patrick.net

marcus says

Robert Reich - 7 Lies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

The Truth About Robert Reich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXm4j2ORYcg

The real miserable trickle-down economics is hoping government spending and bailouts would trickle down to the debtors in hock to banksters. It doesn't trickle down because the banksters get the money first, and their speculations distort the economy even further and make the debtors' lives even more difficult.

David1,

If you had actually read the books that you claimed to have read back in 2007, you'd know that GDP/GNP is a very poor indicator of actual well being of the economy/society in question. Even the inventor of GDP/GNP, Simon Kuznets, warned that it is not an indicator of economic well being. Because it counts every dollar (or Mark) of government spending/waste, it is better thought of as an indicator of debt service capacity in the native currency units. John Maynard Keynes' hijacking of the indicator and equating it to real economy is at the very foundation of Keynesian statist folly. Your simplistic assumption in accepting that number as representative of real economy goes to show that you were lying when you said you actually studied Neoclassical, Friedmanite and Paulian/Austrian economics. You are a sophomoric Keynesian through and through.

In the forward to the German edition of his "General Theory" in 1935, Keynes wrote that his policiy recommendations would be easier carried out in a totalitarian state like then existed in Germany than in a western democracy. In other words, Keynes was kissing up to the Nazis. Nazis were already implementing Keynesian policies before he even wrote the book. The run up in GNP/GDP was simply the artifact of Nazi government wasting money overpaying for roads that few had cars to drive on and overpaying even more for military re-armament. None of the goods delivered much benefit to the people, but they added to the GNP/GDP count.

Hey at least I have made the jump from fascist to sophomoric Keynesian.

Reality says

In the forward to the German edition of his "General Theory" in 1935, Keynes wrote that his policiy recommendations would be easier carried out in a totalitarian state like then existed in Germany than in a western democracy.

Do me an honest favor. Go get your German language copy of "General Theory" and make a photocopy of the text. If you have a German copy of "General Theory" lying around I will give in. I suspect you got your information from some right-wing blog somewhere that linked the webpage I just found by typing this subject into google. Perhaps you are the original author of that web article...in which case you read German editions of economics text and I am certainly outmatched.

My point is this: if you didn't read it yourself and only get your information from a website, how is that any different that or better than what I have done in pulling government statistics from goverment websites and believing them to be fact?

I knew enough about Neoclassical Economics and Monetarism to know where I have heard your arguments before...

Kuznets said that the "welfare of a nation can scarcely be determined from a measure of its national income" - welfare is not economic well being only but is more general well being. That is, economic well-being does not include things like destruction of the rain forests to build a coal power plant and how that effects the general well-being.

And I think you mean GDP and GNI, not GNP.

david1 says

Do me an honest favor. Go get your German language copy of "General Theory" and make a photocopy of the text. If you have a German copy of "General Theory" lying around I will give in. I suspect you got your information from some right-wing blog somewhere that linked the webpage I just found by typing this subject into google. Perhaps you are the original author of that web article...in which case you read German editions of economics text and I am certainly outmatched.

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/foregtgm.html

"Trotzdem kann die Theorie der Produktion als Ganzes, die den Zweck des folgenden Buches bildet, viel leichter den Verhältnissen eines totalen Staates angepaßt werden als die Theorie der Erzeugung und Verteilung einer gegebenen, unter Bedingungen des freien Wettbewerbes und eines großen Maßes von laissez-faire erstellten Produktion. Das ist einer der Gründe, die es rechtfertigen, daß ich meine Theorie eine allgemeine Theorie nenne."

Translation into English:

"The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. "

My point is this: if you didn't read it yourself and only get your information from a website, how is that any different that or better than what I have done in pulling government statistics from goverment websites and believing them to be fact?

You are the one mis-construing the statistic numbers to mean God-authenticated size of the economy (whatever that means). The government websites only gave the number and gave the statistic methodology involved. It is your responsibility to figure out what that methodology produces; i.e. what the BLS GDP number means. Of course, the Keynesian brainwashing you experienced earlier in your life did contribute to the leap of faith based on text-string match.

I knew enough about Neoclassical Economics and Monetarism to know where I have heard your arguments before...

So you are retracting from the earlier lie that you read all those books.

Kuznets said that the "welfare of a nation can scarcely be determined from a measure of its national income" - welfare is not economic well being only but also general well being. That is, economic well-being does not include things like destruction of the rain forests and how that affects the general well-being.

And I think you mean GDP and GNI, not GNP.

GDP is derived/evolved from GNP, a concept that Kuznets invented. GDP simply applied GNP to all payments/production within borders regardless ownership of facility. GNI is utter nonsense. Value is subjective. Marginal utility is ordinal not cardinal. It is impossible to aggregate value / well-being across different people to any meaningful degree of precision. Kuznets did not invent GNP/GDP to account for "well being." He invented the concept to calculate a nation/economy's debt servicing capacity in local nominal terms. Keynes was the one mistakenly tried to fudge debt servicing capacity into some kind of aggregate "well being." As for GNI, it's even more non-sensical as it tries to refine measurement of a non-cardinal phenomenon while throwing a bunch of subjective values of the authors themselves.

O sweet Lord...ok if you must site economic conditions post/during/after world war two then I suggest examining Tragedy & Hope. It's about 1300 pages long....this does have a index but not a chart/graphic index (not that there's much for graphics)

If you want to talk about wholesale price indices they are on page 341.

Relative to 1913 prices did inflate during the 20's but to suggest it was zimbabwe would be a mistake. France and Italy had much higher inflation.

But out of US, UK, France, Italy and Germany US, UK and Germany price wise by 1937 germany fared the best in that it was only up 6%

then again it went form 97 in '33 to 106 in '37 so the leap was maybe 10% or so..

This has to be a world record for Strawman arguments.

Reality says

So you are retracting from the earlier lie that you read all those books.

Not anywhere did I say I read any book. Here is what I said first:
david1 says

I used to be where you are back in 2007, getting excited about neo-classical economics, Monetarism, Milt Freidman, and Ron Paul. Well I kept reading, did some research for myself, and here I am.

Then I said:
david1 says

And finally, to answer your question, none of Freidman, Paul, or Smith and Menger or Mises "told" me that the Nazis had a great economic program. I said I was a believer of the above a few years back and that is all.

In short, I claimed to read no books. No books claimed to be read, no lie about reading them.

Then there is the "Nazi-apologist" strawman you have used.
Again, what you argue against is not what I said.

You have been trying for two days to get me into some kind of flame war; labeling me a Fascist, calling me sophmoric, etc., etc. I know you are smart enough to know that you can get your point across without this...and I utterly refuse to go down to your level.

Lets just use a little algebra here and see if you can explain this to me.

The GDP deflator (D) is Nominal GDP/Real GDP.
Here are your words for how the GDP is derived by the BLS:

Reality says

BLS has to rely on sampling instead of actual counting to arrive at GDP change from previous time period. It is from this change that the new GDP number is derived. In order to keep this sequential change relevant, the GDP deflator is applied whenever GDP has to be calculated.

So from this statement you say Nominal GDP = sampling1 * D + sampling2 * G +...
This is Nominal GDP = (sum of samplings) * G.
Now by substitution in the GDP deflator formula, G = ((sum of samplings) * G) / Real GDP

So Real GDP = sum of samplings.

Hmm..I always thought it was the other way around, that Nominal GDP is the sum of the samplings and Real GDP is GDP in constant dollars.

I am going to let you have the last word here..It's pretty clear this horse is dead and we aren't bringing it back on the merits of the argument and the only way it goes from here is more personal attacks. You are clouded by belief in some large scale government conspiracy to conceal its true power in our economy through statistical manipulation. I'm not even going to bring up the fact that during the 30s when government spending was reigned in economic output and unemployment soared once again and did not recover until demand was increased by the governments need to arm in WW2. The data just doesn't back the theories you claim and the only way you can resolve it is to come up with some conspiracy about black ops spending and misrepresented inflation...even though it is pretty clear that nominal GDP is not affected by inflation...

Bye.

Bap33 says

corntrollio says

You are wrong. There's nothing that indicates the founding fathers believed that.

Bap33 said p>this from the guy that shared his opinion of what the FF did/said as golden fact

winning, it's so much fun.

Hmmm... I am sorry, but I am just not seeing the win here.

1. Where again did corn say that what the FF did/said was a golden fact? I am not seeing it.

2. You have not provided evidence that you were correct in that the FF were opposed to welfare. I provided a FF quote that directly supported not only welfare, but a much more extensive welfare system than what we have today. You provided a quote where the FF said that the "general welfare" was a requirement of government. Then you go on to interpret general welfare to support you point; when as corn pointed out general welfare could just as easily be --perhaps more easily-- interpreted differently. That is no where near an "Expressly" made comment by the FF.

If I am missing something here on your "win" please let me know.

Bap33 says

winning, it's so much fun.

How is that a "golden fact"? i.e. that the founding fathers didn't collectively believe a particular proposition? Anyone who is trying to use the founding fathers as a group for any particular proposition is off their rocker. That's all I said, and you don't seem to understand it and are now basically trolling because you have no counterargument.

david1 says

Well I kept reading, did some research for myself, and here I am.

david1 says

In short, I claimed to read no books. No books claimed to be read, no lie about reading them.

So what did you read? did you come to the conclusion that they were just all wrong? As what you have expressed is the exact opposite what they would have advocated.

Then there is the "Nazi-apologist" strawman you have used.
Again, what you argue against is not what I said.

You have been trying for two days to get me into some kind of flame war; labeling me a Fascist, calling me sophmoric, etc., etc. I know you are smart enough to know that you can get your point across without this...and I utterly refuse to go down to your level.

I'm not interested in a flame war. However, you are a wannabe Fascist, or at least an advocate of Fascism. You even went so far as to praise the Nazi's Fascist economic central planning program. Nazi's economic program was Fascist. There's actually one point you and I agree upon: Fascism is nearly identical to today's "Progressive Agenda." Where you and I part company is that you use that similarity to defend Fascism whereas I cite that similarity to criticize the "Progressive Agenda."

Lets just use a little algebra here and see if you can explain this to me.

The GDP deflator (D) is Nominal GDP/Real GDP.

It is important to understand that the GDP deflator, despite its definition, is not caculated from Nominal / Real, but through price surveys . . . simply because neither Nominal GDP nor Real GDP are known until the final number is calculated using the GDP deflator.

Sampling is carried out on a set of companies/industries that do have quaterly numbers, then apply the GDP deflator to get the real growth in aggregate private sector earnings. From that some non-linear birth/death (of companies) guestimates are applied. Then the whole thing gets fed through the GDP deflator in reverse to arrive at nominal private sector aggregate earnings. That is then added to government spending (which is not sampled but from actual spending numbers) and net export (which is also from actual trade records according to custom declarations, which is of course an incomplete picture). That's how nominal GDP is arrived at . Then the deflator is used again to arrive at "Real GDP"

You are clouded by belief in some large scale government conspiracy to conceal its true power in our economy through statistical manipulation.

The very definition of GDP, and its methodolgy, shows that it's an indicator of debt service capacity, not economic well being or size of economy or any such thing. Every dollar that the government wastes is counted as GDP.

I'm not even going to bring up the fact that during the 30s when government spending was reigned in economic output and unemployment soared once again

The cause of the 30's decline was the raising of taxes . . . which is precisely what some are trying to do now (see the headline of this discussion). The real dichotomy of government monopolistic resource allocation vs. private sector competitive resource allocation was and is being intentionally obscured by a debate between "balanced budget" vs. deficit spending; i.e. constrain the public discourse into choosing between two harmful fake choices, one would raise tax and shrink the competitive sector of the economy, whereas the other would expand the monopolistic sector of the economy (also at the expense of the competitive sector). The real solution is reduce taxes and reduce government size: shrink the monopolistic sector and let the competitive sector allocate resources.

and did not recover until demand was increased by the governments need to arm in WW2.

Just like the Nazi's fascist economy, even as unemployment dropped and GDP number went up, the real standards of living declined. All sorts of daily necessities became rationed as government war programs took precedence.

Reality says

Sampling is carried out on a set of companies/industries that do have quaterly numbers, then apply the GDP deflator to get the real growth in aggregate private sector earnings. From that some non-linear birth/death (of companies) guestimates are applied. Then the whole thing gets fed through the GDP deflator in reverse to arrive at nominal private sector aggregate earnings. That is then added to government spending (which is not sampled but from actual spending numbers) and net export (which is also from actual trade records according to custom declarations, which is of course an incomplete picture). That's how nominal GDP is arrived at . Then the deflator is used again to arrive at "Real GDP"

Here is what you are saying algebraically:

Let A be aggregate real consumption (earnings you said), f(x) is the non-linear birth/death function, G is GDP deflator, and S is the sampled data.

So you are saying A = sum(S * G * f(x)), aggregate nominal consuption is then C = A/G.
By substitution, You can get the same Aggregate Nominal Consumption estimation by omitting G altogether, C = S * f(x).
The only way the deflator needs to be applied then backed out is if it is dependent on the other variables (ie it changes when the sample or function changes) This isn't true because the prices of the goods (of which the you said deflator is calculated) is already baked into the samples.

david1 says

Here is what you are saying algebraically:

Let A be aggregate real consumption (earnings you said), f(x) is the non-linear birth/death function, G is GDP deflator, and S is the sampled data.

So you are saying A = sum(S * G * f(x)), aggregate nominal consuption is then C = A/G.
By substitution, You can get the same Aggregate Nominal Consumption estimation by omitting G altogether, C = S * f(x).

What the heck is "x"? The non-linear birth/death function is

f(dS/dt, G) ! where "d" denotes a differential or delta if dealing with discrete time series, t is time.
S is multi-dimensional data sampling, G is essentially a function of dP / dt, where P is price level

i.e. birth/death (of business) is a non-linear function of adjusted income growth in the sampled data as well as the deflator/inflation rate. Different parts of sample also have different weights.

BTW, in the earlier post you introduced G in the middle of discussion using D as deflator. I know Keynesians are enamored with their 5th grade math. If you want to pretend to have some mathematical rigor, at least keep the variable representations consistent. The dump-a-load-of-garbage-arithmatics-and-pray-the-other-guy-will-just-go-away approach doesn't work with me.

leo,
I said the FF didn't want welfare, and that the Federalist Papers supported that. Corn said there was "nothing that indicated that the FF believed that (no welfare)". So, that statement means that corn believes the FF said something else ... that something else I coined, "golden fact", just for fun. I then showed links that had the original texts and meaning and proof that I was right, along with a nice story about Davy Crockett - who was only one generation off of the original FF document when he was refusing to allow the taxpayers funds to be used like a personal account that Gov can hand out to folks they deem worthy. A simple man knew it was wrong then, and I am a simple man that knows it is still wrong.

@Reality,
You are blessed with the common sense to be conservative, the amazing mind to defend your points so well, and the patients of Job. Refreshing. Thank you for participating.

Bap33 says

I then showed links that had the original texts and meaning and proof that I was right

Your link showed a man's opinion about what the founding fathers meant by "general welfare". Which is fine. He is entitled to his opinion, as are you.

But they are most certainly NOT facts.

Nice try, but I don't think you won...

Bap33 says

Don't be a sore loser. Have a great night. Thanks for the easy "W" on this one.

I thought that was the closest to a concession I had ever heard from Bap.
I was thinking well done Corntrolio, that you got that out of him.

corn,
if you read this: http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

and some how came up with your last post, then I guess we have no more whacks to give this steed. We can move on, good game!

marcus,
you've been more angry and agressive than your normal self. Eat more fiber. Be happy.

Bap33 says

Corn said there was "nothing that indicated that the FF believed that (no welfare)".

Yes, there may have been individual founding fathers who may have believed one thing or the other, but as I've mentioned several times, it's mostly idiotic to think that the founding fathers collectively believed one particular ideology. That's all I said there, and I've said this several times consistently, and I'm still not sure what "golden fact" nonsense you're pointing at.

Reality says

What the heck is "x"?

As you quite obviously know, f(x) was used to denote some unknown function with unknown variable input, x.

As you have now identified this function to contain two variables, dS/dt and G, let's examine:

What you have said MAY BE TRUE about G effecting the Nominal GDP numbers provided:

1. G is actually understated.
2. G has a negative correlation with the nominal GDP (an understated G means an overstated birth-death function result and hence, overstated nominal GDP)
3. The birth death model is actually incorporated in nominal GDP calculations and contains input variable G

What I am saying is, well, I can't find anything BLS anywhere that specifically states that the birth death model is used to calculate nominal GDP, nor anything that states G is a variable used in the birth death model.

I would be most curious to see this, becuase to me, if we break it all down, what you are saying is nothing is really measured, ever, anymore. Simply compared to prior unmeasured calculations and such. I would like to see these formulas, the models, etc. In the business world models are constantly compared to the actual data to test the validity of the model, and BLS does a good job showing that their models test well with the actual data, but I cannot find where they specifically show the model itself.

Since BLS tests the models vs. the actual data and it appears the models have little error or bias, one would have to assume that the actual data is a lie for your main thesis to hold anyway...that inflation..and therefore..the GDP deflator..are understated. The testing shows the model holds according to their website.

Anyway, good show even though you are an egomegamaniac and I still won't get into a flame war with you.

The real solution is to increase taxes on those who advocate tax increases.

