Its a shame we couldn't debate longer. I never got around to your hideously stupid claim that FDR's election "hardly made a difference" when anyone with a computer could do a quick google search and find that both GDP and unemployment turned around, pretty much within the first 100 days of him taking office.
@sfhkjgd11what "when anyone with a computer could do a quick google search and find that both GDP and unemployment turned around"
Covered in the video. It's easy to grow when you're at the bottom. Besides, 100 days is hardly a long-term trend in economics! What about the YEARS of depression that went on after that? And if it only took 100 days, then why were all these New Deal programs even needed?
@shanedk have you seen the wikipedia article tying the depression to the gold standard. The sooner a country got off the gold standard the quicker it recovered.
@sfhkjgd11what "have you seen the wikipedia article tying the depression to the gold standard. "
That's hilarious. Did you see what happened when I actually read the studies you put up as supporting your stimulus? Do you ever actually do any research before talking out of your ass?
Shane, buddy, allow me to save you some time. I have actually gone through these comments and You have actually given this guy 4 strikes.
you never gave him a strike for "#2" the strikes were 1. saying you quotemined him 2. saying that a half-sentence quote is quotemining and 3. saying you implied the TYT video proved the stimulus created jobs.
Later, you called him a liar for his "#2" point, but didn't give him a strike. He convinced you to remove a strike that wasn't there.
@sfhkjgd11what Hoo boy, Krugman again. All you have is a graph that showing that both public and private debt increased before the recession, at which point private debt dropped (as people tightened their belts, like they have do to in a recession) but government just went on grabbing up debt with impunity! Why you or Krugman think that means the government is doing the right thing is a reason only to be found in a severely deluded mind!
@shanedk "Why you or Krugman think that means the government is doing the right thing is a reason only to be found in a severely deluded mind!'"
Krugman is clearly an apologist. The Government decides what it is going to do and he tries to give it an academic basis after the fact. Kind of like Church pseudo philosophers did in the middle ages.
@johnrainrules They remind me more of court astrologers, who would always predict that what the King did was well and good and would bring prosperity. Any astrologer who predicted that the King's actions would fail would be executed!
@shanedk Just to be clear, in the graph, the red doesn't overlap the blue, rather the red is added on top of the blue. So the graph shows that the total amount of debt (red+ blue) is pretty much the same throughout the decade, the only difference is that, in the recession, the blue fell and the red increased at such a rate that Red+Blue was still the same, but the composition different.
So the idea is that government debt has replaced private sector debt almost $ for $.
@sfhkjgd11what Except clearly it hasn't! At the end of the graph total debt is about 10 percentage points higher than at the start! And he's also using the bogus GDP metric so you're NOT looking at total debt, but debt as a percentage of GDP, which FELL at the time! He DELIBERATELY chose a metric that would make it look as if the debt wasn't growing by as much as it was. It's COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Feyrer and Sacerdote " A cross state analysis suggests that one additional job was created by each $170,000 in stimulus spending. Time series analysis at the state level suggests a smaller response with a per job cost of about $400,000. These results imply Keynesian multipliers between 0.5 and 1.0"
A multiplier less than 1 means even Keynesians admit they cost more jobs than they save.
@sfhkjgd11what And Milton Friedman showed the Multiplier effect was flawed by showing the taxation or debt or inflation caused by the spending would counteract the multiplier enough that the money in private hands prior to Government interference will always have more of a multiplier effect.
@sfhkjgd11what I see, you took this from a Washington Post article and listed all the ones that claimed it did work while not listing all the ones that claimed it didn't.
Wilson refers to Daniel Wilson of the Federal Reserve. This study came to the conclusion that states with higher aid from the Feds had more jobs. It also states it didn't create as many jobs as was expected and may not have been worth the debt. It claimed every job cost $400,000
@johnrainrules "I see, you took this from a Washington Post article and listed all the ones that claimed it did work while not listing all the ones that claimed it didn't."
True, but you need to understand the context. Shanedk asked me to find ONE study that said the stimulus created jobs; I never said that there weren't any studies saying that it killed jobs, but he certaintly implied that there was no evidence it created any.
So given this "name ONE" challenge, I think I met it.
@sfhkjgd11what "So given this "name ONE" challenge, I think I met it."
Except you didn't. You mindlessly regurgitated study citations without understanding what they said.
Besides, that WASN'T the challenge. Here is what I said: "Can you find an ACTUAL AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST predicting hyperinflation before 2012? Can you find ANY support for your claim that the stimulus protected jobs other than a correlation fallacy?"
So not only have you NOT done this, you're STILL A LIAR!
@sfhkjgd11what Still haven't read Dr. Thomas Woods, huh?
First off: there hadn't been a recession for TWENTY YEARS before then, and not another one for FOURTEEN YEARS after that. Second: Losses during that recession was only .1% of GDP. Third: States had prohibited branch banking which exacerbated it; Canada didn't experience it as a result. Fourth: The Treasury had just imposed a stiff tariff on imported gold (we were still on the gold standard). (cont'd)
(cont'd) They attempted to fix that by buying the gold at less than its market value. Then they stopped giving specie for the certificates. Fifth: government had fixed the price of silver and when its value dropped due to increased mining and India demonetizing silver capital went kablooey. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act exacerbated this. Sixth: The National Banking Act of 1862 had created a fractional reserve system and this failed (as it always does), resulting in bank runs.
@sfhkjgd11what Krugman is going back and retro-fitting things to fit his preconceived conclusions. That's confirmation bias. Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will tell you that you have to specify your criteria BEFORE you go examining the data, and Krugman doesn't do that. I mean, WTF is so special about a "V-shape"? Krugman doesn't say, but it fits his conclusion so it MUST be true.
@shanedk Krugman has explained the V-shape numerous times and he DOES specify his criteria ahead of time. Notice how he has been saying that setting interest rates at zero wouldn't lead to inflation while you Austrians have been wrong time and time again?
@sfhkjgd11what "Krugman has explained the V-shape numerous times"
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
"and he DOES specify his criteria ahead of time"
Asserting it doesn't make it true. He looked at them FIRST, THEN found a difference and ran with it--even though there's ABSOLUTELY NO THEORY WHATSOEVER to explain why that would be the case.
"you Austrians have been wrong time and time again?"
@shanedk ME: "Notice how he has been saying that setting interest rates at zero wouldn't lead to inflation while you Austrians have been wrong time and time again?"
You: [deliberately deletes the part about Austrians wrongly predicting hyperinflation]
when have we ever been wrong! GRRR! LOL, nice quote mine.
But here is a great example, tinyurl(.)com/85bp45q
@shanedk 1. you quoted HALF of a sentence. Without the other half of the sentence the quote is out of context. The austrians have been wrong about hyper inflation, you can't quote HALF a sentence where I say the austrians were wrong and then turn around and say "name once!" that is a quote mine.
2. textbook ad hominem
3. Never said she was an austrian, I was just giving an example of austrians being wrong (about stimulus killing jobs).
@sfhkjgd11what "Without the other half of the sentence the quote is out of context."
NOT when the post is right above it and NOT with YouTube's 500-character limit. This is a FUCKING LIE that so far I've only seen creationists and moon hoaxers resort to. SECOND warning.
I wanted you to name one time when the Austrians were wrong. That should have been a straightforward thing. But you KNEW your answer was going to be bogus so the only thing you could do is try and discredit me.
@shanedk You: Paul Krugman doesn't make predictions he only goes back and regresses things
Me: Not necessarily, he predicted that setting interest rates at zero wouldn't lead to hyper inflation, something you austrians have been wrong about time and time again!
You: Name ONE time when we were wrong!
Do you see my frustration:
Anyways here is a video of an austrian predicting hyperinflation by 2012
@johnrainrules if If could I would have put "in just a few years" in italics.
I was addressing shanedk's point that the recession would have been over in a short period of time without government intervention. I was saying that they couldn't pay it off in "just a few years" NEVER implying that they should just increase debt.
@sfhkjgd11what "The austrians have been wrong about hyper inflation"
You have yet to show ANY Austrians specifically predicting hyperinflation before 2012. In fact, Austrians KNOW that you can't predict the timing of these things; only the sequence.
And now you're making an ad hominem recursus as well. Unless you're just genuinely ignorant of what an ad hominem is.
No, not in any way, shape, or form. You really don't know your fallacies, do you? Ad hominem tu quoque is when you essentially accuse someone of hypocrisy, basically saying, "Yeah, I do that, but so do you!" Ad hominem recursus is when you falsely accuse someone else of committing an ad hominem for the purposes of discrediting them, thereby committing an ad hominem yourself.
@shanedk actually, if you just balked at a creationist site without addressing their claims specifically that WOULD be an ad hominem attack!
Besides, AT WORST TYT is just regurgitating what the CBO and several peer reviewed economists before them had said, its not like TYT are the only ones who think the stimulus worked!
@sfhkjgd11 So how does the Government intervene without causing debt, and why do so many Nobel Prize winners have an I.Q, less than 75 according to you.
@johnrainrules I said people who think "It is absolutely wrong to think they could have paid it off in just a few years" was me advocating they should take on more debt as having an IQ below 75. No economists has misinterpreted that sentence other than you!
@sfhkjgd11what "No economists has misinterpreted that sentence other than you!"
Yet you advocated "government intervention" and lower mandated interest rates. Two ways of getting people to take on debt, stopping it from self liquidating.
That is why these bubbles keep getting bigger and bigger. Like coke heads taking more and more cocaine to get back to even.
@sfhkjgd11what "Never said she was an austrian, I was just giving an example of austrians being wrong"
If you're giving her an example of an Austrian economist being wrong, then you ARE saying she's an Austrian economist! Otherwise you just have an example of Michele Bachmann being wrong.
@shanedk Me: Austrians claim the stimulus would kill jobs, here is a video showing how it has saved jobs.
You: UGHHH! this is a video showing michelle bachmann was wrong about the stimulus killing jobs GRRR she isn't an austrian GRRR show me a video that says the austrians were wrong about the stimulus killing jobs ARGGHH!!!
Me: But they both make the same claim about stimulus bills killing jobs!
@sfhkjgd11what Oh, and I NEVER said what you implied there. This is a DIRECT LIE.
THIRD AND FINAL WARNING. Debate honestly or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
Can you find an ACTUAL AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST predicting hyperinflation before 2012? Can you find ANY support for your claim that the stimulus protected jobs other than a correlation fallacy?
@shanedk I gave you a link to a video of an Austrian economist predicting inflation by 2012, I realize not every reply shows up in your inbox, but here it is again.
watch?v=ImY9fZ4oOeA
As far as the stimulus saving jobs. here:
tinyurl(.)com/ygph9s2
you never admitted the video was right about the stimulus but you did imply that becasue the video was attacking michelle bachmann it somehow doesn't discredit austrians even though it addresses a claim they make all the time.
@sfhkjgd11what "I gave you a link to a video of an Austrian economist predicting inflation by 2012"
That's Peter Schiff, he's not an economist (and I have no idea if he even predicted it or not since I didn't even watch the video, the fact that he's not an economist being the only relevant point).
All that CBO report says is that GDP increased by the amount of the stimulus--well, duh! GDP INCLUDES government spending, ignoramus!
@shanedk "All that CBO report says is that GDP increased by the amount of the stimulus"
Really? did you miss the part where it says "CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States ... than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA"
@sfhkjgd11what I've SEEN the jobs go away that the stimulus killed. I can show you a LOT of empty buildings here where there USED to be small businesses run by good and decent people. The only benefit of the stimulus was to a few large corporations; small businesses got CREAMED.
@sfhkjgd11what "2. you can still give anecdotes about absolute facts."
Absolutely, all those guys in your high school really did have sex with the hot celebrity, homecoming queen, stripper, or college girl that no one else could verify them even meeting.
@sfhkjgd11what Okay, LIAR, I watched the video, LIAR, and NOWHERE in there does he say we'll have hyperinflation before 2012! The ONLY kind of prediction he makes (when pressured by the hosts) is that gold MIGHT reach $5,000/oz by the END of 2012--but he SPECIFICALLY says he doesn't know and that he doesn't have a crystal ball!
It's a good thing you third strike was taken back, because you just earned it again--THIRD AND FINAL WARNING, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!
No doubt a little history lesson never hurts, but you might try a source that isn't a laughing stock in the economics community. Try Friedman's "A Monetary History of the United States" (Chicago), Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" (Austrian), Powell's "FDR's Folly" (Neo-Classical?) or "This Time is Different" (Mainstream). There is much disagreement among them but not about how dreadful Krugman's take on Depression history is.
@sfhkjgd11what The recessions of 1907, 1913, 1917, 1921, 1945, 1953, 1958, 1961, and 1969 were all short-lived even though your precious government did nothing to "fix" or "stimulate" the economy.
The recessions of 1929, 1937, 1941, 1978, 1990, 2001, and 2007 all lasted for YEARS with your precious government trying to "fix" them from the start.
@shanedk The purpose of a recession is because people stop spending because they have accrued too much debt. Most of the recessions you listed were during times in which people had little debt. It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years."
@shanedk there doesn't need to be a regression analysis. You said that the amount of debt they had in the recessions rom 1940's through 1980's was the same as the recessions of the 1930's and 1980's to today. That graph disproved that notion.
@sfhkjgd11what "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years.""
It's absolutely wrong to think they HAD to pay it off! All they had to do was to get their income up to the level where the debt wasn't a problem. And that meant investing and seeking employment in the right places.
@sfhkjgd11what "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years."'
So your solution is for people to carry much more debt, and that will somehow bring prosperity?
@shanedk the logical consequence of "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would be able to pay off all that debt they had in 2007 in less than a few years" Is that the recession we are is expected to be many years long. Not that we should go into more debt, IDIOT!!
@sfhkjgd11what "the logical consequence of "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would be able to pay off all that debt they had in 2007 in less than a few years" Is that the recession we are is expected to be many years long."
That's not a "logical consequence," it's the SAME THING! You just employed circular reasoning in a DESPERATE attempt to get us to ignore the fact that YOU claimed that paying off all debt is required to get us out of a recession.
You essentially said "The reason why they couldn't pay off all their debt is that they couldn't pay off all their debt." There's just no other way to read it.
"If people can't pay off debt in a short amount of time, then they must go into more debt"
There is absolutely no principle of economics that says this.
@sfhkjgd11what And YOU apparently missed this point of mine: "And even if you do successfully evade your point #2, all you're left with is a tautology: anything not short is longer!"
So okay, you didn't advocate #2. Which means you said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL!!! It's not short, therefore it's longer--that's ALL that's left of your statement!
@shanedk Can I have one of my warnings removed since I was warned about lying about advocating #2?
now that being said, my position this whole time has been 1. people need to pay off debt for recession to end 2. they have too much debt to pay it off shortly 3. therefore recession will take a long time.
so my "nothing" assertion that "they can't pay it off shortly, therefore it will take a long time" was not nothing because I was making a case for a long recession regardless of gov't policy
@sfhkjgd11what Then go back to remedial logic and learn how syllogisms are formed. Your logic isn't even VALID, much less sound! (You DO understand the difference, right?)
@shanedk "Your logic isn't even VALID, much less sound! (You DO understand the difference, right?)"
Actually I don't, so why don't we just save some time and you explain to me what conclusions can be reached assuming #1 and #2 are true, rather than this "go learn for yourself" stuff okay?
People go into debt with 30-year mortgages on their homes. Then there's a recession. Are you REALLY saying that the recession won't end until ALL of these mortgages--and any others taken out in the meantime--are ALL PAID BACK???
@sfhkjgd11what I am aware of that. Nonetheless, your source's (non-existent) credibility as an economic historian is entirely relevant. Anyone continuing to push the laissez faire Herbert Hoover canard simply cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, his cherry-picking of facts to differentiate between recession "shapes" based on his theory of the difference collapses when you look at recessions both before and since that don't conform to his theory.
I really love how dsglop's response, first of all, merely glances over the fact that Harding spent over 150 million dollars as if that was nothing before failing to provide a source to support his argument that it's a 'fact' that Harding stopped supporting the homeless (of which there were so many because it was right after the end of WWI), as well as blatantly skipping over the portion of the video where you mention the tariffs that destroyed a significant portion of the world's trade.
@shanedk In dsglop's response (which I'm pretty sure is just an attempt to troll, as he explicitly states in an annotation: "Besides, I'm sure I will accomplish my main goal with this, which is pissing off shane."), he said the following: "You see, Hoover did increase spending by 150 (115? It's hard to tell what he said) million initially but then after that he just dug in his heels, people were begging him to support the unemployed and whatnot but he just said (cont)
@TuxedoClam (cont) 'nope, nope, not gonna do it... that's a fact." Of course, he doesn't cite any sort of source to support this, nor does he provide a source when citing an example he gave in this video here: /watch?src_vid=REtwYhqhr_o&annotation_id=annotation_370315&feature=iv&v=9RWyBcws-Hw
And the very fact that he disables comments puts his integrity into question in and of itself...
@shanedk Oh, and guess what; not only was the quote provided out of context, but other statements made by Hoover in the very same message indicate that he was for continued government spending, contrary to claims made by dsglop. The quote from Hoover's December 3, 1930 message to congress, provided by dsglop, is as follows;
" The volume of construction work in the Government is already at the maximum limit warranted by financial prudence as a continuing policy." (cont)
@TuxedoClam (cont) However, here's the context of the :
"As a contribution to the situation the Federal Government is engaged upon the greatest program of waterway, harbor, flood control, public building, highway, and airway improvement in all our history. This, together with loans to merchant shipbuilders, improvement of the Navy and in military aviation, and other construction work of the Government will exceed $520,000,000 for this fiscal year." (cont)
@TuxedoClam (cont) "This compares with $253,000,000 in the fiscal year 1928. The construction works already authorized and the continuation of policies in Government aid will require a continual expenditure upwards of half a billion dollars annually.
I favor still further temporary expansion of these activities in aid to unemployment during this winter. The Congress will, however, have presented to it numbers of projects, (cont)
@TuxedoClam (cont) "some of them under the guise of, rather than the reality of, their usefulness in the increase of employment during the depression. There are certain commonsense limitations upon any expansions of construction work. The Government must not undertake works that are not of sound economic purpose and that have not been subject to searching technical investigation, and which have not been given adequate consideration by the Congress." (cont)
@TuxedoClam (ct) "The volume of construction work in the Government is already at the maximum limit warranted by financial prudence as a continuing policy. To increase taxation for purposes of construction work defeats its own purpose, as such taxes directly diminish employment in private industry. Again any kind of construction requires, after its authorization, a considerable time before labor can be employed in which to make engineering, architectural, and legal preparations. (ct)
@TuxedoClam (cont) " Our immediate problem is the increase of employment for the next six months, and new plans which do not produce such immediate result or which extend commitments beyond this period are not warranted."
So, in short, Hoover was saying that, while he did favor continued government spending, he wanted the government to focus on employment first and foremost, that he intended the spending to actually be beneficial rather than blindly spending for the sake of (cont)
@TuxedoClam (cont) spending and nothing else, and that he didn't favor tax increases to support said spending. However, the fact that, in Hoover's own words, there not only was increased government spending, but that he wanted to pursue further government spending, upwards of half a billion dollars a year, refutes dsglop's claims thoroughly.
Not that there was much to refute, seeing as how most of what he says is little more than blind spewing of trite, meaningless pejoratives...
@TuxedoClam Oh, and unlike dsglop, I actually intend to provide my source: ht tp : // w w w . presidency . ucsb . edu /ws /index . php? pid = 22458#axzz1jyq792Bc
@shanedk Nah, I'd say that's pretty apparent. Even as an independent theist, it's obvious to me that creationists are some of the most dishonest people on the internet.
I'd also say that someone should make a video response to dsglop pointing out how blatantly wrong he is, for the reasons I've shown, but that would imply that his contextomy is worth responding to. I only even went out of my way to find his unsourced quote to serve as further proof that he has no integrity.
@shanedk what I meant is "we have been in this mess for 3 years, how come no one in our government think of these ideas." I do believe that the "corporation" wants this sad state of our economy for as long as possible. I am not against to the ideas presented here, I am for it.
@shanedk I forgot to thank you for the excellent work. Now, the question would be how do we simplify this to be taught in schools beginning with elementary, middle and high school. After listening to the hired "journalists" in MSNBC the other day I realized that most people just don't understand because they are not educated in this subject.
We have these springing up all over the UK at the moment, as Ian Smith, the DWP Minister has just cut housing benefits for disabled and unemployed below the market rent level, so there will be an estimated 250,000 homeless in London alone in the run up to the Olympics 2012! They are building shacks out of crates and living in tents in churchyards in Bristol and London and getting Trussle Trust meals, but Bush and Blair each have 5 homes, despite being war criminals :)
Hi. I notice that the response by dsglob posted does not allow comments. Too bad, He said that He says that govt spending puts money in the econ...True as far as it goes, but I would like to point out to him that that was TAX money TAKEN from tax payers...In other words, that money would have gone into the private economy had it not been taken in taxes. Govt spending may add to the GDP, but if the private econ doesn't feel it, then it's pointless.
Shane-If the cost of business goes up with inflation, doesn't that mean that profits go up as well? I mean the money coming in is inflated too, right? What makes the cost of business outstrip profits?
@RonaldReaganRocks1 Well, the economy was going to recover anyway; the inflationary spending made the market soar to way above the level that it could sustain. That's what a bubble is.
@RonaldReaganRocks1 Profits, like wages, lag behind inflation. So they're always playing catch-up. And, of course, inflation eats away at the value of previous profits.
The key is that (a) decreases profits and (b) decreases savings. Without savings, businesses cannot function, people cannot buy much, and people have no incentives to save and invest. It destroys the economy.
@Shanedk. What's your evidence for inflation (rising prices) in the 1920s. I know stock prices rose, but you said business costs were rising. I seem to remember Mises rather lamely saying that the stable prices during the 1920s were evidence of too much money creation (i.e. what he calls inflation) - in his view prices should have been falling.
@Shanedk. In what sense was inflation to pay for WWI a "false" signal. It was a signal that the whole country had to pay for the war, and the things that were rising in price most quickly were those things the Government needed to win the war. So which part of the signal is false? This is not asking "Do you approve of war or WWI in particular".
We need a "HALL OF HONOR" First a WEB SITE then a BOOK then a MEMORIAL in STONE
For Men like JOHN F KENNEDY, FBI TED GUNTERSON, CIA CHIP TATUM, JOHN TODD, JOHN PERKINS, ALEX JONES, LINDSEY WILLIAMS, Dr ERNEST L MARTIN -wwwASKELMcom, ALAN WATTS, BILL COOPER, EUSTACE MULLINS, He Refused to give his Soldiers RAT POISON Fluoride GENERAL GEOrGE S PATTON, Killed by JESUITS & BANKERS-ABRAHAM LINCOLYN, Both Pistols Misfired on TombStone Reads I Killed the BANK ANDREW JACKSON, Many More JESSE VENTUrA
Point taken...Thanks for you're response. I wish the Private Entities who profited from the causes of the modern Crash used their resources (as JP Morgan did) instead of the publics to save Wall Street. I guess they were "..too big to fail" and we're too small to succeed......Thanks for your insight shanedk.
My point is that what JP Morgan did in 1907 was bailout the system, That action is identical to Obama Administration bailouts. JP didn't solve the problem he just postponed it to th Stock Market Crash. So we need to be consistent with the Historical judgement.
@PLFMM "My point is that what JP Morgan did in 1907 was bailout the system, That action is identical to Obama Administration bailouts."
It absolutely is not! Morgan was taking risks with HIS OWN MONEY, and so he had the incentive to set the interest rates etc. to where he could best manage the risks. Moreover, they were loans for him to be paid back. Obama (and Bush before him) took OUR money BY FORCE and saddled our children with debt to do it! It's not in ANY WAY identical!
@shanedk I think you will find that most of the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money has been paid back to the US Treasury. Rather more similar to JP Morgan than you seem to think.
@macroman52 WRONG. Half the TARP money was "paid back" with equity and stock options. Also, dozens of banks are STILL behind on their interest payments. A lot of the rest of it was "paid back" with government subsidies! And the ABA wants the remaining warrants to be written off to the taxpayers, putting us on the hook for tens of billions of dollars!
Stop listening to the big-government apologists in the news media.
@shanedk Actually, I was listening to the US Treasury rather han the news media, see Troubled Asset Relief Program, Year Three Anniversary Report, Oct 2011 which you can find on the Treasury web-site. If you have good sources to support your claims I am more than willing to see it. The treasury claims all but $26b of $427b of TARP funds have been recovered. It is excessively pessimistic to think only of the initial $427b.
@macroman52 And besides, the TARP money is absolutely dwarfed by Obama's $3 trillion stimulus and the Federal Reserve's SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in bailouts and hand-outs to banks--many of them foreign!
V. informative. I agree with your points, ..I also appreciate the logic of Peter Schiff and Ron Paul....but so often these thinkers omit the problems of corruption within the Free Market. Without regulation you are asking the ambitious wealthy to excersize an ethical standard most don't have.(Pooling is perfect example) In fact many who claim to be Free Market devotees during prosperity are often the first to accept cooperate socialism in crises wether it be th Fed or JP Morgan. U'r opinion?
the recession like A broken car? it would be more logical to do a little maintenance once in a while rather then letting it go to crap and then paying through the nose to fix it.
@2012DarkKnight Don't look at me; it's not my analogy. That comes straight from the Keynesians.
The fact is, the economy ISN'T a car--or a system or anything else that you can fix or maintain or whatever. The economy is you and me. ANY attempt by the government to fiddle with the economy necessarily WILL affect the ability of people to deal voluntarily with each other.
!!! INFO....EXPLAINS HOW THE US DEPRESSION WAS ENGINEERED, BY WHO, ETC. TOP TOP INFO...COPY IT, GET IT TO TRUTH: BLOGS & WEB SITES..SO IT ISN'T REMOVED...COPY IT...(LOOK AT US DEPRESSION HEADING FIRST )
**** GOOGLE.(LINK WON'T LOAD)....America's greatest problem: Its debt-money system! The corrupt Federal Reserve Corporation..MICHAEL JOURNAL .ORG
LOL! How did I know that I'd come back here and find a bunch of losers whining about me? Because you're a bunch of losers who can't accept that you're losers. Seriously, shane, just accept that you've been busted. There is no excuse now. Pretending that your facts haven't been proven wrong makes you a LIAR! LOL! I love it when you say that! So ironic.
Its a shame we couldn't debate longer. I never got around to your hideously stupid claim that FDR's election "hardly made a difference" when anyone with a computer could do a quick google search and find that both GDP and unemployment turned around, pretty much within the first 100 days of him taking office.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "when anyone with a computer could do a quick google search and find that both GDP and unemployment turned around"
Covered in the video. It's easy to grow when you're at the bottom. Besides, 100 days is hardly a long-term trend in economics! What about the YEARS of depression that went on after that? And if it only took 100 days, then why were all these New Deal programs even needed?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk have you seen the wikipedia article tying the depression to the gold standard. The sooner a country got off the gold standard the quicker it recovered.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Complete bullshit, covered in the video too. The gold standard was abrogated from the start--it's why the banks failed!
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "have you seen the wikipedia article tying the depression to the gold standard. "
That's hilarious. Did you see what happened when I actually read the studies you put up as supporting your stimulus? Do you ever actually do any research before talking out of your ass?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
Shane, buddy, allow me to save you some time. I have actually gone through these comments and You have actually given this guy 4 strikes.
you never gave him a strike for "#2" the strikes were 1. saying you quotemined him 2. saying that a half-sentence quote is quotemining and 3. saying you implied the TYT video proved the stimulus created jobs.
Later, you called him a liar for his "#2" point, but didn't give him a strike. He convinced you to remove a strike that wasn't there.
donttreadonmyass 1 month ago
Here is an example of public debt replacing private debt (almost dollar for dollar)
tinyurl(.)com/6n4f4ae
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
Here is an example of public debt replacing private debt (almost dollar for dollar)
tinyurl(.)com/6n4f4ae
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Hoo boy, Krugman again. All you have is a graph that showing that both public and private debt increased before the recession, at which point private debt dropped (as people tightened their belts, like they have do to in a recession) but government just went on grabbing up debt with impunity! Why you or Krugman think that means the government is doing the right thing is a reason only to be found in a severely deluded mind!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Why you or Krugman think that means the government is doing the right thing is a reason only to be found in a severely deluded mind!'"
Krugman is clearly an apologist. The Government decides what it is going to do and he tries to give it an academic basis after the fact. Kind of like Church pseudo philosophers did in the middle ages.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules They remind me more of court astrologers, who would always predict that what the King did was well and good and would bring prosperity. Any astrologer who predicted that the King's actions would fail would be executed!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Just to be clear, in the graph, the red doesn't overlap the blue, rather the red is added on top of the blue. So the graph shows that the total amount of debt (red+ blue) is pretty much the same throughout the decade, the only difference is that, in the recession, the blue fell and the red increased at such a rate that Red+Blue was still the same, but the composition different.
So the idea is that government debt has replaced private sector debt almost $ for $.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Except clearly it hasn't! At the end of the graph total debt is about 10 percentage points higher than at the start! And he's also using the bogus GDP metric so you're NOT looking at total debt, but debt as a percentage of GDP, which FELL at the time! He DELIBERATELY chose a metric that would make it look as if the debt wasn't growing by as much as it was. It's COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
shanedk 1 month ago
Here are SEVEN studies saying the stimulus worked:
Feyrer and Sacerdote.
Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston.
Wilson.
Congressional Budget Office.
Council of Economic Advisors.
Zandi and Blinder.
Oh and Reis.
tinyurl(.)com/3opf8tr
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what I see you have not read these studies.
Feyrer and Sacerdote " A cross state analysis suggests that one additional job was created by each $170,000 in stimulus spending. Time series analysis at the state level suggests a smaller response with a per job cost of about $400,000. These results imply Keynesian multipliers between 0.5 and 1.0"
A multiplier less than 1 means even Keynesians admit they cost more jobs than they save.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what And Milton Friedman showed the Multiplier effect was flawed by showing the taxation or debt or inflation caused by the spending would counteract the multiplier enough that the money in private hands prior to Government interference will always have more of a multiplier effect.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what I see, you took this from a Washington Post article and listed all the ones that claimed it did work while not listing all the ones that claimed it didn't.
Wilson refers to Daniel Wilson of the Federal Reserve. This study came to the conclusion that states with higher aid from the Feds had more jobs. It also states it didn't create as many jobs as was expected and may not have been worth the debt. It claimed every job cost $400,000
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "I see, you took this from a Washington Post article and listed all the ones that claimed it did work while not listing all the ones that claimed it didn't."
True, but you need to understand the context. Shanedk asked me to find ONE study that said the stimulus created jobs; I never said that there weren't any studies saying that it killed jobs, but he certaintly implied that there was no evidence it created any.
So given this "name ONE" challenge, I think I met it.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "So given this "name ONE" challenge, I think I met it."
Except you didn't. You mindlessly regurgitated study citations without understanding what they said.
Besides, that WASN'T the challenge. Here is what I said: "Can you find an ACTUAL AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST predicting hyperinflation before 2012? Can you find ANY support for your claim that the stimulus protected jobs other than a correlation fallacy?"
So not only have you NOT done this, you're STILL A LIAR!
shanedk 1 month ago
What exactly ends a recession? And is carrying too much debt even bad?
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317 Depends on the metrics you use, but it's basically when unemployment etc. drops to their pre-recession levels.
shanedk 1 month ago
What did the government do to fix the recession of 1893? that lasted for 4 years and had unemployment as high as 18%?
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Still haven't read Dr. Thomas Woods, huh?
First off: there hadn't been a recession for TWENTY YEARS before then, and not another one for FOURTEEN YEARS after that. Second: Losses during that recession was only .1% of GDP. Third: States had prohibited branch banking which exacerbated it; Canada didn't experience it as a result. Fourth: The Treasury had just imposed a stiff tariff on imported gold (we were still on the gold standard). (cont'd)
shanedk 1 month ago
(cont'd) They attempted to fix that by buying the gold at less than its market value. Then they stopped giving specie for the certificates. Fifth: government had fixed the price of silver and when its value dropped due to increased mining and India demonetizing silver capital went kablooey. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act exacerbated this. Sixth: The National Banking Act of 1862 had created a fractional reserve system and this failed (as it always does), resulting in bank runs.
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what So all of this, by you, is government doing nothing???
shanedk 1 month ago
Uh, oh.. Not the Warren Harding argument again.
A little history lesson never hurts
//tinyurl dot com/7ruo3j6
//tinyurl dot com/756j5dt
He actually blogged a little bit more about it today.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Thank you for posting those links showing how prone econometrics is to confirmation bias.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk ?????
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Krugman is going back and retro-fitting things to fit his preconceived conclusions. That's confirmation bias. Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will tell you that you have to specify your criteria BEFORE you go examining the data, and Krugman doesn't do that. I mean, WTF is so special about a "V-shape"? Krugman doesn't say, but it fits his conclusion so it MUST be true.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Krugman has explained the V-shape numerous times and he DOES specify his criteria ahead of time. Notice how he has been saying that setting interest rates at zero wouldn't lead to inflation while you Austrians have been wrong time and time again?
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "Krugman has explained the V-shape numerous times"
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
"and he DOES specify his criteria ahead of time"
Asserting it doesn't make it true. He looked at them FIRST, THEN found a difference and ran with it--even though there's ABSOLUTELY NO THEORY WHATSOEVER to explain why that would be the case.
"you Austrians have been wrong time and time again?"
Name ONCE.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk ME: "Notice how he has been saying that setting interest rates at zero wouldn't lead to inflation while you Austrians have been wrong time and time again?"
You: [deliberately deletes the part about Austrians wrongly predicting hyperinflation]
when have we ever been wrong! GRRR! LOL, nice quote mine.
But here is a great example, tinyurl(.)com/85bp45q
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Wow, false accusation of quote-mining! That's a Rule 5 violation; first warning.
Second wow--using The Young Turks as a source! #FAIL
Third wow--apparently thinking Michele Bachmann is an Austrian economist! #MAJORFAIL
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk 1. you quoted HALF of a sentence. Without the other half of the sentence the quote is out of context. The austrians have been wrong about hyper inflation, you can't quote HALF a sentence where I say the austrians were wrong and then turn around and say "name once!" that is a quote mine.
2. textbook ad hominem
3. Never said she was an austrian, I was just giving an example of austrians being wrong (about stimulus killing jobs).
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "Without the other half of the sentence the quote is out of context."
NOT when the post is right above it and NOT with YouTube's 500-character limit. This is a FUCKING LIE that so far I've only seen creationists and moon hoaxers resort to. SECOND warning.
I wanted you to name one time when the Austrians were wrong. That should have been a straightforward thing. But you KNEW your answer was going to be bogus so the only thing you could do is try and discredit me.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk You: Paul Krugman doesn't make predictions he only goes back and regresses things
Me: Not necessarily, he predicted that setting interest rates at zero wouldn't lead to hyper inflation, something you austrians have been wrong about time and time again!
You: Name ONE time when we were wrong!
Do you see my frustration:
Anyways here is a video of an austrian predicting hyperinflation by 2012
watch?v=ImY9fZ4oOeA
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Yet that is the only alternative to what you said. Either we let bad debt liquidate or we increase it.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules if If could I would have put "in just a few years" in italics.
I was addressing shanedk's point that the recession would have been over in a short period of time without government intervention. I was saying that they couldn't pay it off in "just a few years" NEVER implying that they should just increase debt.
I feel like I've pointed this out to you before?
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "The austrians have been wrong about hyper inflation"
You have yet to show ANY Austrians specifically predicting hyperinflation before 2012. In fact, Austrians KNOW that you can't predict the timing of these things; only the sequence.
And now you're making an ad hominem recursus as well. Unless you're just genuinely ignorant of what an ad hominem is.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "And now you're making an ad hominem recursus as well"
ad hominem tu quoque.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "ad hominem tu quoque."
No, not in any way, shape, or form. You really don't know your fallacies, do you? Ad hominem tu quoque is when you essentially accuse someone of hypocrisy, basically saying, "Yeah, I do that, but so do you!" Ad hominem recursus is when you falsely accuse someone else of committing an ad hominem for the purposes of discrediting them, thereby committing an ad hominem yourself.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk how is "Second wow--using The Young Turks as a source! #FAIL"
NOT an ad hominem?
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what No, no more so than remarking that someone used a creationist website as a source instead of a peer-reviewed biology journal.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk actually, if you just balked at a creationist site without addressing their claims specifically that WOULD be an ad hominem attack!
Besides, AT WORST TYT is just regurgitating what the CBO and several peer reviewed economists before them had said, its not like TYT are the only ones who think the stimulus worked!
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11 So how does the Government intervene without causing debt, and why do so many Nobel Prize winners have an I.Q, less than 75 according to you.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules I said people who think "It is absolutely wrong to think they could have paid it off in just a few years" was me advocating they should take on more debt as having an IQ below 75. No economists has misinterpreted that sentence other than you!
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "No economists has misinterpreted that sentence other than you!"
Yet you advocated "government intervention" and lower mandated interest rates. Two ways of getting people to take on debt, stopping it from self liquidating.
That is why these bubbles keep getting bigger and bigger. Like coke heads taking more and more cocaine to get back to even.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Then post references to the peer-reviewed literature...if you can.
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "Never said she was an austrian, I was just giving an example of austrians being wrong"
If you're giving her an example of an Austrian economist being wrong, then you ARE saying she's an Austrian economist! Otherwise you just have an example of Michele Bachmann being wrong.
YOU FAIL HARD!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Me: Austrians claim the stimulus would kill jobs, here is a video showing how it has saved jobs.
You: UGHHH! this is a video showing michelle bachmann was wrong about the stimulus killing jobs GRRR she isn't an austrian GRRR show me a video that says the austrians were wrong about the stimulus killing jobs ARGGHH!!!
Me: But they both make the same claim about stimulus bills killing jobs!
You: But is a video by TYT!!!
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "here is a video showing how it has saved jobs."
That video IN NO WAY shows that.
What's the unemployment rate again?
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Oh, and I NEVER said what you implied there. This is a DIRECT LIE.
THIRD AND FINAL WARNING. Debate honestly or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
Can you find an ACTUAL AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST predicting hyperinflation before 2012? Can you find ANY support for your claim that the stimulus protected jobs other than a correlation fallacy?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I gave you a link to a video of an Austrian economist predicting inflation by 2012, I realize not every reply shows up in your inbox, but here it is again.
watch?v=ImY9fZ4oOeA
As far as the stimulus saving jobs. here:
tinyurl(.)com/ygph9s2
you never admitted the video was right about the stimulus but you did imply that becasue the video was attacking michelle bachmann it somehow doesn't discredit austrians even though it addresses a claim they make all the time.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Peter Schiff is from New England, not Austria.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules are you serious?
So when shanedk said I haven't shown an austrian economist predicting hyperinflation by 2012, do you think he meant an economist from Austria?
and here I was making an ass of myself thinking he meant an economist from the Austrian school of economics! LOL!
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@johnrainrules
"Peter Schiff is from New England, not Austria."
Oh, you're fucking with his mind, aren't you? :P
vspqbd 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "I gave you a link to a video of an Austrian economist predicting inflation by 2012"
That's Peter Schiff, he's not an economist (and I have no idea if he even predicted it or not since I didn't even watch the video, the fact that he's not an economist being the only relevant point).
All that CBO report says is that GDP increased by the amount of the stimulus--well, duh! GDP INCLUDES government spending, ignoramus!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "All that CBO report says is that GDP increased by the amount of the stimulus"
Really? did you miss the part where it says "CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States ... than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA"
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Yes, and how did they come to that figure?
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Addressing what Michele Bachmann said is NOT the same thing as addressing what Austrian economists say.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Unless they both claim the stimulus killed jobs, in which case you run into this "two birds with the same stone" kind of thing.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what I've SEEN the jobs go away that the stimulus killed. I can show you a LOT of empty buildings here where there USED to be small businesses run by good and decent people. The only benefit of the stimulus was to a few large corporations; small businesses got CREAMED.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "I've SEEN the jobs go away that the stimulus killed"
what is that called again? anec-point-al, antidote-al, aw shucks its slipped my mind.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what It's NOT anecdotal, because it's what economic theory PREDICTS.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk 1. Keynesian economic theory doesn't predict that 2. you can still give anecdotes about absolute facts.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Since Keynesian economic theory was soundly falsified in the 1970s, that point is irrelevant.
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "2. you can still give anecdotes about absolute facts."
Absolutely, all those guys in your high school really did have sex with the hot celebrity, homecoming queen, stripper, or college girl that no one else could verify them even meeting.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Okay, LIAR, I watched the video, LIAR, and NOWHERE in there does he say we'll have hyperinflation before 2012! The ONLY kind of prediction he makes (when pressured by the hosts) is that gold MIGHT reach $5,000/oz by the END of 2012--but he SPECIFICALLY says he doesn't know and that he doesn't have a crystal ball!
It's a good thing you third strike was taken back, because you just earned it again--THIRD AND FINAL WARNING, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Seriously. Krugman?!?!?
No doubt a little history lesson never hurts, but you might try a source that isn't a laughing stock in the economics community. Try Friedman's "A Monetary History of the United States" (Chicago), Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" (Austrian), Powell's "FDR's Folly" (Neo-Classical?) or "This Time is Different" (Mainstream). There is much disagreement among them but not about how dreadful Krugman's take on Depression history is.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom we are talking about the depression of 1921 and how its unrelated to todays predicament.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what The recessions of 1907, 1913, 1917, 1921, 1945, 1953, 1958, 1961, and 1969 were all short-lived even though your precious government did nothing to "fix" or "stimulate" the economy.
The recessions of 1929, 1937, 1941, 1978, 1990, 2001, and 2007 all lasted for YEARS with your precious government trying to "fix" them from the start.
EXPLAIN THAT.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The purpose of a recession is because people stop spending because they have accrued too much debt. Most of the recessions you listed were during times in which people had little debt. It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years."
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "The purpose of a recession is because people stop spending because they have accrued too much debt."
No, the purpose of a recession is for people to stop INVESTING because they've invested in the wrong things.
"Most of the recessions you listed were during times in which people had little debt. "
BULLSHIT. The amount of debt people had varied as much in those recession years as it did in the others.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "BULLSHIT. The amount of debt people had varied as much in those recession years as it did in the others."
Not even remotely close, nice try though,
tinyurl(.)com/76dxm5v
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Wow, what a fantastic and convincing regression analysis(!)
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk there doesn't need to be a regression analysis. You said that the amount of debt they had in the recessions rom 1940's through 1980's was the same as the recessions of the 1930's and 1980's to today. That graph disproved that notion.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "there doesn't need to be a regression analysis."
Um, yeah, there does. Otherwise you have no baseline for comparison, and no way to control for other factors.
"That graph disproved that notion."
No it didn't, and if you think that you don't understand graphs OR statistics.
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years.""
It's absolutely wrong to think they HAD to pay it off! All they had to do was to get their income up to the level where the debt wasn't a problem. And that meant investing and seeking employment in the right places.
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years."'
So your solution is for people to carry much more debt, and that will somehow bring prosperity?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules No one with an IQ above 75 would have taken that from what I said.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what But anyone with an IQ above 80 would realize that's the logical consequence of your argument.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk the logical consequence of "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would be able to pay off all that debt they had in 2007 in less than a few years" Is that the recession we are is expected to be many years long. Not that we should go into more debt, IDIOT!!
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "the logical consequence of "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would be able to pay off all that debt they had in 2007 in less than a few years" Is that the recession we are is expected to be many years long."
That's not a "logical consequence," it's the SAME THING! You just employed circular reasoning in a DESPERATE attempt to get us to ignore the fact that YOU claimed that paying off all debt is required to get us out of a recession.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Its NOT the same thing
1.If people cant pay off debt in a short amount of time, then it will take them a long time
2. If people can't pay off debt in a short amount of time, then they must go into more debt
there is nothing circular about #1 its a simple "if then" statement and it is a logical consequence.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "Its NOT the same thing"
You essentially said "The reason why they couldn't pay off all their debt is that they couldn't pay off all their debt." There's just no other way to read it.
"If people can't pay off debt in a short amount of time, then they must go into more debt"
There is absolutely no principle of economics that says this.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk you said this recession should have been short,
I said it would take years to pay off the debt
Johnrainrules said I was implying people should go into more debt
I said no one with an IQ above 75 would interpret what I said that way
you said it is the logical conclusion from what I said
I showed 1. what I was saying and 2. what johnrainrules implied what I was saying and how they are "NOT the same thing"
you responded as though I made two statements mocking #2.
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what YOUR WORDS, LIAR:
"It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years.""
"If people can't pay off debt in a short amount of time, then they must go into more debt"
YOU SAID IT. Stop LYING.
And even if you do successfully evade your point #2, all you're left with is a tautology: anything not short is longer!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk #2 YOUR WORD, LIAR.
Yeah, my words OUT OF CONTEXT! Everytime I try to explain to you why you are misinterpreting my post you accuse me of lying about what my post said.
So allow me to explain IN CONTEXT what #2 was about.
I said" "It is absolutely wrong to think that people would have been able to pay off all the debt they had in 2007 in less than "a few years.""
cont'd
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what then johnrainrules replied "So your solution is for people to carry much more debt, and that will somehow bring prosperity?"
I responded "No one with an IQ above 75 would have taken that from what I said."
I specifically denounced the idea that people should take on more debt. THERE!
you then replied "but anyone with an IQ above 80 would realize that's the logical consequence of your argument."
cont'd
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what to which I replied "they are NOT the same thing"
1. people have a lot of debt therefore it will take a long time to pay off
2. people have a lot of debt therefore they should take on more.
I was contrasting ONE what I said and TWO what johnrainrules IMPLIED I was saying SHOWING how they are not the same GEEEEEEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!
I was never advocating #2 understand?
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what And YOU apparently missed this point of mine: "And even if you do successfully evade your point #2, all you're left with is a tautology: anything not short is longer!"
So okay, you didn't advocate #2. Which means you said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL!!! It's not short, therefore it's longer--that's ALL that's left of your statement!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Can I have one of my warnings removed since I was warned about lying about advocating #2?
now that being said, my position this whole time has been 1. people need to pay off debt for recession to end 2. they have too much debt to pay it off shortly 3. therefore recession will take a long time.
so my "nothing" assertion that "they can't pay it off shortly, therefore it will take a long time" was not nothing because I was making a case for a long recession regardless of gov't policy
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "1. people need to pay off debt for recession to end "
The Federal Government doesn't have people in it? Dropping interest rates doesn't encourage more debt?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "1. people need to pay off debt for recession to end"
Still wrong.
"2. they have too much debt to pay it off shortly"
Doesn't matter.
"3. therefore recession will take a long time."
Doesn't follow from the other two even if they WERE true.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
"'1. People need to pay off debt for the recession to end"
Has he ever given any evidence for this bald assertion?
vspqbd 1 month ago
@shanedk I don't understand how three doesn't follow one and two (if true).
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Then go back to remedial logic and learn how syllogisms are formed. Your logic isn't even VALID, much less sound! (You DO understand the difference, right?)
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Your logic isn't even VALID, much less sound! (You DO understand the difference, right?)"
Actually I don't, so why don't we just save some time and you explain to me what conclusions can be reached assuming #1 and #2 are true, rather than this "go learn for yourself" stuff okay?
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what Let's just look at it more simply:
People go into debt with 30-year mortgages on their homes. Then there's a recession. Are you REALLY saying that the recession won't end until ALL of these mortgages--and any others taken out in the meantime--are ALL PAID BACK???
shanedk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk I don't understand how three doesn't follow one and two (if true).
sfhkjgd11what 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what "I responded "No one with an IQ above 75 would have taken that from what I said.""
As has been pointed out to you several times, it's the only alternative!
shanedk 1 month ago
@sfhkjgd11what I am aware of that. Nonetheless, your source's (non-existent) credibility as an economic historian is entirely relevant. Anyone continuing to push the laissez faire Herbert Hoover canard simply cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, his cherry-picking of facts to differentiate between recession "shapes" based on his theory of the difference collapses when you look at recessions both before and since that don't conform to his theory.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
I really love how dsglop's response, first of all, merely glances over the fact that Harding spent over 150 million dollars as if that was nothing before failing to provide a source to support his argument that it's a 'fact' that Harding stopped supporting the homeless (of which there were so many because it was right after the end of WWI), as well as blatantly skipping over the portion of the video where you mention the tariffs that destroyed a significant portion of the world's trade.
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam *HOOVER, not Harding. Excuse that, I have no idea how I made that mistake twice. ^^;
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam You meant Hoover the first time, and Harding the second, right?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk In dsglop's response (which I'm pretty sure is just an attempt to troll, as he explicitly states in an annotation: "Besides, I'm sure I will accomplish my main goal with this, which is pissing off shane."), he said the following: "You see, Hoover did increase spending by 150 (115? It's hard to tell what he said) million initially but then after that he just dug in his heels, people were begging him to support the unemployed and whatnot but he just said (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (cont) 'nope, nope, not gonna do it... that's a fact." Of course, he doesn't cite any sort of source to support this, nor does he provide a source when citing an example he gave in this video here: /watch?src_vid=REtwYhqhr_o&annotation_id=annotation_370315&feature=iv&v=9RWyBcws-Hw
And the very fact that he disables comments puts his integrity into question in and of itself...
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam "And the very fact that he disables comments puts his integrity into question in and of itself..."
Yes, one more parallel to the creationists.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Oh, and guess what; not only was the quote provided out of context, but other statements made by Hoover in the very same message indicate that he was for continued government spending, contrary to claims made by dsglop. The quote from Hoover's December 3, 1930 message to congress, provided by dsglop, is as follows;
" The volume of construction work in the Government is already at the maximum limit warranted by financial prudence as a continuing policy." (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (cont) However, here's the context of the :
"As a contribution to the situation the Federal Government is engaged upon the greatest program of waterway, harbor, flood control, public building, highway, and airway improvement in all our history. This, together with loans to merchant shipbuilders, improvement of the Navy and in military aviation, and other construction work of the Government will exceed $520,000,000 for this fiscal year." (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (cont) "This compares with $253,000,000 in the fiscal year 1928. The construction works already authorized and the continuation of policies in Government aid will require a continual expenditure upwards of half a billion dollars annually.
I favor still further temporary expansion of these activities in aid to unemployment during this winter. The Congress will, however, have presented to it numbers of projects, (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (cont) "some of them under the guise of, rather than the reality of, their usefulness in the increase of employment during the depression. There are certain commonsense limitations upon any expansions of construction work. The Government must not undertake works that are not of sound economic purpose and that have not been subject to searching technical investigation, and which have not been given adequate consideration by the Congress." (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (ct) "The volume of construction work in the Government is already at the maximum limit warranted by financial prudence as a continuing policy. To increase taxation for purposes of construction work defeats its own purpose, as such taxes directly diminish employment in private industry. Again any kind of construction requires, after its authorization, a considerable time before labor can be employed in which to make engineering, architectural, and legal preparations. (ct)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (cont) " Our immediate problem is the increase of employment for the next six months, and new plans which do not produce such immediate result or which extend commitments beyond this period are not warranted."
So, in short, Hoover was saying that, while he did favor continued government spending, he wanted the government to focus on employment first and foremost, that he intended the spending to actually be beneficial rather than blindly spending for the sake of (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam (cont) spending and nothing else, and that he didn't favor tax increases to support said spending. However, the fact that, in Hoover's own words, there not only was increased government spending, but that he wanted to pursue further government spending, upwards of half a billion dollars a year, refutes dsglop's claims thoroughly.
Not that there was much to refute, seeing as how most of what he says is little more than blind spewing of trite, meaningless pejoratives...
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam Oh, and unlike dsglop, I actually intend to provide my source: ht tp : // w w w . presidency . ucsb . edu /ws /index . php? pid = 22458#axzz1jyq792Bc
Just remove the spaces, and see for yourselves.
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
@TuxedoClam Yes, and do I need to point out that quote-mining is yet another tactic of creationists?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Nah, I'd say that's pretty apparent. Even as an independent theist, it's obvious to me that creationists are some of the most dishonest people on the internet.
I'd also say that someone should make a video response to dsglop pointing out how blatantly wrong he is, for the reasons I've shown, but that would imply that his contextomy is worth responding to. I only even went out of my way to find his unsourced quote to serve as further proof that he has no integrity.
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
Excellent video, Shane; clean, concise, and accurate across the board.
People, this is how you make an argument, not by spamming CAPSLOCK.
TuxedoClam 1 month ago
thank you for this summary, it's very clear!!
not25yet 1 month ago
OH BOY HANDS OFF AND RECOVERY TOOK PLACE IN 12 MONTHS. ECONOMIC BOOM OH BOY THIS IS DANGEROUS
nannette70 1 month ago
@nannette70 Do you have a logical refutation of the data?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk what I meant is "we have been in this mess for 3 years, how come no one in our government think of these ideas." I do believe that the "corporation" wants this sad state of our economy for as long as possible. I am not against to the ideas presented here, I am for it.
nannette70 1 month ago
@nannette70 OK, thanks for clarifying.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I forgot to thank you for the excellent work. Now, the question would be how do we simplify this to be taught in schools beginning with elementary, middle and high school. After listening to the hired "journalists" in MSNBC the other day I realized that most people just don't understand because they are not educated in this subject.
nannette70 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have these springing up all over the UK at the moment, as Ian Smith, the DWP Minister has just cut housing benefits for disabled and unemployed below the market rent level, so there will be an estimated 250,000 homeless in London alone in the run up to the Olympics 2012! They are building shacks out of crates and living in tents in churchyards in Bristol and London and getting Trussle Trust meals, but Bush and Blair each have 5 homes, despite being war criminals :)
iBeep2009 3 months ago
Also, money spent by the govt is only being diverted...It ISN'T new profits being made that WOULDN'T have been made otherwise.
