- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199141
16 Aug 11
Originally posted by telerionWell, that too.
I thought you were going to say, "When Obama proposes it."
Newt this morning is saying that the Republicans might have a "hard time" opposing the extension of the payroll tax cut, and he sounds sad about it!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/gingrich-republicans-will-have-a-hard-time-saying-no-to-extending-payroll-tax-cut.php?ref=fpb
Of course Rick Perry is mad that the Fed policy might actually improve the economy, and make it harder for him to win in 2012.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/rick-perry-thinks-printing-more-money-is-almost-treason-because-it-would-help-the-economy-and-thus-o.php
Have these people any shame whatsoever?!
16 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooInteresting essay in last week’s Bloomberg Businessweek, casting the recent debt-ceiling negotiations in terms of game theory. A few snippets:
Well, that too.
Newt this morning is saying that the Republicans might have a "hard time" opposing the extension of the payroll tax cut, and he sounds sad about it!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/gingrich-republicans-will-have-a-hard-time-saying-no-to-extending-payroll-tax-cut.php?ref=fpb
Of course Rick Perry is mad that the Fed policy mi ...[text shortened]... n-because-it-would-help-the-economy-and-thus-o.php
Have these people any shame whatsoever?!
“Looked at through the prism of game theory, it’s hard to see how the outcome could have turned out any other way.”
“Game theorists distinguish between ‘cooperative’ and ‘noncooperative’ games. A cooperative game looks to divide a pile in a way that leaves both sides with trust in the process. Binding arbitration, where two sides are obliged by law to submit to a judge’s decision, is a cooperative game. [Also mentioned as an attempted cooperative game: the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission on debt reduction.] … A noncooperative game lacks a higher authority to impose agreements on both sides. In Washington, no politician is bound to reach a compromise to solve any long-term problem. Everyone, however, is playing a game called ‘election,’ and the only possible goal in that game is to win the next one.”
“A game theorist would say that the President is trying to play a cooperative game in a town that can’t play along with him. The trouble for the White House is that the Republicans aren’t playing a game called ‘fix the budget deficit.’ They’re necessarily playing one called ‘defeat Barack Obama.’”
“We will know, at the close of the next round of negotiations, which game the Tea Party has been playing: Balance the Budget or Kill the King.”
Brendan Greeley, “The Case for Caving”, Bloomberg Businessweek, August 8 – August 14, 2011; pp. 6-7.
___________________________________________________
Again, just snippets—for proper context one ought to read the article.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199141
16 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdYeah, but the missing component is that historically the most important factor of debt reduction is economic expansion. You can cut and cut, and it might even aggravate the deficit if it results in few jobs and more economic contraction. It happened initially under Reagan. It happened under FDR in 1937.
Interesting essay in last week’s Bloomberg Businessweek, casting the recent debt-ceiling negotiations in terms of game theory. A few snippets:
“Looked at through the prism of game theory, it’s hard to see how the outcome could have turned out any other way.”
“Game theorists distinguish between ‘cooperative’ and ‘noncooperative’ games. A cooperative g ...[text shortened]... ______________________
Again, just snippets—for proper context one ought to read the article.
Obama has never made that case.
But Republicans aren't even citing the deficit as reasons for opposing the payroll tax cut. Basically, they don't want to benefit the economy, and they don't want a precedent of passing a tax cut which does not directly benefit the rich.
16 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooMostly agreed, except that I think that Obama’s infrastructure proposals are also a recipe for economic growth. I think that reducing income inequality can also be a growth-producing policy—but I’m relying on some casual sources there, for the present. I would say, rather, that his particular game-theoretic mindset has prevented him from pressing.
Yeah, but the missing component is that historically the most important factor of debt reduction is economic expansion. You can cut and cut, and it might even aggravate the deficit if it results in few jobs and more economic contraction. It happened initially under Reagan. It happened under FDR in 1937.
Obama has never made that case.
But Republicans ...[text shortened]... nd they don't want a precedent of passing a tax cut which does not directly benefit the rich.
I don’t think that job-generating stimulus can be separated from economic growth when you’re in a recessionary environment. [And I don’t think you’re saying that; I’m just thinking out loud.] The question becomes one of time horizons. I’m also generally Keynesian in the sense that I think that growth is predominantly demand-driven. And the empirical work that I’ve recently looked at bears that out: new real (physical) investment is simply not driven by available funds (savings, excluding unwanted inventory).
One of the difficulties is that running up deficits during growth times is bad long-run fiscal policy—and anti-Keynesian. Same for keeping interest rates artificially low. Basically, that’s applying stimulus when it is not needed. Then the sights get a bit scary when real stimulus is needed to dig out of the collapse; it’s a hard order to sell, even if it makes sense economically.
But Republicans aren't even citing the deficit as reasons for opposing the payroll tax cut.
That's the "kill the king" stance. I think Bloomberg was being circumspect in their analysis.
By the way, you might enjoy a book called The Keynes Solution, by Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson. His analysis of FDR in ’37, etc. supports yours.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199141
17 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdI'll give that one a look.
Mostly agreed, except that I think that Obama’s infrastructure proposals are also a recipe for economic growth. I think that reducing income inequality can also be a growth-producing policy—but I’m relying on some casual sources there, for the present. I would say, rather, that his particular game-theoretic mindset has prevented him from pressing.
I d ...[text shortened]... by Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson. His analysis of FDR in ’37, etc. supports yours.
What's really left out of historical analysis is that Reagan's supply side economics failed miserably, causing a double-dip recession. He then embarked on a huge spending spree for the military, which generated a decade of relative affluence - at least outside of the inner cities.