The US Recovery

[DOR]

snapper,

You’re right. The reason one film is included in GDP and another is not is something you don’t understand.

And, you’re wrong. GDP was, in fact, defined into existence. It didn’t exist before it was defined.

Read the damn details.

= = = = =

Bigfella,

We're way off topic here, but Fascism does indeed have an economic model. “It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.” --- Wikipedia.
[]Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[snapper]

Ok so basically what you are saying is "Not going to debate this but get this - you're wrong and I'm right". Am I permitted to question your wisdom? Since you have so often explained my deficiencies as you see them I shall disregard listing my views on your deficiencies as they must be abundantly clear - even to yourself. Do you even have a view on the GDP on the recalculation, artificially low interest rates or the bursting bond bubble? Can you tell me how much it costs interest if the US bond yield reaches 3 or even 5% - even the Obama stimulus? Do you have any economic view apart from "I'm right and you're wrong but not going to tell you why"? If I am wrong and you can show me your wisdom in these matters I would be grateful. I will not hold my breath though. You have decided that your 'mission' is accomplished already and nobody but nobody can argue as you are right and they are wrong. Get back to the school yard where you belong and stop wasting my time. I have tried to hold my patience with you but you consistently do nothing but a form of graffiti "I hate snapper. She's wrong and I am right" and then run away without explaining why this could be true. I believe they call it 'trolling' in internet terms. You have no clue yourself so just insult and run. I shall ignore any future posts you make regarding myself as you make it clear that there is no debating with you. Get back to the gutter with your spray can with your adolescent remarks without having a damn clue what is being discussed or if you do never venture to reveal it by engaging in the discussion. Grow up.

I do not apologise if this offends you - you have insulted me often enough.

Aww David you're spoiling my fun :(

[snapper]

snapper,

You’re right. The reason one film is included in GDP and another is not is something you don’t understand.

And, you’re wrong. GDP was, in fact, defined into existence. It didn’t exist before it was defined.

Read the damn details.

= = = = =

Bigfella,

We're way off topic here, but Fascism does indeed have an economic model. “It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.” --- Wikipedia.
[]Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole lot is artificial - redefine things enough and the 1930s become a boom time - just not as booming as others in a relative scale. Why is that only those definition that would paint a rosier public picture are adopted rather than definitions that would reflect a worse situation? Could this be political?

[Bigfella]

Bigfella,

We're way off topic here, but Fascism does indeed have an economic model. “It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.” --- Wikipedia.
[]Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DOR,

I've read the Wiki page. I've also read extensively on the topic of Fascism. There is no 'Fascist economic system' that can be divorced from the regimes that spawned them. As there were only two genuine & independent Fascist regimes and they spent a fair proportion of their existence at war - a poor metric to judge any system - it is very difficult to get a grasp on precisely what a 'Fascist economic system' would look like in any generic form. Marxism has a well developed body of theory and a wide range of regimes who applied it, Fascism did not. Thus it is impossible to speak of a 'Fascist economic system' out of the correct historical & political context.

[Doktor]

BF,

Marxism is economic model, Fascism is a political one.

[Bigfella]

Ok so basically what you are saying is "Not going to debate this but get this - you're wrong and I'm right".

Me debating you won't make you any less wrong.

Am I permitted to question your wisdom?

As you plan to completely ignore it I don't see why you would bother.

Since you have so often explained my deficiencies as you see them I shall disregard listing my views on your deficiencies as they must be abundantly clear - even to yourself.

Whatever

Do you even have a view on the GDP on the recalculation, artificially low interest rates or the bursting bond bubble?

Those are your pet obsessions, not mine.

Can you tell me how much it costs interest if the US bond yield reaches 3 or even 5% - even the Obama stimulus?

Nope. I'm sure DOR can fill me in if I get interested.

Do you have any economic view apart from "I'm right and you're wrong but not going to tell you why"?

Coming from someone whose economic view is 'I'm right, you're wrong and I'm going to tell you endlessly no matter how often I get it wrong" the self righteousness is amusing.

Looks to me like the US economy is in a slow recovery & has been for some time.

If I am wrong and you can show me your wisdom in these matters I would be grateful. I will not hold my breath though. You have decided that your 'mission' is accomplished already and nobody but nobody can argue as you are right and they are wrong.

I just did Snapper. I explained that it is impossible to divorce the economics of Fascism from the regimes that practiced it. I explained that there were too few regimes & too little time involved to make judgements about a 'Fascist economic system'. I explained that applying the term 'Fascist' to a democratic state such as the US is little more than name calling.

You weren't interested in hearing any of this because you already knew you were right...again. My refusal to engage in a lengthy debate with you is a direct result of the tactics you have been employing here for years & your repeated point blank refusal to accept when you are wrong.

Get back to the school yard where you belong and stop wasting my time. I have tried to hold my patience with you but you consistently do nothing but a form of graffiti "I hate snapper. She's wrong and I am right" and then run away without explaining why this could be true. I believe they call it 'trolling' in internet terms. You have no clue yourself so just insult and run. I shall ignore any future posts you make regarding myself as you make it clear that there is no debating with you. Get back to the gutter with your spray can with your adolescent remarks without having a damn clue what is being discussed or if you do never venture to reveal it by engaging in the discussion. Grow up

You throw the term 'fascist' around like so much confetti and then get huffy at me for pointing out when you get stuff wrong. Classic. Call me whatever names you wish, they won't undo your long history of factual misrepresentation & failed prediction. The fact that my pointing out this brings forth such fury it telling.

As for ignoring me, what is new. You ignore everyone you disagree with. The only difference is whether or not you choose to respond to them

I do not apologise if this offends you - you have insulted me often enough.

Here's the difference between me & you Snapper. I don't much care what you think of me. My posts aren't 'all about me', so I'm not going to jump up & down about the name calling; I'm not going to sulk; and I'm not going to run off to the Mods.

[Bigfella]

BF,

Marxism is economic model, Fascism is a political one.

Reasonable once sentence summary Doc. That is why you can speak of Marxist economics without necessarily referencing the political system but you can't do the same with Fascism. I tried pointing that out, but apparently the appropriate way to make a point hereabouts is to spend months re-stating your point in endless iterations of 'I am right', rather than just doing it once or twice.

[Bigfella]

BF,

Marxism is economic model, Fascism is a political one.

Reasonable once sentence summary Doc. That is why you can speak of Marxist economics without necessarily referencing the political system but you can't do the same with Fascism. I tried pointing that out, but apparently the appropriate way to make a point hereabouts is to spend months re-stating your point in endless iterations of 'I am right', rather than just doing it once or twice.

[DOR]

snapper,

I’d be delighted to join a reading group where I could discuss the latest high-brow novel with others. But, if someone in that group constantly nit-picked . . . without having read the book . . . I’d get a bit annoyed.

What it the point of debating with you the revised GDP methodology if you haven’t read the details? All you can do is annoy me. So, Thanks, but No Thanks.

Of course, you may wish to question my wisdom.
After you read the details.

- - - - -

"Do you even have a view on the GDP on the recalculation, artificially low interest rates or the bursting bond bubble?"
See post 264, above.

"Can you tell me how much it costs interest if the US bond yield reaches 3 or even 5% - even the Obama stimulus? "
More.

"Do you have any economic view apart from 'I'm right and you're wrong but not going to tell you why'?"
See post 212, above.

If you won’t read the posts, and you won’t read the methodology, you’re just trolling.
Grow up.


= = = = =

Bigfella,

There’s no communist economic system that can be divorced from the regimes that spawned them, either. But, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Marxism may have a more widely read theory behind it, but Fascism has one, too.

Try a Marxist economic model without coercion. It doesn’t work, because people like to be rewarded based on their efforts, and tend to slack off if they aren’t. Can’t separate the economic from the political, I’d say.

[Doktor]

DOR,

Can you elaborate your reply to BF a bit more, please.

I am not sure I read you right.

For one, there was not one communist (in the 20+ century understanding) economic system that I am aware of. They were all socialist, aka transition from hard core capitalism to socialism. Actually, I'd argue it was a leap from late feudalism to whatever.

As for separating economic from the political systems, can you tell in which system Nordic monarchies function?

[snapper]

DOR I have read the release from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. I am not questioning what it says but merely the methodology it uses. It creates a form of double accounting. Nor did you answer my question; Why is that only those definition that would paint a rosier public picture are adopted rather than definitions that would reflect a worse situation?

Regarding systems of Government and economics in my view every system has to have an economic basis. The Nazi's specifically described themselves as 'socialist' and following the socialist route the Government controlled large parts of the economy - even before they went to war. They got rid of the more extreme socialist elements in the Party when they did away the SA or 'brown shirts' in 1934. From wiki; Along with Gregor and Otto Strasser, Joseph Goebbels, Gottfried Feder and Walther Darré, Röhm was a prominent member of the party's radical faction. This group took the words "socialist" and "workers" in the party's name literally. They largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for nationalization of major industrial firms, expansion of worker control, confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy, and social equality. The problem was they wanted to 'socialise' the army too - make it more akin to the Red Army with political control alongside military command. This was too much and Röhm was done away with. It didn't stop the Nazi state directly controlling large parts of the economy though.

In the extreme form of socialist - Lenin pre reforms - the people/state own everything - in 'National Socialist' system the state leaves some things in the hands of private contractors - who get their contracts from the State but make it clear that any and all resources are if need be able to used for the state's purposes. It makes no odds really since the private contractor is dependent on the State anyway - all his money comes from the State. If you have an innovative idea you could presumably have gone to a bank and asked for a loan to start a new business - running a bakery perhaps - and this would be ok (so long as your nose wasn't too big or some other insane notion). However all the 'private' corporations, whether they were making roads or producing aircraft widgets are essentially reliant on State contracts - the military industrial complex that we are familiar with today went further and deeper in fascist countries. In time of war it is natural for Government to expand it's control on the economy but the fascist economies were primarily 'socialist' from the beginning. If you believe that the State is the ultimate authority and in some Hegelian way that this good or natural then it stands to reason that the State should control the economy. I agree with Bigfella that with Hitler his primary aim in controlling the economy was essentially based on his foreign policy objectives - the need for 'lebensraum' etc but this does not negate the fact that he had to have a working economy to pursue these aim and his economy was primarily a centralised socialist model. How you can say that the fascists had no economic model is quite beyond me - you have to have one. Fine you may wish to describe them as fascists because of their other insane policies but any ruling party or ideology has to have some idea of how they will run the economy.

[DOR]

Doktor,
Yes, there were as many variations on communist economies as their were examples. But, the common thread was state ownership of the means of production and tightly controlled distribution of the output. The model is that production is not supposed to make a profit.

Socialist style economies – really, Social Democratic European style – didn’t demand control of all the means of production, just really big, important or strategic means. The private sector was allowed to get on with making money, but taxed at high rates to provide social services. In many places, workers (well, their unions) were also given a greater in company operations. The model is that production is supposed to benefit society.

Fascist economic theory says the private sector is there to make a profit, but also to serve national interests, because business can’t be trusted to do the right thing on its own.

= = = = =

snapper,

The old national accounts methodology treated money spent on new entertainment works as current business expenses. The value-added was only captured downstream, when revenue was generated.

The new methodology treats that original spending like any other business spending for the purpose of making a profit: as an investment. After the product is made, the income begins. If the product doesn’t sell, the investment is written off as a loss.

The BEA will now treat this sector's research and development as longer-term investments, like factories, equipment, or software.

[snapper]

My point is that this new system creates a form a double accounting - we are counting the same thing twice as a contribution to GDP. Look if run a business delivering say food to peoples doors (they order online or whatever) then I need some vans right? So I buy 3 vans and this is an 'asset' etc for Snappers Home Delivery - the asset devalues with wear and tear etc and you now want to count the investment by Snappers Home Delivery as an addition to GDP right? Thus we have counted the 3 vans once. Fine but where do I buy the vans from? So I buy them from DOR's Motors, maybe deposit down and on some form of credit. How does DOR's Motors treat the sale? It goes toward profit no? So DORs Motors writes up it's accounts and it shows "sold 3 vans... total $X,000" and they get taxed on this and thus the same 3 vans get counted again as contributing to GDP. We have the same 3 vans counting twice in the GDP calculation - once on the investment side and again on the profit side but there's only 3 vans. They only make a profit for DOR's Motors. For Snappers Home Delivery they are a cost/investment that they need to make to start generating profit by making deliveries.

[Doktor]

I am not an accountant, but it is like this over here.

Only there is this twist. Suppose Snappers Home Delivery (SHD) is established and buys the vans on the last day of the fiscal year it will file loss for the value of vans. DOR's motors will file profit and at the end it is 0. As it should be.

[snapper]

Dok I'd agree that your method makes sense - it is the traditional method still used in most countries. The new method for calculating GDP in the US says that when Snappers Home Delivery (SHD) it is an investment - indeed it is. Suppose SHD buys new vans from DOR's Motors - the vans are likely to devalue quite a lot in the first few years etc but the US GDP calculation now counts both SHD's costs/investment in the three vans as adding to GDP and the profit made by DOR's Motors when selling the vans. Double counting. One wonders why SHD's isn't taxed on it's costs/investment.

When it comes to R&D it gets even more insane in my opinion. To say R&D in say a cure for malaria is the same as investment in a factory or SHD's vans is simply nonsense. SHD's vans or a companies plant machinery can be sold on if the company has problems - the vans are 'assets' to some extent. If a malaria cure doesn't work then the investment is wasted. Do you then retrospectively downgrade GDP because it was assumed the malaria R&D would result in a cure? This is counting chickens before they hatch.