• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I was referring to your tabloid references to his alleged sexual proclivities. Don't mistake your lack of understanding for duplicitousness on Keynes' part. He was crystal clear that deficit spending should be avoided during strong economic conditions. Taxes too low and spending too high refers to conditions that led to significant deficits during the Bush years when the economy was relatively strong. If Bush had followed Kenyes' philosphy we would not be in the mess that we are in.

Keynes was a homosexual, that isn't tabloid discussion it is a historical fact. As my first statement on this reads, it isn't his homosexuality that bothers me...it is his rejection of morality in general that is a troublesome epistemology for somebody as influential Keynes. I only mentioned Keynes homosexuality to preface that I wasn't referring to it, when I describe him as an immoralist. He was a nihilist, and he openly admits to it in his collected writings.

You are obfuscating, if I ask a physicist why a baseball player didn't hit a home run, he won't say "he hit the ball too soft". /"too low" or "too high" are non-quantifiable and therefore not testable.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Keynes was a homosexual, that isn't tabloid discussion it is a historical fact. As my first statement on this reads, it isn't his homosexuality that bothers me...it is his rejection of morality in general that is a troublesome epistemology for somebody as influential Keynes. I only mentioned Keynes homosexuality to preface that I wasn't referring to it, when I describe him as an immoralist. He was a nihilist, and he openly admits to it in his collected writings.

You are obfuscating, if I ask a physicist why a baseball player didn't hit a home run, he won't say "he hit the ball too soft". /"too low" or "too high" are non-quantifiable and therefore not testable.

Whatever Keynes personal beliefs were, they in no way detract from his economic theories. You are dancing about trying to make excuses for your ad hominem.

In this case too low and too high are prefectly quantifiable. If the tax rate is too low to bring in enough revenue to offset spending during a decent economy, then taxes are too low and/or spending is too high, because the goal is to, at minimum, not run deficits during a robust economy. Bush ran up $5 trillion in deficits, ergo....
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Whatever Keynes personal beliefs were, they in no way detract from his economic theories. You are dancing about trying to make excuses for your ad hominem.

In this case too low and too high are prefectly quantifiable. If the tax rate is too low to bring in enough revenue to offset spending during a decent economy, then taxes are too low and/or spending is too high, because the goal is to, at minimum, not run deficits during a robust economy. Bush ran up $5 trillion in deficits, ergo....

Define "decent" or "robust", or better yet...I want to know where Keynes used those terms and how he quantified them. I also want to know where Keynes advocates for a balanced budget through taxation during specifically defined "robust" times. Is it in The General Theory? If so, what page and paragraph?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Define "decent" or "robust", or better yet...I want to know where Keynes used those terms and how he quantified them. I also want to know where Keynes advocates for a balanced budget through taxation during specifically defined "robust" times. Is it in The General Theory? If so, what page and paragraph?

Keynes generally quantified it in terms of full employment, i.e. when there is full employment government should not engage in deficit spending. When unemployment rises then government may engage in deficit spending -- which he called investment (in education, R&D, infrastructure) to boost aggregate demand and set the stage for a return to full employment. It is in the General Theory but I couldn't give you a page number right now. It's been a long time since I read it.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Keynes generally quantified it in terms of full employment, i.e. when there is full employment government should not engage in deficit spending. When unemployment rises then government may engage in deficit spending -- which he called investment (in education, R&D, infrastructure) to boost aggregate demand and set the stage for a return to full employment. It is in the General Theory but I couldn't give you a page number right now. It's been a long time since I read it.

There wasn't full employment under Bush. How much more debt (beyond the $5 Trillion) should Bush have spent to get us there, according to Keynes? According to you earlier, Bush should have raised taxes and balanced the debt because the economy was "decent", now that you've proven yourself wrong by bending your own argument over and breech-loading it, how much more debt should Bush have run up?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

There wasn't full employment under Bush. How much more debt (beyond the $5 Trillion) should Bush have spent to get us there, according to Keynes? According to you earlier, Bush should have raised taxes and balanced the debt because the economy was "decent", now that you've proven yourself wrong by bending your own argument over and breech-loading it, how much more debt should Bush have run up?

Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment. :lol:

Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment. :lol:

Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.

Im pretty sure static/transitional unemployment is always considered to be under 5%. 7% seems way to high to be accurate. I kind of remember reading 4.5% as the number but its been a number of years since I took macro or micro.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Im pretty sure static/transitional unemployment is always considered to be under 5%. 7% seems way to high to be accurate. I kind of remember reading 4.5% as the number but its been a number of years since I took macro or micro.

Many economists have estimated the amount of frictional unemployment, with the number ranging from 2-7% of the labor force.

Read more: Full Employment Definition | Investopedia
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Many economists have estimated the amount of frictional unemployment, with the number ranging from 2-7% of the labor force.

Read more: Full Employment Definition | Investopedia

Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment. :lol:

Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.

Oh, you two! Just like Keynes and Duncan Grant! :3oops:

What you lovebirds failed to mention about those "many" economists and "economists generally" is that they are neoclassical. I suggest googeling NAIRU, and read who in particular developed it. Keynes then--just as Tobin does now--argued for a zero unemployment rate.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Oh, you two! Just like Keynes and Duncan Grant! :3oops:

What you lovebirds failed to mention about those "many" economists and "economists generally" is that they are neoclassical. I suggest googeling NAIRU, and read who in particular developed it. Keynes then--just as Tobin does now--argued for a zero unemployment rate.

You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).


What has proven IMPOSSIBLE is Obama keeping his promises unemployment (and Gitmo, and Bush tax cuts, and the deficit, and...)

But then everyone knows that Obama is a pathological liar and fundamentally corrupt.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).

I don't always agree with Mr T but on this one I have to. Full employment is ually considered in the 3-4% range.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).

Like Marx, who was too busy describing the evils of capitalism to describe how socialism would actually work, leaving it to Stalin and Mao to work out the details. Keynes never defines full employment, which is why every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. Astrologists such as yourself can throw your bones and decipher the arbitrary predictions in any way that pleases your preconceived notions, because those predictions are vague and undefined.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I don't always agree with Mr T but on this one I have to. Full employment is ually considered in the 3-4% range.

By Milton Friedman, not Keynes.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Like Marx, who was too busy describing the evils of capitalism to describe how socialism would actually work, leaving it to Stalin and Mao to work out the details. Keynes never defines full employment, which is why every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. Astrologists such as yourself can throw your bones and decipher the arbitrary predictions in any way that pleases your preconceived notions, because those predictions are vague and undefined.

Again, you are flat-out wrong:

It follows from this definition that the equality of the real wage to the marginal disutility of employment presupposed by the second postulate, realistically interpreted, corresponds to the absence of 'involuntary' unemployment. This state of affairs we shall describe as 'full' employment, both 'frictional' and 'voluntary' unemployment being consistent with 'full' employment thus defined.

...

Apparent unemployment must, therefore, be the result either of temporary loss of work of the 'between jobs' type or of intermittent demand for highly specialized resources or of the effect of a trade union 'closed shop' on the employment of free labor.

--J.M. Keynes, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money"
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Again, you are flat-out wrong:

Again, this is vague. Frictional unemployment has been determined to be as low as 2% and as high as 13% by various economists. When you don't provide a number or a reasonable range in your definition, you astrologists have lots of wiggle room to say 'he shoulda' and 'I woulda' as you squirm away from the unfalsifiability of your prognostications. In the The Economics of John Maynard Keynes: The Theory of a Monetary Economy Dillard claims it's 3% (on page 21). Well below Bush era unemployment.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Where do you find support for such an absurd claim?

Keynes once called socialists such as yourself "deranged Methodists". :lol: He wasn't all bad.

