Posted by: graemebird | February 6, 2009

Mark Hill Is The Ultimate Sydney Stooge (The Keynesian Multiplier DOES NOT EXIST).

Brought forth April 2010 to show that the stupidity of Mark Hill is no new problem. Rather it is a congenital problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mark Hill has fallen for the Keynesian multiplier. There is no such thing as a fiscal multiplier in economics. This is Keynesian supersition. We cannot rule out sheer serendipity.  But the whole idea of a fiscal multiplier is childish stupidity.

As I explained, when the government spends or borrows more it does not increase or reduce total spending. All it does is shift spending from business-to-business spending, which is not picked up by GDP, and THAT SPENDING winds up in the consumer-spending-category or the government-spending-category.

 

GDP= C + I + G + X – M

In this formula we have no domestic business-to-business spending. All we have is a tiny netted figure of I (net investment) which is a highly processed and artificial figure, and it hides the huge figure of business-to-business-spending. I use that phrase (b-to-b spending) but there is a more formal phrase for the spending category I am talking about. 

Anyway, business-to-business spending is a vastly larger category of spending then all the other categories in GDP put together. Not suprisingly governments can manipulate some of that huge amount of spending and make that money get spent under other categories where it will be picked up by the national accounts. 

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, and the silly bugger comes along, and without making a contrary argument he still insists the mulitplier exists.

Which would be fine if he could provide some argument or evidence as to why he thinks this rubbish.

 

If someone has been pimped, violated in their sleep, stooged, made a fool of, bamboozled, made to look stupid and so forth, they don’t necessarily like to admit it to themselves.

So Mark Hill, the ultimate Sydney Stooge, keeps on popping up and insisting that there is in fact a multiplier.  I wipe every assertion, unadorned with supplementary argument, since its a straight lie. I’d leave the posts in if he would defend his point of view. 

He’s done it about ten times now and never with any sort of argument to show why he believes in the multiplier.

So I’ve been forced to launch this thread. In the hope that Mark will either provide evidence that there is a fiscal multiplier, or admit that he’s been duped.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So how do you increase spending? Well for starters make sure you want to. Its not often a good idea. But the only sure and quick way to increase spending overall is by direct cash injection.

A direct cash injection will increase spending. But you need a lot of it in a recession. And if you injected as much cash as what you needed, then pretty quickly the banks will enrich themselves and impoverish the rest of us by pyramiding loans on top of this cash leading to galloping inflation.

Hence the idea is to have a large direct cash injection to increase spending straight away and ease everyones liquidity problems. But to bring this in with a reserve asset ratio such that the banks cannot pyramid on the extra cash to any great degree.

Fiscal policy does not increase spending. It just robs it from categories not included in GDP.

Now Mark is simply not going to prove otherwise. Because he cannot.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Birdie

    Question..

    If you want to cut spending as you say, would you raise taxes Hoover style to close the deficit gap?

    And stop deleting comments , you jerk.

  2. No of course you wouldn’t raise taxes. You’d slash spending so you could both close the deficit and prioritise your wish-list of tax cuts.

    Thats what Harding and Van Buren did and it worked a treat. I have both theory and practice on my side.

    A very dumb question JC.

    For that you get your own thread to take the heat and shame away from Mark a little bit.

  3. Mark. Just concentrate on one thing at a time. Don’t assert stuff without an argument. Don’t lie and put words in my mouth. Don’t ask stupid questions. Since you are supposed to be bringing evidence to bear that there is a multiplier. But there isn’t.

    Makiw thinks there is. The dummy cannot figure out why his figures show that the tax cut works better than the spending increase in contradiction to theory. None of them work at all. He’s just looking at the wrong figures. Maybe you could get him to prove it. Keynes’ stooge that he is.

  4. Okay Bird

    This is it, spell it out. What exactly would you do right now?

  5. Right now? I’d find out what the trend-line was for business-to-business spending and for money supply growth.

    Since I don’t know what that is I cannot tell you whether we need a cash injection.

    In the middle of last year it would have taken a 17.5 billion dollar cash injection to immediately hit the prior peak of money supply. Then of course you would have needed an RAR to stop that overshooting. But then you would have needed to track GDR to see what to do next after that.

    But now I don’t have what I need to tell you about the monetary side of things. We may have already recovered. But if people are chastened and reform and start saving that will help the recovery and yet make the GDP figures look bad. So the whole thing is utterly perverse.

    Now on fiscal policy…… You would want at least 50 billion in net cuts. You might have 10 billion in spending increases and 60 billion in cuts. Basically you line up all the government departments and if by closing them no-one dies or is put at great risk then you close it.

