"The private sector is doing fine."

[Dymanic]

What I'm trying to evade is a debate which is not solvable and does little to guide us now.

I'd say that pretty well describes the entirety of what presently passes for political dialogue in this country, so you may just be on to something. Some of the more serious problems looming before us probably are not really solvable anyway, at least not for those values of "solvable" that most of us would be prepared to accept.

There is no way to definitively prove the case either way. If you think there is, you're kidding yourself.

Definitive proof is indeed a rare commodity, but surely a simple look at the jobs figures allows us to say with a high degree of confidence that those tax cuts did not work as advertised.

That would be a good thing. I just don't think that's what's being offered, even if that's what's intended.

Can you expand on that? Why do you not think that's what's being offered? Have you actually taken a close look at what has been proposed?

If you massively jack up spending in your first year and then merely keep it high the rest of the term, that doesn't make you frugal.

Perhaps not, but if you find yourself committed to payments on past spending (for whatever reasons), you can practice frugality with regard to current spending -- which, the numbers say, is precisely what Obama is doing. Alternatively, you can announce to your creditors that you are considering defaulting on your prior obligations, thereby increasing your debt by increasing the interest rates your creditors charge, and call that frugality, but all it really is is stupidity.

 

[RandFan]

And both of those raises occurred under different conditions than we currently face.

How were those conditions significant to call for tax rate increases? Forgive me but this strikes me as ad hoc rationalizing and special pleading.

Historically, government also spent much less money and we prospered. If past history is your guide, then significant spending cuts are in order as well.

A.) I didn't say that past times necessarily called for tax rate increases. I'm saying that the past is a guide that tax rate increases are not necessarily bad. B.) I'm not necessarily against spending cuts. However, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stieglitz argue that given past history now is not the time for spending cuts.

Of course I am. As are you. As we all do here, in this limited format.

I think this is a bit unfair. We are talking about the time since the tax cuts. To pick a few years seems particularly to be cherry picking. The data you presented is woefully inadequate and seems self serving. But, to advance the discussion, let's assume we all cherry pick, how do we make sense of this new data that I have now presented? You've not addressed that.

We have a deficit problem. You want to fix that by raising taxes rather than cutting spending, with the idea that government spending will stimulate the economy. But that requires that the government spending outweigh the drag of pulling money out of the economy through taxes. In other words, you think government can spend that money more productively than taxpayers can. I don't think that's true at the margins right now.

A.) Most taxpayers are not spending because they don't have the money to spend. B.) If government uses taxes to stimulate the economy it will be tax payers who will be spending. C.) Taxes are not necessarily a drag on the economy as David Bartlet and history demonstrate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find this argument rather ironic, given your immediately previous post:

My point stands. You claim Obama misspoke. That implies an error in fact, not that he voiced an opinion on which reasonable minds can disagree.

The only way to read his comment as an error in fact is to remove it entirely from its context and give it a meaning that he clearly did not intend.

What exactly do you think the typical voter's evaluation of Obama's value judgment is going to be?

There is no such thing as a "typical voter", so I'm not sure what you're after--but I don't think you'll find many people who agree that economic contraction (recession or depression) is a good thing because it causes government to downsize.

I think of the people who honestly parse Obama's opining that wrt job creation the public sector is doing fine, more will agree with him than disagree. [ETA: This goes to the point RandFan made earlier: the public sector continues to lose jobs while the private sector has been adding jobs. Again, in the context of job creation, the good/bad evaluation of these facts is a no brainer. No one things negative job creation is good for job creation. Ideological arguments about the size of government aren't in that context. If you want to argue that it's so important that government be shrunk that we don't mind losing jobs right now, that's fine (and good luck with that), but it doesn't mean that for purpose of job creation, negative job creation is good.]

And I think Romney's attempt to portray Obama as "out of touch" will cause him more harm than good, especially come debate season when we can see more side by side comparisons.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed, this is similar to people jumping on Mitt for saying that he's not concerned about the poor. It was clear that what he meant was that the very poor have safety nets in position (have better access to healthcare, for example, than the working "poor"), and that our attention should in his opinion be focused on working people and the middle class. Reasonable minds can and do disagree on the best way to approach our economic troubles as a nation, but it's not reasonable to claim that Mitt was saying he has no sympathy for poor people. (He might not--but he certainly wasn't saying any such thing!)

 

[Peephole]

Interestingly enough, I actually happen to sort of agree that "the right growth is negative" -- in the same sense that for a person sitting on top of a mountain, the "right direction" is down. Our government grew right along with our population, and the accompanying increase in consumption of food, water, energy, etc, and the economy that permitted all of that increase. I see us now on the threshold of the inevitable contraction which is the ultimate price of those decades of explosive growth, not the least reason being that we are at or very near the end of what we once regarded as an endless supply of cheap energy.

To the first order you can predict the standard of living of a country if you know the number of kilojoules the average citizen consumes per year. Cost of energy is what is driving both the problems in Europe and the recovery here in the USA. It is also what stuck the pin in Bush's bubble. (A few months too early to pin any of the blame on Obama, though some try.)

There's no evidence that the world's economic problems have anything to do with a lack of energy. The basic problem is still a lack of demand after a a buildup of private debt and a financial crisis.

So, yeah, we need smaller government -- to go along with our smaller families, smaller waistlines, and smaller (or non-existent) cars. I'd love to think that we might be capable of learning to think in terms of managing that contraction in ways that would minimize the amount of human suffering it will cause, but there presently seems to be far too much collective delusion and cultural inertia to make that the remotest possibility.

The US already has a small government. There's no negative correlation with government size and economic performance. On the contrary, the countries with the largest governments like the Scandinavian countries are performing the best.

There is also no such thing as a painless economic contraction, and the only solution to minimize pain would be more government (extended unemployment benefits, proper health care, more food stamps,...), not less.

 

[Peephole]

Historically, government also spent much less money and we prospered. If past history is your guide, then significant spending cuts are in order as well.

History and present teaches that austerity during an economic depression will cause even greater havoc.

Also, government spending was low in the US during Bush's lost decade:

We have a deficit problem. You want to fix that by raising taxes rather than cutting spending, with the idea that government spending will stimulate the economy. But that requires that the government spending outweigh the drag of pulling money out of the economy through taxes. In other words, you think government can spend that money more productively than taxpayers can. I don't think that's true at the margins right now.

You have a deficit problem, but one which isn't important enough to address in the short term. The discussion about the US deficit is stupid at a time when the US economy is still severely under-performing.

 

[Dymanic]

There's no evidence that the world's economic problems have anything to do with a lack of energy.

I regard it as self evident that the world's economic anything has everything to do with the relationship between supply and demand of energy. Globally, the last decade has seen more energy produced (and consumed) than at any prior time in history, and demand is expected to continue to increase sharply. Another way of putting it is that never before has so much economic activity depended on continued growth in supplies of energy -- supplies that energy experts cannot promise will exist. That represents a problem. In fact, I'd say that it represents a Wicked Problem.

The US already has a small government.

I'm sure you're aware that many people in the US are not only in strong disagreement with you on this but quite adamant that reducing the size of government is THE solution to our economic problems. Let me state for the record that I don't happen to be one of them, since I'm not sure you're aware of that.

There is also no such thing as a painless economic contraction

I don't see it as a choice between painful versus painless contraction, but between managed versus catastrophic contraction. To a great extent, it's a choice we've been making over the last thirty or forty years.

...and the only solution to minimize pain would be more government (extended unemployment benefits, proper health care, more food stamps,...), not less.

...Mandated energy conservation, government-funded public works projects, nationalization of energy production... there are lots of possibilities, just not that many that the American public would accept. After all, "The American way of life is not negotiable."

The basic problem is still a lack of demand after a a buildup of private debt and a financial crisis.

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We have a deficit problem. You want to fix that by raising taxes rather than cutting spending, with the idea that government spending will stimulate the economy.

That's certainly not the choice that voters face this November--raising taxer rather than cutting spending. In fact our choice is between a candidate who will cut taxes and not cut spending sufficiently to avoid adding greatly to the budget deficit, and a candidate who has repeatedly endorsed cutting spending and raising taxes (in a ratio that favors spending cuts).

Basically, it's a choice between an approach that favors doing what it takes and an approach that seeks to honor the Norquist pledge no matter what.

 

[Ziggurat]

History and present teaches that austerity during an economic depression will cause even greater havoc.

Also, government spending was low in the US during Bush's lost decade:

30% of GDP is not low by historical standards. And we were doing a lot better during the "lost decade" than we're doing now.

You have a deficit problem, but one which isn't important enough to address in the short term.

Then there's no need to raise taxes in the short term.

The discussion about the US deficit is stupid at a time when the US economy is still severely under-performing.

But that's the only justification for raising taxes: to lower the deficit. So according to your logic, we shouldn't be talking about raising taxes right now.

 

[Peephole]

I regard it as self evident that the world's economic anything has everything to do with the relationship between supply and demand of energy. Globally, the last decade has seen more energy produced (and consumed) than at any prior time in history, and demand is expected to continue to increase sharply. Another way of putting it is that never before has so much economic activity depended on continued growth in supplies of energy -- supplies that energy experts cannot promise will exist. That represents a problem. In fact, I'd say that it represents a Wicked Problem.

Please, if you think the current depression is caused by a lack of energy (gas, oil, electricity,...) explain how exactly and provide evidence for your claim.

I'm sure you're aware that many people in the US are not only in strong disagreement with you on this but quite adamant that reducing the size of government is THE solution to our economic problems. Let me state for the record that I don't happen to be one of them, since I'm not sure you're aware of that.

Yes, people around the world are well aware that there's a lot of stupid and insane people in your country, but that doesn't change the reality that the US has a rather small government:

I don't see it as a choice between painful versus painless contraction, but between managed versus catastrophic contraction. To a great extent, it's a choice we've been making over the last thirty or forty years.

What is a managed contraction even supposed to mean? Why would you ever choose to "manage" a contraction? A contraction is an incredibly bad thing.

Mandated energy conservation, government-funded public works projects, nationalization of energy production... there are lots of possibilities, just not that many that the American public would accept.

Which all involve more government...

30% of GDP is not low by historical standards. And we were doing a lot better during the "lost decade" than we're doing now.

It's low if you only look at the US, and compare it with times when essential government programs like Medicare didn't exist yet.

And the current mess was caused during the lost decade, that's the whole point.

Then there's no need to raise taxes in the short term.

But that's the only justification for raising taxes: to lower the deficit. So according to your logic, we shouldn't be talking about raising taxes right now.

Depends, if the goal is deficit reduction, it's not a good idea at this point in time (although raising taxes on the rich probably won't have a very large impact). If you're shifting funds around, however, it'd do a small amount of good.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, people around the world are well aware that there's a lot of stupid and insane people in your country, but that doesn't change the reality that the US has a rather small government:

In fairness, not all the countries you're comparing with have a similar federalist system (with a substantial other layer of government akin to U.S. state governments). I'm not sure why, but the anti-federalist position seems to be that only our national government is bad. This leads to strange positions such as the notion that the Massachusetts health care law is good, but the federal ACA is not. (Historically, it's led to other strange ideas--such as defense of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.)

 

[Peephole]

There are no anti-federalists in the US, the anti-federalist position is and has always been nothing more than a bad cover for unpopular ideas.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There are no anti-federalists in the US, the anti-federalist position is and has always been nothing more than a bad cover for unpopular ideas.

Do you mean that people who call themselves anti-federalists (or states' rights advocates or whatever*) aren't deriving their positions from an anti-federalist ideology but just using that as justification for their positions?

If so, I probably agree---maybe. I think there really are some states' rightsers who believe what they say.

What I find most baffling is that they insist that they're pro-Constitution even though many of their ideas are exactly contradictory to what the Constitution says. (Denying the judiciary power, for example; or thinking of the role of the federal government as the usurper of liberty rather than its guardian as expressed in the Preamble, for another.)

*I spent a long time arguing with an anti-federalist who insisted that his was the federalist position. (I think he was trying to use a term that came up in the Reagan era: "Neo federalist". I pointed out that you can't drop the "Neo" part--otherwise it means pretty much the opposite.)

 

[Dymanic]

Please, if you think the current depression is caused by a lack of energy (gas, oil, electricity,...) explain how exactly and provide evidence for your claim.

The way you phrase that challenge suggests that you either did not bother following my link to the Wikipedia page on the so-called "Wicked Problem", did not understand the concept, or do not agree that it applies here. I would refer you in particular to items 1 and 8 on the list of distinguishing characteristics of a Wicked Problem:

"1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is itself a wicked problem)."

"8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem."

In brief: I submit that the massive economic (and population) expansion of the decades since the end of the Second World War were driven by abundant and stable supplies of cheap energy, oil in particular; and that though recognition of the fact has not yet fully percolated down to the level of the average American citizen, heads of state and captains of industry and finance are increasingly aware that demand has already begun a permanent outpacing of supply, at a time of serious erosion in political stability in the region of the world's most important producers. The two (unfunded) Iraq wars were, first and foremost, attempts at stabilizing the region, but what they mostly accomplished was a massive increase in US debt, and, in combination with some of the stupidest and most insane elements of the US political scene, an undermining of faith in what had been the world's most trusted securities...

...see, this is why I described this as a "wicked problem". If I thought I could easily unravel the whole mess without writing a book, I would have just done that. What do you think economies run on, if not energy? Derivatives?

Yes, people around the world are well aware that there's a lot of stupid and insane people in your country, but that doesn't change the reality that the US has a rather small government:

I might try that argument out on some of those stupid and insane people (I run into them all the time), but I can't say I'm optimistic about the prospects for turning many of them around.

What is a managed contraction even supposed to mean? Why would you ever choose to "manage" a contraction? A contraction is an incredibly bad thing.

I don't disagree that even a managed contraction would be an incredibly bad thing and would involve a significant decline in quality of life for a great many people. The only justifiable reason for choosing it would be the hope of avoiding a catastrophic contraction, which would be much, much worse. For continued expansion to be a viable option would require stability and continued expansion in energy supply, and I'm really not optimistic about the prospects for that.

Which all involve more government...

You do understand that you're preaching to the choir?