LOL @ Boomers

• sleeper

  

  Tiernan;1480363 wrote:This Boomer just used some of my kids' inheritance and bought a new 60" during lunch. Doing my part to help gen X & Yers who have to work at places like Sams Club where I bought it.

  I've got a few that work for me at my McDonald's. Most of them are just happy to have a job so I appreciate your soliciting the places they work at.
• LJ

  

  Tiernan;1480363 wrote:This Boomer just used some of my kids' inheritance and bought a new 60" during lunch. Doing my part to help gen X & Yers who have to work at places like Sams Club where I bought it.

  
  If that $800 affects your kid's inheritance then you dont have those millions that you claim
• gut

  BoatShoes;1480233 wrote: but I pointed out that it ended after 1982 and dropped rapidly and this was due to the deregulation of natural gas in 1978 that undercut the ability of the foreign monopolist OPEC to cause inflation with a constrained oil supply.

  good lord, false attribute much?
  
  The inflation dissipated because Volker choked it off by raising the fed funds rate into the high teens. This is why the inflation did not dissipate for several years AFTER the pressures you cited eased.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1480492 wrote:good lord, false attribute much?
  
  The inflation dissipated because Volker choked it off by raising the fed funds rate into the high teens. This is why the inflation did not dissipate for several years AFTER the pressures you cited eased.

  That is the conventional wisdom but inflation dissipated throughout the western world even in countries where they didn't have the crushing interest rates of the Volker FED. I agree that the huge contraction in aggregate demand ensured the recession but the end of the cost-push inflation, which is what cause the oddity of high inflation along with high unemployment (i.e. inflation that is not the result of demand-pull inflation) was primarily caused by the deregulation of natural gas. It took a couple of years for the deregulation to percolate throughout the economy as utilities adopted natural gas.
• sleeper

  

  LJ;1480450 wrote:If that $800 affects your kid's inheritance then you dont have those millions that you claim

  Back in his day $800 was about a million. :laugh:
• gut

  BoatShoes;1480509 wrote:That is the conventional wisdom but inflation dissipated throughout the western world even in countries where they didn't have the crushing interest rates of the Volker FED. I agree that the huge contraction in aggregate demand ensured the recession but the end of the cost-push inflation, which is what cause the oddity of high inflation along with high unemployment (i.e. inflation that is not the result of demand-pull inflation) was primarily caused by the deregulation of natural gas. It took a couple of years for the deregulation to percolate throughout the economy as utilities adopted natural gas.

  No. Correlation does not equal causation - you can't just cite inflation in other countries declining to dismiss what Volker did. It's not conventional wisdom - it's fact. In particular, they learned signaling was even more important to establishing credibility than merely acting.
  
  At those times, economies were much more uncorrelated than they are today, and even today you still can't talk as if central bank actions are apples-to-apples.
  
  Second, while energy costs do triculate and push inflation, while they were a factor they were not the sole factor or even the primary one. And if you want to be technical, the fed devaluing the dollar in that time period contributed to rising oil costs in nominal terms.
  
  Third, we had a similar sustained spike/run in oil prices beginning in early 2000 (very similar price levels in inflation-adj terms), and we did not see anything close to the inflation levels of the 70's and early 80's, and that was also absent wage inflation.
  
  You really need to expand your reading beyond Keynesian economists. Your basically parroting their story, which is pretty widely disputed and not even completely accepted within Keynesian circles. Not to mention, Keynesian economics has taken a massive hit the past 5 years or so. It's borderline quackery now, the theory having been almost completely hijacked.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1481059 wrote:No. Correlation does not equal causation - you can't just cite inflation in other countries declining to dismiss what Volker did. It's not conventional wisdom - it's fact. In particular, they learned signaling was even more important to establishing credibility than merely acting.
  
  At those times, economies were much more uncorrelated than they are today, and even today you still can't talk as if central bank actions are apples-to-apples.
  
  Second, while energy costs do triculate and push inflation, while they were a factor they were not the sole factor or even the primary one. And if you want to be technical, the fed devaluing the dollar in that time period contributed to rising oil costs in nominal terms.
  
  Third, we had a similar sustained spike/run in oil prices beginning in early 2000 (very similar price levels in inflation-adj terms), and we did not see anything close to the inflation levels of the 70's and early 80's, and that was also absent wage inflation.
  
  You really need to expand your reading beyond Keynesian economists. Your basically parroting their story, which is pretty widely disputed and not even completely accepted within Keynesian circles. Not to mention, Keynesian economics has taken a massive hit the past 5 years or so. It's borderline quackery now, the theory having been almost completely hijacked.

  It is not fact. The Volcker causing a recession was a contributory factor but like I said, demand-pull inflation wasn't the problem at the time. I agree that the devaulation of the dollar played a role. Apparently you missed my comments about the effects of ending the Bretton Woods system. We didn't have the sustained spike that we saw in the 70's. Additionally, in the 70's was when OPEC first transitioned as the monopoly price setter of oil prices as opposed to the Texas Railroad commission. By the 2000's we'd been used to a foreign price-setting monopolist for quite a while and decided to invade Iraq.
  
  Also, it truly is amazing that you would claim that keynesianism has taken a hit the past 5 years. It was out of fashion but has made a come back because they have been vindicated as correct whereas Austrians, Real Business Cycle people, the Chicago school...confidence fairy people and expansionary austerity preachers have been wrong about everything. Where are you getting this from? It is keynesians whose predictions about budget deficits, inflation, and the harmful effects of austerity in a depressed economy have been correct. The only other people who have been right are the neo-monetarists on the effects of QE and you seem to disagree with them to lol. Even a hard money crank like Larry Kudlow has come around to admit that Bernanke and the neo-monetarists were right on that.
  
  It's very simple. If raising taxes in a depressed economy with slow growth is bad...even if it closes the deficit...th basic insight of keynesianism is basically right.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1481106 wrote: It's very simple. If raising taxes in a depressed economy with slow growth is bad...even if it closes the deficit...th basic insight of keynesianism is basically right.

  That's a myopic view. That's the hijacked keynesian philosophy. It's a view in a vacuum that ignores past history and expectations. Yes, that fundamental principle is correct, and largely accepted. But in the REAL world - after years or even decades of annual deficits - context matters. I've stated this before - you cannot continue to cite a theory for which the assumptions are clearly violated. You cannot pretend that Keynesian economics predicts austerity measures are bad when Keynesian economics are not being practiced. You can't cherry-pick the theory. You are making assumptions assumed under the Keynesian model that do not reflect reality, and drawing conclusions from that alternate reality.
  
  You are making assumptions assumed under the Keynesian model that do not reflect reality, and drawing conclusions from that alternate reality. - I had to repeat this, because it's symptomatic of the layman. You don't realize that once your assumptions are blown up, you're done - you have nothing. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, and then denying it (much like Obama or Holder would).
  
  And in context, the "keynesian" view is an abject failure. Extending your logic basically says countries only go bankrupt because they didn't spend enough, and that prosperity is only unbridled govt spending around the corner. LITERALLY. And if you have an ounce of academic integrity you can acknowledge this is simply retarded, which is the nearly irrefutable conclusion most economic circles have had to acknoweledge past 5 years.
  
  The rest. I'm, sorry, I'm just tired of trying to educate you. I'm sorry if you feel that is condescending. Learn to read (AND understand) divergent economic philosophies.
• believer

  

  
  
  
  Here's what the Tattooed Whiner Generations can look forward to doing if and when they retire.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1481628 wrote:That's a myopic view. That's the hijacked keynesian philosophy. It's a view in a vacuum that ignores past history and expectations. Yes, that fundamental principle is correct, and largely accepted. But in the REAL world - after years or even decades of annual deficits - context matters. I've stated this before - you cannot continue to cite a theory for which the assumptions are clearly violated. You cannot pretend that Keynesian economics predicts austerity measures are bad when Keynesian economics are not being practiced. You can't cherry-pick the theory. You are making assumptions assumed under the Keynesian model that do not reflect reality, and drawing conclusions from that alternate reality.
  
  You are making assumptions assumed under the Keynesian model that do not reflect reality, and drawing conclusions from that alternate reality. - I had to repeat this, because it's symptomatic of the layman. You don't realize that once your assumptions are blown up, you're done - you have nothing. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, and then denying it (much like Obama or Holder would).
  
  And in context, the "keynesian" view is an abject failure. Extending your logic basically says countries only go bankrupt because they didn't spend enough, and that prosperity is only unbridled govt spending around the corner. LITERALLY. And if you have an ounce of academic integrity you can acknowledge this is simply retarded, which is the nearly irrefutable conclusion most economic circles have had to acknoweledge past 5 years.
  
  The rest. I'm, sorry, I'm just tired of trying to educate you. I'm sorry if you feel that is condescending. Learn to read (AND understand) divergent economic philosophies.

  It isn't "hijacked"...it is reduced to its fundamental level. It's weird that you would even accept it (which you did) because a conservative/neoclassical/someone who accepts ricardian neutrality (as you've claimed to in the past) would say "that fundamental principle is incorrect" and would predict that a current tax cut wouldn't change behavior. Or, a hardcore supply-sider would say the only way a tax cut works is encouraging people to work more hours...not because people would spend more money in their pocket. Experience proves this wrong and you pretty much acknowledge it in the post I'm quoting (but you can't square it because you don't want accept keynesianism, IMHO).
  
  The bold that I highlighted does not follow at all. Notice your insertion of the word "unbridled". You're making it a strawman. The argument is enough dollars in the private economy, whether from more government spending or lower taxes until full employment is achieved. Encouraging incentives on the supply side is important and not to be dismissed, but it's not the only thing that matters like Supply-Siders suggest and in the real world, ricardian neutrality doesn't hold much and people will spend more money in their pocket if they get a payroll tax cut...They're not going to save up for the expected future tax raise.
  
  The level of dollars placed into the private economy that is needed differs depending on the trade balance and the private sector's aggregate desire to save/level of output. Nothing about that is "unbridled". And yes, the context of deficits matters in that it depends on what type of country we're talking about.
  
  It can be problematic for a non-monetary-sovereign like Greece or California or Ohio or Spain to run persistent annual deficits (although again worth noting that Spain was fiscally virtuous following your prescription of balanced or surplus budgets and wound up in a disaster) because they issue debt denominated in a currency they don't control. The U.S., Japan, the U.K., Australia, etc. these countries don't have that problem because they issue debt in a currency they issue on demand and can set the interest rate they pay at whatever they want.
  
  I understand divergent economic philosophies. You don't seem to want to understand keynesianism when you constantly claim it calls for unbridled, unlimited, government spending now and forever. The limit is the real capacity of the economy. And, as I've said before, there's a difference between Keynesian economics and Big gubmint socialism as a political philosophy and you often conflate the two. You don't have to accept big gubmint when you accept that the Keynesian model is correct.
  
  
  There's no reason, in the aftermath of the crises, why a Republican couldn't accept that Keynesians have been right in their predictions about deficits, inflation, growth and simply orient that framework around a smaller government political philosophy. That was Keynes' whole point in arguing why it was necessary to support demand for the entrepreneur!
  
  For example, no reason why you couldn't call for more cuts in gubmint spending but be keynesian with payroll tax cuts alone.
  
  And, you simply can't say that the world economic community considers keynesianism has been an abject failure. The IMF, the FED, the World Bank...all of these major Treasury View type institutions have become more keynesian after the spectacular failure of austerity and the failure of predictions of inflation, debt crises', etc. over the last couple of years.
  
  But please keep "educating" me. It is fun. I enjoy our conversations. And, you're condescending because you come off like a jerk because I disagree with you and it's unnecessary. It's possible for reasonable people to agreeably disagree.
• BoatShoes

  believer;1481631 wrote:
  
  
  Here's what the Tattooed Whiner Generations can look forward to doing if and when they retire.

  I like hearing the salty old Master Chief's stories about their tattoos :thumbup:
• sleeper

  

  gut;1481628 wrote:That's a myopic view. That's the hijacked keynesian philosophy. It's a view in a vacuum that ignores past history and expectations. Yes, that fundamental principle is correct, and largely accepted. But in the REAL world - after years or even decades of annual deficits - context matters. I've stated this before - you cannot continue to cite a theory for which the assumptions are clearly violated. You cannot pretend that Keynesian economics predicts austerity measures are bad when Keynesian economics are not being practiced. You can't cherry-pick the theory. You are making assumptions assumed under the Keynesian model that do not reflect reality, and drawing conclusions from that alternate reality.
  
  You are making assumptions assumed under the Keynesian model that do not reflect reality, and drawing conclusions from that alternate reality. - I had to repeat this, because it's symptomatic of the layman. You don't realize that once your assumptions are blown up, you're done - you have nothing. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, and then denying it (much like Obama or Holder would).
  
  And in context, the "keynesian" view is an abject failure. Extending your logic basically says countries only go bankrupt because they didn't spend enough, and that prosperity is only unbridled govt spending around the corner. LITERALLY. And if you have an ounce of academic integrity you can acknowledge this is simply retarded, which is the nearly irrefutable conclusion most economic circles have had to acknoweledge past 5 years.
  
  The rest. I'm, sorry, I'm just tired of trying to educate you. I'm sorry if you feel that is condescending. Learn to read (AND understand) divergent economic philosophies.

  Top 10 pwnage in OC history.
• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;1481640 wrote:It isn't "hijacked"...it is reduced to its fundamental level. It's weird that you would even accept it (which you did) because a conservative/neoclassical/someone who accepts ricardian neutrality (as you've claimed to in the past) would say "that fundamental principle is incorrect" and would predict that a current tax cut wouldn't change behavior. Or, a hardcore supply-sider would say the only way a tax cut works is encouraging people to work more hours...not because people would spend more money in their pocket. Experience proves this wrong and you pretty much acknowledge it in the post I'm quoting (but you can't square it because you don't want accept keynesianism, IMHO).
  
  The bold that I highlighted does not follow at all. Notice your insertion of the word "unbridled". You're making it a strawman. The argument is enough dollars in the private economy, whether from more government spending or lower taxes until full employment is achieved. Encouraging incentives on the supply side is important and not to be dismissed, but it's not the only thing that matters like Supply-Siders suggest and in the real world, ricardian neutrality doesn't hold much and people will spend more money in their pocket if they get a payroll tax cut...They're not going to save up for the expected future tax raise.
  
  The level of dollars placed into the private economy that is needed differs depending on the trade balance and the private sector's aggregate desire to save/level of output. Nothing about that is "unbridled". And yes, the context of deficits matters in that it depends on what type of country we're talking about.
  
  It can be problematic for a non-monetary-sovereign like Greece or California or Ohio or Spain to run persistent annual deficits (although again worth noting that Spain was fiscally virtuous following your prescription of balanced or surplus budgets and wound up in a disaster) because they issue debt denominated in a currency they don't control. The U.S., Japan, the U.K., Australia, etc. these countries don't have that problem because they issue debt in a currency they issue on demand and can set the interest rate they pay at whatever they want.
  
  I understand divergent economic philosophies. You don't seem to want to understand keynesianism when you constantly claim it calls for unbridled, unlimited, government spending now and forever. The limit is the real capacity of the economy. And, as I've said before, there's a difference between Keynesian economics and Big gubmint socialism as a political philosophy and you often conflate the two. You don't have to accept big gubmint when you accept that the Keynesian model is correct.
  
  
  There's no reason, in the aftermath of the crises, why a Republican couldn't accept that Keynesians have been right in their predictions about deficits, inflation, growth and simply orient that framework around a smaller government political philosophy. That was Keynes' whole point in arguing why it was necessary to support demand for the entrepreneur!
  
  For example, no reason why you couldn't call for more cuts in gubmint spending but be keynesian with payroll tax cuts alone.
  
  And, you simply can't say that the world economic community considers keynesianism has been an abject failure. The IMF, the FED, the World Bank...all of these major Treasury View type institutions have become more keynesian after the spectacular failure of austerity and the failure of predictions of inflation, debt crises', etc. over the last couple of years.
  
  But please keep "educating" me. It is fun. I enjoy our conversations. And, you're condescending because you come off like a jerk because I disagree with you and it's unnecessary. It's possible for reasonable people to agreeably disagree.

  Top 26.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1481640 wrote: There's no reason, in the aftermath of the crises, why a Republican couldn't accept that Keynesians have been right in their predictions about deficits, inflation, growth and simply orient that framework around a smaller government political philosophy.

  They were right, for a time. Now it's time to pull your head out of Keynes ass and realize he didn't predict this because his assumptions are null and void.
  
  For the love of God, please stop telling me Keynes is validated when no one practices what Keynes advocated. We clearly are past the tipping point where deficit spending has proven counter-productive.
  
  No country has spent its way to prosperity. Fact.
• Sage

  

  holy shit economics discussion complete with graphs as if this place is some fucking mensa convention. just shut the fuck up, please.
  
  and lol at the guy with the "tattoos will look shitty when youre old" cartoon. would you want to look at your grandma naked? no? why's that? OH YEAH BECAUSE YOUR WHOLE BODY LOOKS LIKE DECREPIT SHIT WHEN YOU GET THAT OLD ANYWAY.
• believer

  

  Sage;1484842 wrote:holy shit economics discussion complete with graphs as if this place is some fucking mensa convention. just shut the fuck up, please.
  
  and lol at the guy with the "tattoos will look shitty when youre old" cartoon. would you want to look at your grandma naked? no? why's that? OH YEAH BECAUSE YOUR WHOLE BODY LOOKS LIKE DECREPIT SHIT WHEN YOU GET THAT OLD ANYWAY.

  Humbled by your trollness
• Tiernan

  The correct answer would be "cuz it's your grandma grandma dumb ass.
• Tiernan

  The correct answer would be "cuz it's your grandma dumbass. Not because she looks old and decrepit.
• Pick6

  

  http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/09/youre_probably_wrong_about_mil.html?utm_source=Socialflow&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=Socialflow
  
  #FreeSleeper
• sleeper

  

  I appreciate the support Pick6. However, I committed a crime in which there is no freedom, no sympathy, no leniency that should ever be given. I hurt LJ's feelz, a man who has a child, a wife, a stable job, and he shouldn't have to come on an internet forum and have to deal with the physical pain of having his ego deflated by a random internet user. I have already expressed my remorse for my egregious comments but I feel the only true way to make this right is to accept eternal punishment so that all wounds may have time to heal.
• vball10set

  ^^the Buckeye football threads just aren't the same without ya'
• sleeper

  

  vball10set;1496450 wrote:^^the Buckeye football threads just aren't the same without ya'

  Thankfully the success of the Buckeyes exists on the field instead of on some random internet forum. If only ND fans would realize that pretending that your team is a national title contender on an internet board is irrelevant to the actual on the field success(or in ND's case, lack thereof); maybe they would stop being so sensitive to someone telling it how they see it.
  
  Alas, I really hope ND goes undefeated again this year so they can play and get blown out against Ohio State in the title game.
• vball10set

  Hey mods, I think he's paid his debt to OC society...time for a pardon, dont ya' think?
• sleeper

  

  Sorry!
  http://youtu.be/M4IjTUxZORE