Nope, wasn’t talking about the Nazis. Just national socialism with lower case letters, i.e. socialism on the national level. Which is what you have been advocating this entire thread.
If the taxpayer has to pay for a bunch of infrastructure so corporations don’t, what do you call that other than corporatism?
Yes, actually, two things. (1) How do you calculate that “detraction” considering your previous statement that (2) all infrastructure spending is always beneficial?
Well that’s a wider legal issue.
My point still stands that Sotomayor was not in the majority for most of the Citizen’s United decision.
It’s also worth noting that the decision applies to unions as well as corporations.
Generalized methods of moments and granger causality testing.
It’s usually, but not always, beneficial.
Both being exceptionally flawed methods themselves for accurately determining any outcomes, one way or the other.
So you admit finally that infrastructure spending is NOT always beneficial.
A quick recap: (1) infrastructure is not always beneficial; (2) in practice you cannot effectively distinguish between genuine growth and wasteful expenditures; and (3) you cannot counter-calculate whatsoever the benefits that would have accrued had the money not been taxed away (via direct taxes or monetary inflation) from private citizens effecting their own expenditures/investments (not to mention the whole flurry of other negative consequences provoked by monetary inflation [i.e. the destruction of purchasing power, etc etc] that are absolutely ignored in your formulae). So I say again: the confidence you demonstrate in these conclusions isn’t matched by the integrity of your (or their) “supporting evidence”.
I think you’re done here.
Please explain to me how to conduct a Granger Causality Test.
That’s precisely the point isn’t it? I’m contending that the Granger Causality Test cannot yield answers to the questions I’m posing, meaning that it is fatally flawed as a support for your “argument”. In any case, shouldn’t you already know how to conduct a GCT? You’re the one who cited it as a perfectly adequate solution to the problems I outlined (in tandem with the generalized methods of moments).
Here’s a refresher because apparently you need it, unless all you were trying to do was to deflect the attack (but no, you wouldn’t do that, would you?):
First, a couple of quick primers:
http://www.uh.edu/~bsorense/gra_caus.pdf
http://monogan.myweb.uga.edu/teaching/ts/13granger.pdf
Next, an example and analysis of it in action (included are many of its grave short-comings in doing what it claims to be able to do):
So go ahead, use the GCT and your Generalized Methods of Moments formulae to demonstrate that you CAN effectively distinguish between genuine growth and wasteful expenditures AND that you CAN effectively counter-calculate the benefits that would have accrued had the money not been taxed away (via direct taxes or monetary inflation) from private citizens effecting their own expenditures/investments AND that the whole flurry of other serious negative consequences provoked by monetary inflation (i.e. the destruction of purchasing power, etc etc) are NOT absolutely ignored in your formulae calculations.
Huh? Read the states study, for instance. Financing, inflation and long run returns are incorporated into the model.
What more evidence that “cutting public investment doesn’t work” could I provide?
By the way, I logged into JSTOR through my university account and read the linked study. If anything, it discusses the opposite of your point- that Granger testing can be used to prove the effectiveness of policy generation, but failure of GCT is insufficient to disprove the effectiveness of policy measures, due to endogeneity.
From the conclusion:
So I’m not sure how it supports your point. But thanks for the paper.
Please very clearly point out where the destruction of purchasing power caused by monetary inflation is accounted for by these formulae and that they are simultaneously capable of effectively discerning between genuine growth and wasteful expenditures in a way that doesn’t contradict your previous point that infrastructure spending is always (sorry, almost always now, right?) beneficial. Because so far you haven’t done so, and you keep ignoring points (1) and (2)…funny that.
Well, some would be a nice start. You haven’t provided any evidence that isn’t based on extremely flawed formulae that leave out some of the most important qualitative variables: the ability to demonstrate that wasteful spending is effectively accounted for and rooted out by your formulae.
As for the article. Yes I’m aware that it purports to uphold the GTM, but I was calling attention to the horde of assumptions and fatal premises required to have the formulae arrive at their product–a process that clearly (at least to an Austrian) irradiates their conclusions.
Seeing as you have previously admitted that infrastructure is
then by extension you HAVE TO admit that cutting public investment DOES WORK IF you can cut the infrastructure that you concede is, from time to time, NOT BENEFICIAL. Your problem is that you can’t calculate which is which.
So again, you’ve implicitly conceded the argument, AGAIN.
First you post a paper crafting an elegant proof of the utility of these techniques in relation to endogenous policy changes, the topic of the thread and provided studies. Your second post caused me greater inconvenience insofar as you continued down this course in total unawareness, causing me to defecate into my pantaloons. Upon regaining my composure, I decided against pursuing further argument.
That is a sort of accomplishment, sir. You deserve a CS:S teamflash achievement on Steam. It’s been an invigorating discussion, and I wish you all the best in your (hopefully non-intermediate-statistics-requiring) future endeavours.
I don’t imagine that defecating in your pants is out of the ordinary for you. Call it a hunch.
You can read the instrumental variables specification yourself, which includes inflation.
Yeahhh no.
Saying that “sometimes infrastructure is bad, therefore we can’t have any” is like saying “never drive a car because there’s a 1/1000000th chance you’re going to run over a bunny”.
If you’re not going to present a serious argument, I’m done.
Straw man and false dichotomy. No here is has argued that there be no infrastructure. When you’re on a roll, you’re on a roll.
We are actually waiting for you to stop using logical fallacies.
No public infrastructure. Context clues.
No one here believes that there should not be infrastructure available to a community or nation or whatever. That’s the straw man. The false dichotomy is that you claim the infrastructure must be publicly funded or nonexistent. Learn to logic.
Not nonexistent, just undersupplied.
Straw man after straw man after straw man…
According to you, ALL State infrastructure spending and investment records as beneficial growth, always. Additionally, you’ve previously stated that, even when it isn’t beneficial, it NEVER crowds out private spending/investment, so NOTHING is ever lost. Therefore, more state spending/investment ALWAYS means more benefits and more growth, PERIOD.
Moreover, you won’t even concede that cutting those instances of wasteful State spending that do happen is BENEFICIAL. Thus, eliminating even the supposedly “rare” instances of wasteful State spending (that we know occur and which you concede exists) on infrastructure/investment is of NO BENEFIT according to you, meaning that even in those “rare” cases of wasteful State infrastructural spending and investment that do occur: CURBING THAT WASTE = NO BENEFIT.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
Already been addressed in your first post ITT.
This is the thread that never ends… it goes on and on my friends…