• 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!

My Economics Professor Hates John Maynard Keynes

jmotivator said:
Economics is the one subject in which conservatism is still alive and well.

In fact, a recent study indicated that taking college level economics courses was correlated with the development of conservative beliefs and the chances you will be a Republican.
Click to expand...

That would likely be because the field is dominated by republican/supply side teachers.
 
Surrealistik said:
Well upheaval, mass misery and instability tends to have a way of turning on those in power...

Likewise, people who don't want to be eaten are likely to kill or injure the cannibal in self-defense, either preemptive or otherwise, nevermind the inherent revulsion others have towards the practice which might impel them to hunt down and destroy such people.
Click to expand...

That's only because, fortunately, cannibalism is generally not considered acceptable currently in our society. But there are a lot of other highly dysfunctional and revolting values in our culture which are far less clear- like that people who hit hard times should not be called stupid and lazy and told it's all their own fault and left to die on the street.

And yes, there are some (many) people who are hopelessly myopic and don't get the long term (or even short/medium term) consequences of their actions, but there are plenty of others that do.
Click to expand...

Not enough, obviously. We have enough of those people to keep electing the likes of Tea Partiers, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Rick Perry, and Donald Trump to the highest offices in the land. Clearly, these values are not very well established in our culture, if not downright being under siege nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
What prejudice are you referring to?

I have also never claimed that my first hand, anecdotal experiences with other wealthy people are universal or the rule. However, these attitudes/stances appear abundantly common.

That having been said, between this, and what the wealthy and powerful actually lobby for (and largely succeed at getting) politically, there definitely is a connect which suggests the prevalence of such attitudes beyond what I encounter at the mere personal level.


If you're talking about Greenspan, he admitted he was wrong on more than simply derivatives such as his non-intervention as Fed, the lending sector, and his naive idea that the self-interest of financiers would preclude anything like 2007-8 from happening, etc.



Precisely, as Richard Koo clearly describes:



Beyond that, the Japanese approach was pretty throttled/on and off as well. The real issue there though, looking forward, is their demographic crisis, and no amount of stimulus will resolve it; only an abandonment of entrenched xenophobia and encouragement of immigration.
Click to expand...


I already said in an earlier post that economics is very similar to meteorology. The experts are really good at looking backward and explaining why something happened the way it did. As far as looking forwards, all anyone can do is make educated guesses about both economics and the weather and both economists and the weathermen are often wrong about what they predicted. Anyone who claims to know anything about either (predictive wise) is an idiot, no matter which side you claim to be on.
 
ataraxia said:
That's only because, fortunately, cannibalism is generally not considered acceptable currently in our society. But there are a lot of other highly dysfunctional and revolting values in our culture which are far less clear- like that people who hit hard times should not be called stupid and lazy and told it's all their own fault and left to die on the street.
Click to expand...

Sure, and within a cannibalistic society, it's all fine and well; the problem is you invariably end up meeting people who aren't so keen on the idea of being eaten and they take measures.

Likewise for matters of the economy.

Not enough, obviously. We have enough of those people to keep electing the likes of Tea Partiers, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Rick Perry, and Donald Trump to the highest offices in the land. Clearly, these values are not very well established in our culture, if not downright being under siege nowadays.
Click to expand...

The fire's just beginning to rise; give it time. Also Trump is a symptom, not a disavowal of the desire and need for change even if he ultimately headed in exactly the wrong direction.



Moderate Right said:
I already said in an earlier post that economics is very similar to meteorology. The experts are really good at looking backward and explaining why something happened the way it did. As far as looking forwards, all anyone can do is make educated guesses about both economics and the weather and both economists and the weathermen are often wrong about what they predicted. Anyone who claims to know anything about either (predictive wise) is an idiot, no matter which side you claim to be on.
Click to expand...

Macroeconomic forecasting is absolutely useful, even invaluable; it's not so much you aim for absolute precision (which is indeed impossible) as to fall within a range. More often than not, meteorologists and a consensus of economists alike get it right within a reasonable variance. That you cannot achieve absolute precision in outcome prognostication is no reason to abandon the idea and utility of economics and economic study or dismiss its proven ability to make useful predictions or prescriptions.

As to 2007-8 specifically, there are plenty of people who did see it coming (much of the lead up was glaringly obvious; the real question was not if the bubble was going to pop so much as when), including and especially a lot of the assholes shuffling toxic derivatives and mortgages around who knew they were passing a hot potato. Greenspan himself was specifically blinded by his ideology, particularly when he recognized problems, but chose not to intervene, stating that he didn't want to interfere with the free market; especially hilarious being as it's exactly his job to intervene with respect to its dangerous excesses. One of the greatest flaws impeding prognostication, economic or otherwise is often the political and other biases that colour thought and prevent a clear and critical analysis of indicative facts as they stand.

In terms of Japan, again, not everyone was unaware of what to do, before a more useful approach was ultimately deployed.

Furthermore, both economics and meteorology alike are becoming ever more useful and accurate with the continued accumulation of data, knowledge, computing power and technology.
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
I'm taking an economics course this semester. It's Econ 110. The professor gave us a supplementary book to read along with the textbook. It's called, "How an Economy Grows and Crashes". The introduction is basically just 12 pages of the author bashing Keynesian economics and going on a rant about spending your way to prosperity.

A curious observation emerged before me as well.

Flagrant "liberal indoctrination" in our colleges and universities, the indoctrination that conservatives assert to be the reason why kids today aren't going for conservatism, yeah that, is all the way absent from this class. I had an idea by the way my professor lectured that he disapproves of old John Maynard Keynes, but reading the intro in this supplementary book just confirmed it.

Should be a fun semester as I divulge more of my personal opinions during in-class discussions.
Click to expand...

My guess is that he doesn't have an actual clue about Keynes, and his writings and his theories. My guess is your professor is bashing only what he THINKS that Keynesian theory is about.

Your post reminds me of a presenter at a continuing education conference who was continuously bashing the techniques and theories of a certain former clinician. (one who 30 years ago was considered an innovator in the field.)..

Finally I could not keep silent and stated... "you know.. when you say that "(this person) said this.. and thought this.".... you are completely wrong." " I know for a fact that this person would NEVER in a MILLION years have made the statements you are attributing to them"...

The presenter challenged me and said "well how would you know".. I said because " I knew this person on a personal basis as well as studied under them"..

The presenter did not have a clue about what they were talking about. And I would bet dollars to donuts if you had your professor ACTUALLY state what particular problems he had with Keynesian theory.. I would bet that he would get it all wrong and attribute things to Keynesian theory that Keynes never actually believed.

I would suggest that you in concert with this fellows teachings.. actually do some research on Keynesian theory.. as straight from Keynes writings as you can. I think you may find that he is in agreement with Keynes far more than he is in disagreement.
 
You responded to this post:
Surrealistik said:
It's not simply a fault of derivatives regulation he's admitting to; the admission goes substantially beyond that.

Dealing with people in the top 1% (and higher) regularly in my day to day business (commercial real estate and finance), I definitely see that the majority of them who express political and economic views tend to lean Austrian or something similar if not quite altogether there, for what appears to be ultimately and largely self-interested reasons. A couple of the more honest ones I've spoken with also find it hilarious that there are poor and middle class people foolish enough to champion and promote these sorts of ideas against their own best interests; one even went so far as to call them 'useful idiots', and that he welcomed their help in making him even better off at their expense, because why not?

I live comfortably myself, but dealing constantly with people like this, who are either lost in personal bubbles of rationalization, self-promotion, congratulation and denial, or who knowingly and brutally embrace their self-serving beliefs, saying cruel and callous things make my stomach turn and my temper surge has never made me more resolute in opposing them politically, regardless of what it might cost me.
Click to expand...

I quoted this post:
Moderate Right said:
You're filling in a whole lot of dots that are not there, simply based on your prejudice.
Click to expand...

Please do not attempt to pull me down to your level.
 
Winston said:
Flagrant "liberal indoctrination" in our colleges and universities, the indoctrination that conservatives assert to be the reason why kids today aren't going for conservatism, yeah that, is all the way absent from this class.
Click to expand...

I found the same thing to be true when I went to college. I know I had a lot of professors who likely leaned to the left, but you couldn't really tell based on the material they taught in class. They were all very good at not letting their personal feelings bleed into the course work. Conversely the few conservative professors I had seemed to feel like it was their duty to try and undocternate kids they assumed were getting endocternated in other classes.

Conservatives frequently like to justify their horrible behavior by convincing themselves liberals are doing it so they have to as well. Fox News justifies it's ridiculous right wing bias, by asserting all the other news outlets are out to get them. Conservatives justify voter fraud and election rigging on the false belief that voter fraud is the only reason liberals win. Conservative professors don't seem to have any issue with preaching right wing garbage on the delusional belief that they are out numbered by liberal professors who are doing the same thing. Conservatives like Trump constantly lie and justify it because they think they have to lie in order to counter liberal lies that aren't actually being told.

In psychology it's called projection. Conservatives assume that liberals just think and act like they do, then use that to justify their own terrible behavior. One of the weaknesses liberals have is the reverse. They assume conservatives think rationally because liberals think rationally so they try to make rational arguments that get ignored by rabbit hate mongers who value confidence over truth.
 
Winston said:
I'm taking an economics course this semester. It's Econ 110. The professor gave us a supplementary book to read along with the textbook. It's called, "How an Economy Grows and Crashes". The introduction is basically just 12 pages of the author bashing Keynesian economics and going on a rant about spending your way to prosperity.

A curious observation emerged before me as well.

Flagrant "liberal indoctrination" in our colleges and universities, the indoctrination that conservatives assert to be the reason why kids today aren't going for conservatism, yeah that, is all the way absent from this class. I had an idea by the way my professor lectured that he disapproves of old John Maynard Keynes, but reading the intro in this supplementary book just confirmed it.

Should be a fun semester as I divulge more of my personal opinions during in-class discussions.
Click to expand...

I rarely has hardcore liberal professors that ever tried to indoctrinate the class. Of all professors I've had the Libertarians were typically the most apt to push their views on the class.
 
MrWonka said:
I found the same thing to be true when I went to college. I know I had a lot of professors who likely leaned to the left, but you couldn't really tell based on the material they taught in class. They were all very good at not letting their personal feelings bleed into the course work. Conversely the few conservative professors I had seemed to feel like it was their duty to try and undocternate kids they assumed were getting endocternated in other classes.

Conservatives frequently like to justify their horrible behavior by convincing themselves liberals are doing it so they have to as well. Fox News justifies it's ridiculous right wing bias, by asserting all the other news outlets are out to get them. Conservatives justify voter fraud and election rigging on the false belief that voter fraud is the only reason liberals win. Conservative professors don't seem to have any issue with preaching right wing garbage on the delusional belief that they are out numbered by liberal professors who are doing the same thing. Conservatives like Trump constantly lie and justify it because they think they have to lie in order to counter liberal lies that aren't actually being told.

In psychology it's called projection. Conservatives assume that liberals just think and act like they do, then use that to justify their own terrible behavior. One of the weaknesses liberals have is the reverse. They assume conservatives think rationally because liberals think rationally so they try to make rational arguments that get ignored by rabbit hate mongers who value confidence over truth.
Click to expand...

This is actually a very insightful and thought provoking post. Thank you for that.

I used to assume that the conservative worldview was something rational, and so by engaging them, either I could finally understand them better, or I might be able to offer them better information and arguments to get them to change their views. But I have come to realize that conservatism is not about rationality at all. It is about a handful of extremely powerful and wealthy people at the top who want even more power and wealth and don't think that any amount of such inequality is ever going to be socially destabilizing and unsustainable, and a large group of, how shall one say to be politically correct?....well, PC is out these days anyway, so I'll come out and say it... CATTLE, which can be provoked to stampede in just about any direction you like if you make some loud noises and wave red flags at them enough, exploiting their massive levels of ignorance, prejudices, fears, misunderstandings, and paranoias. It's not about information and rationality at all. It's about habits and traditions, no matter how wrong or dysfunctional, visceral prejudices and hatreds and fears.

That makes it much harder to address, of course, than if it was just a simple issue of just more facts and more rational arguments. But at least we are not barking up the wrong tree thinking that only if I give them a few more facts they will come around to accepting evolutionary biology, or climate change science, or that nations with strong social safety nets and without too much inequality tend to be more stable, or that separation of church and state is actually a good thing, etc...
 
ataraxia said:
This is actually a very insightful and thought provoking post. Thank you for that.

I used to assume that the conservative worldview was something rational, and so by engaging them, either I could finally understand them better, or I might be able to offer them better information and arguments to get them to change their views. But I have come to realize that conservatism is not about rationality at all. It is about a handful of extremely powerful and wealthy people at the top who want even more power and wealth and don't think that any amount of such inequality is ever going to be socially destabilizing and unsustainable, and a large group of, how shall one say to be politically correct?....well, PC is out these days anyway, so I'll come out and say it... CATTLE, which can be provoked to stampede in just about any direction you like if you make some loud noises and wave red flags at them enough, exploiting their massive levels of ignorance, prejudices, fears, misunderstandings, and paranoias. It's not about information and rationality at all. It's about habits and traditions, no matter how wrong or dysfunctional, visceral prejudices and hatreds and fears.

That makes it much harder to address, of course, than if it was just a simple issue of just more facts and more rational arguments. But at least we are not barking up the wrong tree thinking that only if I give them a few more facts they will come around to accepting evolutionary biology, or climate change science, or that nations with strong social safety nets and without too much inequality tend to be more stable, or that separation of church and state is actually a good thing, etc...
Click to expand...

The problem with labels is that they often get misused and can often be misleading. You are not really describing "conservatives".. you are really describing right wing folks (an accurate descripter really would be right wing liberal).

Lets think through this rationally. What does a "conservative" view of government mean? Well a conservative view would mean a limited government, it would mean one that did not do wild swings or try to involve itself deeply in the lives of people. A conservative view of world politics would be say things like not wanting to be the worlds policeman. A conservative view of government finance would be fiscal responsibility and running it within its means.

Think about it..

If you said " that man is conservative with his money".. would you mean that he is irrational with his money? That he spends widely and without thought? That he is "cattle that can be stampeded into any direction'?
No.. conservative does not mean that. what if you said "this person is liberal with his money"... what would that mean?

the point being that most people that are truly conservative ARE very rational and thought out people. That's kind of the definition of conservative... not prone to wild swings.

I really don;t understand how Conservative suddenly meant something completely different because some of these folks identifying as conservative or being called conservative are anything but.

How can you belief in smaller limited government when you think the government should decide who you can marry, and what medical procedures you can have?
How can you belief in not being the worlds policeman and then want our military to intervene everywhere there is conflict?
How can you belief in a fiscally responsible government and cut taxes to the point of running huge deficits, while you spend on a military that can blow up the world 7 times over?

the point being is don;t fall into the trap of simply assigning labels to people.
 
ataraxia said:
This is actually a very insightful and thought provoking post. Thank you for that.

I used to assume that the conservative worldview was something rational, and so by engaging them, either I could finally understand them better, or I might be able to offer them better information and arguments to get them to change their views. But I have come to realize that conservatism is not about rationality at all. It is about a handful of extremely powerful and wealthy people at the top who want even more power and wealth and don't think that any amount of such inequality is ever going to be socially destabilizing and unsustainable, and a large group of, how shall one say to be politically correct?....well, PC is out these days anyway, so I'll come out and say it... CATTLE, which can be provoked to stampede in just about any direction you like if you make some loud noises and wave red flags at them enough, exploiting their massive levels of ignorance, prejudices, fears, misunderstandings, and paranoias. It's not about information and rationality at all. It's about habits and traditions, no matter how wrong or dysfunctional, visceral prejudices and hatreds and fears.

That makes it much harder to address, of course, than if it was just a simple issue of just more facts and more rational arguments. But at least we are not barking up the wrong tree thinking that only if I give them a few more facts they will come around to accepting evolutionary biology, or climate change science, or that nations with strong social safety nets and without too much inequality tend to be more stable, or that separation of church and state is actually a good thing, etc...
Click to expand...

All conservatives?
 
camlok said:
No, just the ones who don't seem able to think.
Click to expand...

Are you mad about the cognitive dissonance comment from the White Privilege thread? I noticed you never replied to it.
 
jaeger19 said:
The problem with labels is that they often get misused and can often be misleading. You are not really describing "conservatives".. you are really describing right wing folks (an accurate descripter really would be right wing liberal).

Is it possible for right wing liberal to exist?

Lets think through this rationally. What does a "conservative" view of government mean? Well a conservative view would mean a limited government, it would mean one that did not do wild swings or try to involve itself deeply in the lives of people. A conservative view of world politics would be say things like not wanting to be the worlds policeman. A conservative view of government finance would be fiscal responsibility and running it within its means.

A conservative view would be one that doesn't recognize the stark realities, the ones that show these are mostly conservative memes. Your limited government has been gone for well over a century. And most conservatives will whine and kvetch when all these massive government services aren't there.

The US has never been the world's policeman. It has been the world's rogue cop.


Think about it..

If you said " that man is conservative with his money".. would you mean that he is irrational with his money? That he spends widely and without thought? That he is "cattle that can be stampeded into any direction'?
No.. conservative does not mean that. what if you said "this person is liberal with his money"... what would that mean?

the point being that most people that are truly conservative ARE very rational and thought out people. That's kind of the definition of conservative... not prone to wild swings.

I really don;t understand how Conservative suddenly meant something completely different because some of these folks identifying as conservative or being called conservative are anything but.

How can you belief in smaller limited government when you think the government should decide who you can marry, and what medical procedures you can have?

Government had to decide those things because narrow minded conservatives tried to determine these things.

How can you belief in not being the worlds policeman and then want our military to intervene everywhere there is conflict?

The US always creates the conflicts in order to act on the lame lame pretense that it is trying to establish order.


How can you belief in a fiscally responsible government and cut taxes to the point of running huge deficits, while you spend on a military that can blow up the world 7 times over?

Consider who does that, the NeoCons have been the last group of serious US war criminals/terrorists but all US administrations have done similar things.

the point being is don;t fall into the trap of simply assigning labels to people.
Click to expand...

But isn't that what the US power brokers want, so that is why there is only Democrats and Republicans. It fits the US mindset, it fits the US propaganda model, it greatly aids the dispensing of propaganda, all the while fooling folks into thinking they have some say in government.

"The general public are viewed as no more than ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, a bewildered herd. And it's the responsible men who have to make decisions and to protect society from the trampling and rage of the bewildered herd. Now since it's a democracy they - the herd, that is - are permitted occasionally to lend their weight to one or another member of the responsible class. That's called an election."

- Noam Chomsky
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Are you mad about the cognitive dissonance comment from the White Privilege thread? I noticed you never replied to it.
Click to expand...

Like a lot of other folks, you aren't that important.
 
jaeger19 said:
The problem with labels is that they often get misused and can often be misleading. You are not really describing "conservatives".. you are really describing right wing folks (an accurate descripter really would be right wing liberal).

