<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stop Brad DeLong!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/</link>
	<description>Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:44:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SharkGirl</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7512</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SharkGirl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:11:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Reserve and IRS get the money.  Beverly gets $500 and has to pay taxes on the income.  She has to dig out more money from her pocket to make up for the taxes she paid, so she can pay the full $500 to Carol.  After Carol receives her $500 back, she has to pay taxes on the same money that Beverly ALREADY paid taxes on.

Alice received some of that $500 (because Carol paid some in taxes and had to dip into other cash to pay Alice) and Alice paid taxes on the same money that Carol and Beverly already paid to the IRS.

Alice had to purchase lumber for the deck, unless she got it from FreeCycle, so that means Home Depot got some of the money, and had to pay taxes on it, too, unless they are big enough to have lobbyists getting tax cuts for them and they don&#039;t have to pay taxes.

Of course, Beverly could have borrowed more money from the mortgage lender than the $500 she owed, so she could buy the lumber.

Beverly takes out a new mortgage and the bank says &quot;Okay..we can loan you the money, because so-and-so deposited $55.56 in their savings account, and we can loan up to 9 times that amount to someone else, hoping you&#039;ll pay us interest back...besides, when it all comes crashing down on us, (because you defaulted on your loan) we&#039;ll just get a bailout package from Congress since we flunked basic math and realize that when we lend out more money than we have coming back, we go bankrupt.&quot;

Congress takes the same money that taxpayers have already paid taxes on, and sells our American assets to foreigners (such as our state parks, roads and landmarks)to raise money for the bailout packages because we are already trillions in debt.

The bankers pocket the money and go to $12,000 a night hotels, buy jets, and get involved in the merger games.

A Fortune 500 company&#039;s parent corporation buys out shares of the bankrupt bank, (Lehman Bro.) giving them partial control of the Federal Reserve, using bailout money. Of course, while the executive of Lehman Bro was asking for bailout money, he had already pocketed $300 million...but Congress didn&#039;t care.

The Federal Reserve is controlled by 70% foreign families and corporations and 30% American corporations who are buying up companies, controlling Congress and the courts.  Of course, the Federal Reserve is a for-profit entity that Carol, Beverly, Alice and Deborah probably thinks is run by the American government.

The Federal Reserve controllers declare a recession and depression so Alice, Carol, Beverly and Deborah are afraid of the economy and vote for change.  &quot;Yes we can&quot;

Then, the new kid on the block, who makes more money than Alice, Carol, Beverly and Deborah, combined, will ever make, sets up change.gov for all the American people to learn how to be taken care of by the government from cradle to grave, while he spits on the Constitution.

Foreigners put all that money into his campaign, but they can afford to do that because Americans buy gas and the money goes outside the country.

Eventually, they won&#039;t need the $500 from each other any more because the government can take care of them.

The Federal Reserve wins.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Reserve and IRS get the money.  Beverly gets $500 and has to pay taxes on the income.  She has to dig out more money from her pocket to make up for the taxes she paid, so she can pay the full $500 to Carol.  After Carol receives her $500 back, she has to pay taxes on the same money that Beverly ALREADY paid taxes on.</p>
<p>Alice received some of that $500 (because Carol paid some in taxes and had to dip into other cash to pay Alice) and Alice paid taxes on the same money that Carol and Beverly already paid to the IRS.</p>
<p>Alice had to purchase lumber for the deck, unless she got it from FreeCycle, so that means Home Depot got some of the money, and had to pay taxes on it, too, unless they are big enough to have lobbyists getting tax cuts for them and they don&#8217;t have to pay taxes.</p>
<p>Of course, Beverly could have borrowed more money from the mortgage lender than the $500 she owed, so she could buy the lumber.</p>
<p>Beverly takes out a new mortgage and the bank says &#8220;Okay..we can loan you the money, because so-and-so deposited $55.56 in their savings account, and we can loan up to 9 times that amount to someone else, hoping you&#8217;ll pay us interest back&#8230;besides, when it all comes crashing down on us, (because you defaulted on your loan) we&#8217;ll just get a bailout package from Congress since we flunked basic math and realize that when we lend out more money than we have coming back, we go bankrupt.&#8221;</p>
<p>Congress takes the same money that taxpayers have already paid taxes on, and sells our American assets to foreigners (such as our state parks, roads and landmarks)to raise money for the bailout packages because we are already trillions in debt.</p>
<p>The bankers pocket the money and go to $12,000 a night hotels, buy jets, and get involved in the merger games.</p>
<p>A Fortune 500 company&#8217;s parent corporation buys out shares of the bankrupt bank, (Lehman Bro.) giving them partial control of the Federal Reserve, using bailout money. Of course, while the executive of Lehman Bro was asking for bailout money, he had already pocketed $300 million&#8230;but Congress didn&#8217;t care.</p>
<p>The Federal Reserve is controlled by 70% foreign families and corporations and 30% American corporations who are buying up companies, controlling Congress and the courts.  Of course, the Federal Reserve is a for-profit entity that Carol, Beverly, Alice and Deborah probably thinks is run by the American government.</p>
<p>The Federal Reserve controllers declare a recession and depression so Alice, Carol, Beverly and Deborah are afraid of the economy and vote for change.  &#8220;Yes we can&#8221;</p>
<p>Then, the new kid on the block, who makes more money than Alice, Carol, Beverly and Deborah, combined, will ever make, sets up change.gov for all the American people to learn how to be taken care of by the government from cradle to grave, while he spits on the Constitution.</p>
<p>Foreigners put all that money into his campaign, but they can afford to do that because Americans buy gas and the money goes outside the country.</p>
<p>Eventually, they won&#8217;t need the $500 from each other any more because the government can take care of them.</p>
<p>The Federal Reserve wins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BCD</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7511</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BCD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Manne, keep fighting the good fight. Its all about the COSTS, COSTS, COSTS, associated with such fiscal policy.  Its like shooting off your arm to get rid of a hang nail.  Not to mention the precedent government sets through this type of spending; by necessity it will require greater spending with greater costs than any benefit (any tangible, sustainable benefit, that is), and so more spending will soon be required, on and on in a never-ending cycle.  Why are so many forgetting that we live in the real world, with politicians who have an interest in spending money where it does the most political good, not where it has the most efficient and effective economic use (e.g. several million dollars for contraceptives).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Manne, keep fighting the good fight. Its all about the COSTS, COSTS, COSTS, associated with such fiscal policy.  Its like shooting off your arm to get rid of a hang nail.  Not to mention the precedent government sets through this type of spending; by necessity it will require greater spending with greater costs than any benefit (any tangible, sustainable benefit, that is), and so more spending will soon be required, on and on in a never-ending cycle.  Why are so many forgetting that we live in the real world, with politicians who have an interest in spending money where it does the most political good, not where it has the most efficient and effective economic use (e.g. several million dollars for contraceptives).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey Manne</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7510</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geoffrey Manne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ah, someone has drunk the Kool-Aid.  Maybe the problem is that my freshman economics course was at Chicago.  I encourage you (and Brad) to read Cochrane&#039;s essay, and to go past the first paragraph this time.  Cochrane actually addresses precisely the point Brad thinks he must (he refers to people &quot;pathologically sitting on their cash,&quot;) and explains why even in such a situation fiscal policy is a bad idea.  More important I&#039;d say is DeLong&#039;s &quot;egregious error&quot; of failing to consider the costs.  Just a nod in the general direction--or at least an explanation why all this goodness is apparently free-would help.  I&#039;m with Cochrane--I see how this could work.  But I see how it could fail.  I&#039;m guessing Brad is salivating so heavily over the prospect of so much government building that he is blind to the prospect of failure.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, someone has drunk the Kool-Aid.  Maybe the problem is that my freshman economics course was at Chicago.  I encourage you (and Brad) to read Cochrane&#8217;s essay, and to go past the first paragraph this time.  Cochrane actually addresses precisely the point Brad thinks he must (he refers to people &#8220;pathologically sitting on their cash,&#8221;) and explains why even in such a situation fiscal policy is a bad idea.  More important I&#8217;d say is DeLong&#8217;s &#8220;egregious error&#8221; of failing to consider the costs.  Just a nod in the general direction&#8211;or at least an explanation why all this goodness is apparently free-would help.  I&#8217;m with Cochrane&#8211;I see how this could work.  But I see how it could fail.  I&#8217;m guessing Brad is salivating so heavily over the prospect of so much government building that he is blind to the prospect of failure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John N. Winn</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7509</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John N. Winn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You really need to take a freshman economics course.  The Cochrane assertions are egregious.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You really need to take a freshman economics course.  The Cochrane assertions are egregious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey Manne</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7508</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geoffrey Manne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, Krugman just repeats what DeLong said.  He says, for example, that increasing government spending just increases GDP (and thus taxes and/or savings).  It is, indeed, a wonder that France doesn&#039;t have a higher GDP.  Could it be because, eventually, France and the US and everyone else MUST PAY BACK THE MONEY USED FOR GOVERNMENT SPENDING?????  Yes, after reducing investment (Krugman glosses over the fact that increasing G could also decrease I before or at the same time as increasing GDP), GDP may grow in the short run.  Then what?  On what planet is this not financed by inflation, debt or taxes?  As I said in my earlier post on Kevin Murphy, it may be that the cost is worth it--after all the cost comes later, and increased GDP now might be worth decreased GDP later.  But until the stimulus hawks take the costs remotely seriously, and until they are slightly more realistic about the relationship between G and GDP even in the short run (for example, rent seeking, public choice problems, inherent inefficiency, ignorance, etc. might limit the effectiveness of G in increasing GDP), they have not proved anything and they have not addressed the concerns raised by Cochrane and others.  They have, however, done a great job demonstrating their childishness and intellectual poverty, which is nice.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Krugman just repeats what DeLong said.  He says, for example, that increasing government spending just increases GDP (and thus taxes and/or savings).  It is, indeed, a wonder that France doesn&#8217;t have a higher GDP.  Could it be because, eventually, France and the US and everyone else MUST PAY BACK THE MONEY USED FOR GOVERNMENT SPENDING?????  Yes, after reducing investment (Krugman glosses over the fact that increasing G could also decrease I before or at the same time as increasing GDP), GDP may grow in the short run.  Then what?  On what planet is this not financed by inflation, debt or taxes?  As I said in my earlier post on Kevin Murphy, it may be that the cost is worth it&#8211;after all the cost comes later, and increased GDP now might be worth decreased GDP later.  But until the stimulus hawks take the costs remotely seriously, and until they are slightly more realistic about the relationship between G and GDP even in the short run (for example, rent seeking, public choice problems, inherent inefficiency, ignorance, etc. might limit the effectiveness of G in increasing GDP), they have not proved anything and they have not addressed the concerns raised by Cochrane and others.  They have, however, done a great job demonstrating their childishness and intellectual poverty, which is nice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter G. Klein</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter G. Klein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:55:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Geoff:

How delightful to find someone who dislikes Brad as much as I do!

http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/01/13/the-delong-hall-of-honor/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geoff:</p>
<p>How delightful to find someone who dislikes Brad as much as I do!</p>
<p><a href="http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/01/13/the-delong-hall-of-honor/" rel="nofollow">http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/01/13/the-delong-hall-of-honor/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2009/01/27/stop-brad-delong/#comment-7506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually Delong is correct.  Krugman provides a another explanation.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/a-dark-age-of-macroeconomics-wonkish/#more-1301]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually Delong is correct.  Krugman provides a another explanation.</p>
<p><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/a-dark-age-of-macroeconomics-wonkish/#more-1301" rel="nofollow">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/a-dark-age-of-macroeconomics-wonkish/#more-1301</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

