What post was that? All I've taken away from this is that the French want a lot of stuff, and don't have the money to pay for it. How to get said stuff without any money seems to be the discussion.
Ironic that the conservatives have waved the white flag of surrender in a thread about France.
The conversation in the current thread was actually something different...tax increase vs. spending cut austerity programs and their relative effectiveness....not tax cut vs. spending increase effectiveness as a means to stimulate the economy.Yes that was the conversation you were having there.
Like I previous said, there were many complex factors affecting our economy at that time and would take the multiplier cited with a grain of salt. I've seen several studies which suggest much higher multipliers. Anyway, you said that the bolded statement does not support my assertion at all. This is what I bolded from the Wikipedia link...The bolded statement does not support your assertion at all. The fiscal multiplier for the tax cuts in 1981 was 0.32 which is abysmal if I understand this correctly.
Here it is.
In New Keynesian economics, tax cuts give a greater stimulus to the economy than that of increases in government spending.
This is you dismissing data with no real reason other than you just don't believe it. That data came from a Republican adviser.Continuation from the CBD thread
The conversation in the current thread was actually something different...tax increase vs. spending cut austerity programs and their relative effectiveness....not tax cut vs. spending increase effectiveness as a means to stimulate the economy.
Like I previous said, there were many complex factors affecting our economy at that time and would take the multiplier cited with a grain of salt.
Link?I've seen several studies which suggest much higher multipliers.
No, you asserted that we had to cut taxes in the 80s because that's what Keynesian theory said to do. I followed that link to the New Keynesian page and don't see anything on that page that supports that statement on the wiki page for tax cuts. In other words, what you have there is a completely unsupported statement. Now I am not saying it is wrong, because I honestly don't know if it is wrong or right, but I am not convinced it is right.Anyway, you said that the bolded statement does not support my assertion at all. This is what I bolded from the Wikipedia link...
In New Keynesian economics, tax cuts give a greater stimulus to the economy than that of increases in government spending.
...and this is exactly what I've asserted.
Bullshit. I told you that I've read many studies on this subject and .32 looks really low. I didn't dismiss it with no real reason other than not wanting to believe it. There's a thread around here where I cited several studies which suggest much higher multipliers. If I find time, I'll try to find it.This is you dismissing data with no real reason other than you just don't believe it. That data came from a Republican adviser.
Link?
eskimospy...dare to weigh in on this?No, you asserted that we had to cut taxes in the 80s because that's what Keynesian theory said to do. I followed that link to the New Keynesian page and don't see anything on that page that supports that statement on the wiki page for tax cuts. In other words, what you have there is a completely unsupported statement. Now I am not saying it is wrong, because I honestly don't know if it is wrong or right, but I am not convinced it is right.
eskimospy...dare to weigh in on this?
Thanks.As a general rule a tax cut is more effective than higher spending if economic growth is your goal. Broadly speaking, people know how to spend their money better than the government does in many cases.
Do you think we're in danger of following in Japan's footsteps which started 20 years ago?This is not necessarily the case in a liquidity trap, however.
Do you think we're in danger of following in Japan's footsteps which started 20 years ago?
As a general rule a tax cut is more effective than higher spending if economic growth is your goal. Broadly speaking, people know how to spend their money better than the government does in many cases.
This is not necessarily the case in a liquidity trap, however.
You mean a targeted tax cut, one aimed at working people. Slashing rates on capital gains doesn't do that at all. Working people in general don't earn capital gains.
It's also like the Bush tax rebate- ours is still in the bank, with more piled on top of it. Giving money to people who won't spend it stimulates the economy not at all.
You wasting your effort, anyway. Righties want deflation to stimulate the economy, the same way that anal rape stimulates the victim.
Yes, of course the type of tax cut matters (as does the type of spending). I was just speaking broadly.
The depression is right here:
This chart shows that the Eurozone's economic performance since the financial crash has been worse than it was in the 1930's.