Posted by: graemebird | February 9, 2009

Traitor Mandates That We Play Only On The Defensive

I’ll be bringing a number of posts to the front chiefly due to the fact that this lying cunt Cambria simply refuses to stop lying. And it has its effects you know!!!!!! People believe the dumb cunt, perhaps because he’s developed some skills as a trader. Which believe me is easy. So long as you start with about 70 000 bucks and no debt at least it would appear to be easy to me. Money for jam. You try to explain to people about property-titles, monetary-economics or anything else and the dumb cunt chips in with stuff that he does not understand and does not intend to find out about. So every thread insulting to Cambria will appear at the front of my blog. Evergreen. Eternal. Until this prick retracts. What a complete dog this Cambria is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lets get this straight then.  Apparently in the view of Cambria and our faux-libertarian-economist posers…. While the opponents of small government can spend up large in the boom we have to lock in that spending during a recession.

I went over many times the fallacies that this involved. The fallacy of GDP being an indicator of economic activity. The fallacy of consumer spending being necessary for recovery and so forth.

But where is the argument coming from the other side. Cambria and everyone else who supports locking in the spending of the enemy, refuse to come up with an argument. They will not say why they think Hardings actions in cutting Federal spending in half were wrong. 

Its been a pathetic show from our make-believe pro-small-government economists. Which one of them has advocated massive spending cuts? None of them right?

Well lets have the reason then. If you people think that fighting for small government is only allowable during the boomtimes and swapping sides during a recession is where its at, lets have the economics reasoning.’

It might help if you all learned some economics for starters. So study this paper, or its pdf version, very carefully and ask questions:

 

Why the GDP Shows No Bust, But GDR Does

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Look at this. Absolutely no calls for spending cuts from Sinclair:

    “I gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into the fiscal stimulus today. Some of the important bits.

    In summary, it is my view that the Senate should reject the fiscal stimulus package in its current format.
    • The package contains a lot of spending and little actual stimulus.
    • The proposed spending is poor quality expenditure of Federal funding.
    • Discretionary fiscal policy has a poor track record of success.
    • While the government needs to respond to the current economic down turn in a timely manner, there is no immediate urgent need to rush the package. Rather a better quality package should be designed and implemented.

    And to finish off

    It also needs to be pointed out that Australia has just experienced a catastrophic failure in economic policy making. While the root causes of the current economic crises are non-Australian, nonetheless both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia failed to anticipate the impact of the crisis which commenced in mid-2007. The government has already spent $10.4 billion in a previous stimulus package and now proposes to spend an additional $42 billion. An inquiry into how and why the official economic government agencies failed to warn or forecast the local impact of the crisis needs to be undertaken.”

    This comes under the heading of “NOT GOOD ENOUGH” Sinclair.

  2. After ruthlessly lying his way out of a corner, hopefully Cambria now agrees that the way to deal with the recession is to cut government spending in half like Harding did. Now in order to advocate that you need to show that consumer and government spending are not a big part of government spending and that when the thieves increase government spending the money is taken OUT OF THE ONE CATEGORY OF SPENDING THAT CAN REPAIR THE ECONOMY. That category of spending is known by me as “business-to-business spending” but elsewhere it is known variously as “productive expenditure” “intermediate spending” or even alternatively “gross investment.”

    Now Sinclair ought to know this. I alerted him to the economist who most clearly synthesised this analysis two years ago. And yet when he gets in front of the Senate there is no mention of this gear. In fact from Sinclairs notes on the subject he appears to have been expecting the Senate to take his assertions on the basis of his marvellous authority or perhaps his beloved persona.

    Worst of all Sinclair did not attack the Keynesian multiplier root and branch. He did not call for mass-sackings in the public sector, nor for fiscal triage, nor for the GDR and business-to-business figures to be compiled each month and retrospectively so, so we can judge monetary policy from here, nor did he call for government departments to be closed down by the bakers dozen.

    So in reality Sinclair distinguished himself as bloodsucker-centrals loyal opposition.

    Nick Gruen is going to go into that same Senate. He will have charts. He got hauled over the coals last time for spending 10 billions without a running a computer model. He got hauled over the coals by Senators and by Sinclair as well? What the fuck for would you hassle him for not running a computer program when he’s just splurged someone elses dollar ten billion times?

    So this time when Nick, or some facsimile of the picture of Dorian Grey shows up in front of the Senate, there will be computer models and beautiful pictures, and they will follow the logic of the Keynesian multiplier which Sinclair has verified by default. Worse then by default. Explicitly as we shall see.

    Nick will not, like Sinclair, be relying on his fabulous authority or sex appeal. He won’t just be making assertions. He’ll be using every rort in the Keynesian playbook to swindle the Senators, many of them lifelong bloodsuckers, into thinking they’ve got to splurge NOW and pray that its not too late.

    Lets go through Sinclairs lame effort:

    Look at this. Absolutely no calls for spending cuts from Sinclair:

    “I gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into the fiscal stimulus today. Some of the important bits.

    In summary, it is my view that the Senate should reject the fiscal stimulus package in its current format.

    WELL YES OBVIOUSLY. BUT LOOK AT HOW HE IS EXPLICITLY ENDORSING SOME SORT OF FISCAL “STIMULUS”. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FISCAL STIMULUS.

    • The package contains a lot of spending and little actual stimulus.

    DO YOU SEE THE THAT SINCLAIR IS AGAIN ENDORSING THE KEYNESIAN CONCEPT???!!!

    • The proposed spending is poor quality expenditure of Federal funding.

    RIGHT BUT WHAT ABOUT MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS SINCLAIR. HOW COULD YOU FORGET ABOUT THE NEED FOR MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS?

    • Discretionary fiscal policy has a poor track record of success.

    BUT WHY RELY ON THE EMPIRICAL RECORD ALONE WHEN THE VERY IDEA IS IDIOTIC IN THEORY?

    • While the government needs to respond to the current economic down turn in a timely manner,…… WHAT WITH A FISCAL STIMULUS PACKAGE??? CLEARLY SINCLAIR IS ENDORSING THE ANTI-ECONONMICS OF KEYNESIANISM RIGHT THERE……

    there is no immediate urgent need to rush the package
    Rather a better quality package should be designed and implemented.

    ON WHAT REASONING IS THERE NO URGENCY? OF COURSE THERE IS URGENCY. WE NEED THE MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS NOW SO THAT THE SPENDING WILL WIND UP IN BUSINESS TO BUSINESS SPENDING AND QUICKLY CATAPULT US OUT OF RECESSION AND INTO GROWTH-DEFLATION.

    And to finish off

    It also needs to be pointed out that Australia has just experienced a catastrophic failure in economic policy making. While the root causes of the current economic crises are non-Australian, nonetheless both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia failed to anticipate the impact of the crisis which commenced in mid-2007. The government has already spent $10.4 billion in a previous stimulus package and now proposes to spend an additional $42 billion. An inquiry into how and why the official economic government agencies failed to warn or forecast the local impact of the crisis needs to be undertaken.”

    WELL THEY ARE IDIOTS. BUT EVIL LEFTIE POINTED OUT THIS WAS A BIT UNFAIR. ITS NOT LIKE SINCLAIR PREDICTED EVERYTHING.

    NOW I ALERTED SINCLAIR TO THE THEORETICAL STORY OF GROSS DOMESTIC REVENUE MAYBE TWO YEARS AGO. AT THE VERY LEAST I ALERTED HIM TO THE ECONOMIST GEORGE REISMAN.

    NOT GOOD ENOUGH SINCLAIR. YOU HAVE TO LEARN ECONOMICS OR YOU OUGHT NOT BE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THE SENATE.
    IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO MASTER THE SUBJECT YOU OUGHT TO PERHAPS RETRAIN AS A PLUMBER.

  3. “Keynesian economics is like AGW alarmism. There’s never an end or a beginning and it can’t be falsified. It’s pure quackery. it’s like the explanation for everything.

    I don’t blame Keynes as I think he tried to figure something out that simply turned out to be wrong.

    The problem is that the quacks have crabbed onto to to validate statism.

    this is how objectionable the whole thing is…..

    On the one hand the spending package is proposed as a way to raise “aggregate demand”, which is another way of saying getting people to spend more.

    On the other hand the very same quacks that support the package are riling against the current account deficit suggesting that an increase in the deficit is bad because it raise foreign borrowing.

    If you put money in people’s pockets as a result of government spending you would invariably see an increase in the current account deficit. If we’re capital short to start with how else is our surplus in the capital account going to increase unless we draw in money from offshore.

    These people truly have no understanding of economics. They’re complete nutballs.

    it’s fallacy built on fallacy built on quicksand.”

    But you believe in this crap Cambria. If you are proved wrong and you change your mind you are supposed to acknowledge the fact.

    Do you believe in the multiplier or not? Sinclair does? Jason too?


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: