tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post5449439528521623900..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Arnold Kling is Not the First Economist to be Confused About the Reagan Deficits and Interest RatesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-21121639659150261642011-03-21T02:11:21.648-04:002011-03-21T02:11:21.648-04:00I did an analysis of your analysis just far enough...I did an analysis of your analysis just far enough to see that you insist that FIAT money has some sort of intrinsic value. It is a trap into which the Keynesians also fall. Deficits need not create debt. That deficits create debt this is the underlying assumption (religious principle) of current econ idiotologies. It is a testimonial to the conservatism being practiced on both sides of the deficits debates. The only thing that gives fiat money any value is the reclamation of that money via taxation. Yet, it is not necessary to reclaim all of the money spent to "promote the general welfare" if in fact, the spending does "promote the general welfare".<br /><br />Both Keynes and RE camps ASSUME that fiat money is a commodity of the private sector. It isn't.truckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04972946226342199096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-63149124903158475862011-03-19T17:54:23.493-04:002011-03-19T17:54:23.493-04:00I did a critical reveiw of all the studies on defi...I did a critical reveiw of all the studies on deficits and interest rates in a presentation at the U.S. Treasury in 2004. If anyone finds fault with the logic or evidence, that is fine. To dismiss it as silly is, well, silly.<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/1240820/US-Treasury-reynoldsRobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02554173959495030805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-31637948439954458232011-03-18T14:35:40.170-04:002011-03-18T14:35:40.170-04:00Jazz - I saw Arnold's attempt to word smith hi...Jazz - I saw Arnold's attempt to word smith his way out of embarrassment. I would trust he knows that the reason Keynes talked about liquidity traps aka a flat LM curve was to introduce a case where fiscal stimulus sine monetary accomodation does not lead to even partial crowding out. And we were not in a liquidity trap in the early 1980's. If Kling does not understand these concepts, he is not qualified to write on macroeconomic issues. If he does understand these issues, he is being less than honest.ProGrowthLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17138489390594441753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-46067047257770414152011-03-18T11:55:00.796-04:002011-03-18T11:55:00.796-04:00Musgrave -
I'd say more real-world-observatio...Musgrave -<br /><br />I'd say more real-world-observation than intuition based. Which makes it anecdotal, I guess.<br /><br />But anecdotes that correspond to reality are more valuable than beautifully quantifiable theories that do not.<br /><br />Maybe there is a baby in the bathwater somewhere, but I'm afraid it's either stillborn or drowned.<br /><br />The problem is that policy decisions are made based on the theories.<br /><br />Kling defends himself at econbrowser.<br /><br />http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/03/real_interest_r.html<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-14028749815137348092011-03-18T03:03:16.104-04:002011-03-18T03:03:16.104-04:00I fully agree with Jazzbumpa: the economics profes...I fully agree with Jazzbumpa: the economics profession is full of time wasters, parasites, hangers on and people counting the number of angles on a pinhead. Kling is one of these. But these undesirable will always be with us. So, Jazzbumpa: don’t give up.<br /><br />Re Jazzbumpa’s intuition based attack on Ricardianism, this intuition is actually backed by evidence. That is there is plenty of evidence that households spend a fair proportion of tax rebates and other windfalls within short time of receiving them. See: <br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1984.tb00322.x/abstract <br /><br />http://www.nber.org/digest/mar09/w14753.html<br /><br />http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/parker/htm/research/johnsonparkersouleles2005.pdf<br /><br />http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~rlwctr/papers/0801.pdfRalph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-38874086520335245932011-03-17T15:36:16.340-04:002011-03-17T15:36:16.340-04:00The proposition is that households will fully save...<i>The proposition is that households will fully save and not consume their tax cuts if they are not accompanied with at least some expectation of future spending cuts. </i><br /><br />Where does a proposition like this come from? Do economists ever pay attention to the real world? Does anyone seriously believe actual people with kids in sports and dance lessons, miserable commutes to jobs they hate, overbearing bosses, and peptic ulcers sit around pondering some abstract notion of future spending before deciding to buy a big-screen TV? <br /><br />If they think about finances at all, it's at the level of - can I make the monthly payment on this thing and still afford to feed my cat?!<br /><br />This is why I have simply given up on economics as a serious mental discipline.Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com