Inari1987 4 months ago in playlist Liked 5
Hi. I notice that the response by dsglob posted does not allow comments. Too bad, He said that He says that govt spending puts money in the econ...True as far as it goes, but I would like to point out to him that that was TAX money TAKEN from tax payers...In other words, that money would have gone into the private economy had it not been taken in taxes. Govt spending may add to the GDP, but if the private econ doesn't feel it, then it's pointless.
Inari1987 4 months ago
@Inari1987 "Hi. I notice that the response by dsglob posted does not allow comments. Too bad,"
And one more way that statists behave just like creationists.
shanedk 4 months ago 8
@shanedk Oh very true. lol
Inari1987 4 months ago
@shanedk
Capitalism is about PROFIT and LOSS, you bail out the loser there's no end to the COST.
Onepretentiousdude 2 months ago
Shane-If the cost of business goes up with inflation, doesn't that mean that profits go up as well? I mean the money coming in is inflated too, right? What makes the cost of business outstrip profits?
RonaldReaganRocks1 4 months ago
@RonaldReaganRocks1 ....another question....are you saying that flooding the market with inflated dollars caused the Roaring 20s?
RonaldReaganRocks1 4 months ago
@RonaldReaganRocks1 Well, the economy was going to recover anyway; the inflationary spending made the market soar to way above the level that it could sustain. That's what a bubble is.
shanedk 4 months ago
@RonaldReaganRocks1 Profits, like wages, lag behind inflation. So they're always playing catch-up. And, of course, inflation eats away at the value of previous profits.
shanedk 4 months ago
The key is that (a) decreases profits and (b) decreases savings. Without savings, businesses cannot function, people cannot buy much, and people have no incentives to save and invest. It destroys the economy.
nerd55024 4 months ago
@Shanedk. What's your evidence for inflation (rising prices) in the 1920s. I know stock prices rose, but you said business costs were rising. I seem to remember Mises rather lamely saying that the stable prices during the 1920s were evidence of too much money creation (i.e. what he calls inflation) - in his view prices should have been falling.
macroman52 4 months ago
@Shanedk. In what sense was inflation to pay for WWI a "false" signal. It was a signal that the whole country had to pay for the war, and the things that were rising in price most quickly were those things the Government needed to win the war. So which part of the signal is false? This is not asking "Do you approve of war or WWI in particular".
macroman52 4 months ago
I love your videos. Good work
SocietyIncollapse 5 months ago
Comment removed
robkbuffalo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul for President 2012
brianmenendez 6 months ago
We need a "HALL OF HONOR" First a WEB SITE then a BOOK then a MEMORIAL in STONE
For Men like JOHN F KENNEDY, FBI TED GUNTERSON, CIA CHIP TATUM, JOHN TODD, JOHN PERKINS, ALEX JONES, LINDSEY WILLIAMS, Dr ERNEST L MARTIN -wwwASKELMcom, ALAN WATTS, BILL COOPER, EUSTACE MULLINS, He Refused to give his Soldiers RAT POISON Fluoride GENERAL GEOrGE S PATTON, Killed by JESUITS & BANKERS-ABRAHAM LINCOLYN, Both Pistols Misfired on TombStone Reads I Killed the BANK ANDREW JACKSON, Many More JESSE VENTUrA
deadadelta 6 months ago
see film FIAT EMPIRE
deadadelta 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch all the films FIAT EMPIRE
deadadelta 6 months ago
Point taken...Thanks for you're response. I wish the Private Entities who profited from the causes of the modern Crash used their resources (as JP Morgan did) instead of the publics to save Wall Street. I guess they were "..too big to fail" and we're too small to succeed......Thanks for your insight shanedk.
PLFMM 6 months ago
My point is that what JP Morgan did in 1907 was bailout the system, That action is identical to Obama Administration bailouts. JP didn't solve the problem he just postponed it to th Stock Market Crash. So we need to be consistent with the Historical judgement.
PLFMM 6 months ago
@PLFMM "My point is that what JP Morgan did in 1907 was bailout the system, That action is identical to Obama Administration bailouts."
It absolutely is not! Morgan was taking risks with HIS OWN MONEY, and so he had the incentive to set the interest rates etc. to where he could best manage the risks. Moreover, they were loans for him to be paid back. Obama (and Bush before him) took OUR money BY FORCE and saddled our children with debt to do it! It's not in ANY WAY identical!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I think you will find that most of the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money has been paid back to the US Treasury. Rather more similar to JP Morgan than you seem to think.
macroman52 4 months ago
@macroman52 WRONG. Half the TARP money was "paid back" with equity and stock options. Also, dozens of banks are STILL behind on their interest payments. A lot of the rest of it was "paid back" with government subsidies! And the ABA wants the remaining warrants to be written off to the taxpayers, putting us on the hook for tens of billions of dollars!
Stop listening to the big-government apologists in the news media.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Actually, I was listening to the US Treasury rather han the news media, see Troubled Asset Relief Program, Year Three Anniversary Report, Oct 2011 which you can find on the Treasury web-site. If you have good sources to support your claims I am more than willing to see it. The treasury claims all but $26b of $427b of TARP funds have been recovered. It is excessively pessimistic to think only of the initial $427b.
macroman52 4 months ago
@macroman52 And besides, the TARP money is absolutely dwarfed by Obama's $3 trillion stimulus and the Federal Reserve's SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in bailouts and hand-outs to banks--many of them foreign!
shanedk 4 months ago
V. informative. I agree with your points, ..I also appreciate the logic of Peter Schiff and Ron Paul....but so often these thinkers omit the problems of corruption within the Free Market. Without regulation you are asking the ambitious wealthy to excersize an ethical standard most don't have.(Pooling is perfect example) In fact many who claim to be Free Market devotees during prosperity are often the first to accept cooperate socialism in crises wether it be th Fed or JP Morgan. U'r opinion?
PLFMM 7 months ago
@PLFMM Simple: You can choose not to deal with JP Morgan. You can't choose not to deal with the Feds.
shanedk 7 months ago
tubeyou9878 has been blocked for anti-Semitic comments.
shanedk 7 months ago
the recession like A broken car? it would be more logical to do a little maintenance once in a while rather then letting it go to crap and then paying through the nose to fix it.
2012DarkKnight 7 months ago
@2012DarkKnight Don't look at me; it's not my analogy. That comes straight from the Keynesians.
The fact is, the economy ISN'T a car--or a system or anything else that you can fix or maintain or whatever. The economy is you and me. ANY attempt by the government to fiddle with the economy necessarily WILL affect the ability of people to deal voluntarily with each other.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
I guess, in the words of Richard Dawkins:
"Analogies should be taken so far, and no farther."
breakingcyc 7 months ago
@breakingcyc Exactly.
shanedk 7 months ago
!!! INFO....EXPLAINS HOW THE US DEPRESSION WAS ENGINEERED, BY WHO, ETC. TOP TOP INFO...COPY IT, GET IT TO TRUTH: BLOGS & WEB SITES..SO IT ISN'T REMOVED...COPY IT...(LOOK AT US DEPRESSION HEADING FIRST )
**** GOOGLE.(LINK WON'T LOAD)....America's greatest problem: Its debt-money system! The corrupt Federal Reserve Corporation..MICHAEL JOURNAL .ORG
wesdancin 8 months ago
Comment removed
wesdancin 8 months ago
Yeah this presentation isn't biased at all.
kingkong113 8 months ago
@kingkong113 Can you refute the arguments or not?
shanedk 8 months ago
LOL! How did I know that I'd come back here and find a bunch of losers whining about me? Because you're a bunch of losers who can't accept that you're losers. Seriously, shane, just accept that you've been busted. There is no excuse now. Pretending that your facts haven't been proven wrong makes you a LIAR! LOL! I love it when you say that! So ironic.
dsglop 8 months ago