If Bush is considered 'What is Republican'...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Follow the dollars. They are used to buy the debt back. There is no lost liquidity.

Kid, From a 10,000ft perspective:

If the goverment taxes Americans to buy back bonds held by foreigners instead of buying a new cars, etc., the foreigners have cash equal to the tax the Americans have paid, and the car it just made expecting to sell to the government stays in inventory rather than being sold.

Surpluses really do adversely affect the economy.

Imran, my major problem with trying to talk to you is that you constantly ignore your opponents arguments, erect strawmen and knock them down, and then, if you still cannot prevail, begin calling your opponent names. This is a constantly recurring pattern in every "discussion" you and I have ever had. It is just a matter of time before you lose it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Lawrence, the point of the article I cited was that at times monetary policy simply was not enough, pointing at Japan.

but japan has had deflation which screws with monetary policy. and one reason for this is that the yen is kept artificially low.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Kid, From a 10,000ft perspective:

If the goverment taxes Americans to buy back bonds held by foreigners instead of buying a new cars, etc., the foreigners have cash equal to the tax the Americans have paid, and the car it just made expecting to sell to the government stays in inventory rather than being sold.

True, but then you have to go back to whether the surplus is an effect of increased income or not. If it is an effect of increased income then most of the surplus is actually put back into the economy anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Another reason why fiscal policy can sometimes work better is because it can be allocated more accurately. Monetary policy is at the mercy of the market. Sometimes there aren't viable people to loan to, and I think that is the case in Japan. In the US, many companies are in debt already, and households have a lot of debt too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, my major problem with trying to talk to you is that you constantly ignore your opponents arguments, erect strawmen and knock them down, and then, if you still cannot prevail, begin calling your opponent names. This is a constantly recurring pattern in every "discussion" you and I have ever had. It is just a matter of time before you lose it.

Perhaps you should evaluate why this ONLY happens to you and to no one else on this site? Is it because when I've defeated you, you can't even take one step back and admit how wrong you were? Or is it because you are just so amazingly thick-headed?

Remember, I wasn't the one who coined the term 'Nediverse'.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Another reason why fiscal policy can sometimes work better is because it can be allocated more accurately. Monetary policy is at the mercy of the market. Sometimes there aren't viable people to loan to, and I think that is the case in Japan. In the US, many companies are in debt already, and households have a lot of debt too.

you mean the same market that works fine every day?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


you mean the same market that works fine every day?

Only in your mind.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Only in your mind.

but you still havnt explained how you would distribute resources to attain maximization of utility

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


but you still havnt explained how you would distribute resources to attain maximization of utility

You never asked me that question.

Utility isn't of primary concern to me. I only stated that it is of primary concern to economists. My primary concern is justice.

Now do you mean maximizing utility in a capitalist system of some other system?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

economist want to answer what to produce, how much to produce, and for whom to produce, using limited resources.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, my major problem with trying to talk to you is that you constantly ignore your opponents arguments, erect strawmen and knock them down, and then, if you still cannot prevail, begin calling your opponent names. This is a constantly recurring pattern in every "discussion" you and I have ever had. It is just a matter of time before you lose it.

Perhaps you should evaluate why this ONLY happens to you and to no one else on this site? Is it because when I've defeated you, you can't even take one step back and admit how wrong you were? Or is it because you are just so amazingly thick-headed?

Remember, I wasn't the one who coined the term 'Nediverse'.

Imran, If you ever want to be a successful lawyer, you should never, ever call you opponent an idiot. Such behavior is beneath the profession.

[Ned]

Oh, and bye the way, Imran, the idea that you won an argument by making simply conclusiory statements unsupported by reason or data is, well, .... All I can tell you is that you are going to have a very hard time as a lawyer until you really learn how to debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, If you ever want to be a successful lawyer, you should never, ever call you opponent an idiot. Such behavior is beneath the profession.

You aren't a lawyer, this isn't a court of law, and you are an idiot.

the idea that you won an argument by making simply conclusiory statements unsupported by reason or data

The fact that you are also getting torn to shreds by these 'unsupported' data in another thread should tell you something. It's called common sense. I haven't heard anyone else except you say that deficits, by themselves, cause recession. It's because it is an idiotic assertion.

All I can tell you is that you are going to have a very hard time as a lawyer until you really learn how to debate.

I do... at least anywhere outside the Nedaverse. Hell, I even got a few votes in the Best Debater Poll .

[Nubclear]

Imran, you're winner!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, If you ever want to be a successful lawyer, you should never, ever call you opponent an idiot. Such behavior is beneath the profession.

You aren't a lawyer, this isn't a court of law, and you are an idiot.

the idea that you won an argument by making simply conclusiory statements unsupported by reason or data

The fact that you are also getting torn to shreds by these 'unsupported' data in another thread should tell you something. It's called common sense. I haven't heard anyone else except you say that deficits, by themselves, cause recession. It's because it is an idiotic assertion.

All I can tell you is that you are going to have a very hard time as a lawyer until you really learn how to debate.

I do... at least anywhere outside the Nedaverse. Hell, I even got a few votes in the Best Debater Poll .

I am a lawyer and you have a lot to learn. If I were asked my opinion on whether you were qualified to be a lawyer, I would now have to say no.

As to the economic question, you once again have mistated what I have said. Another strawman erected and knocked down. Irman the God of debate!