Honest Abe says

The real solution is to increase taxes on those who advocate tax increases.

How is that a solution?

There can never be fiscal sanity until those who are the advocates of largess of the public treasury feel the pain of their advocacy. Kinda simple, isn't it?

Without massive taxation (which negatively affects primarily the rich) and inflation (which negatively affects primarily the poor) we could never afford all the wars that our Nobel Peace Prize winning President has us entangled in.

And in case nobody has noticed, we are now engaged in a 4th war in Uganda. Happy travels...

where's Code Pink and when will they be at Barry's house to chant and protest and count dead soldiers?

Honest Abe says

There can never be fiscal sanity until those who are the advocates of largess of the public treasury feel the pain of their advocacy. Kinda simple, isn't it?

Where is the part where all the advocates of going to war without paying for it feel the pain of their advocacy?

Its the part where most people ignore the fact that war is supported by borrowing, inflation, taxation, or some combination of them. Liberals don't have a problem with those things.

War and empire building could not occur without continued borrowing, continued inflation, and "taxing the rich".

Do you want less war? Then demand a decrease in borrowing, eliminate inflation and lower taxes. That way the government could not afford war and empire building. Its that simple. (AKA limited, constitutional government) Ron Paul 2012.

Today's book recommendation: Surviving Civil War II - Preparing for Economic, Social and Political Collapse by Daxton Brown.

Honest Abe says

War and empire building could not occur without continued borrowing, continued inflation, and "taxing the rich".

Seems like a big flaw in your argument. The rich have a huge ability to influence government. If their taxes are going to useless wars that don't benefit them, then you can bet they'd put a stop to it.

Honest Abe says

Its the part where most people ignore the fact that war is supported by borrowing, inflation, taxation, or some combination of them. Liberals don't have a problem with those things.

Seems to me a guy called Bush and a group called the neocons got us into the latest war paid by borrowing. I didn't realize that was a bunch of liberals. My error.

Bush was then, Obama is now. Time to get your head out of your past. Continued warfare is a result of BOTH parties. If you're really interested in stopping war you need to starve the beast (aka government).

To starve the beast simply quit borrowing, stop inflating the currency, and lower taxes. Wa-laa, the beast no longer can afford to pay for war. Problem solved.

May I suggest you read and learn more of Ron Pauls philosophy. He clearly outlines these types of solutions.
Ron Paul 2012.

Honest Abe says

Bush was then, Obama is now. Time to get your head out of your past. Continued warfare is a result of BOTH parties. If you're really interested in stopping war you need to starve the beast (aka government).

So if the problem is BOTH parties then why do you say

Honest Abe says

Liberals don't have a problem with those things.

Do you have a problem saying conservatives don't have a problem with those things either? Didn't someone called Reagan talk about "starving the beast" right before he borrowed 4 trillion dollars?

My point is that conservative philosophy is just as bankrupt as liberal philosophy, just a lot more hypocritical. Anyone who goes around screaming "its all the liberals fault" is just a hypocrite. Look in the mirror lately?

bob2356 says

My point is that conservative philosophy is just as bankrupt as liberal philosophy, just a lot more hypocritical. Anyone who goes around screaming "its all the liberals fault" is just a hypocrite. Look in the mirror lately?

Ignoring idealogies, lets talk about what conservatives do when in power vs. liberals.

Conservatives increase military spending. Conservatives decrease taxes. Both contribute to the deficit.

Liberals increase spending on social programs (stimulus, Obamacare). This increases the deficit.

Neither cuts spending.

Neither increases taxes (except Clinton briefly). The last Democrat to increase taxes before Clinton was FDR.

Any questions of why we are in debt? Now, who has benefitted the most from decreased taxes?

Ask yourself - how did Obama beat Hillary, and who benefitted from it? (That was the real election in 2008, btw. Everyone knew the winner there was slaughtering whoever the Republicans put up)

Hillary might have been able to pull off raising taxes...Bubba did.

Honest Abe says

To starve the beast simply quit borrowing, stop inflating the currency, and lower taxes. Wa-laa, the beast no longer can afford to pay for war. Problem solved.

I don't get this theory. We couldn't afford the war in 2002. It didn't stop us then. Why would it be different now?

The solution to a revenue problem is not reducing revenue...

tatupu70 says

The solution to a revenue problem is not reducing revenue...

It is if you are a moron who believes the solution for your obesity, is to toss all your food in the trash and force your entire family to forage.