What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, unfortunately most states have a law saying that you have to balance the budget and when the Unions won't budge, Democrat voters get hurt, as they do in the economy they voted for and yet they still bitch like Bush was back for his third term, hell, now they're near rioting...

Obama, ACORN, Marx and Alinsky sure do real good work!

 

[Beco]

Actually, private companies added 104,000 jobs in October, while the government cut 24,000, mostly at the state level.

Thank you to the Jen-morons advocating cutting public sector jobs.

Jen-morons? Public sector can't afford to keep the workers....they've been laying off steady since the beginning of 2010...that had to happen

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The 99 weekers run out in January...

Maybe then they'll occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as ACORN's Squirrels



come



home

to ROOST!​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If you were given $1,000, would you spend it immediately or place it in your bank account for future consumption? How about if you were given $1 million? One trillion? At what point would you douse your pile of newly acquired pile of greenbacks in lighter fluid and set them ablaze, as all your possible wants have been satisfied?
Human demand is infinite. As economist Ludwig von Mises theorized nearly a century ago, people act in order to achieve ends. If all wants are satisfied, then man does not act.

If you have had the pleasure of listening to mainstream economists in the higher reaches of academia or on the New York Times editorial page, you have been told that the current economic slump in the U.S. is due to a lack of aggregate demand. The conventional wisdom goes like this: consumers, who are deleveraging large amounts of accumulated debt, have cut down on spending. Businesses see a lack of demand and are reluctant to invest in new equipment and hiring. Therefore, the government must take up the slack. How else will the overly simplified macroeconomic formula of consumption + investment + government = GDP be maximized?

Since consumer expenditures make up 70% of the economy, the "lack of aggregate demand" explanation behind economic slumps seems simple enough. To Keynesians, the economy is a circular machine than just needs a measly trillion dollar injection to spin faster.

But herein lies the problem. Economics is called a dismal science not because of its simplicity, but because of its complexity. [Don't tell that to Zandi! A_J]

If Congress could just spend endless amounts of money to supplement consumption, then the Great Depression would have ended a decade sooner and the current unemployment rate wouldn't be hovering around 9%. As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw recently pointed out, not enough juicing of aggregate demand is never the whole story:

University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan offers a challenge to that view. Casey points out that there is a regular surge in teenage employment during the summer months because more teenagers are available to work (that is, the supply of their labor has increased). That is no surprise: It is normal supply and demand in action. But if aggregate demand were the main constraint on employment, this increase in supply should not translate into higher employment during deep recessions such as this one. But it does!

What's at work here is the fundamental concept of Say's Law that Keynes failed to disprove: markets clear. A perceived lack of aggregate demand doesn't mean products won't get purchased. Every consumer good is bought if the price falls low enough. Producers must find this price in order to adopt a new production structure to begin meeting this demand. Most people aren't going to pass up a 36-inch television for $5 at Best Buy. Sure, the television producer may fail to garner a profit on this new sales price, but that is why price signals are so important. They tell producers the structure of production can be adjusted in order to meet this new equilibrium. Capital not allocated to producing 36-inch televisions means investment in more profitable operations.

Armchair economists like to assume that human action is predictable and calculable. But action, based solely on individual preference, isn't measurable with econometric formulae.

Increased production financed through accumulated savings drives sustainable growth. This goes hand in hand with entrepreneurial seeking of unmet demand, not aggregate demand in general. Steve Jobs didn't create the iPod because consumers were spending at Walmart. He speculated that there was a demand for a portable device that could store a massive amount of music, designed the product, determined the marginally profitable price it could be sold at, and decided whether or not to risk his capital and make the whole thing happen. He could have been wrong, but thankfully for all of us, he wasn't.

Keynesian focus on aggregate demand misses the big picture. Taken to its extreme conclusion, overconsumption can ultimately lead to higher prices as supply diminishes and production can't keep up. Inflation only exacerbates the situation as wages and prices eventually adjust after distorting the structure of production.

Meanwhile, the real barriers holding back economic growth are unacknowledged by government apologists acting as economists. The prospect is what Robert Higgs deems "regime uncertainty," where the threat of increased taxes and regulatory enforcement is simply tossed away with academic hand-waving. Artificially low interest rates from the Fed have disincentivized savings and pushed investment toward riskier assets. Capital becomes difficult to accumulate, and the economic pie is prevented from expanding.

Aggregate demand is the last vestige of economists who believe that prosperity is but a simple math formula away. Those who hold it truly believe that government spending on anything creates wealth. As Paul Krugman admitted:

As far as creating aggregate demand is concerned, spending is spending - public spending is as good as but also no better than private spending, spending on bombs is as good as spending on public parks.

Such a candid statement reveals the true nature of Keynesianism. Any merit it had as an economic theory has been replaced with providing cover for politicians to do what they do best: fund special interests. When digging ditches became a solution to joblessness, Keynesianism should have been relegated to the dustbin of history. Instead, it litters college textbooks to this day.

JamesE. Miller
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/its_not_aggregate_demand_stupid.html#ixzz1cpyLaK4x

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

While attention all week has been focused on Greece and their political crisis, Italy found itself in deep trouble trying to sell its government bonds.

Spiegel Online:

The renewed focus on Italy comes at the end of a week of euro-zone chaos, kicked off by Greek Prime Minister Giorgios Papandreou's Monday announcement that he was holding a referendum on the recently agreed to EU aid package for his country. Amid massive pressure from Berlin and Paris -- and the markets -- however, Papandreou backed away from those plans on Thursday.

Yet even as the turmoil in Athens dominated headlines this week, there were increasingly distressing indications that Rome may also be in trouble. For one, Italian borrowing costs soared earlier this week, with interest rates on sovereign bonds rising to 6.4 percent, perilously close to the mark which triggered emergency Italian bond purchases by the European Central Bank in August. Analysts consider a rate of 7 percent to be the level at which investors stop buying sovereign bonds.

Equally concerning are indications that the Berlusconi government may be close to collapsing. Several former Berlusconi loyalists published an open letter in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera on Thursday calling for a change at the top. One of the parliamentarians indicated that a rebellion could be mounted as early as next week, during a budgetary vote on Tuesday. Reuters reported on Thursday that Berlusconi told European leaders in Cannes that he would call a confidence vote within two weeks. The Italian prime minister has survived 53 votes of confidence since 2008, the last of which took place on Oct. 14.

Eroding Support for Berlusconi

The brewing crisis in Rome is of particular concern to European Union leaders. The Italian economy is the third largest in the 27-member bloc and the current euro backstop fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), would be insufficient were Italy to run into problems similar to those in Greece. Furthermore, the country is sitting on a mountain of debt worth 120 percent of its gross domestic product. Efforts to implement austerity measures, despite the recent passage of €54 billion in belt-tightening measures, have been spotty at best -- partially due to eroding support for Berlusconi from within his own governing coalition.

The political crisis in Italy has been feeding off the debt crisis and vice versa. The two are inexorably tied together which is very bad news given the instability of government and politics at this time.

French banks have been reducing their exposure to Italian debt but it's problematic whether they will be able to shed enough bad paper before some kind of crisis hits. That's because the political crisis is apt to drive up borrowing costs even further. Italy may become a victim of Sudden Sovereign Default Syndrome if the political crisis is prolonged and if the combined efforts of the EFSF, the central bank, and the IMF can't stabilize the Italian bond market.

While not a likely scenario, who can predict what's going to happen in the next few months? We've seen extraordinary gyrations in the markets as hope turns to despair, which then turns to hope again. We've seen two different Greek bailout plans, trouble in the bond markets of two of the largest economies in Europe in Spain and Italy, and the growing sense among political leaders that nothing they have done has helped resolve the crisis.

The only thing we have to go on is that so far, the euro zone has managed to muddle through. How long they can keep that up is anyone's guess.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/the_turn_of_italy_1.html#ixzz1cq1Nsa3a

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

JamesE. Miller
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/its_not_aggregate_demand_stupid.html#ixzz1cpyLaK4x

James E. Miller holds a BS in public administration with a minor in business from Shippensburg University, PA.

Now there's an "economic expert" for you.. The "Thinker" is scraping the bottom of the barrel for "classical Liberal" thinking on the subject of macroeconomics 101.

His opinion (and that is all it is) on the subject is just as valuable and insightful as yours is. I can understand why you value his opinion though Cap'n EchoChamber.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/the_turn_of_italy_1.html#ixzz1cq1Nsa3a

Now a Theater major weighs in on economics..

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ad hominem does not make it untrue...




Just dispute the argument, if you can, if you dare, if you're not totally stupid and just trying to hide it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Describe Say's Law for our amusement LT...




We'll wait...

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_4.pdf

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://mises.org/daily/4284


Pretty charts and everything. Author is not credible, he teaches economics...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Ad hominem does not make it untrue...

Just dispute the argument, if you can, if you dare, if you're not totally stupid and just trying to hide it.

Save the faux outrage over a little Ad Hominem Cap'n Disingenuous. Anyone that's been around for more than a week knows better having seen your own use of it on a daily basis.

If you're going to cite a theater major and someone with a BS in Public administration and a minor in Business as economic authorities then you're going to have to put up with a lot of pointing and laughing.

Their opinions are no more valuable than any other layman. Your only reason for citing them at all is your religious-like faith in their words.

As for a rebuttal of their opinion blogs, I'll let someone with actual cred in the area do that for me.
It’s the Aggregate Demand, Stupid
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

With the debt limit debate temporarily set aside, the Obama administration is talking about finding some way to create jobs and stimulate growth. But the truth is that there really isn’t much it can do and it knows it. There may be some small-bore things it can do without Congressional action that may help a little, but the operative word is “little.” The only policy that will really help is an increase in aggregate demand.

Aggregate demand simply means spending — spending by households, businesses and governments for consumption goods and services or investments in structures, machinery and equipment. At the moment, businesses don’t need to invest because their biggest problem is a lack of consumer demand, as a July 21 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York documented.

more here

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

So Bruce Bartlett's an economist now?

Or am I supposed to roll over because Zandi is "conservative?"

I guess I should not complain since Bruce is on the same page as the guy you dissed...

It's household spending that matters, not government.

Did you bother to read, or are you in a hurry?

Good day for a bike ride?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Describe Say's Law for our amusement LT...




We'll wait...

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_4.pdf

Still waiting...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Here's some help:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Say's_law

Some context:

The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

So you see, people got o college to learn to think critically, and a degree, any degree outside of the education campus indicates that you might be able to critically think about most anything...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Describe Say's Law for our amusement LT...

Ooo, LT.. That's the best you can do Cap'n Hypocrite?
Thanks, but I don't need your link to explain Say's to me.

Say's Law is basic supply side economic bullshit that "supply creates it's own demand" that has been proved not to work over and again.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Still waiting...

You expect me to hang on your every post?

Someone thinks pretty highly of themselves.
Not to mention that trying to declare victory prematurely is one of your nemesis LT's fatal flaws.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You expect me to hang on your every post?

Someone thinks pretty highly of themselves.
Not to mention that trying to declare victory prematurely is one of your nemesis LT's fatal flaws.

*chuckle*

Someone got his ass kicked...

Enjoy your bike ride!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

*chuckle*

So Bruce Bartlett's an economist now?

Or am I supposed to roll over because Zandi is "conservative?"

I guess I should not complain since Bruce is on the same page as the guy you dissed...

It's household spending that matters, not government.

Did you bother to read, or are you in a hurry?

Good day for a bike ride?

Actually, he's not.

"The federal government could increase aggregate spending by directly employing workers or undertaking public works projects. But there is no possibility of that given the political gridlock in Congress..."

he also advocates FED involvement..

"Fiscal policy could raise velocity and growth by getting money moving throughout the economy. But since that is not feasible, the Fed is the only game in town. Joseph Gagnon, a former Fed economist, says that it should immediately increase the money supply by $2 trillion and promise to keep increasing it until the economy has turned around."

Someone skimmed through and missed some major reasons for his putting the burden on consumers rather than government.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

*chuckle*

Someone got his ass kicked...

Enjoy your bike ride!

There you go again Cap'n.. Declaring victory, LT style.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You declared you were an idiot.



All I did was to point out that you were right. I also dismissed your source as a non-economist taking up a fallacy and saying that his team would do it right while your team is doing it wrong, because like merc, you want to place me on his time so that you can ad hominem by class/circumstance...

I even provided you the correct definition and the explanation of the fallacy.

 

[mercury14]

You declared you were an idiot.



All I did was to point out that you were right. I also dismissed your source as a non-economist taking up a fallacy and saying that his team would do it right while your team is doing it wrong, because like merc, you want to place me on his time so that you can ad hominem by class/circumstance...

I even provided you the correct definition and the explanation of the fallacy.

No, you hung your evidence on the economic opinion of a theater major and were outraged when others didn't take what you said at face value. Scroll up and review bro.

This is just more of the same AJ who proved that the stimulus didn't work because that's what a Canadian kid wrote in his homework.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Shut up Mr. Alt Master...

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=33735857&highlight=physician#post33735857

Can you prove the "Theater Major" wrong?

No, so you spew.

You are a liar.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fucking loon...




Get mama's broom...

 

[koalabear]

No, you hung your evidence on the economic opinion of a theater major and were outraged when others didn't take what you said at face value. Scroll up and review bro.

This is just more of the same AJ who proved that the stimulus didn't work because that's what a Canadian kid wrote in his homework.

Nice UD edit, you "two" seem to do that alot, MORON.