We can accept accept the desirability and even the necessity of [economic] planning without being a Communist, a Socialist, or a Fascist.--Keynes, BBC Broadcast (March 14, 1932)

As to your lazy question, you can easily google a random Keynesian economist to find out what they called for during the Bush years. There are no Kulaks around to do your bidding komrade.
 
If an honest person would calculate the major expenditures under the Obama administration, then explain how they would be for economic stimulus, I'de be interested in reading what they have to say.

For example, Obamacare. How does that stimulate the economy exactly? Expansion in Medicaid, Welfare, and Unemployment. How do those stimulate the economy?

And please don't insult me by saying, "Unemployment is money in people's pockets that they can spend on groceries and stuff". We all know those are very, very short term, and one time stimuluses of our economy. So, when I talk about "stimulating" the economy, I'm looking for something more long term, more substantial, and something that doesn't require the government to first spend money.

Think of unemployment this way. We are paying non-producers for 99 weeks. Do the math. They are not contributing anything back that is above what they are receiving in benefits, so you aren't stimulating anything. They are only spending the money that the government has given them. That's not stimulus. That's breaking even. And that's only if the person spends 100% of their benefits on things that grow the economy.

This is why Keynes was so messed up. He couldn't grasp the reality that before the government can spend a single dime, they must first extract it from the private sector via taxes. This is why government stimulus is short lived, and temporary. Private sector growth is what creates surplusses, not government stimulus. Besides, the effect of Obama's stimulus was very weak. It didn't keep unemployment below 8% like he promised. It didn't create 3 million new jobs. They started messing with the numbers when they started including "saved jobs". lol....as if he would know how many jobs were saved. He has no way to calculate that. Yet, leftist pretend economists repeated the rhetoric.

Wanna create jobs in America? Get the government to operate like a real, private sector business. That means balancing a budget EVERY YEAR, EVERY QUARTER, EVERY MONTH, EVERY WEEK. You operate government just like a business. This would reduce the bloated size of government, and save us money. It would strengthen our currency, and give us far more leverage in foreign trade. It would also curb the out of control regulatory practices of committed liberals who seem hell bent on breaking the backs of companies they dont like. Like oil and gas companies, coal companies, large retailers like Wal Mart, etc. Keep taxes low. We don't have to reduce them from where they are now, but we need to inject stability and certainty in the business sector again. If businesses know that their taxes aren't going to go up because of Obamacare, or simply because liberals raise them, they will want to invest and grow. It's how they make money, by growing their businesses. That means more jobs, higher stock prices, better wages.

I'm about 100% convinced, that any person who publicly denounces trickle down free market capitalism, has ZERO experience in owning or running a business for themselves. Trickle down IS how it works. You make a lot of money by owning a business, it makes enough money to pay my salary, which in turn pays for all my stuff. That's trickle down people. You work for a company that affords you with a salary that pays for your house, car, clothes, food, insurance, leisure time, college for your kids, internet, cable, and anything else you can afford. Remember that. That's trickle down. Dont like it? Then go start your own company, and distribute the profits however you like. Share every single penny with your workers. You invest your own time and money, then turn around and share all the rewards with the grocery bagger, or the cook, or the receptionist where all they do is answer phones. You wanna put their ideology into practice? Fine, then liberals should start their own companies, and pay their receptionists as much as their chief executive officers. Their janitors as much as their managers. Their waitresses as much as their accountants. Their candy stripers as much as their physicians.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Keynes once called socialists such as yourself "deranged Methodists". :lol: He wasn't all bad.

We can accept accept the desirability and even the necessity of [economic] planning without being a Communist, a Socialist, or a Fascist.--Keynes, BBC Broadcast (March 14, 1932)

As to your lazy question, you can easily google a random Keynesian economist to find out what they called for during the Bush years. There are no Kulaks around to do your bidding komrade.


OR (in other words)

"I 'know' what I wrote is true, so why bother to provide proof to those who disagree with me."



oh yeah, and I did do the Google thing - which is why I asked for your supporting 'facts' for your statement
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Again, this is vague. Frictional unemployment has been determined to be as low as 2% and as high as 13% by various economists. When you don't provide a number or a reasonable range in your definition, you astrologists have lots of wiggle room to say 'he shoulda' and 'I woulda' as you squirm away from the unfalsifiability of your prognostications. In the The Economics of John Maynard Keynes: The Theory of a Monetary Economy Dillard claims it's 3% (on page 21). Well below Bush era unemployment.

I can't imagine any real economist claiming that frictional unemployment could be as high as 13%. Do you have a cite for that? :popcorn2:

In any case, as the quote above indicates, Keynes defines full employment as frictional unemployment + voluntary unemployment -- not just frictional unemployment. I'm quite sure that Keynes would not have approved of massive spending and tax cuts with unemployment in the 4-5% range. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. All those tax cuts and all that spending did NOT bring down unemployment. All it did was jack up the debt and fuel a galactic asset bubble.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

OR (in other words)

"I 'know' what I wrote is true, so why bother to provide proof to those who disagree with me."



oh yeah, and I did do the Google thing - which is why I asked for your supporting 'facts' for your statement

Or (in other words)

"It is not my job to educate lazy tyrannical socialists."

If your Bourgeoisie Google tool gives you evidence a Keynesian economist called for austerity measures because we were at "full employment" under Bush, then I'd be happy to see it. If you fail, then I'm sure it's due to corporate greed, or the "ultimate synthesis" of the Hegelian Dialectic process having yet to unfold or something. Right komrade? Nice text color choice...red...you should do all your posts in red.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Or (in other words)

"It is not my job to educate lazy tyrannical socialists."

If your Bourgeoisie Google tool gives you evidence a Keynesian economist called for austerity measures because we were at "full employment" under Bush, then I'd be happy to see it. If you fail, then I'm sure it's due to corporate greed, or the "ultimate synthesis" of the Hegelian Dialectic process having yet to unfold or something. Right komrade? Nice text color choice...red...you should do all your posts in red.

Funny, you insisted on a specific cite and PAGE NUMBER when I made a point about Keynes. Do you really think "it's on the interwebs" is an adequate response? :roll:

While you're looking, give me a cite for an economist who claims that frictional unemployment is 13%. :popcorn2:
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I can't imagine any real economist claiming that frictional unemployment could be as high as 13%. Do you have a cite for that? :popcorn2:

No, I made it up then posted it on Wiki.

Full Employment in a Free Society by William Henry Beveridge Part II, Sections 1-3 deals with employment as described by various economists from different countries and time periods who collectively quantify "full employment" in a range between 2 and 13%. Beveridge, like Dillard, claims it is 3%. Well below the Bush era rate.

Even if you accept your lover Boo "Duncan Grant" Radley's range of 2-7%, Bush's rate fell in the middle of that...so your shoulda coulda woulda retrospective astrology can come from either end of the argument.

In any case, as the quote above indicates, Keynes defines full employment as frictional unemployment + voluntary unemployment -- not just frictional unemployment. I'm quite sure that Keynes would not have approved of massive spending and tax cuts with unemployment in the 4-5% range. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. All those tax cuts and all that spending did NOT bring down unemployment. All it did was jack up the debt and fuel a galactic asset bubble.

Sure, it wasn't the Keynesian ideology of keeping interest rates closest to zero (Keynes ridiculously believed interest rate could and should be zero) which effects tens of trillions of dollars of commerce (most especially, home loans)...it was the marginal difference in the tax rate between Clinton and Bush on the top quintile of earners (who can afford homes at high rates). Right? Explain to me how cutting taxes on the wealthy caused the non-wealthy to buy homes they couldn't afford?

Also, since you're attempting derail the topic with speculation you are "quit sure" about, why do interventionist economists like Keynes and Beveridge always seem to join groups like the British Eugenics Society? I mean, since you are apparently not only a great astrologer, you are highly talented medium who knows where people who have been dead for 66 years come down on the Bush tax cuts.
 
Back
Top Bottom