Consensus! The debate is over…

Well, not really but that’s how they operate on the left, so I wonder how they will react to this revelation:

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

That tells me 56 percent of economists understand the problem with our politicians and spending, 37 percent are still hoping the politicians this time will actually institute real cuts if they get revenues, and only 7 percent are insane or stupid enough to think the answer is to fleece the productive even more. Looks like the grand majority is however for cuts, an aggregate 93% of economists that believe government is way too big and spending too much, and that’s an awesome thing to see, despite the fearful belief of some 37% that more taxes will not simply make these morons forgo any real cuts. The 7% that want tax increases only are to be made fun of. I bet most are part of the Obama Admin though. That was a joke CM, so don’t ask for proof please.

It gets better too.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

How about a balanced budget amendment – with no loopholes please! And also make everyone pay taxes. It is very clear now that the compassionate conservative move to spare the lowest earners from paying taxes just served to divorce them completely from the reality that the others paying taxes are already paying far too much. But there was also some bad.

According to the survey of 250 economists who are members of NABE, nearly 49 percent of those responding said the country’s fiscal policy should be more restrictive, while nearly 37 percent said they believe the government should do more to stimulate the economy. The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same.

A striking 37% of these idiots either still think Keynesian economics work and that the problem was they didn’t spend enough or that government spurs economic growth. The reality is that it can certainly stump or kill economic growth, but as far as I am concerned whatever “stimulus” they do is at best mediocre, and more likely fictitious, because they do not account for the impact that taking all that wealth from others that do far better growing it has in any of this nonsense. And printing new money or borrowing it might short term look like it helps, but now that we are there economically and doing this stupid crap, we can clearly see that the jump in inflation and the weight of the huge debt load that comes with this, has a far greater overall impact on the economy.

Finally there is this:

At the same time, more than 70 percent of the people that responded said they expect U.S. fiscal policy to be more restrictive over the next two years.

One can only wish.

UPDATE: And many others are pointing this discrepancy in government spending vs. revenue collection out, like Byron York does in this awesome article at the Washington Examiner:

There’s no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

That’s an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that’s how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington’s current spending problem lies elsewhere.

The truth is a bitch.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    It’s great now that the “science is settled” and there isn’t any debate needed any longer.

    I can go back to work on my reactionless spacedrive that surfs the luminiferous ether. Now that the perpetual motion machine produces infinite energy, the rest of it will be a snap…

    Thumb up 4

  2. AlexInCT *

    Hey I didn’t say these guys where geniuses CM, just that the big majority finally got the whole problem we have right now – out of control government spending – right. Maybe they should have asked them in this past survey if they still believed what they said they did in February. Even more importantly, they should have asked them if the money spent produced a good return or if they think things would be better or worse if the stimuluspatronage pay off had not been done

    Of course, there is also no way to prove them wrong either, since the package was passed and we thus clearly can’t see what would have happened without it, short of predictions which might be right or wrong. However, one can point out that we where told we would get 8% unemployment without it, and now we have consistently been sitting well north of 9% – with the real numbers when you factor in part timers wanting full time work or people that have completely dropped out of the hunt for a job now pushing near 20% according to those that track those figures – unemployment for over 2 years. Economists that are not shilling for the Obama Admin also point out that it cost more that $200K per real created job by this spending, with most if not all of the estimated 300K jobs that where created or saved being in federal or state government, and a lot of them being temporary, while the impact of the money being sucked out by government to the private sector job market ended up costing close to a million jobs.

    More importantly, one can argue that the higher GDP we got doesn’t really mean anything when it is accompanied by no job growth for 2 years, and jobs are still being shed to the tune of 400K a week, with some projections that it will take 10 years minimum to reverse the course. We also as Hal already posted have the government giving bailout after bailout to organizations that many economists believe might have caused some hurt in the short term if they had been simply allowed to go broke, but would have then allowed the market to self correct much faster.

    That cost vs. benefit factor to me seems fairly evident, and the facts say that we got had. It will cost us close to $1.25 trillion to pay the money and the financing for that stimulus, and we did not get anything other than an iffy feeling for all that. Shit, the Europeans spent much less, and their economies – except of course for the PIIGS – did far better until other troubles caught them recently.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Mook

    A government should protect you and your property and enforce the country’s borders. That’s pretty much it.

    Keynesian economics has been discredited. There is no argument. The fact that we are not recovering after the largest government intervention in the history of the United States is irrefutable proof of the irrationality of Keynesian philosophy. History gave this philosophy a test. Employ your tenets, and observe the results. The results have come in. It failed.

    The American people are going to find that so long as the government tries to mooch everything it can off of the entrepreneurs, scientists, inventors and engineers – the people making this economy grow, we will continue to fall behind other nations

    Thumb up 1

  4. CM

    Keynesian economics has been discredited. There is no argument. The fact that we are not recovering after the largest government intervention in the history of the United States is irrefutable proof of the irrationality of Keynesian philosophy. History gave this philosophy a test. Employ your tenets, and observe the results. The results have come in. It failed.

    As Dick said in the other thread, it’s unfalsifiable. Almost all basic economic theories are, because we’d never know what would have happened otherwise. The Keynesian defence would be that the measures significantly softened the impact of the crisis. Can you prove that wrong?
    Economics seems to be as much an art as a science.

    The American people are going to find that so long as the government tries to mooch everything it can off of the entrepreneurs, scientists, inventors and engineers – the people making this economy grow, we will continue to fall behind other nations

    Nations which are taxed less? Which ones?

    Thumb up 0