Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

that is like a doctor saying if we had just let the patient die of a heart attack he would be out playing golf by now.

 

I believe it's not considered juggling until you have three balls in the air. So far, your typical best is two balls (tax cuts and revenue). Though there have been the odd posts where you admit to the importance of other variables.

 

do you even understand the point of a recession or even a depression.

you had misused capacity, assets, skills and captial.
They need to be redeployed to productive areas.

In this age of info and capital without borders... even a depression would most likely not last long.

 

ok ... I stated inflation could cause revenues to increase also.
so what... we already have a trillion dollars in deficit spending from Obama... now it time to try what keynes and Romney actually suggest when in a slowdown... cut taxes.

It worked for Mellon, Kennedy Reagan and Bush... it should work now too.

 

No, you are assuming a much more dramatic outcome than was likely. Why must we make the huge jump to death. To carry on your analogy, we had a patient with kidney failure. What Jem is suggesting is more like saying that if the doctor had done a nephrectomy the patient would be golfing by now.

In effect, what the doctor did instead was prescribe some diuretic pills and blood thinners to increase the fluidity (or in economic terms "liquidity") of the system, and then send the patient on vacation to relax. The problem kidney is still there and is actually worse than it was before. The diuretics don't heal the kidney, they just stimulate liquidity.

We needed to truly rid ourselves of the bad kidney. That means letting the problem banks fail while doing everything we can to encourage the fairly healthy institutions to pick up the slack. Had we done that, it is very likely we would be seeing very robust growth already.

 

you would get my vote.

very clear, very concise and very correct.

 

Actually, we increased spending, which caused GDP and revenue to rise, what Keynes and Obama actually suggest.

<img src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/joshbarro/files/2012/04/spending-GDP-chart1-1024x697.png">

 

Where did they get the money to increase spending?

 

The problem with assuming it was the spending...

1. we are spending 2.43 dollars of debt for 1 dollar of GDP right now and our GDP is slowing down. We have even tried Quantitative Easing and each time we do the high is shorter lived.

Stimulus without tax cuts is like free ice cream without the cream.
Why, because private sector spending puts more of the money in the right places. The govt spends almost a trillion and create a few jobs at a cost of 300,000 for a 50,000 job.

 

You're mixing concepts here. Perhaps focus on "crowding out" first, as it will cast some light on Reagan. In fact, read the whole wiki entry for Reaganomics again. There is a LOT more to this than "if A then B".