  6. Mark hit and run links are not good. You have to specify your hypothesis and then explain why you think its valid.

    I’ve specified my hypothesis, and I’ve explained in some detail why I think its valid and what it is I think is confusing people on this matter. Its rude not to take into consideration the argument that the other fellow is making.

    Why do you think I’m wrong? Why do you imagine that this alleged multiplier isn’t simply coming straight out of business-to-business spending, and coming from monetary growth that is occurring at the same time?

    Why do you think otherwise? Is this inability to consider the angles why you got stooged by the CO2-bedwetters also?

    Slow down. Consider what you are saying. Dwell on it awhile. And explain your theory in a focused way.

    If you do a good job I’ll take your name off this thread. And I’ll change it somehow in order to blame all you Keynesians and not just you.

  7. Bird this habit of deleting comments does look weak.

  8. Right. These people stain my blog with their dumbass presence. Some stains you cannot get out no matter what you do.

    I suppose I could fall asleep and wake up one hundred times and these two ass clowns would never retract their initial lie.

    Soon the Keynesian is now accusing me of being an inflationist last time I looked.

  9. No you are talking idiocy. You don’t understand economics JC. This is why you are always making these assertions and like a mindless twit can never back any of them up.

    You are fuckwit Cambria. You really are a complete fuckwit. And you are a Keynesian. Thats incredibly clear.

  10. These public servants in government that sponge off us. JC’s understanding of economics is that they are really doing us a favour. That we aren’t carrying them at all. And that things would be much harder on us if they had to get a job.

    JC does not understand economics. He’s a delusional fuckwit who really does believe that the answers come to him in all subjects, by pure magic. That he does not need a reason to believe anything. That he is gifted with automatic knowledge.

    Cambria is welfare queen and he is always going to be a moron.

  11. You would wonder when Mark Hill is going to come up with his justification for the multiplier wouldn’t you? Goodness me that fellow is a stooge.

  12. Turkey, he did and you wiped it.

    Discuss this censorship free at the Graeme Bird forum.

    http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/does-the-fiscal-multiplier-exist/

    NO HE DIDN’T YOU ARE LYING. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO PROVOKE. CAN WE PLEASE NOT HAVE A FILIBUSTER? IF THATS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK? YOU GUYS ARE JUST SO MUCH OVERHEAD.

    NOW PRIOR TO ME SEEING WHAT FILIBUSTER YOU HAVE GOING ON AT THIS MOMENT LET WE TELL YOU WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT. MARK SEEMS TO THINK THAT POSITIONING HIMSELF IN THE RIGHT THIEF-ECONOMICS TRIBE IS THE ALL IMPORTANT THING. SO HIS IDEA OF PROOF IS SIMILAR TO THE LEFTIST VERSION OF WISHING ON A STAR. IF YOU SAY IT 100 TIMES IT WILL BE TRUE. WELL 200 TIMES WON’T MAKE THE SPELL.

    SO MARK SAYS THAT THERE IS A MULTIPLIER. WHICH IS AN UTTERLY USELESS ASSERTION. BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DISPUTING. THEN HE CLAIMS THAT IF I’M SAYING THERE IS NOT A MULTIPLIER WHAT I REALLY MUST BE SAYING IS THAT THE MULTIPLIER IS NEGATIVE. SO HE JUST LIES AND PUTS WORDS IN THE OTHER GUYS MOUTH. BUT THEN MARK SAYS SOMETHING WHICH HE APPEARS TO REGARD AS THE DECISIVE POINT:

    MARK SAYS: “Its not as large as the Keynesians think it is” SEE THAT? THATS SCIENTIFIC PROOF RIGHT THERE AS FAR AS MARK IS CONCERNED. TO PRETEND THE OTHER GUY IS LESS FREE ENTERPRISE THEN ONESELF SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TRUMPING ALL TECHNICAL LOGICAL ABILITY.

    YOU CLAIM THAT MARK HAS THE PROOF. DON’T LIE Z. AND DON’T HIDE BEHIND STUPID PEOPLE. JUST EXPLAIN THE REASONING IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

  13. Look at this from Catallaxy.

    “* Induced abortion was associated with an 86% increased risk of very preterm birth (under 33 weeks’ gestation) among women with previous first-trimester abortions, and a 267% increased risk among women with previous second-trimester abortions. (Ancel, Papiernik et al., British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1999) [WHAA, 46]”

    Proving that sound morals, anti-barbarism, and public health policy go hand in hand. I infer for the moment, that the earlier the abortion the less damage done to the girl. “What you must do do quickly…” as Jesus said to Judas. In the interests of staying on the right side of barbarism, its all about getting our girls to make a binding decision early on.

    We need a window of opportunity here. But its about leaving it open for the shortest reasonable time. Adoption is a very good thing. Hard to think of anything more righteous than adoption.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: