Carlyle. Now that I know your claimed pedigree, I can understand your perspective. While working on my Ph.D. from Pitt, I took courses at Carnegie Institute (now Carnegie-Mellon). For me, Merton Miller was a challenge. I preferred Martin Bronfenbrenner. Your citations place you directly in Hoovervian Economics. (Barro is at the Hoover Institute.) Miller went on to Chicago (home of Milton Friedman). so now I understand where you are coming from, and respectfully disagree with the prescriptions derived, therefrom. However, fiscal policy has been virtually eliminated and we are left with the FED which has provided a half-baked solution. Good luck with your IRA, etc. I moved 50 percent into cash May 3rd. Sorry I didn't make it 100%.
Carlyle: Anyone who hides behind a pseudoname can say anything they want and CLAIM anything they want to claim. Unfortunately, this paper allows this, but I won't go along with the charade. You may have credentials. I certainly do, and mine are an open book. I did study the history of economic thought many years ago, but I do not claim expertise. As to mulitpliers, I wonder where you studied economics? A 1.0??? Think of the logic. Government gives me a dollar. I spend it and what you're saying is that the recipient of my dollar puts it in his pocket? I know this is simplistic. Try this. The government gives me a dollar and I spend 70c. The recipient spends 50c. Total increase is $1.20 and the spending goes on and the multipler grows. Take a reputable Macroeconomics course (I taught these for ten years) and pass it with the argument that the multiplier is 1.0 then tell me who the professor is so I can petition to get him fired for incompetence.
Dr. Yampavalleyboy. You're one of those who ignores history. So tell us why we should ignore it. You've got a cure, so why not write a scholarly essay on the value of a balanced budget amendment. You certainly have the support of your esteemed Congressional Representative who is such an astute economic expert and champion of this idea (along with not raising the debt ceiling to pay for debts already incurred). I think all views should be heard, especially from experts like yourself.
Planks in campaigns mean nothing. It's actions that count. Keynes didn't publish his Theory until 1936. So to say that "Hoover was the original Keynesian" defies historical fact.Hoover was a time and motion expert before joining the post-world war 1 effort to feed and reconstruct Europe. During the 1920's, the U.S. economy floated on an ever increasing bubble of high leverage (the stock market was the original ATM). Hoover tightened Federal Expenditures as Treasury receipts fell and potential deficit increased. He forced the Federal Government into a balanced budget, just when it shouldn't have gone in that direction. There was another factor and that was the Federal Reserve's tightening of credit-something for which the current chairman, Ben Bernake has written about and avoided in the near depression that occurred in 2008-9.
I don't know why you've brought in the tax rate reduction. You might want to explain. Also, please address yourself to what I wrote- that fiscal policy has been almost eliminated as a tool for getting us out of a downward economic spiral.
It's the war on pot that concerns me, not growing or using. We are paying undercover NARCs $100,000+ a year to sit in cars in Baltimore and other cities to trap users who buy an ounce and a half and then are locked up for a year and a half. These NARCs then get bonuses and promotions. We pay more ($50,000 per year per inmate). The Federal Government has waged a relatively successful program of education against the horrors of cigarette smoking. Such smoking is not illegal, but it leads to early death and probably reduced brain function of young children exposed to second hand smoke who become first hand users. Let communities decide. If you don't like that policy, and it is that important to you-move to where you have like minded people.
Well Gary, I guess I caught you. Hillary has said nothing of substance on health care. Pontificating? Duh? Maybe she has returned to the Goldwater mold where she started her illustrious career.
See Paul Krugman's article that is in the Monday NY Times and will probably be printed in Today on Tuesday.
Gary: Please please tell me where you got info on Hillary's health care plan. She has been the most reluctant Democrat candidate to unveil a proposal since she went down in flames in the 90's.
Buck You make reference to my critique on epithets. That's fine, except you still call yourself a "conservative." You support W, but his Administration has increased government's size and substantially increased the deficit. Is that "conservative?" I hold to the view that there is a role for government beyond the military, although government also abuses this role.
President Eisenhower launched the Interstate Highway System. President Johnson enforced the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education and got political support to pass Medicare. Before his hubris got the best of him President Nixon got the Environmental Protection Act passed.
What has the current Administration done. A Supreme Court dominated by "conservatives" has pulled out one pillar of Brown, reinstating "Separate But Equal." There are potholes and falling bridges on the Interstate Highways, waterways can now be polluted by miners and the EPA is shackled by the White House. Drug companies are having their best years thanks to the Administration you support not allowing the government to negotiate prices on drugs.
I wrote another article on financing health care. It had specifics. Not one of your "conservatives" challenged it. Why? It was surely a "way out" liberal piece.
Do you carry a Medicare card? Your children and grandchildren are paying for this benefit and, if things don't change, they won't have this benefit when they get to 65.
Do you "pay" for Part B and Part D, both of which are subsidized by my tax dollars (I take neither, although I am eligible)
ok sbvor, have at it!
Murray Tucker Why don't you tear it up and pay as you go
Let's be fair in quoting les sbvor, your "article" says the following: "Let me say two things. I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. ... And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."
Those are the words spoken by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday, October 28, 2005, at his hourlong press conference where he laid out the charges against Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
A jury found Mr. Libby guilty of lying, just as the House found under the other fornicator, Newt Gingrich found Bill Clinton lying and almost had him impeached by the Senate.
I'm glad that W commuted this sentence on the grounds that it was "excessive." There are too many individuals in federal prison at $50,000 a year who have excessive sentences and who should be paroled.
Murray Tucker: Hooverian economics
Carlyle. Now that I know your claimed pedigree, I can understand your perspective. While working on my Ph.D. from Pitt, I took courses at Carnegie Institute (now Carnegie-Mellon). For me, Merton Miller was a challenge. I preferred Martin Bronfenbrenner. Your citations place you directly in Hoovervian Economics. (Barro is at the Hoover Institute.) Miller went on to Chicago (home of Milton Friedman). so now I understand where you are coming from, and respectfully disagree with the prescriptions derived, therefrom. However, fiscal policy has been virtually eliminated and we are left with the FED which has provided a half-baked solution. Good luck with your IRA, etc. I moved 50 percent into cash May 3rd. Sorry I didn't make it 100%.
August 10, 2011 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Murray Tucker: Hooverian economics
Carlyle: Anyone who hides behind a pseudoname can say anything they want and CLAIM anything they want to claim. Unfortunately, this paper allows this, but I won't go along with the charade. You may have credentials. I certainly do, and mine are an open book. I did study the history of economic thought many years ago, but I do not claim expertise. As to mulitpliers, I wonder where you studied economics? A 1.0???
Think of the logic. Government gives me a dollar. I spend it and what you're saying is that the recipient of my dollar puts it in his pocket? I know this is simplistic. Try this. The government gives me a dollar and I spend 70c. The recipient spends 50c. Total increase is $1.20 and the spending goes on and the multipler grows. Take a reputable Macroeconomics course (I taught these for ten years) and pass it with the argument that the multiplier is 1.0 then tell me who the professor is so I can petition to get him fired for incompetence.
August 9, 2011 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Murray Tucker: Hooverian economics
Dr. Yampavalleyboy. You're one of those who ignores history. So tell us why we should ignore it. You've got a cure, so why not write a scholarly essay on the value of a balanced budget amendment. You certainly have the support of your esteemed Congressional Representative who is such an astute economic expert and champion of this idea (along with not raising the debt ceiling to pay for debts already incurred). I think all views should be heard, especially from experts like yourself.
August 8, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Murray Tucker: Hooverian economics
Planks in campaigns mean nothing. It's actions that count. Keynes didn't publish his Theory until 1936. So to say that "Hoover was the original Keynesian" defies historical fact.Hoover was a time and motion expert before joining the post-world war 1 effort to feed and reconstruct Europe. During the 1920's, the U.S. economy floated on an ever increasing bubble of high leverage (the stock market was the original ATM). Hoover tightened Federal Expenditures as Treasury receipts fell and potential deficit increased. He forced the Federal Government into a balanced budget, just when it shouldn't have gone in that direction. There was another factor and that was the Federal Reserve's tightening of credit-something for which the current chairman, Ben Bernake has written about and avoided in the near depression that occurred in 2008-9.
I don't know why you've brought in the tax rate reduction. You might want to explain. Also, please address yourself to what I wrote- that fiscal policy has been almost eliminated as a tool for getting us out of a downward economic spiral.
August 7, 2011 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Murray Tucker: End weed war
It's the war on pot that concerns me, not growing or using. We are paying undercover NARCs $100,000+ a year to sit in cars in Baltimore and other cities to trap users who buy an ounce and a half and then are locked up for a year and a half. These NARCs then get bonuses and promotions. We pay more ($50,000 per year per inmate). The Federal Government has waged a relatively successful program of education against the horrors of cigarette smoking. Such smoking is not illegal, but it leads to early death and probably reduced brain function of young children exposed to second hand smoke who become first hand users. Let communities decide. If you don't like that policy, and it is that important to you-move to where you have like minded people.
July 15, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Conservative commentary: The 'duh' factor
Well Gary, I guess I caught you. Hillary has said nothing of substance on health care. Pontificating? Duh? Maybe she has returned to the Goldwater mold where she started her illustrious career.
See Paul Krugman's article that is in the Monday NY Times and will probably be printed in Today on Tuesday.
Murray
August 6, 2007 at 12:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Conservative commentary: The 'duh' factor
Gary:
Please please tell me where you got info on Hillary's health care plan. She has been the most reluctant Democrat candidate to unveil a proposal since she went down in flames in the 90's.
Murray Tucker
July 29, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Harmon "Buck" Buckland: It takes more than a T-shirt
Buck
You make reference to my critique on epithets. That's fine, except you still call yourself a "conservative." You support W, but his Administration has increased government's size and substantially increased the deficit. Is that "conservative?" I hold to the view that there is a role for government beyond the military, although government also abuses this role.
President Eisenhower launched the Interstate Highway System. President Johnson enforced the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education and got political support to pass Medicare. Before his hubris got the best of him President Nixon got the Environmental Protection Act passed.
What has the current Administration done. A Supreme Court dominated by "conservatives" has pulled out one pillar of Brown, reinstating "Separate But Equal." There are potholes and falling bridges on the Interstate Highways, waterways can now be polluted by miners and the EPA is shackled by the White House. Drug companies are having their best years thanks to the Administration you support not allowing the government to negotiate prices on drugs.
I wrote another article on financing health care. It had specifics. Not one of your "conservatives" challenged it. Why? It was surely a "way out" liberal piece.
Do you carry a Medicare card? Your children and grandchildren are paying for this benefit and, if things don't change, they won't have this benefit when they get to 65.
Do you "pay" for Part B and Part D, both of which are subsidized by my tax dollars (I take neither, although I am eligible)
ok sbvor, have at it!
Murray Tucker
Why don't you tear it up and pay as you go
July 16, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lynn Abbott: All people equal
Let's be fair in quoting les sbvor, your "article" says the following:
"Let me say two things. I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. ... And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."
Those are the words spoken by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday, October 28, 2005, at his hourlong press conference where he laid out the charges against Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
A jury found Mr. Libby guilty of lying, just as the House found under the other fornicator, Newt Gingrich found Bill Clinton lying and almost had him impeached by the Senate.
I'm glad that W commuted this sentence on the grounds that it was "excessive." There are too many individuals in federal prison at $50,000 a year who have excessive sentences and who should be paroled.
July 15, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lynn Abbott: All people equal
How about the lie of all lies: "I am a compassionate conservative" or is that an oxymoron.
July 12, 2007 at 12:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )