this dose not 100% work in the context of goverment .

the issue is that often you have people with money and they are not spending it or it is just siting in the bank, or people are spending it on disposable goods.

the reasoin u tax is so the money will be spent on services that people would not normaly spend there cash on.

during recessoin the issue is not so much that jo publick is not spending anny money , its that the Huge coperatoins and super ritch are not sdpending anny money. this is why its important to tax the rich more than the pore.

I do agree however that you cannot simply just have the goverment throw money at things and exspect them to work.

So you're trying to prove Paul Krugman is evil because he states the obvious? Have fun with that.

In case you're curious (and I know you're really not), this is something Krugman and other Keynesians would agree with, all the way through.

With one, very important exception. If there's a widespread, broad-based recession due to a precipitous drop in demand, and you've already done everything you can with monetary policy, debt-financed fiscal stimulus can prevent real economic damage from resulting from an otherwise fictitious issue like this.

But like I said, I know you're not curious in listening to an explanation of viewpoints that differ from yours, this is mostly just for people who might be confused by the straw man argument presented here (i.e. Krugman and all liberals fall prey to the broken window fallacy).

Is it a straw man argument? I don't know. It's a simplistic example, but I believe we experience this quite commonly in our economy. I don't know if it has anything to do with Keynesian economics or not, but it has everything to do with central planning and taxing.

How often do we hear "we need to create jobs" from the government? More than I'd care to list.

The government doesn't actually create jobs by working from savings like a normal company or individual; they spend from taxation, and more often than not they have to raise taxes to create those "jobs" - or increase deficit spending if you're the federal government. This collectively makes everyone poorer.

Argument completely falls apart at 3:30. Agreed that 911 and the resulting military spending has been a huge drain on the economy, but what do tariffs, subsidies, taxes and stimulus packages have to do with bin Laden?

Infrastructure and public works are easy to take for granted, since they are always there for us, but do you think more or less movie tickets would be sold if roads and highways were unsafe? Do you think more or less surfboards would be sold if public beaches did not exist or were not maintained? Do you think more or less refrigerators would be sold if there were no food safety standards?

"but what do tariffs, subsidies, taxes and stimulus packages have to do with bin Laden?"

"but do you think more or less movie tickets would be sold if roads and highways were unsafe? Do you think more or less surfboards would be sold if public beaches did not exist or were not maintained? Do you think more or less refrigerators would be sold if there were no food safety standards?"

"you could lump in the recession as a result of 9/11 as well,"

Yeah, if you're ignorant about Bush/Greenspan monetary policy and both the current domestic/international fiscal crises.

uggh

>> ^NetRunner:

In case you're curious (and I know you're really not), this is something Krugman and other Keynesians would agree with, all the way through.
With one, very important exception. If there's a widespread, broad-based recession due to a precipitous drop in demand, and you've already done everything you can with monetary policy, debt-financed fiscal stimulus can prevent real economic damage from resulting from an otherwise fictitious issue like this.
But like I said, I know you're not curious in listening to an explanation of viewpoints that differ from yours, this is mostly just for people who might be confused by the straw man argument presented here (i.e. Krugman and all liberals fall prey to the broken window fallacy).


>> ^blankfist:

Is it a straw man argument? I don't know. It's a simplistic example, but I believe we experience this quite commonly in our economy. I don't know if it has anything to do with Keynesian economics or not, but it has everything to do with central planning and taxing.
How often do we hear "we need to create jobs" from the government? More than I'd care to list.
The government doesn't actually create jobs by working from savings like a normal company or individual; they spend from taxation, and more often than not they have to raise taxes to create those "jobs" - or increase deficit spending if you're the federal government. This collectively makes everyone poorer.


Two sides of the same coin.

Bush/Greenspan and Obama/Bernanke. It's all the same, really. And, yes, maybe you're right, @volumptuous; I think I misspoke. The recession is endemic of a larger monetary failure dating as far back as 1913. Maybe what I should've said was that the recession was quickened by 9/11.

What happens when business starts breaking windows, through layoffs, low wages, labor abuse, exporting of jobs, fraud, financial manipulation, offshore accounts, golden parachutes, executive excess and gross payroll diparity? Who fixes those windows? I suppose that kind of vandalism would be dismissed by freemarketists as 'market forces', right? Greedy business practices have contributed to this depressed economy as much as anything else.

If the private sector comes up with some meaningful ideas, then great, but in the meantime let's put people to work strengthening our infrastructure. High speed rail from SD to SF? Great idea! It's about time. Money well spent. Art centers? Awesome. Convention centers? Great. I'm all for it. Think of how much businesses would benefit from improved transportation and more active civic centers.

>> ^blankfist:

Is it a straw man argument? I don't know. It's a simplistic example, but I believe we experience this quite commonly in our economy. I don't know if it has anything to do with Keynesian economics or not, but it has everything to do with central planning and taxing.

Stick with just "I don't know" next time, you'll look smarter!

Apparently your new favorite phrase is "central planning". I'll grant you, it makes you look less like a crazy teabagger to say that and not "socialist facist Nazist gulag" or whatever word salad you guys think sounds scary, but it's just about as dishonest and inaccurate.

Again, if you're motivated by curiosity, I'd be happy to explain. I don't believe you are, though.

>> ^blankfist:
The government doesn't actually create jobs by working from savings like a normal company or individual; they spend from taxation, and more often than not they have to raise taxes to create those "jobs" - or increase deficit spending if you're the federal government. This collectively makes everyone poorer.


Governments that engage in raising taxes to spend money don't always make everyone "collectively poorer" -- certainly not in the manner of a broken window. When you break someone's window, you're clearly engaging in a unquestionably destructive activity.

If you operate from the fundamental assumption that anything you have to buy for reasons outside of your control has zero (or less than zero) value, sure, it's like a broken window.

But if you operate from that axiom, you're not talking about economics, but political ideology.

First:

When we fight a war, do we leave the tactics and battles up to individual divisions and platoons, or is there a "central command" coordinating the effort?

Given two armies, one that was left to "every division, platoon, and squad for itself" and one that was coordinated by a central command, which would be more likely to win the war?

Second:

We have been told time and again that only the wealthy know how to create wealth. We've been told that they are the only ones who know how to create jobs.

Well, over the past ten years, the rich have gotten twice as rich as they were before. So when is this prosperity of theirs going to spread down to us? Is there any evidence of it happening at all?

None whatsoever.

Is there any evidence that it will happen in the near future?

None that I can see.

@rougy: The rich have gotten richer in the current Keynesian economic structure. It's obviously an economic system they want, so why not continue to give it to them as your savings and dollar worth continue to decline. The more they print, the more they take, and the less you get.

@NetRunner: Thanks for conflating my libertarianism with the tea party. This is becoming a common smear tactic used by you. It shows you're losing the argument, in my opinion. Hell, I'd take a tea partier who believes in smaller government over a progressive who believes in continuing the US war efforts and increased government spending.

@dystopianfuturetoday: Put people to work? That's exactly the problem. I want people to have jobs, but I want it through voluntary and mutually beneficial agreements between people without government coercion. The reasons we don't have more jobs being created today is because of corporations edging out competition through federal regulations and restrictions, which means they're the major job creators now, and they're all tightening their belts but telling us to spend.

"Think of how much businesses would benefit from improved transportation and more active civic centers." Sure, some businesses will benefit, but the ones that won't will still be taxed to benefit the others. How is that fair? Art centers and convention centers may not benefit everyone in the community, so why force those who don't want them to pay for them? That's the essential problem no progressive can answer appropriately without saying, "well, it benefits the majority." But does it really? Does the majority of people benefit from a civic center? I doubt it.

>> ^blankfist:

Hell, I'd take a tea partier who believes in smaller government over a progressive who believes in continuing the US war efforts and increased government spending.

Oh, so you wouldn't refuse to pick the lesser of two evils, and insist on writing in some 3rd candidate?

By the standard you level at me and other liberals around here, that makes you pro-war.

Keep up your support for America's empire, fascist.

Yet you get most of your information from corporate sources like Cato and Reason. You hate corporations, but you parrot all of their propaganda. Can you explain this contradiction?

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I don't think a Keynesian economic structure has much to do with it. When you put mobsters in control of anything they're still going to rob you blind. "The Legitimate Businessman's Club" of America has turned it into an art form.

The problem is that we've allowed a handful of people to rig the system to suit their needs at the expense of ours. The Fed is a problem, in as much as it is controlled and owned by these people. The Stock Market is the mirror image of that problem, in as much as the needs of stock holders trump the needs of everybody else. Our government is the third rail of the problem, in as much as it is controlled by the two (one?) entities mentioned above.

I don't think that there is a solution to the dilemma we're in. I wish there were. I don't see things getting better, ever, in my lifetime.

I do see one basic right, and one thread of our safety net, being snipped away slowly year after year until we do nothing but work all of our lives and wallow in a sea of inextricable debt.