Sadly I must go to the gym. I suggest some of you educate yourself on basic economics and American history before regurgitating stuff you hear on Republican talk radio or wherever you get your bs from.
I wish I wasn't so late to the party. I've taken multiple college level economics and business courses but who cares, coursework is coursework. We're not debating foundational textbook material here, we're debating the prognosis of a Keynesian approach that, historically speaking, is experimental. Pretty much unchartered territory. The comments I've made about this owe citation to a guy named George Cooper, who laid out a similar argument (with more thorough explanation) about how we've bastardized Keynes' insights in his book "The Origin of Financial Crises."
I look forward to your response to that, if you care to actually discuss the topic rather than accuse everyone of ignorance of the entire fields of history and economics.
Here's an example of traitorous "other" ideas.
Our Most Widely Ignored Public Intellectuals
I know, I know, they're both commie douchebags. :lol:
Thanks for your insightful assessment.
Yeah they're just ideas, not all of them good, some of them have a lot of support among revered economists. The problem is that ideas that are counter intuitive to the public are hard to gain traction on. Most people today think that anything that isn't exploitative styled capitalism is automatically marxist, communist, socialist and can't possibly be anything else. Also anything involving the government is without question bad, without even considering it.
There are other countries in the world ya know, study the Scandinavian countries and let me know what you find. Also look at the 50's, 60's economic policies before we switched gears.
How am I supposed to debate anything when you say things like "pretty much uncharted territory" when speaking about Keynesian economics?
There are other countries in the world ya know, study the Scandinavian countries and let me know what you find. Also look at the 50's, 60's economic policies before we switched gears.
"A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied,
"That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%".
Is Milton Friedman among your "revered economists"?
Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For | Politics News | Rolling Stone
In Rolling Stone this former Occupy wackobird gets full coverage with his tripe. Warner Todd Hudson sums it up best in Breitbart:
"Recently Rolling Stone magazine published a story that urges the millennial generation to demand communism in America by eliminating private property, "guaranteeing" everyone a job and turning banks into state property. After finding some opposition on Twitter, the writer let loose some ideas that didn't make the cut of his article: "exterminate" the rich and take away their money and property.After reading the article published on January 3, one thing we learn from former Occupy Wall Street organizer Jesse A. Myerson is that he thinks things are bad in America today. America is so bad--or, as he so eruditely puts it, America "blows"--that he thinks it is time to institute some of the worst communist tropes in the anti-capitalist's bag of tricks, all the same boring ideas that have been proven disastrous everywhere they've been tried for over 100 years."
'Rolling Stone' Writer Wants Communism, Redistributed Wealth
All I can do is shake my head at these people....What is the matter with people today?
The millennials have a very stark view of capitalism. There just doesn't seem (to them) to be any way to succeed. If you're not well versed in 'puts' and hedge fund gambling, it's harder and harder to find suitable work.
Imagine that you are work doing what you normally do, except you are getting paid five times as much because the wealth of the nation divided by the number of citizens gives you that amount. Astronauts, surgeons, and grave diggers all make that same amount. Would you be willing to accept the higher income? Would you like to have a new home built on a land claim that you go out and find for yourself? I mean, thats's the way it was in our nation's formative years. Sooners, 49ers, a mule and forty acres, and acres for $2.00 each were normal for those times.
Millennials were born after the good times. They feel left out.
Don't cherry pick. Theory says conservatism is required during great years and liberalism in nightmarish years. But in practice, liberalism is needed in nightmarish years whereas liberalism is needed in great years. Liberalism all the way up, liberalism all the way down. And if the SHTF, well then that just proves we were never quite liberal enough!!
"A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%".
Is Milton Friedman among your "revered economists"?
They? Sounds like you have a conspiracy theory happening here.
Perhaps its from this, where Friedman absolutely owns those nordic socialists.
So smug, they'd like to be.
This sounds like something a drunk would mutter before passing out, I can't take any of you seriously.
The easiest way I have been able to explain the idea of small government to the average liberal is to use a sort of "locus of control" argument with them.
Essentially I see an individuals control over their well-being to exists in concentric circles centered on the individual. Each circle represents the areas where a person has control with the greatest control being at the center with the individual, and each successive circle outward being increasingly larger organizations where the individual has decreasing power over the outcome of decisions.
So the individual would have the strongest control of themselves, they would be one of a handful of people with a say in their family, they would be one of a large group in their home owner's association, one of hundreds in their school district, and so on up to the outer ring where they are one of billions on the planet. By that point the individual has almost no direct control over events.
As a small government conservative I believe that the control over the individual exerted by a given circle should be equal to the the individual's control over that circle. This is because the understanding of the individual's needs, and the will to meet that need also decreases with each successive circle. In other words, you know what you need, your family knows most of what you need, your town has some idea of what you need and so on up to the Federal government that doesn't have a clue what you need nor does it really give a damn about what you need.
The problem with big government is that it increasingly puts the control over the individual and their needs into the hands of the circles least capable of doing a competent job of providing for the individual. It hands out solutions based on averages that will fail to meet anyone's actual needs.
Where the outer circles succeed is in providing services that are by nature are immune to the averaging curse. These needs come in the form of inalienable rights. There should be no variance in providing inalienable rights, so the average is correct for all people everywhere.
By applying this simple rule you can easily protect the individual from the majority because the larger the majority amassed against the individual -- and therefor the less chance for the individual to affect the outcome -- the less power the majority has over the individual.
Granted, the perfect application of this is impossible, and the age of communication makes it even less possible than at the founding of the country when there was a technological barrier between the power of the state and the will of the individual, but it should still be the model for the federal Government.
What Rolling Stone proposes is an inversion of this principle where the individual abdicates control over almost every aspect of their lives to the outer circles of government for which they have vanishingly small input.
You're just balking without discussing the actual topic. I've made my criticism of how we're currently using Keynes very clear. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way.
Currently using Keynes? Wtf are you talking about? We've been doing the supply side economics thing for 40 years now.
We did a moderate stimulus that was far too small and a lot of austerity.
You complain about spending, end of discussion.
Is there something wrong with you? Where do you get your information? What are you basing this on? You have to be joking, right?No we have not. Our government has been admittedly embraced the Keynesian approach since at least the 70s.
"Doublespeak"? What you think its impossible for policy to move in two different directions at the same time? What happened during the crisis is very fresh and recent, are you confused about that as well?Bogus. You're acting like I'm saying crazy things and then you unleash this doublespeak? Come now.
Do you think spending trillions on defense and a broken healthcare system is Keynesian economics?Keynes himself would complain about the way we spend during the height of our wildest boom years.