Lets think through this rationally. What does a "conservative" view of government mean? Well a conservative view would mean a limited government, it would mean one that did not do wild swings or try to involve itself deeply in the lives of people. A conservative view of world politics would be say things like not wanting to be the worlds policeman. A conservative view of government finance would be fiscal responsibility and running it within its means.

Think about it..

If you said " that man is conservative with his money".. would you mean that he is irrational with his money? That he spends widely and without thought? That he is "cattle that can be stampeded into any direction'?
No.. conservative does not mean that. what if you said "this person is liberal with his money"... what would that mean?

the point being that most people that are truly conservative ARE very rational and thought out people. That's kind of the definition of conservative... not prone to wild swings.

I really don;t understand how Conservative suddenly meant something completely different because some of these folks identifying as conservative or being called conservative are anything but.

How can you belief in smaller limited government when you think the government should decide who you can marry, and what medical procedures you can have?
How can you belief in not being the worlds policeman and then want our military to intervene everywhere there is conflict?
How can you belief in a fiscally responsible government and cut taxes to the point of running huge deficits, while you spend on a military that can blow up the world 7 times over?

the point being is don;t fall into the trap of simply assigning labels to people.
Click to expand...

Being thoughtful and rational means that you adjust your actions to the situation at hand, not that you do the same thing automatically every time ("small government always", "never get involved in international affairs", etc...). That's silly. That's no different than a bug that always heads toward the light no matter what, even if it's a bug zapper. God gave us a brain for a reason. Like it says in the good book, there is a season for everything under the sun. The reason that this kind of mindset seems to me to be irrational is that this formula is used in an unthinking way for every situation which comes up.

A good government, a stable one, a functional one, is not one which blindly sticks to such easy formulas, but knows when to step in in an aggressive and muscular way, and when to step back and let people, or the free market, or what have you, do its thing. Sure it requires lots of information, keeping your eyes and ears always open to what is happening, of being open to various options being proposed, of staying mentally and ideologically limber and flexible.

"I am not for big government. I am not for small government. I am for smart government."
-Barack Obama
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gonzo Rodeo said:
All conservatives?
Click to expand...

Well enough of them that the party which they have chosen to represent them, the Republican Party, gives us the likes of Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmans, Rick Santorums, Rick Perrys, GW Bushes, Donald Trumps, the Koch brothers, etc... So how is that not the party of a small handful of exploiters and large herds of exploitees?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
It wasn't that you didn't have a rebuttal? Are you sure?
Click to expand...

I don't have the foggiest notion what your post was even about. As I said, and don't take this the wrong way, you aren't that important. I have bigger fish to fry.
 
camlok said:
But isn't that what the US power brokers want, so that is why there is only Democrats and Republicans. It fits the US mindset, it fits the US propaganda model, it greatly aids the dispensing of propaganda, all the while fooling folks into thinking they have some say in government.

"The general public are viewed as no more than ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, a bewildered herd. And it's the responsible men who have to make decisions and to protect society from the trampling and rage of the bewildered herd. Now since it's a democracy they - the herd, that is - are permitted occasionally to lend their weight to one or another member of the responsible class. That's called an election."

- Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...

Yeah... well as a country.. the US pretty much practices a form of democracy that lends more freedom to the masses than most other countries. For example we directly elect both of our types of Congresspeople.

Rather than have a parliamentary system where some legislators are elected and the rest are selected by those in power.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah... well as a country.. the US pretty much practices a form of democracy that lends more freedom to the masses than most other countries. For example we directly elect both of our types of Congresspeople.

Rather than have a parliamentary system where some legislators are elected and the rest are selected by those in power.
Click to expand...

I point out that western democratic principles are largely bull**** and you provide me with examples that illustrate my point.

I refer you once again to the Chomsky quote. Which you still won't get because your conservative thinking pulls you to the life long brainwashing you have had and nothing is harder to overcome than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom