[Time] How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

this sentence is grammatically incorrect to the point of incoherence. please redraft.

 

Sometimes when you actually write something yourself instead of cut and pasting from Daily Conservablog you make a mistake.

I think his point is perfectly clear.

 

Did you know that you're supposed to capitalize the first letter of every sentence? Please redraft.

 

I love these articles where leftists proclaim themselves the authority on empiricism.

If you disagree with me, you're delusional.

 

You know you're taking a whippin when your best retort is about grammar.

 

Winnar!!!!!

 

Why does this suggest the strategy has never worked? If you spend $100 and it adds $90 to GDP, that $90 continues every year, while the $100 spent was a one-time cost (plus the annual interest cost of that debt).

As an example, I don't think anyone would remotely try to argue that the infrastructure spending we did in the 1950's didn't more than pay for itself with increased long-term economic growth.

 

What a silly graph - you might as well put in the lunar phases and your junior high graduation too.

Honestly, since you're arguing the case that x + 1 < x, it's not surprising that your graph is silly and irrelevant

 

The chart is showing the multiple every dollar of debt has returned in GDP, net of the debt increase. 1 = GPD went up by a dollar, 0 = no increase, but debt paid off. To me, the chart shows for most of the previous 60 or so years, debt issued has had a net negative effect on GDP.

 

Stupid sammy. Always have to try and distract from the topic at hand because he has no real answers.

This chart shows the effect debt financed spending has on GDP. Were you able to pick that up?

 

or you could read ba$$0 jorge, and bigKKK here ,and know that reality was lost YEARS ago.

 

No - it's showing the amount GDP went up that quarter, net debt increase. But the GDP stays high the next quarter, whereas the debt increase was a one-time thing. If you spend $100 in debt spending this quarter, and it generates $50 in GDP growth this quarter, and that $50 increase remains next quarter and the following quarter, etc, the graph would show a -0.50 because the debt didn't fund itself that quarter. But the reality is the debt in that example did generate growth and would have paid for itself if that GDP increase held.

In the graph, if the GDP increase doesn't hold, it will be counted against the next quarter; but if it does hold, it's not credited to the next quarter because it shows as no-growth.

 

Ironic how some of the posters in this thread are proving the contention of the article herein.

 

The graph also does not show causation - look at the 2008/2009 stuff. You had a massive recession and thus a big drop in GDP. That wasn't the result of massive debt spending - the massive debt spending was the result of the recession. But in the graph, it was credited as a huge negative effect for debt spending there.

This is a chart that tries to make a point but totally misses the mark by using bad ways to measure data.

 

No, actually it doesn't.

It shows a snapshot of what purports to be an increase in debt and what purports to be GDP at a given time. It doesn't show any cause and effect, betweeen the two because, as major identified, you can't really do that for any given time because the effects are felt years later ...


Also, it doesn't really explain what GDP per unit of debt actually means. What's a unit?

Really? Man that is dumb.

 

wow, so every dollar of government spending adds $90/year to GDP in perpetuity?

fascinating.

 

That's an example - realistically, it's less. But yes, that's the idea of investment spending. When you build an interstate highway system, you expect to get an increase in GDP that continues beyond just the years you build it. Same with education, scientific research, and all sorts of other types of investment spending.

This would be fairly basic Government 101. The fact that it's fascinating to you is fairly disturbing.

 

I too found the concept of multipliers fascinating when I first learned about them decades ago, and functional too!

Unsurprisingly, having a rudimentary bit of knowledge about macro helps when you're trying to discuss macro.