How Much Would Bernie Sanders' Ideas Actually Cost?

[Padawanbater2]

It's not necessarily true, there's almost always been some sort of government intervention, and this recession was actually one of the worst (hence why economists call it the 'Great Recession'). Sure, you're correct in saying that "To say there would have been no recovery is wrong," however, the recovery without government assistance would have been so incredibly painful for the US and the rest of the world that you so called 'free market champions,' would have been sitting there going, "Why isn't Obama doing anything?!"

No, he's 100% wrong.

Our economy is experiencing what's called structural stagnation. There would be zero recovery had the stimulus not happened, and the amount that did get approved just about ensures slow growth and high unemployment for the coming decade.

 

[ginwilly]

It's not necessarily true, there's almost always been some sort of government intervention, and this recession was actually one of the worst (hence why economists call it the 'Great Recession'). Sure, you're correct in saying that "To say there would have been no recovery is wrong," however, the recovery without government assistance would have been so incredibly painful for the US and the rest of the world that you so called 'free market champions,' would have been sitting there going, "Why isn't Obama doing anything?!"

I credit the stimulus and the Federal Reserve giving away free money for giving the illusion of a recovery. We've done this by kicking the can down the road, not by fixing the cause. What he have now is not a recovery just because the data we choose to pick says it is. Less people are working, those that are working are working less and those that are working more are making less. Meanwhile, we spent a bunch of money to spur the economy using Wall Street as the vehicle. Does that make sense to people? They calculate unemployment rates by those who collect, how accurately does that portray the truth? There are economists who say that we are actually in worse shape than we were before but we are propped up by a money bubble. When that bubble bursts..... and they always do, we are great depression II.

Yes, Obama had to do something though, agreed. That's all that really matters to people, do something anything thank you. Some people will even believe what they are told is in the bill and what the bill does on nothing more than faith.

 

[ginwilly]

No, he's 100% wrong.

Our economy is experiencing what's called structural stagnation. There would be zero recovery had the stimulus not happened, and the amount that did get approved just about ensures slow growth and high unemployment for the coming decade.

You look so religious when you say things like this. Your faith is so strong you feel good about making a statement like 100% wrong!!.

First, you will never hear an economist say they are 100% positive about anything unless they write for the times and second, you will not find your magical 97% consensus out there on this one. As a matter of fact, the only thing you can say about the stimulus's true affects is that 100% of Austrian economists disagree with you. Everyone one of them smarter than you too. I lean toward them, but not 100%, your faith is much stronger than mine.

 

[schuylaar]

I credit the stimulus and the Federal Reserve giving away free money for giving the illusion of a recovery. We've done this by kicking the can down the road, not by fixing the cause. What he have now is not a recovery just because the data we choose to pick says it is. Less people are working, those that are working are working less and those that are working more are making less. Meanwhile, we spent a bunch of money to spur the economy using Wall Street as the vehicle. Does that make sense to people? They calculate unemployment rates by those who collect, how accurately does that portray the truth? There are economists who say that we are actually in worse shape than we were before but we are propped up by a money bubble. When that bubble bursts..... and they always do, we are great depression II.

Yes, Obama had to do something though, agreed. That's all that really matters to people, do something anything thank you. Some people will even believe what they are told is in the bill and what the bill does on nothing more than faith.

Is it possible to post your own thoughts, ever?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You look so religious when you say things like this. Your faith is so strong you feel good about making a statement like 100% wrong!!.

First, you will never hear an economist say they are 100% positive about anything unless they write for the times and second, you will not find your magical 97% consensus out there on this one. As a matter of fact, the only thing you can say about the stimulus's true affects is that 100% of Austrian economists disagree with you. Everyone one of them smarter than you too. I lean toward them, but not 100%, your faith is much stronger than mine.

"Until the 1980s the economy quickly got back to its previous level of employment. After the 1980s, however, economic recoveries took increasingly longer; the 2001 recovery was slower than the 1990 recovery, which in turn was slower than the 1980 recovery, which in turn was slower than earlier recoveries. This trend toward slower recoveries suggests that the nature of economic downturns was changing. But those changes were slow and gradual, and economists could reasonably argue that the changes were inconsequential. But, as you can see, the latest downturn was clearly a major change. As of 2013, six years after the beginning of the downturn employment was still significantly below what it had been before the recession began.

Faced with this experience, economists began to grapple with the fact that something in the U.S. economy had changed. It was then that the term structural stagnation began to be used to describe a downturn followed by a period of slow growth that is not expected to speed up any time soon without major structural changes in the economy.

The reason this terminology is important is that a structural stagnation cannot be treated as a normal business cycle. Structural stagnations are far less responsive to expansionary demand-side policies that policy makers would normally rely on to put the economy back on its long-term growth trend. Structural stagnation requires difficult supply-side structural changes to accompany any demand-side stimulus." - Macroeconomics (Colander p.233-234)

Like I said, you are 100% wrong if you believe the economy will just recover again all on its own, we just need a "hands-off" policy and "let the free market work itself out"

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy actually functions

 

[ginwilly]

"Until the 1980s the economy quickly got back to its previous level of employment. After the 1980s, however, economic recoveries took increasingly longer; the 2001 recovery was slower than the 1990 recovery, which in turn was slower than the 1980 recovery, which in turn was slower than earlier recoveries. This trend toward slower recoveries suggests that the nature of economic downturns was changing. But those changes were slow and gradual, and economists could reasonably argue that the changes were inconsequential. But, as you can see, the latest downturn was clearly a major change. As of 2013, six years after the beginning of the downturn employment was still significantly below what it had been before the recession began.

Faced with this experience, economists began to grapple with the fact that something in the U.S. economy had changed. It was then that the term structural stagnation began to be used to describe a downturn followed by a period of slow growth that is not expected to speed up any time soon without major structural changes in the economy.

The reason this terminology is important is that a structural stagnation cannot be treated as a normal business cycle. Structural stagnations are far less responsive to expansionary demand-side policies that policy makers would normally rely on to put the economy back on its long-term growth trend. Structural stagnation requires difficult supply-side structural changes to accompany any demand-side stimulus." - Macroeconomics (Colander p.233-234)

Like I said, you are 100% wrong if you believe the economy will just recover again all on its own, we just need a "hands-off" policy and "let the free market work itself out"

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy actually functions

Quick, name a single instance where a country took a hands off approach and then didn't recover. If what you say is true you should be able to point at at least one instance. I can point to times when the handsoff approach led to quicker recoveries than others where intervention was used. This is a pretty good indication that you basing your opinion on faith and searched out economists who share your faith. I can point to other times where increased government intervention led to stagnation and lack of growth. 1980's, 90's Japan is the low hanging fruit, but 2010's US could also be a shiny example.

Unless you can name another period where the growth was indirectly proportional to the recovery, then you can only conclude that what we did retarded growth, not spurred it. This doesn't fit your ideology though, so close your mind and keep the faith.

You and I can post economic articles that support both of our positions all day, one of us will believe everything they read 100%, the other will make fun him for it.

Throughout history, the deeper the recession the more robust the recovery, that's always been the case and if you thought about it logically, you wouldn't even question it. That's one of those no shit obvious things, unless of course you have an agenda you'd like to push.

 

[schuylaar]

I know! How about a war @ginwilly? That'll fix it all.

 

[ginwilly]

I know! How about a war @ginwilly? That'll fix it all.

We don't need the actual war, just keep the machine humming is fine. We don't have to use the new toys, we just have to keep building them. Ask your buddies, that's called aggregate demand, they are big fans and push that line of thought not me.

Personally I think we should stop the occupations and bombing of other countries. Can't wait until there is a pub pres so you guys will agree with me.

 

[schuylaar]

Quick, name a single instance where a country took a hands off approach and then didn't recover. If what you say is true you should be able to point at at least one instance. I can point to times when the handsoff approach led to quicker recoveries than others where intervention was used. This is a pretty good indication that you basing your opinion on faith and searched out economists who share your faith. I can point to other times where increased government intervention led to stagnation and lack of growth. 1980's, 90's Japan is the low hanging fruit, but 2010's US could also be a shiny example.

Unless you can name another period where the growth was indirectly proportional to the recovery, then you can only conclude that what we did retarded growth, not spurred it. This doesn't fit your ideology though, so close your mind and keep the faith.

You and I can post economic articles that support both of our positions all day, one of us will believe everything they read 100%, the other will make fun him for it.

Throughout history, the deeper the recession the more robust the recovery, that's always been the case and if you thought about it logically, you wouldn't even question it. That's one of those no shit obvious things, unless of course you have an agenda you'd like to push.

No..one would be factual the other, absurd.

Can you even say the word 'fact'? I don't think your mouth can form the word.

 

[ginwilly]

No..one would be factual the other, absurd.

Can you even say the word 'fact'? I don't think your mouth can form the word.

Sure, it's a fact that throughout history there has been downturns and upturns in the economy. If you think about it more than 2 seconds you would understand why one follows the other. For the majority of these periods, the size of one, dictated the size of the other. This too should be a logical conclusion. You with me so far?

Now explain to me how we can possibly know what would have happened had we took a less aggressive approach. How is this knowable? Do you have an alternate universe to compare results?

What we do know is we would have recovered no matter what like we always have and always will. Taking credit for that recovery in spite of "facts" showing a different story is what you guys have done, well played. We all know people not only stupid enough to believe it, but repeat it. Might as well wave those pom poms and score some points.

 

[UncleBuck]

tty, this is nothing but a faith based statement with no basis in reality.

actually it's not. i literally saw the people out there working thanks to the ARRA.

and then there are the stats.

you have also argued that the keyston pipeline would create jobs, but the ARRA did not. this is something only a stipid person would do.

 

[UncleBuck]

They calculate unemployment rates by those who collect, how accurately does that portray the truth?

no they don't, you dolt.

they do a monthly survey of households and see who has been looking for work or working or collecting.

anyone even looking for work in the last 6 weeks gets counted as unemployed whether they are collecting or not.

why are facts so difficult for you, dummy?

 

[UncleBuck]

100% of Austrian economists disagree with you. Everyone one of them smarter than you too.

austrian economics has no record of success anywhere in the world, at any time, for anyone, ever.

you are a barbarically moronic piece of work.

 

[UncleBuck]

Now explain to me how we can possibly know what would have happened had we took a less aggressive approach. How is this knowable?

you can use math and statistics, but not if you are dumb, like you are.

 

[kelly4]

you can use math and statistics, but not if you are dumb, like you are.

Math? Did I hear math?


1/2 x retard = ttystikk

 

[UncleBuck]

Math? Did I hear math?


1/2 x retard = ttystikk

ttystikk would debate you to pieces and leave you in tears in front of a large audience.

 

[ttystikk]

"Until the 1980s the economy quickly got back to its previous level of employment. After the 1980s, however, economic recoveries took increasingly longer; the 2001 recovery was slower than the 1990 recovery, which in turn was slower than the 1980 recovery, which in turn was slower than earlier recoveries. This trend toward slower recoveries suggests that the nature of economic downturns was changing. But those changes were slow and gradual, and economists could reasonably argue that the changes were inconsequential. But, as you can see, the latest downturn was clearly a major change. As of 2013, six years after the beginning of the downturn employment was still significantly below what it had been before the recession began.

Faced with this experience, economists began to grapple with the fact that something in the U.S. economy had changed. It was then that the term structural stagnation began to be used to describe a downturn followed by a period of slow growth that is not expected to speed up any time soon without major structural changes in the economy.

The reason this terminology is important is that a structural stagnation cannot be treated as a normal business cycle. Structural stagnations are far less responsive to expansionary demand-side policies that policy makers would normally rely on to put the economy back on its long-term growth trend. Structural stagnation requires difficult supply-side structural changes to accompany any demand-side stimulus." - Macroeconomics (Colander p.233-234)

Like I said, you are 100% wrong if you believe the economy will just recover again all on its own, we just need a "hands-off" policy and "let the free market work itself out"

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy actually functions

This structural stagnation is a direct result of the ever tighter right turn death spiral this country has been in since the Reagan administration. To see a stark example of what non intervention would look like in an economic recovery, one need look no further than the Great Depression. A trajectory we are surely repeating, as it seems we don't have the good sense to learn from our past mistakes.

 

[UncleBuck]

This structural stagnation is a direct result of the ever tighter right turn death spiral this country has been in since the Reagan administration. To see a stark example of what non intervention would look like in an economic recovery, one need look no further than the Great Depression. A trajectory we are surely repeating, as it seems we don't have the good sense to learn from our past mistakes.

the right does not want to.

if you bring up even recent history, they will ask you why you are even mentioning bush.

well, he's a great mistake to learn from. but righties are not interested in learning. only in moving on to the next talking point after the one they were just blathering about goes down in flames.

 

[ttystikk]

the right does not want to.

if you bring up even recent history, they will ask you why you are even mentioning bush.

well, he's a great mistake to learn from. but righties are not interested in learning. only in moving on to the next talking point after the one they were just blathering about goes down in flames.

This is all true now- meanwhile the open minded are and will be following along and making up their own minds. It is to them that both you and I are eventually speaking.

Their logic is dogmatic and does not fit the facts, ours does a much better job of explaining the realities people see around them. These are the people who will decide elections- you and I are already petty set- as are the perennial cast of right wingers, so it's those who are on the fence who will ultimately sway public opinion and with any luck, elections.

 

[kelly4]

ttystikk would debate you to pieces and leave you in tears in front of a large audience.

Whatever, I can ski and ice fish better than him!