Quote :

"Then it seems stimulus always occured some point after, the difference was the length of the depression. "

Wait, what the fuck?

Also, Kris, I hate to break it to you, but you really have been horrible at conveying your points ever since you came back. In fact, I seem to recall saying that a month or two ago.

12/5/2010 11:28:21 AM

12/5/2010 12:22:44 PM

Quote :

"Wait, what the fuck?"

Suppose the time after the recession that stimulus is applied is fixed, it is the length of the depression that is variable.

Quote :

"you really have been horrible at conveying your points ever since you came back"

It could be that now that I work with people in finance, I have higher expectations for the people I speak with, but I don't think I should have to dumb down the level of discourse. It's certainly not that my ability to communicate has diminished.

12/5/2010 1:50:22 PM

Quote :

"It could be that now that I work with people in finance, I have higher expectations for the people I speak with"

If you spent years trying to think of a more ironic statement, you couldn't.

12/5/2010 3:54:58 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe they do, savings rates increased during the recession, please show me the evidence where you have seen the contrary."

Apparently not enough to trigger the liquidity trap Keynesians fear and certainly you have no way of ascertaining the actual effect it has had on the economy versus actually paying people to do something (the point of contention). The personal savings rate in 2009 was actually less than during the milder early 90s recession. Then consider the consumer debt situation (which you conveniently ignored), that is down a mere 149 billion from the 2008 peak despite unemployment compensation (that you're claiming is going into savings) over the same time period that is in the $250 billion range (my guess based on 08 and 09 outlays). I'd love to see you make a better case that all this "free money" is going into savings, because the one I've just made is pretty clear - clearer than any argument you've made recently.

Quote :

"Your first argument should show it, it's the other side of the coin. Mark any time of economic uncertainty and you'll see savings rise and spending drop."

Congrats, you're an economic guru. The point is, you're the one that claimed

Quote :

"Paying people money for something or employment, or whatever causes people to actually gain some faith and spend."

But didn't really bother to try and support the argument.

12/5/2010 6:02:50 PM

Quote :

"If you spent years trying to think of a more ironic statement, you couldn't."

My company has done quite well through these times. The people I work with have made some great moves, but often I like to think it's a result of the tools and data that I provide.

Quote :

"'d love to see you make a better case that all this "free money" is going into savings"

You've twisted my argument. UI and other things are not the "free money" I was talking about. And I know you want to blame it on me for you misunderstanding, but I made it very clear in that post I was talking about the "helicopter drop" money LoneSnark was referring to. I will completely agree that most of UI dollars go into spendings and not savings.

Quote :

"because the one I've just made is pretty clear - clearer than any argument you've made recently"

Yes, but you completely took everything I said out of context because AGAIN you failed to read my post. This is the root of our problem, I'm becoming more and more certain that it's nothing on my end.

12/5/2010 7:00:19 PM

Quote :

"UI and other things are not the "free money" I was talking about."

Of course you weren't talking about it, but how the fuck we're we supposed to know...you know, you didn't fucking explain it. UI IS free money. You don't have to do fucking shit for it. Not a fucking thing other than fill out some paperwork. You don't have to work a job, you don't have to train. HOW IS IT NOT FREE?

Regardless, you didn't have a problem with my misunderstanding the first time I replied about personal savings, but you do now that I've destroyed your argument with data and your inability to actually support the original assertion with anything? No, it's definitely you. This is another Kris pattern

1) Make point
2) Get rebutted
3) Argue rebuttal
4) Lose
5) Claim you were replying to some other point and you were misunderstood
6) Go to 1

Quote :

"My company has done quite well through these times. The people I work with have made some great moves, but often I like to think it's a result of the tools and data that I provide."

Yeah, but you won't post their record, so why should we give a fuck?

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 9:14:02 PM

Quote :

"but how the fuck we're we supposed to know...you know, you didn't fucking explain it"

Here is what I quoted clearly giving the context.

At best, stimulus spending should always be inferior to helicopter drops of money in terms of getting money into the economy.

Quote :

"You don't have to do fucking shit for it. Not a fucking thing other than fill out some paperwork."

Yes you do, you have to lose your job through no fault of your own.

Quote :

"but you do now that I've destroyed your argument with data and your inability to actually support the original assertion with anything?"

First off you give yourself too much credit. You backpedalled to UI, which ignores the context of the original discussion.

Quote :

"This is another Kris pattern"

This is the ONLY Chance pattern:
1. Don't read post
2. Make up argument for other party
3. Blame them for not being clear enough

You always try to build your enemy and make up the rules. You should argue against what people say rather than what you want them to say. Really all I'm asking from you is to read what I say, I'll do the same.

Quote :

"Yeah, but you won't post their record, so why should we give a fuck?"

I'm not going to because my posts here do not reflect those of my company. If you really want to know, it should be easy to figure out.

12/5/2010 10:30:42 PM

Quote :

"Yes you do, you have to lose your job through no fault of your own."

Rofl. That's the best you have? Seriously, losing your job is "doing something"?

Quote :

"You should argue against what people say rather than what you want them to say."

How can we even begin to have a discussion when in your brain free money from the government isn't actually free because losing your job is doing something?

12/6/2010 7:03:51 AM

Quote :

"Seriously, losing your job is "doing something"?"

Can I get unemployment? I could catch money falling from a helicopter. The two are not the same.

Quote :

"How can we even begin to have a discussion when in your brain free money from the government isn't actually free because losing your job is doing something?"

The point is that it is targeted. It is not the same as dropping money from a helicopter. You ignored the context of the discussion by failing to read it.

12/6/2010 12:49:00 PM

Quote :

"Can I get unemployment? I could catch money falling from a helicopter. The two are not the same."

They are both getting money for doing not a god damn thing, which was your statement.

Quote :

"The point is that it is targeted"

Oh sure, it's the point now, but it wasn't when you made the original assertions, undefended, and you were summarily called on it.

Quote :

"You ignored the context of the discussion by failing to read it."

Free is free regardless of the context. If you want to be less confusing, then feel free to give context when you make your copypastas from JMK.

12/6/2010 10:04:29 PM

Quote :

"They are both getting money for doing not a god damn thing, which was your statement."

If you don't have to do anything then should be able to get it, I could get money from a helicopter drop. You see the difference that was lost when you removed the context is that someone who has lost their job would use the money, while I would be more likely to save it, which is THE EXACT POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.

Quote :

"Oh sure, it's the point now, but it wasn't when you made the original assertions"

No, it's always been the point. My point was helicopter dropped money would not be as likely to be spent.

Quote :

"Free is free regardless of the context."

Not at all. There is a well known saying "Free as in beer or free as in speech", this statement directly depends on the context.

Quote :

"If you want to be less confusing, then feel free to give context when you make your copypastas from JMK."

If you want it to be less confusing, you should try reading the post, not just my post, but the I replied to as well.

12/6/2010 10:47:26 PM

Quote :

"If you don't have to do anything then should be able to get it"

Speaking of not being clear...

Quote :

"while I would be more likely to save it"

Facts not in evidence. Or, is even the smallest uptick in savings enough evidence for you, despite other indicators that stand in stark contrast?

Quote :

"Not at all. There is a well known saying "Free as in beer or free as in speech", this statement directly depends on the context."

Not until you distinguish why targeted free money is different from non-targeted free money. Your original stellar and overwhelmingly insightful comment was

Quote :

"Paying people money for something or employment, or whatever"

not specific even in the context.

Quote :

" not just my post, but the I replied to as we"

When I quoted one of your posts before, you didn't have a problem responding to it. When I defeated your point in the next post, you went back to that original post and claimed I misunderstood what I quoted and now you suddenly have a problem with it.

12/7/2010 6:56:49 AM

Quote :

"Or, is even the smallest uptick in savings"

It wasn't small given the context, income decreasing, inflation, etc.

Quote :

"Not until you distinguish why targeted free money is different from non-targeted free money. "

I thought you said free was free?

Quote :

"not specific even in the context."

Sure it was, look at what it was replying to. You don't state the context, that's what makes it context.

Quote :

"you didn't have a problem responding to it"

You hadn't removed the context and built the strawman yet.

12/7/2010 8:24:18 PM

Quote :

"It wasn't small given the context, income decreasing, inflation, etc."

You have yet to support your case regarding this matter. Consumer debt dropped less than has been paid out in UI. The savings rate didn't go up substantially. Feel free to make a case with something other than copypastas from your favorite JMK work.

Quote :

"I thought you said free was free?"

In the midst of you yet again trying to be so clairvoyant, you just proved my point. You probably just misunderstood what was posted though.

Quote :

"Sure it was, look at what it was replying to"

Oh, so you're claiming again that in certain situations, free is more free than in other situations?

Quote :

"You hadn't removed the context"

for the last time

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONTEXT YOU STUPID KNUCKLE DRAGGER.

12/7/2010 10:13:17 PM

Quote :

"Consumer debt dropped less than has been paid out in UI."

Obviously marginal propensity to save is not 100%.

Quote :

"In the midst of you yet again trying to be so clairvoyant, you just proved my point."

So then gratis and libre are the same thing?

Quote :

"Oh, so you're claiming again that in certain situations, free is more free than in other situations?"

No, by "free money" I was referring to money dropped out of a helicopter. You can clearly see that by the argument I was replying to.

Quote :

"for the last time BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONTEXT YOU STUPID KNUCKLE DRAGGER."

There's always a context. You ignored it. And do you really think I am stupid? I know I'm smarter than the average person, I don't think you're stupid, you just really want to argue against your strawman rather than the argument I made.

12/7/2010 10:24:31 PM

Quote :

"You can clearly see that by the argument I was replying to."

So? Helicopter money is but one measure of free money the government can give out as opposed to

Quote :

"Paying people money for something or employment, or whatever [still can't get over this stellar commentary given the argument about the argument]"

If you're trying to make the distinction that helicopter money isn't targeted and will go into savings but UI is targeted and thus won't, well, good luck making that case.

Quote :

"So then gratis and libre are the same thing?"

Why are you even bringing this into the discussion? It has absolutely nothing to do with this argument, at all.

Quote :

"And do you really think I am stupid?"

I think you do your damnedest to defend Keynesian theory and simply aren't enough of a master to reply to criticisms of it. In doing so you end up mangling what you think you know in your head and what you are typing in this forum. Three different people have commented on it. Are you really so fucking arrogant that you believe we're the problem? I pointed out a week or more ago that debates with you have lately degenerated into arguing about the argument. I (and I suspect burro and others) aren't doing it because we fucking enjoy it, its because you say one thing and get called on it and you retreat to whining that we didn't understand your post. It's a stale act.

I can't remember any time in the past few weeks you've actually attempted to support any of the broader Keynes concepts you're applying to the current state of the economy...which is why I said several threads ago you should just start referring us to a page number in he General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and we'll study it direct from JMK himself.

12/7/2010 10:46:19 PM

It was an interesting day on MSNBC

50/50 for and against this compromise

12/7/2010 10:50:56 PM

Quote :

"If you're trying to make the distinction that helicopter money isn't targeted and will go into savings but UI is targeted and thus won't, well, good luck making that case."

I can easily prove that. As income decreases proportional spending increases. Unemployment lowers income on average. As income increases proportional savings increases. Helicopter drops raise income on average.

Quote :

"Why are you even bringing this into the discussion?"

Free is free, right?

Quote :

"It has absolutely nothing to do with this argument, at all."

Would you say that I have, possibly, taken your statement out of context? I would say that I have, and I did so to prove a point.

Quote :

"I think you do your damnedest to defend Keynesian theory"

My beliefs may be close to Keynesianism, but they are my own.

Quote :

"Three different people have commented on it."

Two of them consistently ride my nuts and would do anything to further cement their place in the senior leadership of my fan club. You simply don't read my posts. In this instance you failed to read what I was replying to.

Quote :

"I pointed out a week or more ago that debates with you have lately degenerated into arguing about the argument."

That's generally directly a result of your best efforts.

Quote :

"I suspect burro"

the current president of my fan club

Quote :

"its because you say one thing and get called on it"

You replied to it without reading the context. It's fairly easy to win against an argument you get to make up.

Quote :

"I can't remember any time in the past few weeks you've actually attempted to support any of the broader Keynes concepts you're applying to the current state of the economy...which is why I said several threads ago you should just start referring us to a page number in he General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and we'll study it direct from JMK himself."

I haven't read that book in well over 10 years. Things I post are far more influenced by the arguments I've had here and things I have learned at work than any book, but if it were influenced by any writer, I would choose Marx over Keynes.

I think you just have a disdain for economic thought, because you don't understand it, and out of ignorance you assume everything I say to be out of some Keynes book. It's a bad look.

12/7/2010 11:03:40 PM

Quote :

"I can easily prove that. As income decreases proportional spending increases. Unemployment lowers income on average. As income increases proportional savings increases. Helicopter drops raise income on average"

Again, I've yet to see you produce any real data on how mpc/mps will be different for the sums of money were talking about for UI or a helicopter drop. Again, you're taking the theory and applying it haphazardly and calling it a day. As best I can tell, the money from UI or a helicopter drop wouldn't be enough to push any of us into super wealthy status where we can be sure the mpc will be much lower for us.

Quote :

"Would you say that I have, possibly, taken your statement out of context? I would say that I have, and I did so to prove a point."

The difference is I didn't respond to the point as if it was legit, wait for you to reply to that, then come back when I didn't feel like losing the point again and complain that you took me out of context.

Quote :

"My beliefs may be close to Keynesianism, but they are my own. "

Even worse, you do a pretty terrible job of supporting your own beliefs.

Quote :

"and things I have learned at work than "

What is it that you do exactly that has given you such great insight? As best I can remember, you're a programmer of some sort.

Quote :

"I think you just have a disdain for economic thought, because you don't understand it, and out of ignorance you assume everything I say to be out of some Keynes book. It's a bad look."

No, as I said before, I think you have a terrible time applying theory in a practical way. I fully accept the argument that the rich spend proportionally less of their income. But I don't take that concept and start slapping it against any argument where income levels have changed and expect the same results to apply. In our case the levels changed from 50k to 30k (UI) or 50k to 51k (heli drop) not from 50k to 500k.

12/8/2010 7:06:22 AM

Quote :

"Again, I've yet to see you produce any real data on how mpc/mps will be different for the sums of money were talking about for UI or a helicopter drop."

There is no data on helicopter drops because there have never been helicopter drops. But I didn't need to produce any real data, what you said was easily proven wrong in theory.

Quote :

"As best I can tell, the money from UI or a helicopter drop wouldn't be enough to push any of us into super wealthy status where we can be sure the mpc will be much lower for us."

MPC drops as income rises. That truism needs no quantification.

Quote :

"The difference is I didn't respond to the point as if it was legit"

Your first point was "legit" you didn't lose the context until the second post.

Quote :

"What is it that you do exactly that has given you such great insight? As best I can remember, you're a programmer of some sort."

I've done a lot of stuff around different things involving market data, finance, and managing customer information and such. For the past few years I've been working with statisticians and brokers to develop market analysis tools that dig through market data to develop mathematical functions that represent trends and present that data in an interactive web application for use by brokers and traders.

Quote :

"I fully accept the argument that the rich spend proportionally less of their income."

Then how does it not follow? If rich spend proportionally less, and a helicopter causes more money to go to the rich than UI, then how are they not different? You've admitted in this very post that they are different, you've backpedalled to the argument now that I guess their differences aren't enough to matter.

Quote :

"In our case the levels changed from 50k to 30k (UI) or 50k to 51k (heli drop) not from 50k to 500k."

So then there is a difference? Because you're moving the goalposts.

12/8/2010 11:02:29 PM

Quote :

"Then how does it not follow? If rich spend proportionally less, and a helicopter causes more money to go to the rich than UI, then how are they not different?"

UI is government spending, which is just government borrowing. So Government borrowed one dollar out of the economy and spent one dollar into the economy. No net effect. If we need spending, then we need new money, not just shuffling around existing money. We need the printing press to run, so the rules need to be changed to allow either #1 helicopter drops or #2 direct borrowing of the Treasury from the Federal Reserve.

12/8/2010 11:16:17 PM

Well as I've explained before, helicopter drops are ridiculous as well as counterproductive, but option 2 I would be fine with.

12/9/2010 12:10:47 AM

Quote :

"helicopter drops are ridiculous as well as counterproductive"

Please elaborate.

12/9/2010 12:21:39 AM

Quote :

"Because you're moving the goalposts"

The goal posts got moved around because you squirm your way out of defending any argument you've ever made with anything more than "well, in theory, this is how it should work".

Go back to the post that started this chain, read it again, and realize you've not done a damn thing to back up that statement.

It only took about 10 posts each for you to admit that you have no idea how a helicopter drop will effect the economy other than what the theory says. Are you really that obtuse that you'll happily post in this way, theory absent data, when part of the entire reason we're even talking about this is because guys like you thought they had everything accounted for in their models only to find out they didn't when it all went oops?

12/9/2010 7:17:45 AM

Quote :

"Please elaborate."

I explained eariler, basically, you want that money to get spend, that was the point of making it. You would be better targeting those who spend more rather than everyone. That's why it's counterproductive. Why it's ridiculous should be obvious.

Quote :

"The goal posts got moved around because you squirm "

So you're moving goalposts and I'm somehow squirming?

Quote :

"well, in theory, this is how it should work"

You stated you accepted the theory. If you reject the theory, we can have a different discussion.

Quote :

"It only took about 10 posts each for you to admit that you have no idea how a helicopter drop will effect the economy other than what the theory says."

Do you mean I was not able to post data about an event that never occured? Obviously theoretical predictions are the only avenue of data for an imaginary event.

Quote :

"when part of the entire reason we're even talking about this is because guys like you thought they had everything accounted for in their models only to find out they didn't when it all went oops?"

No one would claim to have everything in the economy modeled anymore than someone would the weather when we have only, within the last decade, solved some of the traveling salesman problems. We only model small, small parts, and those have nothing to do with the Keynesian-Friedman dichotomy.

12/9/2010 10:18:19 AM

Quote :

"I explained eariler, basically, you want that money to get spend, that was the point of making it."

Not true. If the money is saved to repair balance sheets then it has still been productive. But a helicopter drop is merely a metaphor, the Federal Reserve is perfectly capable of just mailing everyone in America a check for money that did not previously exist.

12/10/2010 8:14:05 AM

Quote :

"If the money is saved to repair balance sheets then it has still been productive."

Not at all, that money will inevitably be saved, those balance sheets should remain unrepairable until the recession ends. The most effective use of the money is for it to be spent, it can repair the strongest companies balance sheets through those means.

12/12/2010 4:18:14 PM

Money that repairs a balance sheet makes the owner of the debt more liquid who will then be able to spend that money into the economy (perhaps extinguishing his own debt). If it is better to not extinguish debts and instead consume, then we should just print money into infinity.

12/12/2010 10:33:23 PM

Quote :

"then be able to spend that money into the economy"

But they won't, they will inevitably pad cash reserves as they do during economic uncertainty.

Quote :

"If it is better to not extinguish debts and instead consume, then we should just print money into infinity."

Again you've failed to read. The context surrounding this discussion is "during a recession".

12/12/2010 11:48:03 PM

Quote :

"But they won't, they will inevitably pad cash reserves as they do during economic uncertainty."

Such is true for everyone, including the poor. But, this is beside the point. In-so-far as the money lands in savings and does not fix the money drought, just print and distribute more until it does.

12/13/2010 1:37:21 AM

Quote :

"Mr. Mangano, a Republican who won one of the first upsets of the Tea Party era, did what he had promised: He cut taxes, adding $40 million to the county’s deficit, which has since reached nearly $350 million. Now, with its bonds suddenly downgraded and a state oversight agency preparing to seize its checkbook and credit cards, Nassau is on the verge of a full-fledged fiscal crisis. That things could get so dire in this wealthy county, where property taxes are the second highest in the nation, offers a lesson in what happens when anti-tax fervor meets the realities of disappearing revenues and a punch-drunk economy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/nyregion/11nassau.html?_r=3

12/13/2010 2:46:23 AM

Quote :

"Again you've failed to read. The context surrounding this discussion is "during a recession"."

No, I understood the context perfectly fine, but in so much as you've failed to show how this theory is effecting the economy other than "oh, the savings rate went up" (but forgetting to mention it's actually been higher in the US in the last 20 years which sort of undermines your point), I'm content to extrapolate your ideas to ridiculous extremes. Tell me, if the policy is so good during a recession, why do we ever have them? Just print the money into infinity and the country will stay permanently stimulated. Unemployment will go to zero, wealth will spread around everywhere, we'll all be fat and happy.

12/13/2010 6:52:39 AM

^^ Might not bankruptcy be his intended goal? As a county government, they cannot renegotiate obscene county employee contracts without first going to bankruptcy court.

12/13/2010 10:03:29 AM

Quote :

"Such is true for everyone, including the poor."

It's far less true for the poor as they will be forced to spend more.

Quote :

"just print and distribute more until it does"

Why not just distribute it properly to begin with and face less of a threat of inflation later when all the excess money you gave people to tuck away begins to be spend after economic uncertainty diminishes?

Quote :

"No, I understood the context perfectly fine"

You statement seemed to be restating my argument as "we must always encourage consumption" which is not what it was. It was "we must encourage consumption during recession".

Quote :

"Tell me, if the policy is so good during a recession, why do we ever have them?"

What? You are asking me something like "if band aids are good at stopping bleeding, why do you get cut?". It makes no sense.

Quote :

"Just print the money into infinity and the country will stay permanently stimulated. Unemployment will go to zero, wealth will spread around everywhere, we'll all be fat and happy."

The policy only works while the economy is contracting. Once economic uncertainty is removed, such a policy would lead to excessive inflation. This outcome is ofset by the deflationary aspects of recession and the inevitable savings that beings to occur as economic uncertainty sets in. Stability is the cheese, not savings, not spending, those are just the left and the right of the balancing act.

12/13/2010 12:46:44 PM

Quote :

"You statement seemed to be restating my argument"

Kris, do you know the definition of extrapolate?

Quote :

"What? You are asking me something like "if band aids are good at stopping bleeding, why do you get cut?". It makes no sense. "

Sure, if that is your analogy it doesn't make sense. The point is, if the government really can intervene to stop recessions, then why can't the government intervene to prevent them? Why can't the government intervene to make the economy do whatever the fuck it wants? I suspect you're going to posit that if the world lived by your theories then this is exactly what we'd get.

12/13/2010 6:48:56 PM

Quote :

"The point is, if the government really can intervene to stop recessions, then why can't the government intervene to prevent them?"

Two main reasons, the first is that a bubble can at times be tough to differentiate from regular growth, the second is that it tends to be very unpopular for the government to take measures to slow the economy down.

Quote :

"Why can't the government intervene to make the economy do whatever the fuck it wants?"

Because magic isn't real.

Quote :

"I suspect you're going to posit that if the world lived by your theories then this is exactly what we'd get."

Not at all, we don't have perfect information.

12/13/2010 7:23:33 PM