tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post945249921087768678..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: So good, or not so good, that is the question:The Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-77081570916702082042011-04-30T23:55:29.228-04:002011-04-30T23:55:29.228-04:00Well, Reagan increased taxes 11 times (the net eff...Well, Reagan increased taxes 11 times (the net effect of his various tax changes was to shift some of the burden from the rich to the poor.)<br /><br />Poppy, after his infamous "read my lips." gaffe also raised taxes, out of necessity. Something the current crowd of Rethugs won't do, no matter how great the necessity. All Rethugs running for national office take a pledge authored by Grover Norquist to never raise any tax - and this included closing loopholes. Poppy violated the pledge. I saw him say this on TV, just a few days ago.<br /><br />Whenever and however the groundwork was laid, we were in Keynesian territory by 1998. Under Clinton, the deficit declined steadily, and surpluses ran from 1998 through 2001.<br /><br />http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf<br /><br />Remember I did call them accidental Keynesians.<br /><br />I'm going to be more or less out of touch for a couple of weeks. Back at you later.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-91625669837049819862011-04-30T13:42:31.008-04:002011-04-30T13:42:31.008-04:00So okay Jazz, I read the link post and the link-li...So okay Jazz, I read the link post and the link-link post and I get your view of "Keynesianism." I think, yeah you think it was Keynesian in the late 1990s because we balanced the budget.<br /><br />Dunno about that. After maxing out <a href="http://newarthurianeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/07/bowles-talks-trash.html" rel="nofollow">in 1992</a>, the federal budget deficit fell consistently until balance was achieved in 1998. Whatever happened, whatever changed (and I have an inkling but not a post to link to) it happened in 1992 OR BEFORE (say, 1989-1990-1991) to permit the trend to develop. Probably a change in the <a href="http://newarthurianeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/03/creating-slack.html" rel="nofollow">tax code</a>.The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-66150094077278834992011-04-30T08:04:55.312-04:002011-04-30T08:04:55.312-04:00Okay, I could have a conversation on this. Perhaps...Okay, I could have a conversation on this. Perhaps I didn't say it in this post, but I attribute EVERYTHING to policy. The trick is to see what it is that policy is doing wrong. (I say policy encourages the accumulation of debt.)<br /><br />"Structure" to me is the structure of money: how much of it is debt, and what does that add to costs?? Other things, technology is technology, and institutions are politics, and I have nothing to offer on these.<br /><br />You mentioned before the Keynesian principles thing. I do refer to 30 years of Keynesian policy (1947-1977) and 30 years of Reaganomics (1978-2008). But I've likely been "blithe" about the dates. So, don't refer me to a link, tell me something that happened in the late 1990s to make it Keynesian. What, we balanced the budget???<br /><br />Everything I do is based on answering the question: "What is the fundamental problem in our economy?" I have an answer that suits me. <br /><br />For the record, my comment about "ability to increase" debt is not offered as a plan of what we need to do, but as an evaluation of how we run our economy and <a href="http://newarthurianeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/03/rules.html" rel="nofollow">what has to change</a>.The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-33694854899043420292011-04-30T07:35:48.561-04:002011-04-30T07:35:48.561-04:00I think you gloss over policy and structure too bl...I think you gloss over policy and structure too blithely. Unless you believe that there is no relationship between these things and results. <br /><br />Note that in the 60's we were following <a href="http://jazzbumpa.blogspot.com/2011/02/accidental-keynesians.html" rel="nofollow">Keynesian principles. </a> We got into that again briefly in the late 90's. <br /><br />Also, be on the look out for confirmation bias. The debt level and ability to increase is significant, but there is no reason to believe it is at the root of everything.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-1294565691417796232011-04-30T05:00:54.633-04:002011-04-30T05:00:54.633-04:00The thing that makes growth good, or not good, is ...The thing that makes growth good, or not good, is the ability or inability of debt to increase.The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.com