http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/30/no-nothing-keynesian-about-that Comments On: No, Nothing Keynesian About That... by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 15:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by ScrawnyKayaker]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:09:58 -0800 The Stranger
By this simple calculation, you can see that each Republican administration since the Second World War has had a far higher increase in the National Debt than each Democratic administration. This has been amplified over the last 40 years. Republicans are now responsible for at least two thirds of our debt.

Obama's performance numbers on the debt are actually fairly good, with the strongest percentages of decrease in the annual deficit in ages.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:40:07 -0800 The Stranger
@17: You're probably trolling, but your hypothetical questions do have answers. Why did we vote for Obama's economy over Romney's? Because under Obama we had a known pattern of steady, if modest growth, and he promised to do things that seemed likely to sustain that pattern.

Romney promised austerity, which your allusion to the debt seems to indicate you support. Austerity has never been shown to improve an economy and the countries that are practicing it have seen their recovery falter, stall, even reverse.

Romney also promised that the mere fact of his awesome presence would be the magic key to improving things. "if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy." Does that sound like a man with a good plan? No, it sounds like a man who thinks the economy is going to recover anyway, and he wants to be in a position to take credit for it.

Romney promised, during the second debate, to create 12 million new jobs, and also assured us that government does not create jobs. So what was he planning to do? Hire 12 million people personally to, like, take care of his horses or whatever?

Romney also promised many things that contradicted each other. So, I felt like I had literally no idea about what he would actually do if elected. It's possible the economy would have been fine, but only if he went with his promises that involve basically doing what Obama's been doing. If he fulfilled his promises of austerity, I was pretty sure we'd go back into a recession.

That could still happen, of course. But it won't be because of Romney's policies we didn't implement.
Posted by McJulie]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:04:34 -0800 The Stranger
This should not be "unexpected" as you say Goldy. When ya'll voted for this guy, after the past 4 years of Obamaconomy, you should have known that this decline would result. Or did you just like his smile better that Romney's?

Sixteen TRILLION dollars in debt people. Hello...

What part of "we are so screwed" don't you (D) genius' understand?
Posted by GeneStoner]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:18:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Frank Blethen's vodka distiller]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:42:00 -0800 The Stranger Posted by rob!]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:09:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Beetlecat]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:09:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by thatsnotright]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:34:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ScrawnyKayaker]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:22:48 -0800 The Stranger
Posted by dafydd]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:21:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:01:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sir Vic]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:59:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Max Solomon]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:56:21 -0800 The Stranger http://www.epi.org/publication/gdp-growt…
Posted by hmmmmm]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:52:48 -0800 The Stranger
Also, R&D and weapons-system purchases are the relatively easy parts of military spending to curtail in the short order; there's no huge reduction-in-force planning that I'm aware of. Maybe as Afghanistan winds down, get those soldiers trained and working on repairing all the shabby, flimsy buildings on bases, and most importantly, doing energy-efficiency upgrades. Those are real-world marketable skills as well.
Posted by rob!]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:51:44 -0800 The Stranger
Not a huge chunk of total GDP, but with multipliers probably good for 0.1%.
Posted by dirge]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:45:38 -0800 The Stranger
The highest GDP multiple for military spending is on salaries and benefits for military based in the US. Much lower GDP multiple when they are overseas.

The next highest GDP multiple is for US services and material supplied.

If you took the money we cut from military spending and spent about 1/3 of that on US education and infrastructure, you'd have the same net GDP effect, but would have saved 2/3 of the money spent. Which you could use to cut the deficit, thus reducing borrowing costs (interest). Best used to buy off high interest treasuries.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:43:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by rob!]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:38:19 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:37:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:15:52 -0800 The Stranger