Keynesian economics on display

[The Real Bingo]

It is funny that for all the out of control spending in Europe in the past decade that a year or two worth of "austerity" is what is being pointed at for their current situation. To bring it to an individual level, take a person making $50k a year in $10m in debt. He stops borrowing and starts paying down. It means he can't afford steak and lobster every night, but it means that eventually he will be freed from the bondage of debt...which is more liberating than anything...even "free" stuff.

Your use of the word "planning" here is overly broad. To what exactly are you referring?
Also, you know that private companies "plan" as well? That most costs associated with items are purchased on fixed contracts? So why is it OK for business to do this and not the government?
Got a link noting the difference between "bad" spending and "good" spending and the difference in those levels?

I encourage you to read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. Hayek on planning:

‘Planning’ owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems as rationally as possible and that, in so doing, we should use as much foresight as we can command. In this sense everybody who is not a complete fatalist is a planner, every political act is (or ought to be) an act of planning, and there can be differences only between good and bad, between wise and foresighted and foolish and shortsighted planning. An economist, whose whole task is the study of how men actually do and how they might plan their affairs, is the last person who could object to planning in the general sense. But it is not in this sense that our enthusiasts for a planned society now employ this term, nor merely in this sense that we must plan if we want the distribution of income or wealth to conform to some particular standard. According to the modrn planners, and for their purpsoses, it is not sufficient to design the most rational permanent framework within which to the various activities would be conducted by differeent persons according to their individual plans. This liberal plan, according to them, is no plan — and it is indeed, not a plan designed to satisfy particular views about who should have what. What our planners demand is a central direction of all economic activity according to a single plan, laying down how the resources of society should be ‘consciously directed’ to serve particular ends in a definite way.

The dispute between the modern planners and their opponents is, therefore, not a dispute on whether we ought to choose intelligently between the various possible organizations of society; it is not a dispute on whether we ought to employ foresight and systematic thinking in planning our common affairs. It is a dispute about what is the best way of so doing. The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according some consciously constructed ‘blueprint‘. The socialists of all parties have appropriated the term ‘planning’ for planning of the latter type, and it is now generally accepted in this sense. But though this is meant to suggest that this is the onlyrational way of handling our affairs, it does not, of course, prove this. It remains the point on which the planners and the liberals disagree.

Basically, we all "plan". But what he means by planning is not on the individuals' behalf, but on the central power-holders of government planning for everyone else. An economy of competitiveness mitigates "planning" by business because each business will not necessarily employ the same plan; in a competitive economy, businesses will be created to fill niches other businesses miss...and so a myriad of choices is covered even if businesses "plan".

[MTAtech]

It is funny that for all the out of control spending in Europe in the past decade that a year or two worth of "austerity" is what is being pointed at for their current situation. To bring it to an individual level, take a person making $50k a year in $10m in debt.

Yes, we know the conservative narrative is that Europe's problems stem from generous social spending. However, it's a false narrative. If it were true, Sweden and Germany, who have the most generous social programs would be floundering but they're not.

[The Real Bingo]

However you cut it, the nations in trouble were spending too much for what they were taking in. Whether they spent it on toothpicks, guns, or pantyhose, it doesn't matter...spending within means is underrated.

[The Real Bingo]

$9 Billion in Stimulus for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per Job | CNSNews.com

That's some good "planning" right there.

[sharder8]

Don't forget, that those projects were shut down for periods of time over the last 2 years, due to heavy water run off, forcing the hydro dams to require a majority of the power transmission infra-structure. The remainder of available transmission capability went to coal, gas, and nuclear power.

That means, that some of the construction and installation jobs didn't happen. Maintenance continued however.

I drove through a large wind farm on the OR/WA border over the Memorial Day weekend. Most of the wind turbines were shut down.


Harder

[MTAtech]

$9 Billion in Stimulus for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per Job | CNSNews.com

That's some good "planning" right there.

That's the same dishonest math described here:
Stimulus jobs cost taxpayers $278,000 each, GOP committee says in claim against Dem Wis. Rep. Ron Kind

By taking the amount of money spent and dividing it by the number of direct jobs does produce a number but that number excluded all the suppliers, material vendors, etc. that indirectly benefit from economic multipliers. Moreover, much of the stimulus was tax-credits to home owners who took advantage of installing solar (like me.) With the money that I saved, I went out and did something else that also stimulated the economy.

I was hoping that we could have an honest and factual discussion here but all we seem to get from the right-side is shrill, inflammatory distortions and mistruths.

[The Real Bingo]

That's the same dishonest math described here:
Stimulus jobs cost taxpayers $278,000 each, GOP committee says in claim against Dem Wis. Rep. Ron Kind

By taking the amount of money spent and dividing it by the number of direct jobs does produce a number but that number excluded all the suppliers, material vendors, etc. that indirectly benefit from economic multipliers. Moreover, much of the stimulus was tax-credits to home owners who took advantage of installing solar (like me.) With the money that I saved, I went out and did something else that also stimulated the economy.

I was hoping that we could have an honest and factual discussion here but all we seem to get from the right-side is shrill, inflammatory distortions and mistruths.

Way to read. It was way down there in the second paragraph:

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

[MTAtech]

Bingo, what was your source's methodology in deriving those numbers? Spending $9 billion on anything creates lots of jobs. It sure looks like they tried as hard as they can to underplay the figures.

[The Real Bingo]

Bingo, what was your source's methodology in deriving those numbers? Spending $9 billion on anything creates lots of jobs. It sure looks like they tried as hard as they can to underplay the figures.

Why don't you ask the source? What is the methodology for saying the auto bailout saved 8 million jobs?

And for more Keynesian fun...

[MTAtech]

Why don't you ask the source? What is the methodology for saying the auto bailout saved 8 million jobs?

And for more Keynesian fun...

None, since I never said the auto bailout saved 8 million jobs.

[The Real Bingo]

Some big wig from GM did. What I'm getting at is one side can use smoke and mirrors to make their point, but it's unacceptable for the other side to do the same...if you call it that. Though, in my opinion, it's easier to count created jobs due to a program than it is to count jobs saved if inaction were to happen. After all, there is no assumption that these people would find work elsewhere or that another company would have bought GM and/or Chrysler.

[tony_j15]

Re: the Krugman demotivate.

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com