the conceit of central banks

[rwh11385]

lol my myopic (blind) friend
governments will never embark on a path of austerity as a choice of free will, it is in fact forced upon them because of their own actions (overspending). actually funny you don't know this. its really pretty simple and obvious.
do you actually think greece, portugal etc chose massive spending cuts on their own as a strategy. that greece would actually choose to be in a 6 year depression as a strategy by central government planners?
LOL

Riiiiiiiight.

Did the US get forced into austerity by the market, or was it Republicans aimed with the economic conclusions of two people who were unable to correctly update Excel formulas?

Once again, when confronted with a question you can't answer, you simply avoid it. Classic RWNJ logic at hand. Calling me blind, stating something as fact even when it isn't, using the logical fallacy of begging the question, etc does not actually defend your point but underlines how horrid your comprehension of logic and reasoning is and how you go about life in a cloud of bias.

[gwb72tii]

you alledge the US is in an austerity economy? really? really?
you want to rethink this statement?

the (your) argument is whether markets force governments into austerity or not.
if you look at the most recent poster child Greece, yes, the markets forced it upon the people of Greece for over spending. the bond market finally priced the government out of the ability to issue bonds due to high yields due to increasing default risk.
the lender of last resort, the IMF and the EU, demanded austerity (reduced spending) as a condition to obtaining funding. is was a consequence of over spending. this has happened to other countries as well.

it is not a tactic any government chooses to do.

and i'd submit that to any rational person with a brain, reducing US government spending so we don't have to borrow from the likes of China is not austerity. it's called common sense.
but to a good progressive like you robert, keynes is the man, even though he's been proven wrong. LOL

[Fusion]

"Austerity" - a word seldom used before 2008 - was actually a requirement for countries to join the EU/Euro monetary zone. Although that "requirement" was pretty much a false alarm and wasn't regarded as a requirement for countries like Greece or Italy, way back when.
Back then I think they called it reasonable spending and the decisive number was the debt to GDP ratio. I don't recall the consecutive low percentages they would've liked to see but today there wouldn't be an EU if they'd stuck to it, or it would be much smaller.

[rwh11385]

you alledge the US is in an austerity economy? really? really?
you want to rethink this statement?

the (your) argument is whether markets force governments into austerity or not.
if you look at the most recent poster child Greece, yes, the markets forced it upon the people of Greece for over spending. the bond market finally priced the government out of the ability to issue bonds due to high yields due to increasing default risk.
the lender of last resort, the IMF and the EU, demanded austerity (reduced spending) as a condition to obtaining funding. is was a consequence of over spending. this has happened to other countries as well.

it is not a tactic any government chooses to do.

and i'd submit that to any rational person with a brain, reducing US government spending so we don't have to borrow from the likes of China is not austerity. it's called common sense.
but to a good progressive like you robert, keynes is the man, even though he's been proven wrong. LOL

You want to allege that the last few years of the US being in a consistent panic about debt ceilings and deficits, and the resulting increases in taxes and cuts in spending isn't "policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two." Are you sure? Because it seems to be the direct definition of austerity in economics. During the recovery of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Not that worrying about deficits is a bad thing, it should be done. But it should be done with some intelligence, not simply taking a machete to spending as what was done with the sequester. And talking about current deficits, greatly depending on wars started by a prior administration and a decline in revenues from the recent recession, is silly when compared to the actual problem the country faces, a huge rise in mandatory spending we are facing. To bring the nation to the brink of default (several times) and shutting down government while ignoring mandatory spending is foolish. It doesn't help that the one person who is most vocal about mandatory spending and future deficits has his entire economic plan based on the flawed work of Reinhart and Rogoff.

You say that it is not a tactic that any government chooses to do... yet it is something that describes well the recent events. And quite ridiculous in the manner of which it was conducted... from the fiscal cliff to the current shutdown.

I'd submit that you have a complete lack of ability to properly discuss a topic like an educated grown-up so you rely on logical fallacies instead. The Common Sense Fallacy assumes its own logic and that it ought to be clear to anyone with a brain, but doesn't really stand up with any real proof besides that assumption. You include some Ad Hominem, calling me a progressive instead of making a good argument and then go with Guilt by Association by assuming my fondness for Keynes (even though I prefer Hayek and have stated such multiple times on the forum, but you don't seem to care at all about truth or facts). Finally, you treat this with the False Dilemma Fallacy, that things can only be black or white, because you can only process information on the most simple and basic levels instead of having a rich and complex understanding.

It is possible for someone to be greatly concerned with the future deficits of the country and is aware that much of the current deficits are temporarily depressed revenues and that the focus shouldn't be an unproductive series of bringing the country to the edge of default and have an extreme group hold the government hostage in order to just think about now instead of the more severe problem in the future. In your simple and close-minded approach, you group everyone who doesn't agree with you kooky view of the world as an enemy instead of being capable of realizing that this behavior as seen by the RWNJs in Congress will bring about a weakening of the GOP. It's hard to help too when any reference to the facts is treated as a lie because it doesn't match the pre-existing assumption, so the party continue to let the extremists dominate and push away people who aren't crazy. They can choose to ignore these facts and keep up what they are doing, but then more shocks like Election 2012 are going to occur more often. And if they ever admit there's an issue with their view versus reality, it may be too late.







But hey, no one can force you to act like an adult and be capable of solid reasoning or taking care to worry about things called facts.

[rwh11385]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/26/rogoff-reinhart-remorse-reconsider-austerity

Rogoff and Reinhart should show some remorse and reconsider austerity

Who's hurt the American economy most? The line-up features greedy bankers, lazy lawmakers, anxious executives and two more unusual suspects: well-respected economists.

Yet, suspicion has fallen on Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart for good reason. The pair wrote a 2010 economic study that was the economic equivalent of the Bush administration's spurious claims about Iraqi WMDs. It pushed nations into a war against government, and we may still be paying the price in unemployment and slow growth.

Now, the economists have responded with a stubborn, pouting defense that's as watery as their initial research, and it's worth calling them out on it.

For one thing, Reinhart and Rogoff insist that despite this "academic kerfuffle", austerity is sound policy. Their research provided austerity's pillars – supports built onflawed data, now fallen. For months, the International Monetary Fund has declared that austerity damages economies. Reinhart and Rogoff's refusal to let go may remind younger economists of the movie Mean Girls, in which one girl chides another for trying to make a nonsense word popular:

"Stop trying to make 'fetch' happen! It's not going to happen!"

Reinhart and Rogoff keep trying to make austerity happen. It's not going to happen.

The economists also imply that they're innocent academics whose stunning data was abused by evil politicians. They deplore the "politicization of economics". Like J Robert Oppenheimer, they're horrified research could be used to make a bomb.

"That paper, along with other research we have published, has frequently been cited – and, often, exaggerated or misrepresented – by politicians, commentators and activists across the political spectrum … As career academic economists … we find these attacks a sad commentary on the politicization of social science research. But our feelings are not what's important here."

Plaintive line about feelings aside, Reinhart and Rogoff are trying to distance themselves from politics. But Reinhart, at least, was not always a "career academic economist"; she spent much of the 1980s at the very un-academic Bear Stearns.

Importantly, neither complained about "politicization" when the US Senate often cited their work. Their site even brags about many political citations: they knew quite well when their idea was popular, but didn't decry misunderstandings at the time.

The disingenuousness goes on: they chose to be political. They went to Washington and sold austerity, hard. From a book by Senator Tom Coburn:

"Johnny Isakson … stood up to ask his question: 'Do we need to act this year? Is it better to act quickly?'

'Absolutely,' Rogoff said. 'Not acting moves the risk closer,' … 'You have very few levers at this point,' he warned us."

Similarly, when Reinhart testified to the Senate, she reiterated the note of fear, euphemistically calling "austerity" an "adjustment" – which is the equivalent of calling the Great Recession "the recent unpleasantness".

"The sooner our political leadership reconciles itself to accepting adjustment, the lower the risks of truly paralyzing debt problems down the road … Countries that have not laid the groundwork for adjustment will regret it."

Reinhart and Rogoff, the true economic fools... along with all of the politicians who used their work to support their call for austerity.

http://business.time.com/2013/05/01/austerity-strikes-back-budget-hawks-regroup-after-the-reinhartrogoff-affair/

Austerity Strikes Back: Budget Hawks Regroup After the Reinhart/Rogoff Affair

In recent years, we have had no shortage of pundits, politicians, and writers telling us of the economic doom — soaring interest rates, slower economic growth, and choking credit markets – facing the U.S. government if it doesn’t reign in its debt. Since the financial crisis, however, the U.S. has consistently experienced low interest rates, while a bevy of creditors have been ready to lend them money for next to nothing. And although the economy has grown somewhat slowly, there’s been scant evidence that this sluggishness is the result of high government debt.

Then, two weeks ago, the austerity argument suffered a major setback when a paper written by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff — which purported to show that countries with debt loads above 90% of GDP see a dramatic decline in economic growth — was found to be rife with errors. It’s hard to underestimate how hard the unraveling of this seemingly arcane argument has hit the economic policy world.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...y-debated.html
Krugman Feud With Reinhart-Rogoff Escalates as Austerity Debated

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman refused to back down in a dispute with Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff over a 2010 paper they wrote that’s been used to justify austerity in the U.S. and Europe.

The Harvard economists said while they hadn’t advocated austerity in the immediate wake of the subprime crisis that began in 2007, “waiting 10 to 15 more years to deal with a festering problem is an invitation for decay, if not necessarily an outright debt crisis.”

Krugman’s assertions constituted “sloppy neglect on your part to check the facts before charging us with a serious academic ethical infraction,” Reinhart and Rogoff wrote.

Sick burn. But factual.


How good of policy can be written based upon the work of people who failed to properly update Excel formulas? Why did an entire party's economic plan rest of the work of two people whose work was never properly vetted? Why was this the root of an effort in the country to bring us to the brink? Maybe it was because the people who used the theory cared more about what they wanted to hear instead of actually hearing the truth...

[uofom3]

End QE and watch the economy grow - they have it exactly backwards.

[gwb72tii]

after $7 trillion in stimulus, this cartoon says it pretty well

[rwh11385]

after $7 trillion in stimulus, this cartoon says it pretty well

That you sheepishly change the subject yet again?

[nando]

Because surely, none of those problems were caused by any previous politicians or people who ran on a platform to make the president fail.

I also like the manufactured issues of benghazi thawing relations with iran, and Biden? At least the GOP has a strong imagination.

[gwb72tii]

Because surely, none of those problems werent caused by any previous politicians or people who ran on a platform to make the president fail.

Same shit different day for you nando
Let me guess

Bush!

[nando]

The earth is flat?

[gwb72tii]

here's a few more econ stats during the messiah's presidency. he's been in for 5 years, it's on his watch. have some intellectual honesty to to at least put some of the blame on your daddy

#1 When Barack Obama entered the White House, 60.6 percent of working age Americans had a job. Today, only 58.7 percent of working age Americans have a job.

#2 Since Obama has been president, seven out of every eight jobs that have been "created" in the U.S. economy have been part-time jobs.

#3 The number of full-time workers in the United States is still nearly 6 million below the old record that was set back in 2007.

#4 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers now make less than $30,000 a year.

#5 40 percent of all workers in the United States actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968.

#6 When the Obama era began, the average duration of unemployment in this country was 19.8 weeks. Today, it is 36.6 weeks.

#7 During the first four years of Obama, the number of Americans "not in the labor force" soared by an astounding 8,332,000. That far exceeds any previous four year total.

#8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

#9 When Obama was elected, the homeownership rate in the United States was 67.5 percent. Today, it is 65.0 percent. That is the lowest that it has been in 18 years.

#10 When Obama entered the White House, the mortgage delinquency rate was 7.85 percent. Today, it is 9.72 percent.

#11 In 2008, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 268 billion dollars. Last year, it was 315 billion dollars.

#12 When Obama first became president, 12.5 million Americans had manufacturing jobs. Today, only 11.9 million Americans have manufacturing jobs.

#13 Median household income in America has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

#14 The poverty rate has shot up to 16.1 percent. That is actually higher than when the War on Poverty began in 1965.

#15 During Obama's first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day.

#16 When Barack Obama entered the White House, there were about 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are more than 47 million Americans on food stamps.

#17 At this point, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless. This is the first time that has ever happened in our history. That number has risen by 57 percent since the 2006-2007 school year.

#18 When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.85. Today, it is $3.53.

#19 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

#20 Health insurance costs have risen by 29 percent since Barack Obama became president, and Obamacare is going to make things far worse.

#21 The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

#22 According to economist Tim Kane, the following is how the number of startup jobs per 1000 Americans breaks down by presidential administration...

Bush Sr.: 11.3

Clinton: 11.2

Bush Jr.: 10.8

Obama: 7.8

#23 In 2008, that total amount of student loan debt in this country was 440 billion dollars. At this point, it has shot up to about a trillion dollars.

#24 According to one recent survey, 76 percent of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

#25 During Obama's first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.

#26 The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.

#27 According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.

#28 As I wrote about the other day, American households are now receiving more money directly from the federal government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

#29 Under Barack Obama, the velocity of money (a very important indicator of economic health) has plunged to a post-World War II low.

#30 At the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve held $475.9 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds. Today, Fed holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds have skyrocketed past the 2 trillion dollar mark.

#31 When Barack Obama was first elected, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent. Today, it is up to 101 percent.

#32 During Obama's first term, the federal government accumulated more new debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.

#33 When you break it down, the amount of new debt accumulated by the U.S. government during Obama's first term comes to approximately $50,521 for every single household in the United States. Are you able to pay your share?

[rwh11385]

here's a few more econ stats during the messiah's presidency. he's been in for 5 years, it's on his watch. have some intellectual honesty to to at least put some of the blame on your daddy

#1 When Barack Obama entered the White House, 60.6 percent of working age Americans had a job. Today, only 58.7 percent of working age Americans have a job.

#2 Since Obama has been president, seven out of every eight jobs that have been "created" in the U.S. economy have been part-time jobs.

#3 The number of full-time workers in the United States is still nearly 6 million below the old record that was set back in 2007.

#4 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers now make less than $30,000 a year.

#5 40 percent of all workers in the United States actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968.

#6 When the Obama era began, the average duration of unemployment in this country was 19.8 weeks. Today, it is 36.6 weeks.

#7 During the first four years of Obama, the number of Americans "not in the labor force" soared by an astounding 8,332,000. That far exceeds any previous four year total.

#8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

#9 When Obama was elected, the homeownership rate in the United States was 67.5 percent. Today, it is 65.0 percent. That is the lowest that it has been in 18 years.

#10 When Obama entered the White House, the mortgage delinquency rate was 7.85 percent. Today, it is 9.72 percent.

#11 In 2008, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 268 billion dollars. Last year, it was 315 billion dollars.

#12 When Obama first became president, 12.5 million Americans had manufacturing jobs. Today, only 11.9 million Americans have manufacturing jobs.

#13 Median household income in America has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

#14 The poverty rate has shot up to 16.1 percent. That is actually higher than when the War on Poverty began in 1965.

#15 During Obama's first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day.

#16 When Barack Obama entered the White House, there were about 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are more than 47 million Americans on food stamps.

#17 At this point, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless. This is the first time that has ever happened in our history. That number has risen by 57 percent since the 2006-2007 school year.

#18 When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.85. Today, it is $3.53.

#19 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

#20 Health insurance costs have risen by 29 percent since Barack Obama became president, and Obamacare is going to make things far worse.

#21 The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

#22 According to economist Tim Kane, the following is how the number of startup jobs per 1000 Americans breaks down by presidential administration...

Bush Sr.: 11.3

Clinton: 11.2

Bush Jr.: 10.8

Obama: 7.8

#23 In 2008, that total amount of student loan debt in this country was 440 billion dollars. At this point, it has shot up to about a trillion dollars.

#24 According to one recent survey, 76 percent of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

#25 During Obama's first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.

#26 The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.

#27 According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.

#28 As I wrote about the other day, American households are now receiving more money directly from the federal government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

#29 Under Barack Obama, the velocity of money (a very important indicator of economic health) has plunged to a post-World War II low.

#30 At the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve held $475.9 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds. Today, Fed holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds have skyrocketed past the 2 trillion dollar mark.

#31 When Barack Obama was first elected, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent. Today, it is up to 101 percent.

#32 During Obama's first term, the federal government accumulated more new debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.

#33 When you break it down, the amount of new debt accumulated by the U.S. government during Obama's first term comes to approximately $50,521 for every single household in the United States. Are you able to pay your share?

What about having some integrity and cite sources instead of plagiarizing? Instead of thinking for yourself, you steal someone else's work as your own. But I guess that is not too dissimilar from you taking investing "insight" from your minions and presenting it to clients as your own.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-21/33-shocking-facts-which-show-how-badly-economy-has-tanked-under-obama

ZH, what a shocker.

[gwb72tii]

"Austerity" - a word seldom used before 2008 - was actually a requirement for countries to join the EU/Euro monetary zone. Although that "requirement" was pretty much a false alarm and wasn't regarded as a requirement for countries like Greece or Italy, way back when.
Back then I think they called it reasonable spending and the decisive number was the debt to GDP ratio. I don't recall the consecutive low percentages they would've liked to see but today there wouldn't be an EU if they'd stuck to it, or it would be much smaller.

thank you
but in rwh's krugman laced fantasy world, having to reign in overspending is really austerity. its greece and others formulating how to throw their populations into permanent recession/depressions, just for the fun of it all.
amazing economic insight from bobby. did you actually graduate roberto?
and greece facing 13% sovereign debt rates meant what exactly bob? how much the world loved greece and wanted them to continue their overspending that your daddy krugman thinks is the road to prosperity?
wow

[gwb72tii]

What about having some integrity and cite sources instead of plagiarizing? Instead of thinking for yourself, you steal someone else's work as your own. But I guess that is not too dissimilar from you taking investing "insight" from your minions and presenting it to clients as your own.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-21/33-shocking-facts-which-show-how-badly-economy-has-tanked-under-obama

ZH, what a shocker.

nice ad hominem attack from the master. but oh so predictable.

and attacking me for using data off the web is particularly rich bob, coming from the current cut and paste master of the r3v