Voodoo Economics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tweakabelle -> Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 8:00:56 PM)

A favoured mantra of the Right is that 'Small Govt and lower taxes make for economic competitiveness and success'. Does this claim stand up to scrutiny?

""Economists' and business people's support for smaller government stems from their entrenched belief that big government causes economies to malfunction. One small problem: after decades of searching they can't find evidence to support such a link.
There's no correlation between size of government and rate of economic growth. Some countries with big public sectors do well; some countries with small public sectors do badly."



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-judge-government-by-its-size-20120313-1uyd8.html#ixzz1p3WmNdcM

Nothing unusual here. Facts rarely feature in Right-wing ideology, occasional visitors at best. Just more voodoo economics to enrich the 1% at the expense of the 99%. The surprise would be if the outcome were any different.



Yachtie -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 8:12:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A favoured mantra of the Right is that 'Small Govt and lower taxes make for economic competitiveness and success'. Does this claim stand up to scrutiny?

""Economists' and business people's support for smaller government stems from their entrenched belief that big government causes economies to malfunction. One small problem: after decades of searching they can't find evidence to support such a link.
There's no correlation between size of government and rate of economic growth. Some countries with big public sectors do well; some countries with small public sectors do badly."



That's as much a crock as people believing deficits don't matter.

Our aversion to supposed big government includes an obsession with government debt even though, with government net debt no higher than 13 per cent of GDP, Australia's public debt is ''way below the level of almost every other developed country''

Take a good look at the US. Debt to GDP is >100%.

This guy is as absurd as Paul Krugman.



tweakabelle -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 8:32:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A favoured mantra of the Right is that 'Small Govt and lower taxes make for economic competitiveness and success'. Does this claim stand up to scrutiny?

""Economists' and business people's support for smaller government stems from their entrenched belief that big government causes economies to malfunction. One small problem: after decades of searching they can't find evidence to support such a link.
There's no correlation between size of government and rate of economic growth. Some countries with big public sectors do well; some countries with small public sectors do badly."



That's as much a crock as people believing deficits don't matter.

Our aversion to supposed big government includes an obsession with government debt even though, with government net debt no higher than 13 per cent of GDP, Australia's public debt is ''way below the level of almost every other developed country''

Take a good look at the US. Debt to GDP is >100%.

This guy is as absurd as Paul Krugman.


So who do we believe? You? Or the data? I find that question very easy to answer.

This reaction is typical of the Right. Whenever the data and facts conflict with the Right's self serving highly confected view of the world, their reaction is that the facts are wrong. Look at the evolution vs creationism issue for example. Sorry the Right's voodoo economics don't stand up to scrutiny, they are contradicted by the data and the facts.



Fellow -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 8:52:17 PM)

Small vs big discussion is similar to left vs. right (as the competing only options) nonsense. I see the size of the government as an optimization problem. The centralization for large countries like the USA is an another similar (optimization) problem.  Obamanomics could be classified as a clear example of Voodoo Economics. 



xssve -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 9:00:59 PM)

quote:

Take a good look at the US. Debt to GDP is >100%.

This guy is as absurd as Paul Krugman.


And your point is...



SternSkipper -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 9:06:25 PM)

quote:


So who do we believe? You? Or the data?

Last week His $50 lightbulbs turned out costing $20



Real0ne -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 9:59:43 PM)

fr


so whats up with this shit?

any country annexed to the UK is glowing red and countries NOT annexed to the uk are in the black?

I dont see the connection? Anyone?

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

LMFAO



Edwynn -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 10:17:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
That's as much a crock as people believing deficits don't matter.


So who do we believe? You? Or the data? I find that question very easy to answer.



His delusion, of course. More fun than facts any day of the week. Which is why such folks assiduously avoid them.

Some more contra-delusion from the article:

Many business people - who wrongly imagine countries compete the same way firms do - worry a great deal about their country's ''competitiveness''. So let's examine the (highly subjective and ever-changing) World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index.

Top of the ranking in 2011 is Switzerland, with the same rate of tax to GDP as us, 29 per cent. We (Australia) come 20th. The United States, with a tax rate of 27 per cent, comes fifth. But it's pipped by Finland, on fourth, with a tax rate of 44 per cent and Sweden, on third, with a rate of 48 per cent.

Denmark, the country with the highest tax rate - 49 per cent - comes eighth. Germany, with a tax rate of 36 per cent, comes sixth, while the Netherlands, with a tax rate of 38 per cent, comes seventh.



I also know from data that I've looked up myself often enough from OECD tables that Germany and the Benelux and Scandinavia, all with higher individual taxes than the US, have net positive trade surplus and national account balances and national savings almost every year. Reason for the latter being that even after the large chunk taken from the paycheck, there is much less required to spend beyond that in the way of public services such as healthcare, e.g. In many Euro cities people only drive the car on weekends because public trans. is so good.  It's amazing what otherwise less disposable income can do for a person when not having to pay the huge tab for grossly inefficient barely regulated private health insurance, among other things. 
If people looked at how much (if any) they have left after all taxes and non-discretionary spending and responsibility spending (such as insurance) are accounted for, we would understand how economies with more responsible government revenue structures and more efficient rendering of public services leave the population able to buy what they need with less debt involved. Hence the positive net personal savings, which the US hasn't registered in decades.





Edwynn -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 10:39:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

fr


so whats up with this shit?

any country annexed to the UK is glowing red and countries NOT annexed to the uk are in the black?

I dont see the connection? Anyone?

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

LMFAO



What's up is more BS, apparently. The graphic displays color in terms of total dollars, not % of GDP, ergo meaningless.

Not to mention none of us knew that France Germany Japan Greece et. al. were annexed to the UK.

So no, nobody sees a connection here.  Almost no one, that is.






MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/13/2012 11:05:46 PM)

 
World Bank Report Shows Large Public Sectors Reduce Economy

The European Central Bank published a study showing “…a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth.”

A study by two Harvard economists found that “large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions.”

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted in recent research that welfare programs are economically destructive because they lure people into dependency because “net disposable income would increase despite putting in fewer hours.”

 
A study from the International Monetary Fund concluded that “Cuts to pension and health entitlements had the most beneficial effect on economic growth.”
 
This is remarkable. It’s beginning to look like the entire world has figured out that there’s an inverse relationship between big government and economic performance. That’s an exaggeration, of course. There are still holdouts pushing for more statism in Pyongyang, Paris, Havana, and parts of Washington, DC.
 
But maybe they’ll be convinced by new research from the World Bank, which just produced a major report on the outlook for Europe. In chapter 7, the authors explain some of the ways that big government can undermine prosperity.
 
Source: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/02/11/world_bank_report_shows_large_public_sectors_reduce_economy/page/full/





Edwynn -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 1:33:02 AM)

Well that's some fine cherry picking there in the first four links from International Liberty, "Restraining Government in America and Around the World," that noble task taken up by the author Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute, formerly of The American Heritage foundation. Nice of him to give all those links to his own site from his column in finance.townhall.

The first link refers to a paper written by two ECB economists. I guarantee there are at least two other ECB economists with papers at least as rigorous that say otherwise. Link #2: I guarantee you there are at least two other Harvard economists with papers that say otherwise. All the best economic schools have professors that can say completely different things in very convincing lengthy papers. That's what they do. Link #3 Fails to mention that in that same OECD report it is pointed out how unfair it is to lower earning workers that capital gains are at a lower rate than income. No, good ole International Liberty wasn't going to tell you that. Nor that one of the authors in his blog pointed out that Dutch proposed cuts to education and infrastructure will hurt growth.

Cherry picking at it's finest from Cato Institute's Dan Michell.

As for the last link, here's the introduction to chapter 7:

To make sense of the relationship between government and well-being in Europe, Sweden
might be a good place to start. The quintessential European welfare state, Sweden does well
in social outcomes: children and students enjoy free education, the elderly receive a decent
pension, everyone relies on a public health system that helps them live long and healthy
lives, and social trust is high. The welfare system redistributes wealth and contributes to
an equitable distribution of income. All this is done with big government. From 1980 to
2010, Sweden’s government spending accounted on average for 59 percent of GDP. These
three-fifths of economic output that are spent by government are funded mainly by levying
charges and taxes on workers, families, and enterprises. Such high taxation surely gets in
the way of growth. Or does it? Over the last three decades, Sweden’s per capita growth
was 1.7 percent—as it happens, just about the same as the United States. Yet government
spending in the U.S. was only 37 percent, or about three-fifths of government spending in
Sweden.


Yeah, damaging testimony that is.




Yachtie -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 5:19:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

So who do we believe? You? Or the data? I find that question very easy to answer.

This reaction is typical of the Right. Whenever the data and facts conflict with the Right's self serving highly confected view of the world, their reaction is that the facts are wrong. Look at the evolution vs creationism issue for example. Sorry the Right's voodoo economics don't stand up to scrutiny, they are contradicted by the data and the facts.


I only stated what the data shows. Now Australia may have capacity for greater government spending as a %age of GDP, but just because one has something does not necessitate its use.

The right's voodoo economics of corporatism and endless wars do not stand up to scrutiny anymore than the progressives voodoo economics of social utopia systems. What both sides turn a blind eye to is the math which states 2+2=4, preferring instead that which will permit their worldview.



Musicmystery -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 7:59:16 AM)

quote:

That's as much a crock as people believing deficits don't matter.


And herein lies the problem.

"Government is the problem" -- Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" -- Dick Cheney

And Reagan's policies--dubbed "voodoo economics" by candidate HW Bush in 1980 (and derided as "Reagonomics" by Bob Dole at the time)--quadrupled the national debt, transferred ownership of 25% of U.S. assets to foreign hands, and turned the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world--in just eight years. His own economics people (Stockton et al) admitted it had failed.

And yet, the right is still singing its praises and following its policies.

It absolutely is a crock. And it's being worshipped.



Yachtie -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 9:34:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That's as much a crock as people believing deficits don't matter.


And herein lies the problem.

"Government is the problem" -- Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" -- Dick Cheney

And Reagan's policies--dubbed "voodoo economics" by candidate HW Bush in 1980 (and derided as "Reagonomics" by Bob Dole at the time)--quadrupled the national debt, transferred ownership of 25% of U.S. assets to foreign hands, and turned the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world--in just eight years. His own economics people (Stockton et al) admitted it had failed.

And yet, the right is still singing its praises and following its policies.

It absolutely is a crock. And it's being worshipped.


Remember, pointing the finger at the right, even while deservedly, has three pointing back. The left, as in the Obama administration, has attempted to cure the outrageous deficit spending with... wait for it... more deficit spending. Such puts the kibosh on any claims of Obama fixing the deficit errors of the right when the debt has soared to even far greater heights on his watch.

And the people cheer.



Musicmystery -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 9:43:14 AM)

Stop assigning thoughts and motives. Take off your imaginary right/left glasses.

Nowhere am I claiming anything you're assigning to me.

1) I agree that deficits continue to be a problem
2) You are introducing a second variable, the economic crash of 2008. The solutions to that fall into short term and long term catagories; whether each solution is advisable is another matter, and certainly debatable. It's an expensive solution, at the very least. Obama is Bush-light, yes.

The point is that the right is clamoring for more of what got us here, repeating Reagan's mistake, despite its demonstrated failure.




MrRodgers -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 10:32:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

Small vs big discussion is similar to left vs. right (as the competing only options) nonsense. I see the size of the government as an optimization problem. The centralization for large countries like the USA is an another similar (optimization) problem.  Obamanomics could be classified as a clear example of Voodoo Economics. 

Obamanomics almost directly parallels that of Reagan. The real problem of course is that the right (repubs when in power) wouldn't know from experience if small govt. fiscal conservatism really works and does any good at all...they've never tried it. They've all been big govt., deficit spenders.



Yachtie -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 10:35:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Stop assigning thoughts and motives. Take off your imaginary right/left glasses.

The point is that the right is clamoring for more of what got us here, repeating Reagan's mistake, despite its demonstrated failure.



Ok. Then please stop with the imaginary left/right glasses.

They're all guilty.

Politics wants what the math cannot provide.

Watch this vid. It could just as easily be about the US as the EU.



MrRodgers -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 10:44:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That's as much a crock as people believing deficits don't matter.


And herein lies the problem.

"Government is the problem" -- Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" -- Dick Cheney

And Reagan's policies--dubbed "voodoo economics" by candidate HW Bush in 1980 (and derided as "Reagonomics" by Bob Dole at the time)--quadrupled the national debt, transferred ownership of 25% of U.S. assets to foreign hands, and turned the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world--in just eight years. His own economics people (Stockton et al) admitted it had failed.

And yet, the right is still singing its praises and following its policies.

It absolutely is a crock. And it's being worshipped.


Remember, pointing the finger at the right, even while deservedly, has three pointing back. The left, as in the Obama administration, has attempted to cure the outrageous deficit spending with... wait for it... more deficit spending. Such puts the kibosh on any claims of Obama fixing the deficit errors of the right when the debt has soared to even far greater heights on his watch.

And the people cheer.



NO they are not ALL guilty and is a deliberate falsification.

But you will let us be the first to know when the dems could could just write-off republican debt...ok ?

The Obama admin. is less than 4 years old. For 20 years of repub, small govt. fiscal conservatism, ran up $trillions in debt, that would have made the current $15 trillion...about $21 trillion...if not for yet another dem. (Clinton) The increase from the repub right...rent-seekers and profiteers.

Small govt., fiscal conservatism exists nowhere on the right and has not existed in contemporary American politics since Eisenhower. (exc.: Clinton)



Yachtie -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 10:53:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The Obama admin. is less than 4 years old. For 20 years of repub, small govt. fiscal conservatism, ran up $trillions in debt, that would have made the current $15 trillion...about $21 trillion...if not for yet another dem. (Clinton) The increase from the repub right...rent-seekers and profiteers.

Small govt., fiscal conservatism exists nowhere on the right and has not existed in contemporary American politics since Eisenhower. (exc.: Clinton)



Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.

By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.

The Blame Game? Sure. I'll play. What good it will do I do not know, but it's fun.






DaddySatyr -> RE: Voodoo Economics (3/14/2012 10:54:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

NO they are not ALL guilty and is a deliberate falsification.

But you will let us be the first to know when the dems could could just write-off republican debt...ok ?

The Obama admin. is less than 4 years old. For 20 years of repub, small govt. fiscal conservatism, ran up $trillions in debt, that would have made the current $15 trillion...about $21 trillion...if not for yet another dem. (Clinton) The increase from the repub right...rent-seekers and profiteers.

Small govt., fiscal conservatism exists nowhere on the right and has not existed in contemporary American politics since Eisenhower. (exc.: Clinton)



We had Republican "small government" between '93-'01? President Clinton takes credit for balancing a budget that the Republican house dragged him into, kicking and screaming.

For a guy that campaigned on "It's the economy, stupid" he didn't seem to mind demonizing a Republican house that insisted that the budget had to be balanced.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.859375E-02