It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Robert Pollin and Michael Ash In 2010, two Harvard economists published an academic paper that spoke to the world’s biggest policy question: should we cut public spending to co n trol the deficit or use the state to rekindle economic growth? Growth in a Time of Debt by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff has served as an important intellectual bulwark in support of austerity policies in the US and Europe. It has been cited by politicians ranging from Paul Ryan, the US congressman, to George O s borne, the UK chancellor. But we have shown that several critical findings advanced in this p a per are wrong . So do we need to r e think austerity economics more broadly? Their research is best known for its result that, across a broad range of countries and periods, ec o nomic growth declines dramatically when a country’s level of public debt exceeds 90 per cent of gross domestic product. In their work with a sample of 20 advanced economies in the postwar per i od, they repo rt that average annual GDP growth ranges between about 3 per cent and 4 per cent when the ratio of public debt to GDP is below 90 per cent. But it collapses to - 0.1 per cent when the ratio rises above a 90 per cent threshold. In a new working paper , co - authored with Thomas Herndon, we found that these results we re based on data errors and unsupportable statistical techniques. For example, because of miscalc u lation and unconventional methods of averaging data, a one - year experience in New Zealand in 1951, during which eco- nomic growth was - 7.6 per cent and the public debt level was high, ends up exerting a big influence on their overall findings. When we performed accurate recalculations, we found that, when countries’ debt - to - GDP ratio exceeds 90 per cent, average growth is 2.2 per cent, not - 0.1 per cent. We also found that the r e latio n ship b e- tween growth and public debt varies widely over time and between countries.
"Conservative Policies are Driving Americans to Suicide…"
The conservative Republicans are blocking everything Obama wants to do.
Hartmann was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the son of a staunch conservative Republican, atheist father and a Christian mother, and grew up in nearby Lansing, Michigan. His paternal grandparents were from Norway. He later lived in Detroit at age two and grew up in Lansing. Interested in politics from a young age, he campaigned for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential election when he was 13. Hartmann was expelled from high school during tenth grade and later earned a GED.
Originally posted by Willtell
My friends look at the statistics, the stats don’t lie.
In conservative administrations people commit more suicides, it’s documented.
Conservative philosophy is stingy, selfish, and in the service of the interests of the super-rich
Mental illness is rapidly increasing in the world and "will be the second biggest cause of death and disability by 2020." According to the World Health Organization:
Mental illnesses, from epilepsy to depression, currently affect over 400 million people around the world. This group includes 45 million people with schizophrenia.
America and Japan experience the highest levels of depression .... Over 1 million people now die through suicide each year. The ten countries with the highest suicide rates are all former Soviet states, and the Scandinavian countries, lauded in Liberal circles for their socialistic policies, also have extremely high suicide rates.
The above-cited countries are notable for imposing liberal or atheistic teachings by their governments on large populations. In the United States, liberal indoctrination governs public schools, which educate 89% of children. As of 2002, "[a]n estimated 20 percent of children have a mental illness that causes at least mild functional impairment," with nearly all those children a product of a public school education.
Public schools educate 89% of Americans, and "[t]he incidence that a teen will have depression some time in their adolescence is higher, felt to be at least one out of four.
Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:
* Lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders.
*There are no real differences between boys and girls.
*Humans are just another type of animal.
*All there is is what you see (with or without special equipment, such as microscopes or telescopes).
*Conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions.
*Self-inflicted death (i.e. suicide) can somehow be good.
*Denying self-defense, mentally and physically.
*Denying the ability to control sexual desires (such as homosexuality & lesbianism); promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness.
*Insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; When classroom prayer would promote mental stability.
*Encouraging dependence on state welfare services rather than taking responsibility for ones own actions. Dependency is a major cause of depression.
*Socialistic theories based upon materialism encourage nihilism and depresion.
At every stage of the experiment, critics (myself included) have warned that Osborne’s austerity policies would prove self-defeating. Any decent economics textbook will tell you that, other things being equal, cutting government spending causes the economy’s overall output to fall, tax revenues to decrease, and spending on benefits to increase. Almost invariably, the end result is slower growth (or a recession) and high budget deficits. Osborne, relying on arguments about restoring the confidence of investors and businessmen that his forebears at the U.K. Treasury used during the early nineteen-thirties against Keynes, insisted (and continues to insist) otherwise, but he has been proven wrong.