An economic question

[actsnoblemartin]

what is the difference between tax and spend, and deficit spending?

what is the best economy for the u.s.

when was the best and worst periods of economics and economic growth and why in u.s. history.

I am a complete novice on economics, so will the big shots school me please

[5stringJeff]

what is the difference between tax and spend, and deficit spending?

Tax-and-spend is a phrase that used to be used only in talking about Democrats, who wanted to raise taxes to spend more and more on social welfare programs. Nowadays, however, many Republicans seem to want to do the same. :(
Deficit spending is simply spending more money in a fiscal year than you receive in taxes.


what is the best economy for the u.s.

Do you mean the best economic system? Capitalism, plain and simple. No other system provides the best possible outcomes for all people involved.


when was the best and worst periods of economics and economic growth and why in u.s. history.

I am a complete novice on economics, so will the big shots school me please

The best may very well have been the last 20-25 years, with low taxes, low inflation, low unemployment, and a stable currency.

The worst was undoubtedly the Great Depression in the 1930s, prolonged by FDR's social spending programs.

[diuretic]

Jeff I thought that FDR's programme - Keynesian of course - saved the US economy. Do you really think it prolonged the Depression? If you do, what do you think he should he have done? I think he did what he had to do, pump-prime the economy to keep it alive. I remember seeing the Cabrillo Monument in San Diego a few years ago and being told the road out there was part of FDR's plan. Make sense to me. Keep the economy going, keep the skills up, keep the money flowing into private businesses from government if necessary, keep things moving along until the cycle has swung upwards again.

[5stringJeff]

Jeff I thought that FDR's programme - Keynesian of course - saved the US economy. Do you really think it prolonged the Depression? If you do, what do you think he should he have done? I think he did what he had to do, pump-prime the economy to keep it alive. I remember seeing the Cabrillo Monument in San Diego a few years ago and being told the road out there was part of FDR's plan. Make sense to me. Keep the economy going, keep the skills up, keep the money flowing into private businesses from government if necessary, keep things moving along until the cycle has swung upwards again.

I've read the opinions of some economists that say that FDRs programs actually made the Depression go deeper and last longer than it would have on its own. (insert sexually primed innuendo here) I'd have to go look up some articles, but the essence of that school of thought is that FDR's insistence on government interference was bad for the economy, because the government didn't always act to improve the economy.

[diuretic]

I've read the opinions of some economists that say that FDRs programs actually made the Depression go deeper and last longer than it would have on its own. (insert sexually primed innuendo here) I'd have to go look up some articles, but the essence of that school of thought is that FDR's insistence on government interference was bad for the economy, because the government didn't always act to improve the economy.

But the phrasing of "government interference" in your reference is a signal that ideology is involved. I know Keynes isn't fashionable now but surely his idea - anathema to socialists I think - that a capitalist system must prime the pumps in times of depression is valid. It's fine for theoreticians to moan about FDR's nation-protecting Keynesian programmes during the Depression but would they have preferred the West to descend to barbarism? Before you pooh-pooh my point let me point out that the critics of Keynes and FDR are indulging in fantasy. What happened is reality. The world did come out of the Depression (admittedly it took WW2 to kick it along) The ideological revisionists have one hand on their dicks on this, it's a hypothetical.

[truthmatters]

You are not talking to a rational man Di.

He will never see things in the light of reason he has a myopic view and can only see a partisans view.

Look at what he displays with pride? A confederate sons flag as if what they had done was not an attempt to rip our country at the seems. He wants a didvided America and sees it as a noble goal.

My country is at war with its self due to these tunnel visioned party before country bumpkins. We have a media which is designed to effect this to keep the American people occupied while the monied interests hollow out our country for anything of value.


Be aware if it works well enough here your country will likely be the next target.

[jimnyc]

You are not talking to a rational man Di.

Oh brother, here we go again. Easily the most irrational poster on the board is now taking stabs at perhaps the most well respected and intelligent member on the board.

Get a cork, I think your brains are slowly leaking out the side of your head while you sleep.

[JackDaniels]

what is the difference between tax and spend, and deficit spending?

They are different terms. "Tax and spend" is just a general phrase for a policy is which taxes rates are increased in an attempt to finance government spending. "Deficit spending" is a specific phrase relating to spending more than is taken in.


what is the best economy for the u.s.

This really isn't a coherent question. In terms of economic policy, it's pure Capitalism, which we do not have now.


when was the best and worst periods of economics and economic growth and why in u.s. history.


In terms of overall economic health, I would say the best is the period around 1870 - 1913.

Worst was the Great Depression.

[5stringJeff]

You are not talking to a rational man Di.
He will never see things in the light of reason
he has a myopic view and can only see a partisans view.
He wants a didvided America and sees it as a noble goal.
tunnel visioned party before country bumpkins.

Wow... could you be any more condescending, without addressing the topic at hand?

[JackDaniels]

You are not talking to a rational man Di.

He will never see things in the light of reason he has a myopic view and can only see a partisans view.

Look at what he displays with pride? A confederate sons flag as if what they had done was not an attempt to rip our country at the seems. He wants a didvided America and sees it as a noble goal.

My country is at war with its self due to these tunnel visioned party before country bumpkins. We have a media which is designed to effect this to keep the American people occupied while the monied interests hollow out our country for anything of value.


Be aware if it works well enough here your country will likely be the next target.

And yet nearly every person on this board believes you barely have the brainpower to understand the English language. The more and more you post, the more and more people believe you are unintelligent

[truthmatters]

And yet nearly every person on this board believes you barely have the brainpower to understand the English language. The more and more you post, the more and more people believe you are unintelligent


A majority of idiots are still idiots.



http://tinyurl.com/2plkm4
Take a look at the presidential rankings of the Presidents by liberals adn conservatives.

They both rank Roosevelt highly.

[5stringJeff]

A majority of idiots are still idiots.



http://tinyurl.com/2plkm4
Take a look at the presidential rankings of the Presidents by liberals adn conservatives.

They both rank Roosevelt highly.

And libertarians rank him #35 - way at the bottom.

[truthmatters]

And libertarians rank him #35 - way at the bottom.

An libertarians make up what % of the population?

[Yurt]

Tax-and-spend is a phrase that used to be used only in talking about Democrats, who wanted to raise taxes to spend more and more on social welfare programs. Nowadays, however, many Republicans seem to want to do the same. :(
Deficit spending is simply spending more money in a fiscal year than you receive in taxes.



Do you mean the best economic system? Capitalism, plain and simple. No other system provides the best possible outcomes for all people involved.



The best may very well have been the last 20-25 years, with low taxes, low inflation, low unemployment, and a stable currency.

The worst was undoubtedly the Great Depression in the 1930s, prolonged by FDR's social spending programs.

Something extremely hard to accept, even this conservative, because it was drilled into our heads all through school that his programs saved the day. TBO, I would like to see a thread, link, that supports what you state. Because as I become more conservative and more objective in "history" and economics and am not swayed by mob rule, I have begun to question certain beliefs.

Thanks.

[Yurt]

An libertarians make up what % of the population?

so that proverbial "%" in your mind is what? nothing, something, irrelevent, what?

[truthmatters]

so that proverbial "%" in your mind is what? nothing, something, irrelevent, what?


Yes its relevant.
The are a tiny fraction of the worlds thought.

[jimnyc]

The are a tiny fraction of the worlds thought.

Exactly what I said about the polls you hold so dearly.

[truthmatters]

Exactly what I said about the polls you hold so dearly.


You hate polls until they say what you want to hear.

Insist people answer questions and never answer any yourself.

Do you think that makes you better than ayone.

I dont think it does.

[5stringJeff]

FDR raised taxes, contracted the money supply, kept prices artificially high, kept wages artificially high, and created a climate of uncertainty that kept businesses from recovering.

Links:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258

http://www.econ.ucla.edu/whatsbruin/news/FDRarticle.htm

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3159

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf

[5stringJeff]

An libertarians make up what % of the population?

Does that matter? It's the opinion of libertarians - backed up by the things I posted above - that FDR was one of the worst presidents.

[JackDaniels]

You hate polls until they say what you want to hear.

Insist people answer questions and never answer any yourself.

Do you think that makes you better than ayone.

I dont think it does.

You understand why Keynes' economic theories are generally now long thought of as highly as they were when they first came out?

Because after Keynes wrote, we tried his ideas. Guess what happened?

[jimnyc]

You hate polls until they say what you want to hear.

That's a lie and you cannot backup your claims with my posting history.


Insist people answer questions and never answer any yourself.

I answer all questions asked of me - lie #2!


Do you think that makes you better than ayone.

The fact that I answer questions, admit when I'm wrong and don't lie? Makes me better than you!


I dont think it does.

And your opinion means as much to me as a pile of shit.

[truthmatters]

That's a lie and you cannot backup your claims with my posting history.



I answer all questions asked of me - lie #2!



The fact that I answer questions, admit when I'm wrong and don't lie? Makes me better than you!



And your opinion means as much to me as a pile of shit.


You admitt you arte wrong?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

that is a ripe one






Does that matter? It's the opinion of libertarians - backed up by the things I posted above - that FDR was one of the worst presidents.


only in the minds of libertarians

[jimnyc]

You admitt you arte wrong?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

that is a ripe one

It can be proven, and I've done so within the past 2 weeks! Ask Manfrommaine if he proved me wrong and whether I admitted he was correct afterwards or not. Can you say the same? How about proving where I have refused to answer questions? Why do you habitually lie?

[5stringJeff]

only in the minds of libertarians

That's why I said, "It's the opinion of libertarians."

[Yurt]

Yes its relevant.
The are a tiny fraction of the worlds thought.

You failed to answer my post.

Re-read, and then give a response.

[truthmatters]

You failed to answer my post.

Re-read, and then give a response.

Bite me you never anwer my questions

[jimnyc]

Bite me you never anwer my questions

I guess this is your new answer to everyone.

Why are you a habitual liar?

Were you raised to be a liar?

Do you lie to your friends in real life too?

[April15]

But the phrasing of "government interference" in your reference is a signal that ideology is involved. I know Keynes isn't fashionable now but surely his idea - anathema to socialists I think - that a capitalist system must prime the pumps in times of depression is valid. It's fine for theoreticians to moan about FDR's nation-protecting Keynesian programmes during the Depression but would they have preferred the West to descend to barbarism? Before you pooh-pooh my point let me point out that the critics of Keynes and FDR are indulging in fantasy. What happened is reality. The world did come out of the Depression (admittedly it took WW2 to kick it along) The ideological revisionists have one hand on their dicks on this, it's a hypothetical.This was last post that made sense.
Back on topic

[Joe Steel]

what is the difference between tax and spend, and deficit spending?

Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution empowers Congress to borrow against the credit of the United States and to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. When expenditures are funded by borrowed money, we can think of them as "deficit spending." When expenditures are funded by tax revenue, we can think of them as "tax and spend." In either case, Congress is acting constitutionally.



what is the best economy for the u.s.

Economically, the U. S. is regulated capitalism. Under the circumstances, this probably is the best we can do. Socialism, however, is the ideal. True democracies evolve toward that goal.



when was the best and worst periods of economics and economic growth and why in u.s. history.

Generally speaking, unregulated capitalism produces economic disaster. Look at the time before Franklin D. Roosevelt and the time since Reagan, especially the George W. Bush economy. The Great Depression was caused by nearly unregulated capitalism. Roosevelt's policies went a long way toward ending the misery it caused. Reagan and the Bushes have moved toward unregulated capitalism and misery has returned.

[April15]

Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution empowers Congress to borrow against the credit of the United States and to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. When expenditures are funded by borrowed money, we can think of them as "deficit spending." When expenditures are funded by tax revenue, we can think of them as "tax and spend." In either case, Congress is acting constitutionally.




Economically, the U. S. is regulated capitalism. Under the circumstances, this probably is the best we can do. Socialism, however, is the ideal. True democracies evolve toward that goal.




Generally speaking, unregulated capitalism produces economic disaster. Look at the time before Franklin D. Roosevelt and the time since Reagan, especially the George W. Bush economy. The Great Depression was caused by nearly unregulated capitalism. Roosevelt's policies went a long way toward ending the misery it caused. Reagan and the Bushes have moved toward unregulated capitalism and misery has returned.

Very well put. I just wish I could have said it.

[manu1959]

Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution empowers Congress to borrow against the credit of the United States and to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. When expenditures are funded by borrowed money, we can think of them as "deficit spending." When expenditures are funded by tax revenue, we can think of them as "tax and spend." In either case, Congress is acting constitutionally.
Economically, the U. S. is regulated capitalism. Under the circumstances, this probably is the best we can do. Socialism, however, is the ideal. True democracies evolve toward that goal.
Generally speaking, unregulated capitalism produces economic disaster. Look at the time before Franklin D. Roosevelt and the time since Reagan, especially the George W. Bush economy. The Great Depression was caused by nearly unregulated capitalism. Roosevelt's policies went a long way toward ending the misery it caused. Reagan and the Bushes have moved toward unregulated capitalism and misery has returned.

the clinton economy was the best huh?.....bet you can't explain how he did it in under 25 words.....

which socialist country is the ideal?

[5stringJeff]

Economically, the U. S. is regulated capitalism. Under the circumstances, this probably is the best we can do. Socialism, however, is the ideal. True democracies evolve toward that goal.

How could democracy, which is government by the people, "evolve" towards socialism, which is an economic system that denies freedom to those very people and places power in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats?


Roosevelt's policies went a long way toward ending the misery it caused.

Wrong. See post 19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=127540&postcount=19).


Reagan and the Bushes have moved toward unregulated capitalism and misery has returned.

If you define "misery" as growing GDP, low unemployment, and low inflation, then I'll take your version of misery any day.

[April15]

If you define "misery" as growing GDP, low unemployment, and low inflation, then I'll take your version of misery any day. Misery is defined by how many people are worse off now than when they took office. Granted there are a few who have done exceedingly well in the climate of tax the middle and poor while absolving the wealthy of liability.
I am still waiting for the rising tide to even get near enough to my boat to float it let alone have it rise. The economic boom has missed many Americans at their expense. If you are not one of them good for you.

[Said1]

Economically, the U. S. is regulated capitalism. Under the circumstances, this probably is the best we can do. Socialism, however, is the ideal. True democracies evolve toward that goal.

Could you elaborate a bit? I'm intrigued, where did you come across that line of thinking, can you reference something stating that the intent of true democracies is to evolve towards socialism? Are you arguing that democratic pressures save the markets from themselves - the welfare state levels out market extremes?

[darin]

Misery is defined by how many people are worse off now than when they took office. Granted there are a few who have done exceedingly well in the climate of tax the middle and poor while absolving the wealthy of liability.
I am still waiting for the rising tide to even get near enough to my boat to float it let alone have it rise. The economic boom has missed many Americans at their expense. If you are not one of them good for you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the Great Wall of China, I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, I've even witnessed a grown man satisfy a camel. But never in all my years as a administrator have I witnessed something as improbable, as impossible, as what you posted here today! you just. don't. get it.

(sigh).

Tell me, please, how has GWB's economic policies hurt you.

[Joe Steel]

the clinton economy was the best huh?.....bet you can't explain how he did it in under 25 words.....

Where did I say the Clinton economy was the best?


which socialist country is the ideal?

Socialism never has been implemented anywhere. A number of countries have been labeled "socialist" but they're not. They're not much different than the oligopolies common throughout the world.

[diuretic]

I think "social democrat" is preferred these days to "socialist". Even the good old "democratic socialist" idea has been hounded so much that it's grown horns and a spiked tail.

The Scandinavian countries are pretty good examples of social democratic governments (I'm not taking a snapshot here, I'm aware that any country, even the enlightened ones, can revert to conservatism if the circumstances are right).

[Joe Steel]

How could democracy, which is government by the people, "evolve" towards socialism, which is an economic system that denies freedom to those very people and places power in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats?

Socialism is government by consensus. The People decide, in common, the issues which are important to them. That's the essence of democracy.



If you define "misery" as growing GDP, low unemployment, and low inflation, then I'll take your version of misery any day.

None of this is of any great importance to the vast majority of working Americans. Their incomes and economic prospects have been diminished by an economy rigged to serve interests of special interests and economic elites.

[Joe Steel]

Very well put. I just wish I could have said it.

Thank you.

[Joe Steel]

Misery is defined by how many people are worse off now than when they took office. Granted there are a few who have done exceedingly well in the climate of tax the middle and poor while absolving the wealthy of liability.

I am still waiting for the rising tide to even get near enough to my boat to float it let alone have it rise. The economic boom has missed many Americans at their expense. If you are not one of them good for you.

Exactly. The economy is rigged to serve the few who control it.

[diuretic]

Exactly. The economy is rigged to serve the few who control it.

Panem et circenses.

[Joe Steel]

Could you elaborate a bit? I'm intrigued, where did you come across that line of thinking, can you reference something stating that the intent of true democracies is to evolve towards socialism?

Democracy is an organic object. It's not planned. As a healthy democracy grows, it takes control of more and more of the activities which affect its members.

We see that in the U. S. For over two hundred years, the national government has involved itself in activities which affect Americans. That's consistent with the broad outlines of the U. S. Constitution's concern for the general welfare.


Are you arguing that democratic pressures save the markets from themselves - the welfare state levels out market extremes?

Ideally, yes.

A healthy community prefers economic equity to economic efficiency.

[Joe Steel]

I think "social democrat" is preferred these days to "socialist". Even the good old "democratic socialist" idea has been hounded so much that it's grown horns and a spiked tail.

The Scandinavian countries are pretty good examples of social democratic governments (I'm not taking a snapshot here, I'm aware that any country, even the enlightened ones, can revert to conservatism if the circumstances are right).

Indeed. The social democracies of Western Europe are as close to the ideal as we've seen.

[Said1]

Democracy is an organic object. It's not planned. As a healthy democracy grows, it takes control of more and more of the activities which affect its members.

We see that in the U. S. For over two hundred years, the national government has involved itself in activities which affect Americans. That's consistent with the broad outlines of the U. S. Constitution's concern for the general welfare.



Ideally, yes.

A healthy community prefers economic equity to economic efficiency.

As I already stated, I was assuming your position stems from the classic argument that democracy does in fact hinder markets because the people, if you let them will use their power and influence to subvert the market, but in a good way? This is the preferable outcome in a 'healthy' community, in your opinion - the government, eventually having total control over markets and division of wealth? I think I'm clear on that end.

Having said that (the above) what do you think; do free(er) markets provide the conditions for democracy or not? I believe they do.

Either way, I was looking for something interesting to read that supports your opinion about democracy, not social democracy - or are you basically saying they are one in the same?

BTW, I was referring to democracy vs markets in general, not specific to any given country.

[typomaniac]

Oh brother, here we go again. Easily the most irrational poster on the board is now taking stabs at perhaps the most well respected and intelligent member on the board.

Just because I respect Jeff doesn't mean that I don't think he spouts nonsense on many occasions. (Many otherwise intelligent people do.) I just know that he honestly believes it.

[typomaniac]

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the Great Wall of China, I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, I've even witnessed a grown man satisfy a camel.

Can you post a video? :laugh:

[Joe Steel]

As I already stated, I was assuming your position stems from the classic argument that democracy does in fact hinder markets because the people, if you let them will use their power and influence to subvert the market, but in a good way? This is the preferable outcome in a 'healthy' community, in your opinion - the government, eventually having total control over markets and division of wealth? I think I'm clear on that end.

Yes. Markets don't produce the greatest equity.


Having said that (the above) what do you think; do free(er) markets provide the conditions for democracy or not? I believe they do.

As we have seen, managed (non-market) economies tend to be abusive of personal liberty. I think that's mostly because we've never seen a truly socialist (managed by consensus) economy. Most managed economies have been associated with totalitarian states so they don't reflect consensus.


Either way, I was looking for something interesting to read that supports your opinion about democracy, not social democracy - or are you basically saying they are one in the same?

BTW, I was referring to democracy vs markets in general, not specific to any given country.

While I've never read Marx' (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html) Capital, I understand he deals with natural economic progression from feudalism through capitalism through socialism to communism. Assuming true socialism to be democratic in nature, that might fill your need.