Liberal Forum

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 1:43 pm » wrote: You really shouldn't be talking about people bungling numbers when YOUR bungled numbers conflict with the graph you used to support them.

As I made clear in the OP, retard, I don't trust people JUST LIKE YOU to be honest about the numbers. People like you will bounce between sets, depending on which best serves their current argument. I mentioned both sets of numbers, and stated that I was willing to argue my thesis, to wit: THAT CARTER WAS BETTER ON THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN, with either set of numbers BUT NOT BOTH.

You have consistently tried to use both. You use 1980 to argue that Carter left with a stagnant (not growing or shrinking) economy. You used 1981 to deprive Carter of 1976 and drop his overall performance stats.

Once you have picked ONE SET (1976-1980, or 1977-1981), I will debate the numbers with you. Until then, we will all watch you screech ineffectually and dishonestly.

AmazonTania » 16 Feb 2014 7:08 pm » wrote:Also, while I'm here I guess I might as well take the time to correct some economic illiteracy.

GDP is normally adjusted for inflation, but the way we get the real GDP is by using what is called a GDP deflator. This will determine whether or not the economic growth gained in a particular period is mostly attributed to inflation or whether or not it is genuine economic growth. The GDP deflator is considered one of the most comprehensive metrics when calculating inflation because it covers a wide array of goods and services in the economy, including the construction/production of this goods and services.

Real GDP = Nominal GDP / GDP Deflator.

Also keep in mind, when using a metric such as the GDP Deflator, you always need to remember that it metrics the level goods and services increase relative to a base year.

For example, during the Carter Administration, nominal GDP grew from 1,992.5 billion from the start of his administration to 3,131.8 billion to the end, which is an increase of 57%. However, the prices of goods and services also increased 52% according to the GDP Deflator indexed for 1977. This means that Real GDP actually grew 49%.

Reagan on the other hand had a nominal GDP growth from 3,167.2 billion to 5,527.3, a 74% increase, however according to the GDP Deflator indexed for 1981, prices increased a total of 38%. This means Real GDP actually grew 74% percent.

In very simple terms, the GDP growth for the Carter Administration is higher annualised simply because of the rate of inflation, which the GDP Deflator accurately captures. GDP averages an annualised rate of 3.3% during the Carter Administration, however you have prices increasing at a rate of 7% or more.Reagan averaged an annualised rate of 3.5%, while prices only increasing by 4.75.

In very simple terms, Reagan's economic growth was actually genuine economic growth, while Carter's was the result of the double digit inflation of the 1970's.

I don't know why I had to calculate this just to demonstrate this fact. I thought this was common knowledge.http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=12&904=1977&905=1989&906=a

Finally, a post with some teeth from you - a post that takes a good hard punch at the OP. I was beginning to think you a dilettante and a cheap seater - my apologies.

Now, I have a couple of questions for you:

How do we properly account for the fact that Reagan used Keynesian economic stimulus, and Carter didn't? When you add a couple of trillion dollars of debt to the economy, are you not essentially eating tomorrow's supper, today? Reagan inherited an economy of 3 trillions, then BORROWED two trillions - and then claimed he "added" it to the economy - did he not? Hell, I can take 3 dollars, borrow 2, and say, "Look! I turned 3 into 5! Dayum, I am GOOD!" Isn't that what Ponzi did?

I mean, if you judged my CREDIT LINE as part of my personal "economy," it would make my economic picture look pretty damned flattering. When the precious, precious unborn are PAYING for Reagan's "good" economy, will it still have been all that "good?"

Also, how much of that "economy" was new government workers? How much of it was manufacturing bombs and missiles (some of which ended up in Iran) - MORE Keynesian stimulus?

You accuse ME of smoke and mirrors, but if you are REALLY here to add clarity, then show your stuff - take on those issues. look at the SIZE OF GOVERNMENT under Reagan and Carter - because all of that counted as "economy." Look at GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

The issue here is who was better for the economy - not who was better at big borrowing and big spending. Goofy and Clem will curse Keynes all day long, then extol the virtues of Reagan on the economy.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:31 pm » wrote:
I never, EVER "attributed" the 1981 economic conditions or recession to Reagan.

Liar. Here is what you said, liar:

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:20 pm » wrote: Failing to take into account the powerful downward spiral the economy was in; the chaos, the confusion, the utter lack of solution by most policy makers.

Now, Carter only had ONE DOWN YEAR: 1980. By claiming that Reagan "inherited" an economy in a "downward spiral" (the down years was actually flat: minus 2/10ths of 1%, you exaggerating jackass), you were CLEARLY giving 1981 to Reagan. If not, liar, then you could not have ginned up a fabricated and hysterical "powerful downward spiral."

Your stupid rhetoric means stuff, clemtard.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:20 pm » wrote:
5.4% is pretty strong growth, psycho. That's the economy Carter inherited.

One "up" year out of three. Ford was really hitting on all cylinders, right?

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 2:27 pm » wrote:
Son, I play the game as well or better than you.

snicker

Whatever helps ya sleep, kid.

Cedarswamp » 16 Feb 2014 7:43 pm » wrote:
Yea that's what I said in not so many words.

Sure it is. When you weren't busy defending malfeasance and then lying about it with a "nuh uh" in the face of your own words. You lack the integrity to own your OWN posts - don't try piggy backing hers, partisan hack.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 8:01 pm » wrote:
That's rocket science to a moonbat.

It's common knowledge that Carter's economic policies failed, but Reagan's succeeded, but moonbats can't even grasp something that obvious.

Oh, look, this shameless moron is STILL making appeals to "common knowledge," even AFTER being informed that is a logical fallacy.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 11:47 pm » wrote:
Oh, look, this shameless moron is STILL making appeals to "common knowledge," even AFTER being informed that is a logical fallacy.

But only a moonbat would use facts and numbers to debate against something most people "know"

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 6:09 am » wrote:
Hilarious that the psychotic is standing by this stunningly stupid claim.


But he must have an absolutely impeccable source, having rejected every one of mine!

about.com



Let's see more of the wisdom and subject matter carried by his source. CP would never, EVER cite a questionable source!

Wow, they have a candy "expert!"

And an expert on grandfathers!

Then they must be experts on Economics and history, too!

I love psychotic moonbat humor!

Good stuff. Plus 1

deezer shoove » 16 Feb 2014 9:47 pm » wrote:I remember the Whip Inflation Now campaign (1974 with Pres. Ford) trying to bolster a crappy economy. That failed to bring the Nixon era around.
Carter inherited the **** and **** it up about the same. "Malaise" came out of his mouth describing the times while in office. Sitting president, current events.
A turn-around came during Reagan as I recall.

So what the **** is this OP about? I didn't look up anything; just a memory for me.

Your memory is sound. But your narrative can use some clarity.

Reagan robbed social security. Reagan MASSIVELY grew government. Reagan borrowed more radically, whether in real dollars adjusted for inflation, or in debt as a percentage of GDP, than any president sonce Roosevelt in WWII. The precious, precious unborn have to PAY THAT MONEY BACK.

Much of the "production" that Reaganites credit him with was PAYED FOR BY GOVERNMENT. Many of the JOBS they credit him with were either government jobs, or jobs with government as the only customer. Still many more were PART TIME jobs, as Reagan's IRS rewarded hiring lots of part timers instead of full time workers as a trick to play with the employment numbers.

Reagan inherited an economy of 3 trillion dollars, and borrowed a couple of trillions - TRIPLING our national debt from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion. It's not hard to "look good" on borrowed money that is passed along to other presidents, who then get cussed for the debt.

That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an HONEST comparison of the two, instead of the conservative mainstream media spin-narrative that folks seem to take for granted.

If Carter had tripled the national debt, the triumphal screeching of contards would echo through the ages into infinity.

Let's look at the size of government:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... ince-1962/

Carter inherited a federal government with 5,005,000 total employees at all levels, including military. In 1981, it had been reduced to 4,982,000. The reductions came from the civilian side. Contrary to popular belief, there were MORE people serving in the military, not less.

Reagan inherited a government with a total of 4,982,000 employees, and left it in 1989 with 5, 292,000. MIND YOU, that does not reflect the massive build up in jobs whose only customer was government.

AGAIN: That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an attempt at HONEST comparison of the two, instead of the conservative mainstream media spin-narrative that folks seem to take for granted.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2014 11:55 pm » wrote: But only a moonbat would use facts and numbers to debate against something most people "know"

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 1:42 pm » wrote:

Interesting graph. Kind of makes Reagan look like a bad choice for the economy. It shows GDP growth peaking around '82 – right about the time Reagan's first budget came into effect, then plunges steeply and stays pretty low for most of his time in office.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 11:29 pm » wrote:
Finally, a post with some teeth from you - a post that takes a good hard punch at the OP. I was beginning to think you a dilettante and a cheap seater - my apologies.

Now, I have a couple of questions for you:

How do we properly account for the fact that Reagan used Keynesian economic stimulus, and Carter didn't? When you add a couple of trillion dollars of debt to the economy, are you not essentially eating tomorrow's supper, today? Reagan inherited an economy of 3 trillions, then BORROWED two trillions - and then claimed he "added" it to the economy - did he not? Hell, I can take 3 dollars, borrow 2, and say, "Look! I turned 3 into 5! Dayum, I am GOOD!" Isn't that what Ponzi did?

I mean, if you judged my CREDIT LINE as part of my personal "economy," it would make my economic picture look pretty damned flattering. When the precious, precious unborn are PAYING for Reagan's "good" economy, will it still have been all that "good?"

Also, how much of that "economy" was new government workers? How much of it was manufacturing bombs and missiles (some of which ended up in Iran) - MORE Keynesian stimulus?

Do you understand how economic stimulus is supposed to work? The idea of economic stimulus (demand-side) is to increase the overall demand for goods and services. Exactly how do you accomplish this by increasing overall government expenditures in the military (the bulk of Reagan's budget increases). Tanks and weapons are not overall goods people purchase in the private sector, so I don't understand how you believe the government spending more on these things would increase the overall aggregate demand for other goods and services in the economy.

Sure, spending added to GDP, but no economist would actually consider it stimulus (no serious economist, anyway). The money never actually made its way into the economy. Notice the Velocity of the money supply, which is the ratio at which money is actually circulating. Velocity of money is essentially flat during the Reagan administration.



And I don't know how you think GDP works, but the government doesn't simply add it to the economy by borrowing it. GDP = C + I + G = NX. Government expenditures contribute to the G component of GDP, while Private Sector consumption contributes to it with C (Personal Consumption Expenditures). If anything, Government expenditures became less of a contributing factor as a part of GDP during the Reagan Administration, while Private Sector consumption slightly tapered off due to the increase in interest rates.



Simply put, the economy grew simply because the economy got better. Government spending wasn't driving it.

The issue here is who was better for the economy - not who was better at big borrowing and big spending. Goofy and Clem will curse Keynes all day long, then extol the virtues of Reagan on the economy.

Reagan had a better economy. Under Carter, the labour force grew by 10,241 thousand, while the amount of employed persons increased 9,955 thousand and the population grew 11,191 thousand. Employment was not keeping up with population growth (hence, the stagflation).

Under Reagan, labour force grew 15,148 thousand with employed persons increasing by 18,399 thousand and the population growing all while the population grew 16,364 thousand.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PAYEMS.txt

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CLF16OV.txt

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CNP16OV.txt

The economy overall experienced better economy growth, labour force growth and income growth during the Reagan administration. Granted, you will experience more growth in times of economic recoveries, but that is the point. During a recovery, the economy should look as if it is receiving, not stagnating like what is currently happening.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 10:35 pm » wrote:
It's been a while, I will confess.

But nattering from the cheap seats isn't exactly an admirable skill, either, sweetness. Maybe if you could POSIT rather than whine, Peaches, you might just wow us all and rehabilitate your big spending, big borrowing, stagnant economy hero, hmmm?

I've already explain how debt to GDP was supposed to be used in a different post. The metric is not supposed outline how much the national debt is improving. You cannot 'pay down' your debt to GDP. The metric is used solely for investors to gauge the nations ability to pay off its debt. Obviously, the more debt the nation accumulates relative to what the nation actually produces is problematic, but that essentially was not a problem during the Reagan administration (or any other administration before it).

The time to have been concerned about debt to GDP was during 2009, when debt to GDP breached 75% and was increased for an extended period of time.

Reagan is far from my hero, but it's really absurd to suggest the economy of the 1970's was better.

leave it up to liberals to support and defend complete and total failures like Carter and Obama.

amazon tunia Also, while I'm here I guess I might as well take the time to correct some economic illiteracy.



...from what i have seen from you, you are yet another republicrat monetary ignoramus spewing stinking brainwa$h economic THEORIES about the illion-'dollar' economy whilst WORSE THAN ignorant of the hideous REALITIES of the origin and nature of even one 'dollar'..just like roach clip and the rest of the goddamned fool republicrat radio parrots!..

...get a clue...bill still, ellen brown, steve zarlenga...

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 11:35 pm » wrote: Liar. Here is what you said, liar:
Now, Carter only had ONE DOWN YEAR: 1980. By claiming that Reagan "inherited" an economy in a "downward spiral"

Your stupid rhetoric means stuff, clemtard.

I "give" it to Reagan only in the sense he was in office, moonbat, and Carter's incompetence extended well into Reagan's first term.

I never, EVER "attributed" the 1981 economic conditions or recession to Reagan, and not one single word I wrote shows otherwise.

Typical that on the basis of your ignorance and psychosis you'd call me a liar.

(the down years was actually flat: minus 2/10ths of 1%, you exaggerating jackass), you were CLEARLY giving 1981 to Reagan. If not, liar, then you could not have ginned up a fabricated and hysterical "powerful downward spiral."

Utter bulls***. There was a recession in 1980 and the worst recession since the Great Depression in 1981-2. Given the economy Carter inherited, that's just as I claimed, a powerful downward trajectory.

.

Who should people believe, their lying eyes?

Or a psychotic like you?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 12:11 am » wrote:Your memory is sound. But your narrative can use some clarity.

Translated into non-moonbat English, CP is going to share his lunacy with you.

Reagan robbed social security. Reagan MASSIVELY grew government. Reagan borrowed more radically, whether in real dollars adjusted for inflation, or in debt as a percentage of GDP, than any president sonce Roosevelt in WWII. The precious, precious unborn have to PAY THAT MONEY BACK.

Wow, where in the Constitution does a president write a budget law?

Anyone with the slightest knowledge about the era knows that there was a huge struggle between Reagan and mostly Dems over their refusal to control spending. The government was even shut down over Reagan's attempt to control spending.

Just like it was shut down over Bush Sr's fight with Dems.

Psychotics stupidly blame the presidents who fought to control spending while absolving the party that fought to increase it.

Or he's just lying.

peepee » 17 Feb 2014 6:16 am » wrote:amazon tunia Also, while I'm here I guess I might as well take the time to correct some economic illiteracy.



...from what i have seen from you, you are yet another republicrat monetary ignoramus spewing stinking brainwa$h economic THEORIES about the illion-'dollar' economy whilst WORSE THAN ignorant of the hideous REALITIES of the origin and nature of even one 'dollar'..just like roach clip and the rest of the goddamned fool republicrat radio parrots!..

...get a clue...bill still, ellen brown, steve zarlenga...

I'm not a Republican... Or Democrat (Republicrat?), so I don't understand where you are basing these assumptions from...

I'm not a Republican... Or Democrat (Republicrat?), so I don't understand where you are basing these assumptions from...


...you seem to parrot the stinking mainstream republicrat economic THEORY/paradigm, history etc..without ever acknowledging the fraudulent nature of 'our' stinking money (issuance, etc.) system...

..'the game' is rigged, dear...has been for a looooooooong stinking time...i label anyone a 'republicrat' who is unaware of this REALITY....