not understand how a positive multiplier is absurd on the face of anything. Money circulates. It doesn't take one hop and then stop.

You confiscate actual produced wealth from someone, take a cut out of it to pay for overhead, then direct the remainder at something decided on by politics. (So okay, more overhead.) How could this possibly result, overall, in a multiplier of the original capital? Other than luck..

So best case, it'd average out to be zero, except that you're skimming off the top, and commonly "investing" in negative returns so it's much more likely the multiplier is negative.

Unregulated markets tend to oligarchy

They do? Why? Examples?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Lotta typos though. APK must have been their typist.

Dick move, benji.

 

[The Librarian]

 

[AntoneM]

The spending cuts that Congress enacted?

I didn't know congress could pass AND enact a budget without the president. Silly me.

 

[zero shift]

The United States has some of the most progressive tax rates in the world

Doesn't mean much if the people don't pay them.

enacted larger government stimulus

Wasn't big enough, but I will give respect where it deserves. America could have followed Europe's austerity model.

has the world's largest government

This is just untrue no matter how you slice it.

and yet all we hear is talk about how we're entering a new Gilded Age ruled by the 0.1%. (Which was in reality a great time for broad wealth creation.)

The early twentieth century was notorious for inequality. The great gains came mid-point of the twentieth century when the wealth was redistributed, which was complemented by high growth as well.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You confiscate actual produced wealth from someone, take a cut out of it to pay for overhead, then direct the remainder at something decided on by politics. (So okay, more overhead.) How could this possibly result, overall, in a multiplier of the original capital? Other than luck..

So best case, it'd average out to be zero, except that you're skimming off the top, and commonly "investing" in negative returns so it's much more likely the multiplier is negative.

Except all produced money isn't spent. In fact, an increasing amount of it is saved, especially as wealth concentrates at the top. Heck, a huge aspect of the 2008 meltdown was the pressure to find returns for an increasingly large amount of saved capital at a decent rate of return in the face of an unprecedentedly long period of low interest rates.

Government spending forces more *spending*. Period. If the governent took increasingly large amounts of taxes and put into into savings for everybody, that would be a huge issue.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Less-regulated markets historically tended to oligarchy, hence the trust-busting of the industrial age. It's not theoretical, it's what actually occurred.

It's also somewhat common sense, since once starts winning at capitalism, one has increasing advantages. It's only an analogy, but a short-stacks player is not likely to beat a player with huge stacks at Poker, regardless of skill.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

. APK must have been their typist.

This is what I get for posting on my phone half the time and being a horrible speller in general. :-/ lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You confiscate actual produced wealth from someone, take a cut out of it to pay for overhead, then direct the remainder at something decided on by politics. (So okay, more overhead.) How could this possibly result, overall, in a multiplier of the original capital? Other than luck..

So best case, it'd average out to be zero, except that you're skimming off the top, and commonly "investing" in negative returns so it's much more likely the multiplier is negative.


They do? Why? Examples?

"actual produced wealth?" that's a large assumption and one that's clearly not true for a large portion of taxed wealth.

right libertarianism is annoying as all hell because it presupposes and hold private property rights to be inherent. Left libertarianism is much more intellectually consistent because it actually starts and interrogates where this idea comes from.

I think that's what libertarians in the US come accross as such phony frauds. They're not concerned about oppression or wealth concentration since they're intent on making sure people, if they so choose, can hold on to their gains no matter how ill-gotten. Its not freedom from oppression, its freedom from one oppression the "oppression" of democratic control of the nature's wealth.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

One last point, is that if your stimulus spending is done on a deficit, then you also aren't taking money out of the economy in the first place. Depending on when it's paid back, the resultant economic growth and inflation may make that a bargain, depending on the multiplier.

Which is the point, right? In a booming recovery, that will be a net loss because your stimulus is going to have diminishing returns. In a deep recession, it will have a huge effect.