Does the fiscal multiplier exist?

Graeme has publically attacked Mark Hill but deletes Mark’s excellent responses.

Here’s a forum for Mark to make his case, censorship free.

Advertisements

193 Responses to “Does the fiscal multiplier exist?”

  1. Jason Soon Says:

    turkey, you don’t need to deny the existence of multipliers to make a sound case against keynesianism

    take a cue from a real economist like Mark Hill or Robert Barro, neither of whom graduated from the University of Waikiki Rotoroua Baa Baa Baa in Sheep Husbandry

  2. Lyam Says:

    The economics layman that I am would like to point out that, although the fiscal multiplier (or spending multiplier) is often associated with Keynes, it was initially developed by Ralph George Hawtrey in 1931.

    As a neutral observer I would appreciate if the highly knowledgeable (or self proclaimed so) debaters will first state if it’s the multiplier or the use Keynes does of it that they approve/disapprove.

    Let the fight begin 🙂

  3. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    “I use that phrase (b-to-b spending) but there is a more formal phrase for the spending category I am talking about. ”

    What is the formal phrase for the b-to-b spending you are talking about?

    If you don’t use the formal terms, you cannot expect anybody to believe you know something about the topic.

  4. Mark Hill Says:

    Hi all,

    Just a short spiel for the time being.

    Here is an article by Robert J Barro on the recent US fiscal stimulus – he discusses the multiplier in detail.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html

    It exists, but often is “statistically insignificant from zero”.

    I believe the net effect including resource misallocation vis a vis distortions is negative. That is before the deadweight losses of taxation are factored in.

    I therefore have a very dim view of fiscal stimulus, but of course recognise that there is a multiplier – which is very small, ineffective and the net effect of any such policy is nearly always higher prices, lower output and lower future growth.

    Graeme thinks the way to convince people Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy is a poor policy choice is to deny that the multiplier exists. Like how to convince people to support your NRL team, Graeme would think the way to do so is to deny that any other teams exist and the league is defunct.

    Crazy. But this is the Birdman we are talking about!

  5. Lyam Says:

    Ok read the article and am not in a position to discuss it’s merits.

    I am, however, in a position to judge it’s tone, and from that point of view M Barro would have been more convincing if he had avoided the cheap sarcasms.

  6. graemebird Says:

    So Jason has no case in favour of the existence of the multiplier. And neither does Mark.

    How about one of you who isn’t a formally trained economist? Can any of you come up with proof of the existence of the Keynesian fiscal multiplier?

    I suggest it is pure serendipity to the point of non-existence. That formally speaking it would be something like + or – 0.1. What I’m saying here is that it doesn’t exist. I say that fiscal policy can increase nominal GDP by simply forcing spending out of business-to-business spending where it is not calculated for the purposes of GDP, to either government or consumer spending where it is thereby counted.

    This appears obvious to me. Since there is no reason to believe that government splurging induces business and consumers to hold lower cash balances. Now that ought to be the end of the matter. But our economists don’t understand economics, yet insist that they do and further they insist that there is such a thing called fiscal stimulus.

    Over to the stupid side of this argument….. GO!!!!

  7. graemebird Says:

    So Mark links a post to someone who does believe in the fiscal multiplier. This is Marks TRIBAL argument. Its not an argument at all. Its simply saying…. “I’M WITH BARRO. AND THE TWO OF US ARE IN THE RIGHT PRO-CAPITALIST TRIBE’…..

    We didn’t want the same NON-ARGUMENTS Mark. You fail you morning conceptual audit right there.

    So are you going to give us some logical argument….. perhaps by way of example? Why not try and example? Or some other logical argument that goes a little bit further than the Mark Hill tribal special.

  8. graemebird Says:

    Right. Well why don’t you press-gang Sinclair into it. He could have stood up before the Senate and said the fiscal multiplier is crap. He could have said that on new cash could raise nominal spending. He could have said that new cash injection is dangerous in the wrong hands but can work and is the only thing that will work, IF MORE SPENDING IS WHAT YOU WANT.

    But no. He quoted Mankiw. He appealed to commonsense like we need Sinclair to tell us about commonsense….. He didn’t once come down on this monstrously idoitic notion that there is a fiscal multiplier.

    And so he basically sold us out and allowed Gruen and that coterie of lunatics a win.

  9. graemebird Says:

    Only new cash injection raises nominal spending FAST. If you want to put spending on speed and roids only new cash injection can do it. These notions are so idiotic that no-one in the thief-economics-neoclassical school ever asks themselves DO WE WANT TO RAISE SPENDING????

    Maybe you don’t want to raise nominal spending? It depends if spending has busted or not. Has it imploded or not? For that we need to compile the figures and yet no-one compiles the figures.

    For my part I say BOUNCE AND FLATTEN. I say you heart-start spending back to where it was at its highest monthly point with the committment to keep it locked at that level for 5 years. I say BOUNCE AND FLATTEN.

    The ratio of ponzi-money to cash money was now so very high that the old Austrian cold -turkey position to me is untenable. So I say BOUNCE AND FLATTEN but then lock in the new level of spending.

    And the only way to do this is to combine new cash injection with a RESERVE ASSET RATIO. Since as we have seen these banks will parasite off us and expect us to bail them out, and successfully corrupt all our political processes if they don’t have a reserve asset ratio.

    You cannot seriously tell me that the reserve asset ratio is the one regulation that you hate more than all others. This is wearing thin except to some stray libertarian who just bought his first internet connection and had wisely never read the papers so as to avoid the punditti from corrupting his mind.

    No-one else can take this seriously that we have no right to put a reserve asset ratio on the welfare queens, AND ONE HIGH ENOUGH THAT WE NEVER NEED BAIL THEM OUT OR GUARANTEE THEIR ASSES AGAIN.

  10. graemebird Says:

    Well how about an example then? In the old days prior to a small number of people realising that the Keynesian fiscal multiplier was a total gyp and embarrassingly stupid, people would openly give the economics 101 people AN EXAMPLE. Actually it makes me realise why they teach the kids economics before they teach them book-keeping and management accounting. Get them addicted to the fiscal multiplier by way of a completely naieve example. Because if you used the examples that they used to use and the kids had already learnt about book-keeping the naievete of the example would have the kids laughing the teacher out of the class.

    So get them addicted to the fiscal multiplier first. Get them addicted with a hypothetical example.

    Now do any of you believers HAVE one of these hypothetical examples up your sleeves?

  11. graemebird Says:

    How about start your conceptual audit with an example?

    Sinclair? You got an example? You testified before the Senate? You were a Professor at the RMIT. I used to instruct swimming next door. That place was a faggot sewer but I used to instruct swimming there. And you were dean once. Surely you know enough to start off Jason and Mark with and anecdotal example of the fiscal multiplier. Being as you are so educated and all that.

    You know I would have had my masters by 21. But I was wrong about myself and the way the job market worked. Would I have learned anything more about economics by doing the six new papers in two years?

    Not a great deal. It would have been mostly statistics and quantitative gear.

    Would the closed shop of know-nothings and song and dance men open up if I had six more papers?

    Well it doesn’t matter. They won’t reform so they have to be bypassed.

  12. graemebird Says:

    http://course.fjnu.edu.cn/fjnu/courseware/669/tpl_course_0519v601.html

    “The multiplier is the number by which the change in investment must be multiplied in order to determine the resulting change in total output.

    For example, suppose investment increases by $100 billion. If this causes an increase in output of $300 billion, the multiplier is 3. If,instead, the resulting increase in output is $400 billion, the multiplier is 4.

    Woodsheds and Carpenters. Why is it that the multiplier is greater than 1? Let’s suppose that I hire unemployed resources to build a $1000 woodshed. My carpenters and lumber producers will get an extra $1000 of income. But that is not the end of the story. If they all have a marginal propensity to consume of 2/3, they will now spend $666.67 on new consumption goods. The producers of these goods will now have extra incomes of $666.67. If their MPC is also 2/3, they in turn will spend $444.44, or 2/3 of $666.67 (or 2/3 of 2/3 of $1000). The process will go on, with each new round of spending being 2/3 of the previous round.

    Thus an endless chain of secondary consumption respending is set in motion by my primary investment of $1000. But, although an endless chain, it is an ever-diminishing one. Eventually it adds up to a finite amount. Using straightforward arithmetic, we can find the total increase in spending in the following manner:

    This shows that, with an MPC of 2/3, the multiplier is 3; it consists of the 1 of primary investment plus 2 extra of secondary consumption respending. The same arithmetic would give a multiplier of 4 for an MPC of 3/4, because 1+3/4+(3/4)2+(3/4)3+…finally adds up to 4. for an MPC of 1/2, the multiplier would be 2.”

    Ok fellas. There is the beginnings of and example right there. Make your case for the multiplier that exists on the basis of GOVERNMENT FISCAL POLICY.

    Don’t forget to include the TIME FACTOR here. Or you will see that multiplier becomes several billion and you’ll be fearful of going out to buy the milk lest you start a Zimbabwaen inflation spiral and pay off my mortgage for me.

  13. Jason Soon Says:

    I used to instruct swimming next door. That place was a faggot sewer but I used to instruct swimming there.

    Were you ‘instructing’ in swimming or just floating, turkey?

  14. graemebird Says:

    Turkey-Jason Soon…. the product of Han Chinese sheilas and mongol rapists tell me the following.

    TURKEY-JASON-SOON SEZ:

    “Graeme, you don’t need to deny the existence of multipliers to make a sound case against keynesianism”

    SO I SEZ.

    Listen you fucking dummy. I’m not interested in stomping Keynesians right now, I’m interested in stomping their mindless appeasers.

    Now clearly if you are fair dinkum. And a dinky die Aussian Chinese bloke like my man Ignatius Tan…… Well then you saying that implies that you have evidence for the righteousness of the doctrine of the fiscal multiplier. If not for the multiplier itself.

    WELL MAKE GOOD WITH THAT EVIDENCE YOU DUMB BASTARD. And work on that Aussie accent. Because Ignatius has it DOWN and you ought to be more like him.

  15. graemebird Says:

    Lets go Soon. Make an argument or admit you are wrong.

  16. graemebird Says:

    Mark Hill appears to be straddling the fence here. He’s admitting that the’s wrong by saying that the multiplier is stastically insignificantly different to zero.

    That means it doesn’t exist beyond sheer serendipity. So he ought to admit that I was right all along. By NAY!!!!! He says other things and quotes other people but what he doesn’t do is piss or get off the pot.

    So is it serendipitously close to zero as I contend and Mark strangely contends… for just a few seconds?????

    Or is it the real deal, as he insists by quoting Barro, making a tribal belonging argument and so forth.

    This is typical Mark. Since he doesn’t build his understanding from the ground up but rather has the quotes of hundreds of people jumbled incoherently in his head….. He can say the multiplier is pretty much close to zero on the one hand, and reckon its a serious economic doctrine on the other.

  17. graemebird Says:

    Right so there you are. We got stuck with EXTRA SPENDING DURING A RECESSION. Rather than the policy based on reason and economic science which would have meant massive spending cuts via rampant bureaucracy closures. Which would have lightened our load and helped us look to the future with confidence, relatives and friends in tow.

    But no. Because the neoclassicals refuse to learn their subject and pussy out to the Keynesian enemy with every alternate step they take…… we got slugged with MORE SPENDING.

    So we needed less spending. Yet we got slugged with the utter vandalism and crying shame of MORE SPENDING.

    And just because of ignorance and gutlessness of blood-sucker-centrals loyal opposition…. that is to say the entirety of Australias Neoclassical economists.

  18. Lyam Says:

    Vintage Birdy.

    I love you when you get all red in the face 🙂

  19. Graeme Bird Says:

    Will someone not rid me of these pesky sodomites?

  20. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    The multiplier has been measured. It is statistically insignificant from zero. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It simply has virtually no impact or a small damaging effect on the economy, net of deadweight losses.

    Graeme calls someone who recognises it exists, acknowledges that it can be less than zero and has a dim view of fiscal stimulus a “Keynesian”.

    This is like someone who supports Manly being called a Melbourne Storm supporter because they acknowledge that Manly flogged Melbourne 40-0 in the grand final.

    Madness. Utter bloody madness.

  21. graemebird Says:

    Oh for fucksakes.

    “Graeme,

    The multiplier has been measured. It is statistically insignificant from zero…….”

    Well then it doesn’t exist you silly cunt. So admit I’m right and let me take my article away, attacking your former ignorant self now that you’ve conceded. After all you have to go for job interviews. Hang on. Wait a minute. You are not conceding.

    “……That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist……”

    You are a fucking lunatic mate. You’ve changed your mind. You should have learnt something yet you cannot seem to.

    You are just a dummy fella. A real …….. full-blown…… dope.

    Now go and tell Sinclair that the multiplier is a crock, that it doesn’t exist, putting aside pure serendipity, and fucking swear a blood oath, not to get this wrong ever again you dumb cunt.

  22. Mark Hill Says:

    “Well then it doesn’t exist you silly cunt.”

    For fuck sake, please talk about things you understand Graeme. That doesn’t mean it actually is zero you dummy.

    “After all you have to go for job interviews.”

    Fuck off you clown. I am not worried about you holding me back doing anything. You can’t even hold yourself back from a snickers pie.

    “Now go and tell Sinclair that the multiplier is a crock, that it doesn’t exist, putting aside pure serendipity, and fucking swear a blood oath, not to get this wrong ever again you dumb cunt.”

    You are an imbecile. CAN YOU FUCKING READ? The multiplier, k = 0.8 in wartime (altogether not impressive and doesn’t represent an increase in welfare or wealth).

    If Obama “has to” prove he is a citizen of the US, you should have to prove you are not mentally retarded.

  23. graemebird Says:

    Its exactly how I described it. Conceptually you can sort it out in your mind that it must be a thing of serendipity. Since there is no reason to believe that spending increases will reduce cash balances.

    And since its basically serendipitous you would expect it to be something like + or – 0.1. With a variability so pronounced that you could never nail it down. A completely bogus concept in other words.

    As this despite the fact that the person you are sponging off for the uncredited quotes will almost definitely have been running the wrong numbers and using the wrong metrics.

    If he’s not using GDR he’s wasting time and money.

  24. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    I also think the multiplier’s effect, net of deadweight losses etc, would be less than zero due to micro level distortionary effects of redistribution. Even pure public works have not been priced by the market (the methodology of which you think is incorrect – but well made advice has made several tollway operators quite welathy).

    I think arguing k < 0 net of deadweight losses is a better argument against active fiscal policy than k does not exist.

  25. graemebird Says:

    So you dumb cunt. You won’t prove it exists. You merely quote someone asserting IMPLICITLY that it exists.

    Do better Mark you fucking dummy.

    CONCEPTUAL AUDIT F-FOR-FAIL.

    Get beyond mere assertions you dope.

  26. Mark Hill Says:

    “If he’s not using GDR he’s wasting time and money.”

    GDR is a useful measure of economic activity and capital intensity, however it measures revenue, not income. GDP is income.

    Please go back to ACC 100 and actually LEARN the material.

  27. graemebird Says:

    You idiot. Revenue is spending you dick. For there to be a multiplier you have to measure SPENDING.

    Get it right you fucking dummy.

  28. Mark Hill Says:

    “So you dumb cunt. You won’t prove it exists. You merely quote someone asserting IMPLICITLY that it exists.”

    Barro has measured for the US. It tends toward zero in peacetime and it is 0.8 in wartime. I contend that with distortions measured, it is less than zero. You of course don’t understand the difference between significance and statistical significance. I doubt you understand the problems of time series data and the problem in having a small (n < 250 ) dataset and this presents in terms of unit roots (also proving that k < 0 [as I suspect] due to distortions in Government spending, G, may be difficult without a larger dataset).

    That isn’t an assertion, Barro has shown that the multiplier exists – but net of deadweight losses, peacetime fiscal stimulus does not increase GDP. In wartime it is less than one but this doesn’t increase welfare.

    Even if K = 0.01 (forgetting you don’t know the bloody difference between significance and statistical significance), Keynes is a bad idea if we can’t prove that there are distortions (all other evidence and theory from microeconomics would suggest so). The deadweight losses from income tax are estimated to be a minimum of $1.20 for every dollar of revenue raised.

    “CONCEPTUAL AUDIT F-FOR-FAIL.”

    Have you been reading Dianetics you crank?

  29. graemebird Says:

    As I said. They are getting a fleeting multiplier because they are measuring the wrong metric.

    And we see that fiscal policy cannot increase spending. It can only shift it out of business-to-business spending and send it to consumer spending or government spending and thats it. No evidence exists that fiscal policy can affect spending as such. Only move it around.

  30. Mark Hill Says:

    “You idiot. Revenue is spending you dick. For there to be a multiplier you have to measure SPENDING.

    Get it right you fucking dummy.”

    Right. So we want to measure the impact on income and we look at revenue?

    Were you born with a disability or did you turn your mind to mush with glue sniffing?

  31. Mark Hill Says:

    “As I said. They are getting a fleeting multiplier because they are measuring the wrong metric.”

    Jesus Christ. Don’t tell me this is simply a foil for you to promote GDR over GDP? GDR is total spending, not final income. Go back to ACC 100 and actually learn the material!

    “And we see that fiscal policy cannot increase spending.”

    Yes it can, at the expense of investment.

    But who knows what the fuck you are talking about. You refuse to believe in statistical validation (when it suits) or use a common terminology.

  32. graemebird Says:

    Barro has not measured a fiscal multiplier.

    He has not done so. You are full of shit. He has merely measured some statistical correlation which shows that fiscal policy can take money out of business-to-business spending and have it wind up being in consumer spending or government spending.

    Thats not measuring the non-existent fiscal multiplier. Its not getting the sasquatch measured up for the dinner suit. Its just fucking around.

  33. graemebird Says:

    Notice the tribal psychology affecting this dimwit. Barro’s a good guy you see. Likes tax cuts no doubt.

    Fucking Mark is so fucking confused. There is no point Mark, unless you can learn to think straight.

    Barro has not measured any fiscal multiplier. Because there is none.

  34. graemebird Says:

    Lets go again you fucking stupid cunt Mark.

    Prove that there is a fiscal multiplier. Do it in your own words. Don’t fucking quote stuff you do not understand. If you understand use your own words. So don’t bother quoting stuff.

    Just explain.

    There is a fiscal multiplier because………..

    What is the explanation. Cut out all irrelevant bullshit that doesn’t constitute evidence or an explanation.

    There is a fiscal multiplier because someone said so?

    Thats not evidence. Thats not an explanation.

    There is a fiscal multiplier because BARRO said so?

    Thats not evidence. Thats not an explanation.

    TRY AGAIN YOU STUPID CUNT.

  35. graemebird Says:

    “Right. So we want to measure the impact on income and we look at revenue?”

    No you fucking idiot. We want to look at the impact on SPENDING so we measure SPENDING.

  36. Mark Hill Says:

    You are so fucking stupid.

    1. I argue something on evidence and reasoning. It is “bullshit”.

    2. I quote someone else. Now I am “not thinking for myself”.

    The sad thing is Graeme, you actually believe you are an authority on economics. You’d been better off studying ufology because your economics is pseudoscientific horseshit.

    “Barro has not measured any fiscal multiplier. Because there is none.”

    WTF LOL OMG BBQ?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html

    “A much more plausible starting point is a multiplier of zero. In this case, the GDP is given, and a rise in government purchases requires an equal fall in the total of other parts of GDP — consumption, investment and net exports. In other words, the social cost of one unit of additional government purchases is one.

    This approach is the one usually applied to cost-benefit analyses of public projects. In particular, the value of the project (counting, say, the whole flow of future benefits from a bridge or a road) has to justify the social cost. I think this perspective, not the supposed macroeconomic benefits from fiscal stimulus, is the right one to apply to the many new and expanded government programs that we are likely to see this year and next.

    What do the data show about multipliers? Because it is not easy to separate movements in government purchases from overall business fluctuations, the best evidence comes from large changes in military purchases that are driven by shifts in war and peace. A particularly good experiment is the massive expansion of U.S. defense expenditures during World War II. The usual Keynesian view is that the World War II fiscal expansion provided the stimulus that finally got us out of the Great Depression. Thus, I think that most macroeconomists would regard this case as a fair one for seeing whether a large multiplier ever exists.

    I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540). The other way to put this is that the war lowered components of GDP aside from military purchases. The main declines were in private investment, nonmilitary parts of government purchases, and net exports — personal consumer expenditure changed little. Wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses — there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier.

    We can consider similarly three other U.S. wartime experiences — World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War — although the magnitudes of the added defense expenditures were much smaller in comparison to GDP. Combining the evidence with that of World War II (which gets a lot of the weight because the added government spending is so large in that case) yields an overall estimate of the multiplier of 0.8 — the same value as before. (These estimates were published last year in my book, “Macroeconomics, a Modern Approach.”)

    There are reasons to believe that the war-based multiplier of 0.8 substantially overstates the multiplier that applies to peacetime government purchases. For one thing, people would expect the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall a lot). Second, the use of the military draft in wartime has a direct, coercive effect on total employment. Finally, the U.S. economy was already growing rapidly after 1933 (aside from the 1938 recession), and it is probably unfair to ascribe all of the rapid GDP growth from 1941 to 1945 to the added military outlays. In any event, when I attempted to estimate directly the multiplier associated with peacetime government purchases, I got a number insignificantly different from zero.”

    But Barro didn’t emasure k. He measured “some number”!

    Graeme, you are a living, breathing abortion.

  37. Mark Hill Says:

    “Prove that there is a fiscal multiplier. Do it in your own words.”

    No Graeme you turd I won’t be doing that because I don’t have the time and Barro has already done that – believe in empirics, not the league of rights eschatology you peddle as economics.

    “There is a fiscal multiplier because BARRO said so?

    Thats not evidence. Thats not an explanation.

    TRY AGAIN YOU STUPID CUNT.”

    No no no. YOU ARE THE ONLY STUPID CUNT ON THIS BLOG.

    Barro has the evidence. I quoted it. Why don’t you disprove it you deadshit?

    “No you fucking idiot. We want to look at the impact on SPENDING so we measure SPENDING.”

    Graeme is partly right here. The multiplier impacts on aggregate expenditure. The change in AE is also the change in GDP however. We don’t want to just measure spending since it misses out on the losses to investment and so on.

  38. Mark Hill Says:

    Lifted from Graeme’s cesspool:

    “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”

    No Graeme. I acknowledge your fantasy that the multiplier does not exist. It must have some numerical value. I think it is negative, but Barro’s evidence says it is very small (close to one) and usually positive.

    Please learn to read you imbecile.

  39. graemebird Says:

    “1. I argue something on evidence and reasoning. It is “bullshit”.”

    You’ve never done that in your life stop lying. i WILL REVIEW THE NEW STUFF SOON. But on what basis are you making the claim that you have brought either evidence or reason to the table on this subject.’

    Supposing what you write AFTER this statement is evidence and reason?

    It won’t be but just suppose it is. How will that make the statement not a lie? The fact is you think you found something and you are retroactivating the claim to reason. You won’t have found anything but you think you have. And so you are making the claim that you’d found something prior which you hadn’t.

  40. DH Says:

    Graeme, you should really remove those giant clown shoes before wading in. They only make you look silly.

  41. graemebird Says:

    Right. I’ve looked at what you wrote. There is no evidence or reason there. You simply cribbed from Barro. And used GDP.

    Now what I’ve been saying is that there is no fiscal multiplier its a load of crap. And that all this spending is doing is taking money from business-to-business spending where it is not picked up by GDP, and putting it into consumer and Government spending where it is picked up by GDP.

    Barro doesn’t present his figures. Nor does he tell us how he managed to factor in the massive increase in the money supply. Nor does he tell us how he managed to allow for the sudden flip from a policy of trying to force wages up to a policy of trying to force wages down.

    So that you haven’t presented anything at all that contradicts my outlook on the situation. There is absolutely no reason to believe in any sort of fiscal STIMULUS at all. Cribbing Barro will not make the cake nor the multiplier.

    CONCEPTUAL AUDIT F-FOR-FAIL.

  42. graemebird Says:

    So we are back to the start. JASON SOON, Sinclair, Mark Hill, Cambria you dimwit.

    Can anyone find any evidence whatsoever for the multiplier? Some idiot coming up with non-transparent calculations has some ways to go as a form of evidence.

  43. graemebird Says:

    “Barro has measured for the US. It tends toward zero in peacetime and it is 0.8 in wartime.”

    He’s done no such thing. You are just taking the assertion on faith and ignoring the entirety of my argument (ie, that fiscal policy merely moves the spending around from business-to-business spending to categories that GDP picks up).

    Where is the evidence that you took THAT into account. That was my assertion right from the start. So what was the point in quoting Barro who doesn’t appear to know what business-to-business spending IS?

  44. graemebird Says:

    What a bunch of dummies and traitors. Had they attacked the very notion of the multiplier they may have stopped most of the extra government spending going ahead when what we really needed to help us through this crisis was MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS.

    Its only this idiocy of a multiplier that can let morons like Gruen and Cambria form the conclusion that we need spending increases when economic science tells us that we need spending cuts instead.

  45. Mark Hill Says:

    “You’ve never done that in your life stop lying.”

    Yes I admit it Graeme. My honours dissertation was lifted from a student 10 years prior, ala Dr King.

    “He’s done no such thing.”

    What do you mean he’s done no such thing?! He measured the figures, noted his sources and published them! It got past editors and reviewers. People have checked his work – he even quotes some of the calculation in the article.

    You’ve gone truly fucking bonkers GMB.

    “Had they attacked the very notion of the multiplier they may have stopped most of the extra government spending going ahead when what we really needed to help us through this crisis was MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS.”

    No you Pine Cone.

    1. I know Barro says k –> 0 in peace, can –> 0.8 in war.

    2. I presume k < 0 due to distortions in economic behaviour.

    3. This is net of deadweight losses.

    4. There are plenty of Government jobs that can always be cut and revenues that can be raised from a more efficient tax base.

    5. It is tax/GDP which matters more than the actual level of spending (hence the efficacy of 4. above).

    6. I don’t oppose cutting spending during a recession. It is not a fallacy of composition. On the other hand, I am not paticularly worried about budgeted deficits and surpluses over a cylcle – but they should be minimised.

    “Can anyone find any evidence whatsoever for the multiplier? Some idiot coming up with non-transparent calculations has some ways to go as a form of evidence.”

    From Barro’s article:

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”

    Non transparent? Like I said before: Truly fucking bonkers.

    “Barro doesn’t present his figures.”

    Third parties now know this is a blatant lie.

    You are a complete and utter idiot who has been embarrassed thoroughly as a junior at a co ed boarding school after a towel-less cold shower.

    Please shut up and stop polluting the world with your filth and idiocy.

  46. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    I see that you are out gunned here and are concentrating on wild conspiracy theories about the Kenyan gay lobby usurping the US Presidency and faked moon landings on explodia.

    Thank you for limiting the spread of your ill informed paranoia and idiocy.

  47. graemebird Says:

    Outgunned?

    Ok then. Since you’ve got all this ammunition lets have your explanation as to why you think there is such a thing as Keynesian multiplier.

    They steal 1000 off me. They spend 1000. This increases spending by how much and why? Given that I am now with less money and someone is with more how does this increase spending overall.

  48. graemebird Says:

    For the record we still cannot get any of these morons to come up with any sort of reasoned argument for this stupid fucking idea.

    What a bunch of stooges. What a coterie of mental midgits. And so because of the utter uselessness of economists like Sinclair and others, we still have this fucking idiots idea hanging around.

    The immaculate conception of a new stream of spending creation caused by theft or government borrowing. What a stupid fucking idea that is. That if government steals or borrows this somehow creates a whole new untapped spending level. Getting more out of the same amount of cash.

    No-one can justify this idiocy. Thats why they don’t try.

  49. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey if they tax 1000 from Kerry Packer, and give it to an alcoholic on the street then of course there’s going to be more spending.

    Like Jason says – there are sensible anti-keynesian arguments which don’t involve ignoring reality.

  50. Mark Hill Says:

    JohnZ’s quote of Jason hits the nail on the head.

    You are making people like Quiggin a free hit, Turkey.

    The ammunition was sprayed above your last two posts. In the heat of battle you were judged, weighed and measured. It so happens you and your arguments have been found wanting and lacking substance.

  51. Graeme Bird Says:

    “Turkey if they tax 1000 from Kerry Packer, and give it to an alcoholic on the street then of course there’s going to be more spending.”

    Absolute nonsense. Where has Kerry got that money? And what is it doing? Kerry has his demand for cash balances. And that will be largely unaffected by the theft. Any money not represented by that demand for cash balances will be always circulating. ALWAYS circulating.

    So no JohnZ you are wrong. All that will happen is that the money will be taken away from whatever Kerry’s people would have spent that money on (business-to-business spending, shares perhaps, term loans) and it will go to the liquor store, ie consumer spending.

    Just taking away from one category of spending not listed under GDP and then putting it under another category of spending listed under GDP.

    Get it right Z. What is wrong with you fucking dumb kids? You were not an idiot for THINKING what you thought. You’ve been mislead. What you were a dumb cunt for was FAILING TO FRAME IT AS A HUMBLE QUESTION.

    You dope.

  52. Graeme Bird Says:

    Finally we have an example to move this story along. Good show Z.

    Now the rest of you don’t feel ashamed if you fucked it up like Z. Feel angry at our economists but also at Z about being such an arrogant shit-for-brains and not asking an honest question if he did not understand.

    There are implications for us from Z’s question and my answer to it. We find that if we had defeated fractional reserve, defeated all cronyism…. perhaps made some adjustments to our vision of the pty ltd company, and formulated very good rules for infrastructure charging, investment, ownership and so forth…. that is to say we had CAPITALISM PROPERLY CONSIDERED. Imagine if we had it all. Perhaps retaining a very mild land tax. No height restrictions on buildings. and growth deflation with 100% commodity money……

    Consider if that is the case. Then wealth inequality is perversely in the poor mans interest. Don’t fold your arms at me its true. Wealth inequality that we have now reached is not in anyones interests but the fatcats. But we don’t have capitalism properly considered. We are living in cronytown.

    But under the better Capitalism its better for me for the rich man to have any stray cash lying around. Since his money will be going into building productive power. Whereas if the poor man gets the money he will likely spend it on consumer goods. Great for him but does nothing for me.

  53. Graeme Bird Says:

    “JohnZ’s quote of Jason hits the nail on the head.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn I wish I could have seen that one the first time around. Mark Hill. His stupidity never lets me down.

  54. Graeme Bird Says:

    Every one of us tends to have a demand for cash for holding. Its true that it can be affected by government policy. It can be affected mostly by MONETARY POLICY. Only unpredictably and serendipitously by fiscal policy.

    That income that we get hold of which is not replenishing our normal demand for cash for holding will keep circulating. And never stop circulating and it will be changing ownership all the time and buying things.

    The rich man of humble outward appearance may tend to buy things which increase productive power (under capitalism) when he gets hold of more income. Once his demand for money balances is fulfilled he will buy shares, term loans, and so forth and under 100% backing these would fund the expansion of productive ability.

    So for example if you gave me an extra 200 000 this year I’d quickly be down to almost my former cash balances. But I’d have bought shares in small-caps, various consumer goods, paid off most of my debt, but perhaps bought another investment property. Very quickly my cash balances would be almost as low as they were before. So the money would keep moving and never stop. Money outside of cash balances under 100% backing keeps changing hands. Not so much in the physical sense but in terms of an asset changing ownership. Its a bit harder to visualise under fractional reserve but the principal is the same.

  55. Mark Hill Says:

    “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn I wish I could have seen that one the first time around. Mark Hill. His stupidity never lets me down.”

    Seeing you are an unqualified delusional paranoid nut, you have no credibility.

    “Kerry has his demand for cash balances. And that will be largely unaffected by the theft. ”

    Jesus. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF RICARDIAN EQUIVALENCE?

    “So no JohnZ you are wrong. All that will happen is that the money will be taken away from whatever Kerry’s people would have spent that money on (business-to-business spending, shares perhaps, term loans) and it will go to the liquor store, ie consumer spending.”

    No that is incorrect you imbecile. It takes away from consumption of some and otherwise investment. Buying shares is not, strictly speaking “investment”.

    Graeme,

    Fractional reserve banking is a monomania for you. You need therapy.

    The industrial revolution spread to wherever banking was free or lightly regulated.

    Bird does not want us to be civilised, but feeble savages sleeping out in the cold.

  56. graemebird Says:

    I’m perfectly well qualified in economics thank you. And had completed a degree in economics before you were born. I’ve learned a lot about economics since that time. You have not.

    Now. The fiscal multiplier. An idiotic concept exactly as John Z’s example showed.

    Retract your idiocy or justify the doctrine of the fiscal multiplier.

  57. graemebird Says:

    If you look at JohnZ’s example. And the fact that every one of these clowns have fallen for this stupid concept, Sinclair and Jason included….. well you see the intense one-eye blindness to just about all spending that isn’t consumer spending.

    You can tell these guys about this blindness a thousand times but you can never get them to open their eyes.

  58. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    “And had completed a degree in economics before you were born”

    What year, what Alma Matter?

  59. graemebird Says:

    I’m not getting into that you anonymous jerk. Fucking hell. What a presumptuous cunt. But if Mark gives us his year of birth I’ll confirm for 100% whether what I’m saying is correct.

    NOW!!!!

    So far no reasoning in favour of the multiplier. And the only person who EVEN TRIED was JohnZ. He failed since he acted as though only retail spending is spending.

    But nonetheless he is the only one of you dim bulbs who even attempted to make a case.

  60. graemebird Says:

    It gets more depressing. Sinclairs latest article proves him to be a total moron who doesn’t understand a priori thinking and who is a total Keynesian dupe. Nick Gruen manages to stomp Sinclair without lifting a finger so stupid is Sinclair’s argument.

  61. Mark Hill Says:

    “If you look at JohnZ’s example. And the fact that every one of these clowns have fallen for this stupid concept, Sinclair and Jason included….. well you see the intense one-eye blindness to just about all spending that isn’t consumer spending.”

    No Graeme. Here is your problem.

    k exists. It tends toward zero and may possibly be less than zero. The net effect of Keynesian policy is negative even when k > 0.

    Your idea is to simply ignore k, which is to ignore reality. The inherent stupidity in all of this is that you are ignoring the possible argument that k < 0.

    Please come back to reality and stop practising your quack Gamma Quadrant economics learned from the Uni. of Alpha Centuri.

  62. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    “I’m not getting into that you anonymous jerk. Fucking hell. ”

    In other words, you don’t have a degree in anything, and most probably didn’t even complete elementary school.

  63. graemebird Says:

    No in other words I have a degree in economics and I’m not answering non-theoretical questions at the behest of an anonymous leftist cunt.

  64. graemebird Says:

    No the multiplier does not exist Mark you stupid cunt.

    Now come up with the evidence or retract.

    This is all a fallacy based on Keynesian lunacy giving primacy to consumer spending. But if we wish to know about the volume of spending we are interested in nearly all spending.

  65. graemebird Says:

    You are such a dummy Mark. If k hovers around zero, negative or positive, as you sometimes admit, then its a dumb fucking idea.

    Particularly when new cash injection, coupled with an appropriate reserve asset ratio, can heart-start business spending immediately.

  66. Mark Hill Says:

    “Now come up with the evidence or retract.”

    Um…

    *From Barro’s article:

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”*

    GMB sez:

    “This is all a fallacy based on Keynesian lunacy giving primacy to consumer spending. ”

    WTF? I said earlier:

    *1. I know Barro says k –> 0 in peace, can –> 0.8 in war.

    2. I presume k < 0 due to distortions in economic behaviour.

    3. This is net of deadweight losses.

    4. There are plenty of Government jobs that can always be cut and revenues that can be raised from a more efficient tax base.

    5. It is tax/GDP which matters more than the actual level of spending (hence the efficacy of 4. above).

    6. I don’t oppose cutting spending during a recession. It is not a fallacy of composition. On the other hand, I am not paticularly worried about budgeted deficits and surpluses over a cylcle – but they should be minimised. *

    Now Graeme, here is some kind hearted advice: stop snorting codeine and grow a fucking brain.

  67. Mark Hill Says:

    “Particularly when new cash injection, coupled with an appropriate reserve asset ratio, can heart-start business spending immediately.”

    More magic pudding/Zimbabwean economics from Graeme “Hyperinflation” Bird.

  68. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    “No in other words I have a degree in economics and I’m not answering non-theoretical questions at the behest of an anonymous leftist cunt.”

    Even the economics layman that I am realizes you don’t have a clue of what you are talking about and do not have a degree. Your level of discourse is evidence you most probably didn’t complete elementary school.

    You cannot expect to be treated as an expert if you are not WILLING to show your credentials.

  69. graemebird Says:

    Thats not evidence you fuckwit.

    Now stop it Mark. You are out of kindy now and you cannot take this inability to understand what evidence is out to the real world.

    It could not be more clear, just even from JohnZ’s example, that fiscal policy can only shift spending to GDP from OTHER SPENDING CATEGORIES.

    There is no getting away from that unless you can find a fiscal policy that reduces the demand for cash balances.

    Now just re-read this post until you understand you dummy.

  70. graemebird Says:

    Learn economics you dumb cunt Mark.

    You are a fucking economist mate. Or will be soon. You have to learn economics.

    Increasing spending is not necessarily a good thing. But if you want to do it there is only one quick way to do it. And the case of the Zimbabwaens is as good an example as any. They have been able to increase nominal spending have they not? Yes they have.

    Don’t lie to people that I’m in favour of inflation you jerk. I’m in favour of growth-deflation. And have consistently said so for three years you lying cunt.

  71. Mark Hill Says:

    “Thats not evidence you fuckwit.”

    *From Barro’s article:

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”*

    Jesus. Then what do you call it? FMD.

    “It could not be more clear, just even from JohnZ’s example, that fiscal policy can only shift spending to GDP from OTHER SPENDING CATEGORIES.”

    No Graeme, it does much worse than that (actually lowering investment by more than spending is increased), but a pinko swine such as yourself wouldn’t care [nor would understand, as you refuse to accept Ricardian equivalence].

    Put down the crack pipe and come back to planet earth.

  72. graemebird Says:

    No Lyam. You don’t know what you are talking about. You are an idiot.

    But if you think you know what you are talking about why not give us an argument for the multiplier. At least JohnZ TRIED.

    Thats better than anyone else has done here. Mark needs to take remedial classes in what evidence is. Damn those leftist teachers. Somewhere along the line they have buggered the kids ability to understand what evidence is.

  73. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    Calling people names isn’t an argument, especially given the fact you always rely on the same small set of vulgar epithets, which further highlights your illiteracy.

  74. graemebird Says:

    So lets go again. I’ll show you the sum total of non-filibusting attempts to show that a multiplier exists on two different threads.

    ” if they tax 1000 from Kerry Packer, and give it to an alcoholic on the street then of course there’s going to be more spending.”

    Thats it. After weeks of trying to shame some sort of justification for this idiotic concept from out of you clowns this is the some total of what I have managed to get from you dummies.

    There is something so fucking wrong with you idiots. As we can see from Sinclairs latest stupidity.

  75. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    On one side I’ve got a whole group of economists with recognized degrees, such as Barro and Krugman, who acknowledge the existence of the multiplier although they disagree on its impact. (For reminder, the multiplier was initially developed by Ralph George Hawtrey in 1931, and is not specific to Keynesian economics. )

    On the other side I’ve got a delusional internet hack who claims he’s an expert but won’t show his credentials.

    They win, you loose.

  76. graemebird Says:

    Why participate in debates you dumb cunt if you are such a tool that you think its about a couple more years in school.

    Don’t participate. Just wet your finger, stick it in the air, and by your own admission you will have found out everything by merely seeing what the house-niggers are all saying.

    Now give me some evidence for the multiplier or stop making such a cunt of yourself.

  77. graemebird Says:

    Krugman was a good statistical researcher in the field of trade economics back when he was in his 20’s. He’s a good quant researcher and thats it. Doesn’t know squat about economics any more than Al Gore knows about natural sciences.

    Barro is a nobody.

    Hawtrey is no-one. Keynes was an unbelievable crank.

    So what is your argument exactly.

    You really don’t know what reasoned debate is do you? Everywhere you look you cannot understand a damn thing so you pretend to see emperors clothes.

  78. graemebird Says:

    ” if they tax 1000 from Kerry Packer, and give it to an alcoholic on the street then of course there’s going to be more spending.”

    Thats all we have so far. Now can someone add anything to that. By the way JohnZ doesn’t refute ME here. But he absolutely stomps Sinclair with this one small example.

  79. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    You can call me all the names you want, but you will never win a debate and even less be elected for “higher office” if you don’t show your credentials.

    I at least know the concept of multiplier is not specific to Keynesian economics which you still don’t seem to grasp 🙂

  80. graemebird Says:

    You are even too stupid for Humphreys. Humphreys would by now be agreeing with me on this score but concealing it.

    You must be fatfingers. Only he would be this dumb.

    Why listen to Krugman on this score? Why not John Stuart Mill, Henry Hazlitt or Mark Skousen.

    You don’t even know your economists well enough to know who to listen to.

  81. graemebird Says:

    ” if they tax 1000 from Kerry Packer, and give it to an alcoholic on the street then of course there’s going to be more spending.”

    Has anyone got anything more to add to this sum total of reasoned argument?

    If not just admit you were wrong.

  82. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    John Stuart Mill died 40 years before the concept of multiplier was introduced.

    Both Henry Hazlitt and Mark Skousen.criticized government intervention in general and Keynesian economics in particular. To my knowledge they didn’t address the question of the multiplier.

    Know that we know who your references are, how about referring to their work rather than blabering out crap.

  83. Lyam Says:

    Know that… == Now that… 🙂

  84. graemebird Says:

    Lyam. Without a doubt the first book to read in economics is always and for everyone Henry Hazlitts “Economics In One Lesson.”

    It takes very little time to read. Its an easy and good read. So come back to me in two weeks when you’ve had time to dwell on it and digest it a little.

  85. graemebird Says:

    “I really fail to see how any old spending is going to seriously help. How can handouts be a reasonable basis for business people to keep staff in the face of uncertain future and declining revenue? And do we really want the same business balance we had leading into the recession?”

    Exactly Pedro. Only directing resources to business spending can cause the “business renovation” that can push us into powerful non-inflationary growth. You do that by cutting spending and encouraging savings. And not by any of this Keynesian rubbish.

  86. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    No you are the guy going against the grain. Just pick out the part of that book were Hazlitt debunks the existence of the multiplier and come back.

  87. graemebird Says:

    The basis for the multiplier is a common fallacy amongst the economics laity. Or rather there was a common mercantilist fallacy that the Classical school economists had exploded. This fallacy, or rather this series of fallacies, plagued the minds of the 18th century cronytown types and of the common man. It was always fractional reserve, fixed exchange rates between gold and silver and coin debasement which made these wrong ideas seem plausible.

    The cronytown players of the time saw their interest in restricting competition from abroad when the inevitable contractions came. Their spending would dry up simply because of the collapse in ponzi gold and silver made worse by the prior disruption to extraction industries that the selling and lending of ponzi metals would cause.

    Sensing, and in the short-run narrow scope of things, quite rightly, that their problems were caused by not enough gold and silver…..

    ……(((((((((in that sense only that the make-believe gold and silver had disappeared and the real stuff also was still being shipped overseas…………….))))))))))

    sensing that their problems were caused by not enough gold and silver………………. cronytown and the common man could be sold on the idea that retaining that gold through trade restrictions was a good thing. Hence the notion would come about that a countries wealth was based on how

  88. Mark Hill Says:

    “Barro is a nobody.”

    You are a grade A bullshit artist.

    When was the last time you had an op-ed in the WSJ?

  89. Mark Hill Says:

    No, really you are delusional – Barro is a nobody and you’re an authority on economics.

    Please get assessed for narcisisst personality disorder.

  90. Mark Hill Says:

    “Don’t lie to people that I’m in favour of inflation you jerk. I’m in favour of growth-deflation. And have consistently said so for three years you lying cunt.”

    Graeme – you’re a bloody idiot. There is no evidence to suggest that fractionality causes inflation. The capital adequecy ratio in Australia fell from 25% to 8%, and inflation didn’t triple, it followed M1 where M0 was being pumped out furiously.

    You are completely bloody wrong.

    On the other hand, you want to “create liquidity” where the banking system already does by closing down the banking system and printing more M0.

    If you eliminate the money multiplier, then inflation is directly proportional to M0.

    We can only conclude you have a vested interest in this thief economics as a new homeowner and mortgage holder.

    We’ve had enough of your crazy talk from crony town.

  91. Lyam Says:

    Now Birdy the Clown brings John Stuart Mill into the “multiplier” debate. As usual he distorts what others, in particular what I, say in the process.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/poor-poor-john-stuart-mill-watcha-gonna-do/

  92. graemebird Says:

    The idea of a fiscal multiplier is based on well-known mercantilist fallacies refuted long before John Stuart Mill was ever born.

  93. graemebird Says:

    Increasing the money supply and spending IS inflation Mark you twit. Thats what monetary inflation is.

    “Graeme – you’re a bloody idiot. There is no evidence to suggest that fractionality causes inflation. The capital adequecy ratio in Australia fell from 25% to 8%, and inflation didn’t triple…”

    You mean consumer prices? You twit. Why would consumer prices triple on that basis? What happened to nominal GDR.?

    And why are you talking about capital adequacy ratios for? These are just cartelization regulations. Changing regulations of this sort is not the same thing as tripling the money-supply.

    Get it right you moron. Come back to the issue when you are less confused.

    A is A Mark. Its not B C or D.

  94. graemebird Says:

    “There is no evidence to suggest that fractionality causes inflation. The capital adequecy ratio in Australia fell from 25% to 8%, and inflation didn’t triple.”

    Think of the utter chaos thats going on in Marks head to justify this total denial of monetary theory. Mark has now decided that ponzi-money is not part of the money supply. He’s decided that PQ is not equal to MV after all. So he’s trashed that important tautological identity.

    He has said to himself, in a shitrain of chaotic thought and false identities, that capital adequacy ratios are no different to reserve asset ratios. That reserve asset ratios are no different to the money supply, the consumer prices are no different to the totality of spending.

    Its impossible to know what he’s done because its evidence mostly for utter confusion in his mind.

    Jason Soon fell for this as well. Jason has agreed with Mark on this score.

    What were their lecturers teaching them?

    Neoclassical economics is just a menace.

    Here Mark basically trashes the fine paradigm of the MONEY MULTIPLIER yet upholds but cannot prove the idiots paradigm of the fiscal multiplier.

    What about Sinclair. No evidence exists that Sinclair is any better on this score.

  95. graemebird Says:

    Consider the implications of what Mark is saying. If Mark is right ponzi-money is ineffectual and we could go to 100% backing tomorrow without a monetary collapse. Of course this is insane.

    No-one ever ought listen to Mark on matters economic. Quite apart from having no understanding of the subject he doesn’t have the logical capacity to carry the most simple inference off.

  96. Lyam Says:

    Bla bla bla bla. Completely besides the point.

    The existence of a fiscal multiplier basically states that government investment/spending/taxcuts have an impact on private investment/spending. That just makes sense.

    Now, you can contend with Keynes that it may be higher than one, or with Barro that it is between 0 and 0.8, or with Mark that it can be negative. But denying gvt investment/spending/taxcuts has no impact is just nonsense.

  97. graemebird Says:

    Sure they have an impact. I say that as well. Since spending is unchanged they shift spending away from business to business spending and instead this spending goes to consumer and government spending.

    Of course it has an impact you idiot. A wholly negative impact, and against the purpose of trying to get out of recession.

  98. graemebird Says:

    No Barro and Keynes are both wrong. Its not higher or lower. It doesn’t exist. Thats why neither Keynes nor Barro nor anyone else can show that it exists.

    You steal money off one person and give it to another no new spending comes out of that. Spending will be shifted from elsewhere to consumer spending but no new spending comes out of that. Pretty simple even for a dummy like you.

    You steal money off Kerry Packer and give it to a drunk there is no new spending. Whatever spending that Kerry’s bank or others would have done with that money is now transferred to the liquor store, who splits it up 1000 ways to pay for all their costs.

    But nothing in the way of new spending is achieved.

  99. Lyam Says:

    “Sure they have an impact. I say that as well. Since spending is unchanged they shift spending away from business to business spending and instead this spending goes to consumer and government spending.

    Of course it has an impact you idiot. A wholly negative impact, and against the purpose of trying to get out of recession.”

    In other words, the multiplier exists and you agree with Mark that it’s negative.

    Once and for all Birdy, although the fiscal multiplier (or spending multiplier) is often associated with Keynes, it was initially developed by Ralph George Hawtrey in 1931.

    Criticizing Keynes’ use of the multiplier does not prove it doesn’t exist! Which is what you claim.

    Its just one amongst many efforts over the last century to try to formalize analysis tools.

  100. graemebird Says:

    It doesn’t matter who it was developed by. Its just a reincarnation of older fallacies. Spending can only change by fiscal policy if the demand for money balances is reduced. There is no reason to believe that this would be the case. So its a daft idea.

    You steal money from one person and give it to another the receiver of the stolen money is more likely to spend it on consumer goods. But he is not more likely to spend it. It would have gotten spent anyhow. Income not representing average cash balances just keeps circulating and never stops changing hands.

  101. graemebird Says:

    “In other words, the multiplier exists and you agree with Mark that it’s negative.”

    YOU FUCKWIT. Two different uses of the word negative.

    Fiscal splurging is not negative in terms of nominal SPENDING.

    Fiscal splurging is NEGATIVE(second definition of negative) in terms of economic recovery.

    If you cannot follow the discussion and refuse to ask intelligent questions then fuck up fatfingers you dummy.

    Your Mother must be so fucking dim fatfingers.

  102. Lyam Says:

    At every post you are criticize Keynesian economics, but you still fail to grasp that the topic of this thread is the multiplier.

    As Mark pointed out, if you want to make a point against Keynes, use the multiplier concept to show it is negative and therefore counterproductive.

    To do that who will have to do like Barro and actually throw yourself into data in order to estimate it. Which will be a better use of your time, provided you have the know-how to do this kind of thing which I doubt.

    I think the debate is over, since yourself have admitted that gvt investment/spending/taxcuts have an impact on private investment/spending. In other words the multiplier exists, but as usual you refuse to use the standard terminology. (Like your b2b spending business.)

  103. graemebird Says:

    From elsewhere.

    “Why is it that people in general think they know more about economic theory than they really do? Given that economics is not a course that one typical gets in public school (and never pursue it on their own), you’d think that people would be more skeptical of voting over economic issues than they are.”

    Its because the profession is perverted by the lure of stolen-money financing which leads to lunatics and triangulaters being foisted to the top of the charts in status and success. The triangulaters then develop a sort of professional courtesy wherein they won’t attack certain strategic doctrines of the lunatic side. Rather they take pride in their tribe and their supposed superiority.

    The net effect of all this is that few people on either side of any debate talk straight economic sense and so the public starts freelancing.

    The lunatics are Keynesian and in 2009 the triangulaters will tend to call themselves Neoclassical. But not all the Neoclassicals understand monetary theory. Hence they lose the perspective of the original Chicago-school giants that made them superior forty years ago. Without monetary theory neoclassicals cannot be differentiated from many brands of Keynesians, who multiply like Goths into Ostro, Visi and all sorts of other queer tendencies.

    So this crowd just become a bunch of smug cheerleaders. Basically Keynesians but swearing allegience to a different tribe.

  104. graemebird Says:

    Lyam. The multiplier doesn’t exist you idiot. Thats why you cannot show it does. Nor can Mark. Nor Barro. Because its sleight of hand. But it appears to crowd out understanding of the money multiplier. Its a cuckoo concept.

    Lets go again. If you take money off one man and give it to another the new guy is likely to spend it disproportionately on consumer goods. Not he is NOT more likely to spend it. Since any money not part of our cash balances is always changing hands.

  105. Lyam Says:

    As usual Birdy, like all conspiracy theorists, thinks there is a vast crowd secretly allied to put him down 🙂

    The debate is over Birdy.

  106. graemebird Says:

    No its not that fatty. Let me explain to you how the real world works.

    “Why is it that people in general think they know more about economic theory than they really do? Given that economics is not a course that one typical gets in public school (and never pursue it on their own), you’d think that people would be more skeptical of voting over economic issues than they are.”

    Its because the profession is perverted by the lure of stolen-money financing which leads to lunatics and triangulaters being foisted to the top of the charts in status and success. The triangulaters then develop a sort of professional courtesy wherein they won’t attack certain strategic doctrines of the lunatic side. Rather they take pride in their tribe and their supposed superiority.

    Its not some sort of Rousseauean fantasy as you insist. Its the expected outcome of the sheer magnitude of stolen money financing.

  107. Lyam Says:

    I am 1.83m tall and weight 83kg and therefore am no fatty 🙂

    The debate is over. You can blabber along I think no-one is reading your posts any more beyond the first line.

  108. graemebird Says:

    The debate never got started on your side. The only attempt at valid reasoning was made by JohnZ. It was a wrong inference but not a stupid one. However once the situation was explained then that really ought to have been the end of it with JohnZ admitting that I was right.

    Here is the sum total of reasoning on your side of it fatfingers.

    “if they tax 1000 from Kerry Packer, and give it to an alcoholic on the street then of course there’s going to be more spending.”

    Thats it. Thats the Alpha and Omega of your case right there.

  109. Lyam Says:

    I told you, no-one is reading you anymore 🙂

  110. graemebird Says:

    Thats because I won. And in such a way that the laity understands.

  111. graemebird Says:

    From Elsewhere:

    “Fiscal policy works under these conditions, according to Keynesians, because people are indifferent between hoarding money and holding government securities.”

    Whats to refute? Where is the evidence for this JIve-ass nonsense? No real person treats a government bond as if it were part of his money-balances. Not particularly when he has so many alternatives. Perhaps this was true with World War I bonds, but if we are talking a money substitute we are talking monetary-policy proper. The War Bonds were traded pretty much as money I believe.

    Suppose you steal from me and give the money to a drunk in the park. Are you saying this is important? Any extra spending resultant? That the extra spending on consumer goods rather than on, for example, small-cap shares…. Is this important?

    You see there is no extra spending. None. The drunk will spend the money in wealth-consuming ways. Under capitalism properly considered the victim would likely have spent that money more productively. But the money gets spent no matter what. Since we spend anything above what our normal cash balances tend to be.

    And why on earth would you take on more debt if this nonsense were true? The people of Zimbabwe have shown us that if its more spending you want thats the easiest thing in the world to acheive.

    New cash injection via debt retirement, in combination with the appropriate reserve asset ratio, will allow you to hit any spending target you aim at. Is there a Keynesian out there that is willing to claim that a bond which is an increase in debt, creates more spending then cash-money created to pay down debt? Of course not.

    This is important. We’ve just got to stop this silliness that is ruining your country and mine. But mostly yours. We’ve just got to stop lending credence to idiotic ideas our of a lawyer-like tendency to professional courtesy.

    There is no fiscal mutliplier. Its a utopian-crock and it always was. And you’ve just got to stop being spineless about this.

    Posted March 12, 2009 7:48 PM

  112. graemebird Says:

    From elsewhere.

    Graeme Bird writes:
    “What this thinking ignores is the impotence of monetary policy when inflation rates are low.”

    Monetary policy is never impotent. What you are talking about is banking subsidies. Not monetary policy. If you would lend me great mountains of cash at bargain basement rates I’d have to be pretty tired or silly not to become a multi-millionaire within about 20 years.

    First thing I’d do is I’d refinance all outstanding debts and then I’d be bargain-hunting. But the principle is the same. The monetary policy you are talking about is just a racket. Thats not monetary policy its a gigantic rolling thunder of stealing and subsidy.

    If monetary policy is defined instead as the use of two tools alone. And those two tools are:

    1. new cash injection via debt retirement.

    2. The incremental upward adjustment of the reserve asset ratio.

    If the above is what we define as monetary policy then its NEVER ineffectual. Its always potent. Powerful stuff. Too strong. The medicine is too strong and deadly in the wrong hands.

    Posted March 12, 2009 8:05 PM
    Graeme Bird writes:
    “I’m afraid the future of macroeconomics will continue to be a series of disastrous experiments until we come to understand macroeconomic behavior as emergent features of a complex system.”

    You are barking right up the wrong tree. This is not a difficult subject. If you can weed out all the hired nonsense-talk and taxeater perogatives its a very simple subject.

    Bank cash pyramiding,like any ponzi scheme, leads to instability.

    You don’t need to drag in complexity theory to understand that scenario.

    Posted March 12, 2009 8:12 PM

  113. Mark Hill Says:

    “No-one ever ought listen to Mark on matters economic. Quite apart from having no understanding of the subject he doesn’t have the logical capacity to carry the most simple inference off.”

    Graeme,

    Your shit is nauseating and ridiculous, I am put off reading it.

    There is no point “debating” with a deranged fuckwit like yourself. Your counter arguments rely on cognitive dissonance and denial – evidence is rejected on your assertion that it isn’t evidence.

    For example:

    *“There is no evidence to suggest that fractionality causes inflation. The capital adequecy ratio in Australia fell from 25% to 8%, and inflation didn’t triple.”

    Think of the utter chaos thats going on in Marks head to justify this total denial of monetary theory. Mark has now decided that ponzi-money is not part of the money supply. He’s decided that PQ is not equal to MV after all. So he’s trashed that important tautological identity.*

    Here you are showing what a liar and arsehole you are. You are an unpleasant, unintelligent dropkick.

    Here was my FULL response and quote of you, Professor Deadshit:

    ** Mark Hill Says:

    March 12, 2009 at 12:33 am
    “Don’t lie to people that I’m in favour of inflation you jerk. I’m in favour of growth-deflation. And have consistently said so for three years you lying cunt.”

    Graeme – you’re a bloody idiot. There is no evidence to suggest that fractionality causes inflation. The capital adequecy ratio in Australia fell from 25% to 8%, and inflation didn’t triple, it followed M1 where M0 was being pumped out furiously.

    You are completely bloody wrong.

    On the other hand, you want to “create liquidity” where the banking system already does by closing down the banking system and printing more M0.

    If you eliminate the money multiplier, then inflation is directly proportional to M0.

    We can only conclude you have a vested interest in this thief economics as a new homeowner and mortgage holder.

    We’ve had enough of your crazy talk from crony town.**

    Clearly anyone who read on would see that are a dishonest cretin who isquoted me by omission and then accused me of not acknowledging something I quoted.

    You are lower than a two bit vaudeville pimp.

  114. graemebird Says:

    I’m for falling prices Mark. And have been always, always will be. And nothing I’ve ever said implies the opposite.

  115. Jason Soon Says:

    I’m for falling prices Mark. And have been always, always will be

    Damned right, Graeme, damned right. You tell it like it is.

    You’re for falling share prices alright.

  116. Mark Hill Says:

    Prices should not be centrally planned, Graeme. They should be left to their devices.

  117. Lyam Says:

    “I’m for falling prices Mark.”

    Yeah, I’m sure that if you took a 500K mortgage to buy real estate, you would want the price of the estate to steadily go down over the years!

    You are such a FIBAR (F@#ing Idiot Beyond Any Repair).

  118. graemebird Says:

    I have always been in favour of monetary policy that leads to falling prices yet (slowly) growing average revenues. This goes back almost 30 years when I started thinking about the implications of Milton Friedmans optimal quantity of money theory.

    I can see that I’m dealing with primitive tribal types here. Lyam, being in favour of falling prices does not mean PREDICTING falling prices. Mark. You are a lying cunt pretending that I want centrally planned prices. There’s not much time you twit. You need to take time out to learn proper non-idiotic and logical thinking skills.

  119. Lyam Says:

    “I can see that I’m dealing with primitive tribal types here. Lyam, being in favour of falling prices does not mean PREDICTING falling prices”

    hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    In other words, you are in favor of failing prices but you are glad it doesn’t happen 🙂

    FIBAR

  120. graemebird Says:

    Why use other words. I’m in favour of falling prices. I’m not PREDICTING falling prices so I act accordingly.

    You really are an idiot are you not?

    Yes you are.

    I don’t expect the reserve bank, the government, and the taxeaters to be won over by my support of falling prices. Hence I bought a house, not confusing soothsaying with advocacy.

    I don’t think you are ever going to comprehend this simple idea. Perhaps you ought not worry about it. Your Mother was powerfully stupid and you take after her side of the family. All tits and no brains.

  121. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    Saying “I am for falling prices and increasing wages” is like saying “I am for nice weather”. Everybody is, only most of us know it doesn’t make any sense.

    And again, I doubt you would be in favor of your real estate’s value (if you any of course) would steadily decline.

  122. Graeme Bird Says:

    You lying cunt. I never once said such a thing. You point this out to me where I said this you cunt.

    If I made a typo I expect you to be able to get the context you idiot.

    Now admit that you lied you cunt cunt.

  123. the anti-bird Says:

    Bird:

    Listen to Mark Hill. One of these days he’s not going to bother teaching you any economics and you will miss him more than you know.

    Apologize to him Bird.

  124. Jason Soon Says:

    you should hire Mark to tutor you Graeme.

  125. graemebird Says:

    I have done. And he refuses to do his job.

    So no evidence for a fiscal multiplier hey?

    What a total run of failure for you morons. Failed analysts.

  126. graemebird Says:

    Well lets try again then just for you dummies.

    Lets have that evidence for fiscal stimulus. For a fiscal multiplier. Or why such a thing, if it were to exist however minamally, would even be important.

  127. graemebird Says:

    Have another shot at it. You didn’t come up with anything, so have another shot at it.

    Why do you guys persist in idiocy as a working behaviour? No friends Nigels. This is why purgatory is such a just idea. You need to be very severely punished for this ongoing worship of dumb.

  128. graemebird Says:

    So still no evidence for a fiscal multiplier. That you steal 1000 off one person, and that this somehow mystically causes more spending than otherwise in the hands of the other person AND THAT THIS SPENDING IS A GOOD THING. When increasing nominal spending is never difficult. Has never been difficult. And is something that the Zimbabwaens can do in an instant.

    What a bunch of fuckwits you are. And yet you all believe it because you are no better than primitive tribesman. Who don’t think at all. Not here or at Catallaxy. All you are doing at Catallaxy is sorting out the tribal position.

  129. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme, care for a shellacking from Gary Becker?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759849467801485.html

    “There is also the more fundamental question of whether one dollar of government spending can produce one and a half dollars of economic output, as the administration claims. Mr. Becker is more than skeptical. “Keynesianism was out of fashion for so long that we stopped investigating variables the Keynesians would look at such as the multiplier, and there is almost no evidence on what the multiplier would be.” He thinks that the paper by Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, “saying that the multiplier is about one and a half [is] based on very weak, even nonexistent evidence.” His guess? “I think it is a lot less than one. It gets higher in recessions and depressions so it’s above zero now but significantly below one. I don’t have a number, I haven’t estimated it, but I think it would be well below one, let me put it that way.”

  130. Mark Hill Says:

    Bump.

  131. Mark Hill Says:

    Bump.

    The conspiracy theorised thread is simply too dominant at the moment.

  132. Mark Hill Says:

    Bump.

    re: the above WSJ article – an interview with Gary Becker.

  133. DH Says:

    “The conspiracy theorised thread is simply too dominant at the moment.”

    It certainly is. I think we should simply declare victory and move on. Bird’s got nothing. He’s been comprehensively beaten.

    It’s pathetic watching him run around in ever diminishing circles attempting to avoid the men in white coats.

  134. Mark Hill Says:

    Just bumping this along – please read the WSJ article from above – and interview with Nobel winner Gary Becker.

    His opinion is like mine – the multiplier exists, but it averages less than zero but at times can be greater than, but statistically insignificant from zero – wheras in extreme cases it approaches but is less than one (as in the case of wartime where living standards are reduced and taxation and war planning create massive deadweight losses).

    Please Graeme, read it and become sane again.

  135. graemebird Says:

    Well he’s an idiot. He doesn’t have any evidence for this. I”m interested in your stupid fucking opinion you moron.

    Do you even know what evidence is you fuckwit.

    There is no multiplier. Because stealing money off one person and giving it to the next in no way makes that money magic money. Or is that just a little bit hard for you to understand.

    You steal it off person A, give it to person B, both person A and B will still tend to hold the same cash balances. Hence spending will be unchanged.

    Stop hiding behind the misrepresentation of others you fucking stupid cunt.

    All day thats all you do. You select somebody who you think agrees with you. And thats all you do.

    YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS IDEA AT ALL YOU STUPID CUNT.

    Lets have that evidence you fucking moron.

    Its just so depressing that people as fucking dumb as you are going out there to join the Gruens and Andrew Leighs of this world. Its as if the left has a stupid-conservative promotion policy.

  136. graemebird Says:

    You steal money off A and give it to B. Has the money been sanctified by the thieving process. You panderers to blood-sucker-central would certainly like to think so. You are a fuckwit Mark. You are such a fucking dummy.

  137. graemebird Says:

    So no progress on this thread either. Its like a full spectrum denial of the need for evidence.

  138. Mark Hill Says:

    “Well he’s an idiot.”

    That’s it folks, uneducated serial internet pest, has called a Professor of Economics and a Nobel prize Winner, Gary Becker, “an idiot”.

    Insults from such people are a prize compliment. Graeme hasn’t even bothered to read Becker’s comments.

    Graeme Bird: “There is no multiplier. Because stealing money off one person and giving it to the next in no way makes that money magic money. Or is that just a little bit hard for you to understand.”

    Becker: “I think it is a lot less than one. It gets higher in recessions and depressions so it’s above zero now but significantly below one.”

    As for evidence, Barro has it in spades.

  139. graemebird Says:

    Lets have some evidence for this fiscal multiplier.

  140. graemebird Says:

    Barro has no evidence for you are lying.

    So lets have this evidence for the fiscal multiplier. Just come up with the evidence you lying cunt.

    You might have thought that we wanted you to lie and say that some other cunt had the evidence.

    I assure you you cunt. That what we were after was evidence.

  141. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

  142. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

    Get someone else to help you if you can find no evidence of your own.

  143. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

    Clearly you can find no evidence of your own. Why not call on someone else to help you.

  144. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

    How about Sinclair. That quisling testified before the Senate implying that there was validity in the concept.

  145. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

    What about SOON. He has claimed that it exists as well. Try and tap him for evidence.

  146. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

    What about Cambria. Cambria too claims it exists. Tap him for evidence. Of course now I’m just joking around. Being as Cambria is a senile old moron.

  147. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

    Since you won’t come good with the evidence lets have that retraction then.

  148. graemebird Says:

    One way or another lets have that evidence or lets have that retraction.

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

  149. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    I have posted Barro’s evidence numerous times. You have some sort of machine that Ingsoc would be proud of, where proof can be made to “disappear” if inconvenient.

    There evidence has been put up here numerous times. You’re a self aggrandising idiot and blowhard.

  150. Fyodor Says:

    Fuckit, Mark!

    You had Birdy at 10 consecutive comments. He was on a Turkey Roll – if you hadn’t interrupted the goon you might have gotten an “11′” out of him.

    Just fucking think before you type, OK?

  151. graemebird Says:

    No no you are lying. You didn’t post any evidence from Barro. Barro has no evidence. Barro is a fuckwit. And he cannot show that money is made magical by the act of theft.

    Lets have that evidence or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

  152. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence Mark or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.

  153. Mark Hill Says:

    *From Barro’s article:

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”*

    GMB sez:

    “No no you are lying. You didn’t post any evidence from Barro. Barro has no evidence. Barro is a fuckwit. And he cannot show that money is made magical by the act of theft.

    Lets have that evidence Mark or lets have your retraction you lying cunt.”

    Quickly, get thee to a psychosis ward.

  154. Mark Hill Says:

    I want Graeme to explain why the following paragraph from Barro’s WSJ article isn’t evidence:

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”*

    Que?

  155. Mark Hill Says:

    Just another bump.

  156. graemebird Says:

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Prove to the laity that there is some fantastic need, under paper money, to use fiscal policy to increase spending.

    Then prove that you can increase spending by fiscal policy in the first fucking place.

  157. Mark Hill Says:

    I am not, nor was I ever trying to prove that. Nor does it matter that I disagree that fiscal policy can do what Keynesians assert it can do. Even if the impact is zero (and the evidence shows it varies around zero), then the multiplier simply = 0, in special cases or from time to time.

    The demand that I qualify these statements I never endorsed is simply a display of either intellectual dishonesty or an incapacity to understand the issue on your behalf, or both.

    I have nothing to be ashamed of, but your ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty to contend with.

    Now please tell me why Barro’s evidence is not evidence. Que? Is this simply another display of dishonesty vis a vis cognitive dissonance on your behalf?

  158. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence idiot or that pretense that you are going to be an economist is unlikely to happen.

    I don’t see you gaining employment in this area. You are already famous for being known stooge.

    You haven’t presented any evidence from Barro or anyone else you lying cunt.

  159. graemebird Says:

    Imagine your whole argument based on lying. What a stupid cunt you are.

  160. Mark Hill Says:

    Here is the evidence for the millionth time you clown:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”*

    But clearly this makes you insane or puts you in the same class as an agent of Ingsoc. I am sure with your gems such as “Trout are cunts”, that potential employers don’t actually care what you think.

  161. jc Says:

    No bird, it’s you that’s a cunt, cunt, cunt.

    that’s because you won’t listen to even the most reasonable arguments.

  162. graemebird Says:

    No you are lying.

    Now lets have that evidence JC or admit its a crap idea.

    Fiscal policy does not affect the volume of spending. It merely moves it out of business-to-business spending and into spending categories where it is registered under GDP.

    Now that ought to have been obviously even to the lowest meanist of bootniggers. Since to increase spending in total fiscal policy would have had to reduce the demand for money for holding.

  163. graemebird Says:

    Mark thats not evidence for anything. We need to see his working out. His reasoning for why he thinks he’s found something that doesn’t exist.

  164. MB Says:

    Graeme, don’t forget your appointment at Centrelink.

  165. Mark Hill Says:

    Here is the working out – right here!

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html

    “I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540).”*

    Fiscal policy does increase spending – but at the detriment of invesmtent. What I am saying is that the evidence shows that normally it equates to zero change in agggregate expenditure, but there are reasonable concerns to believe it actually lowers aggregate expenditure – net of deadweight loss.

    Part of Graeme’sproblem is he uses the most obscure terminology possible.

  166. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    You people don’t know anything about economics.

    You should listen to someone like Mr B or watch some of Ron Paul’s youtubes and you might learn something.

    Pig ignorant dumbarses.

  167. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    Seriously.

    Try reading what Mr B says and LISTEN. Stop thinking that you are so smart (like AIG and Citibank) and try to absorb what Mr B says with an open mind.

    You were all wrong before and you are wrong again now. You think you have all the answers but YOU DON’T.

    So WISE UP and WAKE UP and STOP ACTING LIKE FUCKING IDIOTS.

  168. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    Watch this Mark Hill and you might learn something about economics because as of this moment YOU DON’T KNOW SQUAT:

  169. MB Says:

    “You should listen to someone like Mr B or watch some of Ron Paul’s youtubes and you might learn something.”

    Yes. We would learn things like:

    a) Martians!
    b) The earth is expanding, like a muffin
    c) Domestic terrorists are good
    d) The sun does not generate heat
    e) Einstein knew nothing about physics

  170. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    Sun does NOT generate heat, you moron. It couldn’t possibly because it would have burned out billions of years ago. Also if it is gas it doesn’t have enough mass. And it isn’t shrinking.

    If it generates heat it has to be LOSING MASS!!! which means that gravity gets less and Earth moves further away.

    So either Sun does not generate heat or gravity is a lie or both. But you cannot have Sun generate heat and gravity is true.

    That is well accepted.

    Better theory is Sun is like a resistor that absorbs galactic energy and channels it. There is much evidence for this. It’s known as “dark matter”. Read a scientific journal and you might learn about it but since you like being IGNORANT don’t bother. Sun has solid core.

    You probably don’t believe me about this, but you probably also thought the stock market was a good investment so you are an IDIOT and can safely be ignored.

    Now fuck off.

  171. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    And let’s see… what do Einstein and the geniuses of Wall St have in common? Can you think of anything? hmmm?

  172. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    Here comes a torrent of lies and bullshit.

    I can feel it. An absolute tsunami of bullshit is approaching.

  173. MB Says:

    Wherein RPH draws his popguns of courage from his toy holsters, aims, and shoots himself in the eye.

    This isn’t going to end well.

  174. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    Get fucked.

  175. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    Tell me MB you smartarse.

    If Sun generates heat, does it consume mass in doing so?

    If it consumes mass, does it have less gravitational pull?

    If it has less gravitational pull, why isn’t Earth moving farther away and getting colder?

  176. MB Says:

    What did I tell you?

  177. The wrath of Khan Says:

    very good performance Tillman aka Ron Pauline Hanson

  178. MB Says:

    I see. The sun is powered by vast quantities of Handwaveium. Interesting.

  179. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    You people make me sick.

  180. MB Says:

    Oh. Well I suppose something good has come out of this after all.

  181. graemebird Says:

    The fiscal multiplier is a stupid idea.

    But if you believe in it like some sort of stupid Cambrian asshole….. THEN MAKE GOOD WITH THE EVIDENCE OR THE ARGUMENT!!!!!

    If thats not too much to ask.

    And I don’t think thats too much to ask.

  182. jc Says:

    Bird:

    Mark has already provided the evidence, you moron. Unfortunately you chose to ignore it and continue asking the same fucking question thinking it makes the evidence go away.

    Where’s your fucking evidence it doesn’t exist?

  183. graemebird Says:

    No you are lying. He hasn’t provided any evidence. So you just lied. All Mark did was supply a quote of someone verbally CLAIMING that he worked out this here multiplier.

    Sorry boot-nigger. Thats not evidence get your dumbass back to school. Or have oxygen therapy for the premature dementia.

  184. graemebird Says:

    Now I’ll try again. Does someone have any evidence? We didn’t want quotes of people claiming that they’d worked out the numbers on things that don’t exist in the first place. That is neither a valid argument nor is it evidence except for the idea that the fellow can type.

    There are exceptions by the way. And this is where government debt gets printed up and acts like a cash substitute. This apparently happened, according to Chodorov I think, after or during World War 1. People bought war bonds with cash. And these bonds were interest-bearing. And somewhere along the line they began to be used as cash-substitutes. Probably in some immediate post-war recession but thats a guess.

    But even in this case you would have to say that increases in nominal spending were more a monetary phenomenon.

  185. graemebird Says:

    My evidence of it not existing is that if it existed you would have expected a lot of interested parties to have produced evidence for its existence and they have not done so AS WE HAVE SEEN CONCLUSIVELY.

    The other evidence that it doesn’t exist simply comes from the reasoning which shows the very idea to be ludicrous, and its existence being either merely a matter of serendipity or the other case would be where the debt takes on quasi-monetary status.

  186. Carlos Says:

    Graeme,

    I don’t think you understand the basics of monetary policy, or the history of the 20th Century. All the evidence suggests you know nothing about either, which is why you are such a wet blankie on fractional reserve.

    2 + 2 = 4. There are also 4 beats in most bars. This doesn’t mean that there is a conspiracy to put a Marxist (sic) in the White House.

  187. graemebird Says:

    No you are lying.

    Now addressing Mark an Cambria and their understanding deficit when it comes to what constitutes evidence and what doesn’t. And what constitutes weak or strong evidence and logical inferences.

    Barry Brook made this ridiculous claim over at Deltoid. Fucking Beezlebub he’s a twit. At least he’s an ethical twit, in that he’s pro-nuclear but by the horns of satans big-titty babes he a dummy and non-scientist….

    “It’s true that methane is >20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of radiative forcing over a 100 year period (72 times over a 20 year period).”

    He couldn’t justify such claims in a blue fit. Now notice he affects to have this knowledge and that he makes the fakery of such claims more brazen by way of mathematical exactitude.

    This is what I told him:

    “Barry you have nothing backing these wild claims. Faking up some sort of mathematical exactitude isn’t any sort of evidence.”

    I don’t know how these people can live with themselves. He won’t be backing up these claims. Rather he’ll filibuster or make reference to some mathematical model not co-incident with any features of the real world.

    Now we come to Mark quoting Barro. JC don’t be a complete bootnigger cunt and claim that Mark quoting Barro pulling a Barry is any sort of evidence. It may indeed be the case that Barro has a paper where his logical inferences and calculations are there for all to see and if this is so THAT may qualify as evidence. It will be bad evidence if so and it will be wrong. But it may qualify as evidence as such nonetheless.

    But your claim that MARK. That Mark Hill. Your claim that Mark Hill has posted evidence is a flat out lie and proof that you are above your head on this topic.

    So you are quick on the draw on the trading flaw. Don’t get above yourself dummy. Because you are no intellectual. As useful as your skills are to you personally.

  188. Mark Hill Says:

    “But your claim that MARK. That Mark Hill. Your claim that Mark Hill has posted evidence is a flat out lie and proof that you are above your head on this topic.”

    What do you want, a battery of statistical tests approved by an emiritus prof. of statistics by means of affadavit? With a printout of all data tables and pages and pages of matrices calculations?

    I’ll tell you what Graeme. When you get half as good as convincing someone as a five year old at show and tell, I might do a rough job of doing the multiplier for Aus.

    Why don’t you email Barro and tell him what a boot nigger he is? Why don’t you tell his faculty HE SHOULD NEVER GET A JOB IN ECONOMICS!!!

  189. AK47 Says:

    Graeme has obviously never heard of the Marshall Plan.

  190. DH Says:

    I’ve found another picture of Graeme:

  191. AK47 Says:

    Bird is once again banging on about the magic expanding earth. This is of course conclusive evidence of Bird’s shrinking brain.

  192. graemebird Says:

    So two years on has anyone found any evidence for the Keynesian multiplier? No I’m looking good as usual. You guys are looking like idiots. So two years on, simply no evidence whatsoever for the Keynesian multiplier.

  193. Jessica Says:

    Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam comments?

    If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can suggest?
    I get so much lately it’s driving me crazy so any support is very much appreciated.

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


%d bloggers like this: