Again no actual content or counter argument. Not amazing, totally predictable yet another **** post from jecross.

I think the second article has a pretty robust basis but I'll have to read the maths behind it (which I mean I don't want to be snarky but I guess you haven't had the time to delve into it either). I also disagree with the premise of what you're saying: economics and social sciences in general have to deal with the fact that are no perfectly clean cut experiments where you can control for everything and don't have to assume lots of stuff. It doesn't mean that you can't learn from the attempts of those social sciences to create models that illuminate reality in a certain way.

You posted something completely incorrect, and then claimed it was because you oversimplified for my benefit. Up to you if you want to link to some evidence.

Its not in anyway incorrect let alone completely.


Also if you are doubting my claim, maybe try reading:

But again, whatever mechanism crowding out occurs by, if we look at corporate borrowing upto 2008, the following hypothetical consequence of crowding out did not happen:

If crowding out did occur I think we can be certain the empirical and academic evidence for it would amount to several magnitudes more than one essay by from what I can tell are undergraduates or at most candidates for a masters/phd.

Something like crowding out would leave a big footprint.

In economics strong hypothesis (note I am not saying correct hypothesis) usually have a much much much stronger supporting body of work than anything you have presented.

Blanchard is an undergraduate now? I mean obviously I don't have 15 hours to do a decent draft of a literature review on the subject, you can't really seriously expect me to do that.

And actually, I just checked, it is such a widespread idea that there is a wiki entry on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics)

Also relevant, an entry by Blanchard in the Palgrave dictionary of economics:

http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com...ion=current&q=

My claims about undergraduates was about the second link you posted, the one you claimed was strongest, which is why I quoted that specific claim.

Also that cite of the wiki link does much more to support my claims than yours, it is little more than a foot note. If it was such a popular well subscribed theory, its wiki link (for which there is link for pretty much any theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth) would be much more populated.

Nothing you have shown really disputes the idea that crowding out is not supported by a strong base of academic evidence and literature.

Also from Blanchards wiki:

I don't think anyone is discussing that. I am discussing lower levels of public pending in a reasonably healthy. This was evident in my first post on the subject that I tried to make, with my limited understanding of the whole thing, a case for lower levels public spending as a % of GDP (in general, not for the specific situation of the UK post 2008) aka as austerity that was better stated than jecross'. (post 9070)

Blanchard doesn't come back with his "mea culpa" (which is Krugman's characterisation of the thing so it might have some bias built into it) on the idea of crowding out.

I am obviously not sufficiently knowledgeable to say "oh yeah there's strong evidence for it" as stated in post 9070.

The whole reason crowding out came up was in relation to justifications for austerity, so not sure where you are getting this talking about spending in healthy from, as austerity has not happened in response to healthy.

Also dont post post numbers, that is just weird and makes referencing really awkward for the reader. Quote or dont.

Simplifying and stating things that are incorrect aren't the same.

Banks aren't the main lenders to governments or companies. The subprime mortgage issue did a little more than tipping us over the edge into recession. Just look at corporate debt levels now compared to pre crisis, are we on the edge of recession again?

Regardless of the points above, and regardless of whether crowding out actually happens) the original point doesn't follow through (perhaps because of your loose definition of crowding out). I never stated that we were borrowing too much pre crisis to the extent it was affecting interest rates to cause a crowding out effect. I was suggesting that borrowing less when the economy is booming and doesn't seen support from spending gives you more scope to borrow more when it does need support.

My analogy was fine - yours about the water butt was terrible so I corrected it for you.

So you're actually claiming this as your case for austerity?

That's a pretty strong case.

Like I said I'm done engaging with you, unless you want to circle back to the where I asked for why you misrepresented numbers and where I asked at what point we should look to decrease the debt to GDP ratio.

So no case for austerity then?
This entire sidetrack was based on you demanding people show a case that austerity doesn't work but petulantly disallowing the opinions of people such as Krugman and Blyth and institutions such as the IMF.
Then came this gem

with a wonderful disclaimer that you've used to completely avoid justifying your frankly ridiculous case.
I used some graphs rather badly but I'm not an economist and haven't been far off in the other posts I've made.
Our debt to GDP ratio should reduce as a consequence of sound financial policy rather than at some arbitrary point.
Ending austerity (which you can't make any case for - even by linking to economists,videos,books or leaflets handed out by randoms in the street) will aid this.
Maybe now you could address some of the dozens of posts pulling you up on your wildly incorrect reasoning or even just the ones levelled at your "case for austerity" post quoted.

UK austerity is an excuse for ideologically targeted cuts and the biggest transfer of wealth from the many to the few in modern times.

I was discussing austerity in general, rather than it's specific merits at this point, obviously it should end at some point and I don't think we are necessarily far from that point. My view is spending should increase gradually when it does.

The chart I posted makes the case for austerity?


You've just surpassed yourself in sheer nonsense posts.

Ladies and gentleman - this is the proof that austerity works according to jecross.
Who knew?

You are such an epic expert at own goals.

Yes we are technically right on the edge of recession, growth was 0.1% GDP in the last quarter.

Also you might want to look at corporate debt levels falling off a cliff after 2008.

Your comment that they have increased again is irrelevant to what it was that actually caused the economic damage to the real economy.

You are the master of the naked unbacked assertion.

Also attempting to nit pick over the shorthand of banks lending money is the most shameful nitpick I have ever seen.

You could go through this forum and practically every thread in it from its inception to today making that nitpick an infinity+1 amount of times as it absolutely accepted universal shorthand for financial institutions.

The rate of increase of the UK chart is slowing, and the US one isn't.

Learn some maths.

It sure as **** doesn't make the point you were claiming with it, i.e. that the US alternative has been much better and austerity is a disaster.

The key part of your misunderstanding over crowding out was who is controlling the decision, the lender or the borrower, that's pretty fundamental to the concept. Lol at nitpick.

I note you haven't responded to the logical fallacy I pointed out, i.e. that I never claimed that the reason we were borrowing too much was because of the impact on yields.

This isn't just about the UK - due to brexit we are a special case currently.

Corporate debt levels are high globally, are we on the brink of another global financial crisis?

I have never seen anything claiming the subprime issue was just what "tipped us over the edge", until you stated it. What's your source for this?

http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2017-07-...mmended-limit/

Culture!

Fully supported by the bigots of the DUP/UUP.

I expect more crickets from our unionist friends itt.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sh-with-labour

Can't remember Treeza telling us abut this - was abolishing Human Rights in her manifesto?

Just had this pop up on my twitter feed

What can you do? Gotta screw those poors.