Latest about NASA AKA My Disgust with the GOP
03 Feb 2010, 10:15 am
You're still using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Capitalism is about people advancing their own personal interest, not any given ideal to which you think they should be aspiring. A company which makes sh***y products and earns a lot of money in the short term is being capitalist. A company which makes quality products and makes good profits over a longer time scale is also being capitalist. As long as they are working within the free market system, they are capitalists. Your term "pseudo-Capitalist" doesn't have any meaningful definition, especially not when applied to the business practices of individual corporations or businessmen.
Also, hard-core capitalists aren't allowed to complain about something being "unfair." Capitalism is not driven by egalitarianism.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
03 Feb 2010, 12:22 pm
It's likely good enough for now.
Um no...good sir. There's no "good enough for now"; either I'm correct or I'm not.
I'm curious..do you happen to have philosophical leanings towards Post Modernist Philosophy?
What a counter-factual assertion. Language thrives in some ambiguity.
04 Feb 2010, 4:22 am
So we must do away with Unions, employer safety requirements, minimum wage, product safety requirements and the FCC/FAA/FDA/etc?
We must because for "true" capitalism to take place we can't have anything outside the market interfering with it. We also have proof that it works because all other countries without the types of regulations we have work out much better. They are three times as good as us, that is why they are called "third world" countries.
........
Since there is so much talk about presidents I would like to know why Jimmy Carter was a bad president. The right in the US is hell bent on painting him as the worst president ever, and that Reagan was our savior. (Ignoring that all signs point to our economic problems starting around the time of Reagan's genius was given to us)
Was it trying to get the US to try and conserve energy and work on alternate sources? Sure we are trying to do many of the sames things he was bad then now but who cares about that. It isn't like sending large amounts of money into the middle east has ever, or will ever be a problem for us. Or maybe it was the Photograph he had taken in place of a portrait to save money, he was a silly man for not blowing large amounts of money on something as important as a picture. Trying to fix healthcare was also stupid idea.....
The primary reasoning I ever see behind Carter being the "omg devil" president is because almost nothing got done. If we base how good a president is on their ability to get people to go along with them, then yes Carter was not a very good president. Using that same logic, George W. Bush got lots of people to go along with him, clearly the greatest president to ever live.
On the Soviet Union topic (I don't remember what president it was, I believe it was Reagan but maybe not) the CIA told the president that they would crush themselves and we didn't not have to do a single thing to help them.
......
Back on the topics of economics, I suppose you believe that FDR was wrong and should have stuck with Hoovers do nothing plan. The regulations put on banks under FDR where also wrong and it was correct for them to start lifting those regulations(started in the late 70s and early 80s)
Also the fact that we had a boom/bust economy from 1776-1930s, followed by the creation of the most power middle class the world have ever seen, not to mention most power country, and then in the 1970-80s started to remove those regulations, the return of the boom/bust was a coinkydink. During the debate over the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act, Russ Feingold saying that we would see a major collapse withing a decade was also a gigantic coinkydink.
You know what I would love, Republicans to stop talking and start acting. Stop giving money to farmers for growing inferior plant(corn/soybean) and return my tax dollars. The last 20 years my state(Michigan) has been paying out more in Fed taxes than we get returned. Meanwhile the majority of"red" states collect more than they pay. For a bunch of people that hate welfare so much and want the free market to work they sure do seem to go out of their way to screw with it. ( it should be pointed out that not all "red" states suck the life out of the rest of us)
The Right would do well to remember that after WWII we had a steady decline of national debt until their hero Reagan took office, since then the only president to continue that trend was Clinton. And yes I know, it had nothing to do with Clinton, it was the Republican Congress that got our spending under control. Which is why once we got a Republican president to go along with the republican congress we almost paid off our national debt.
It is sort of sad, the last time our countries debt decided to skyrocket like it has been for the last 30 years we went through the great depression and WWII. The worst economic disaster the world had ever seen, coupled with the biggest war the world had ever seen. We came out of both looking good. It would stand to reason that the fiscally smarter republicans racking up a similar gigantic debt would get us out of a major problem and leave us looking good to........ oh right, we are in the second worst economic disaster in the history of the US and stuck in the longest war with no end in sight.
04 Feb 2010, 6:34 am
We must because for "true" capitalism to take place we can't have anything outside the market interfering with it. We also have proof that it works because all other countries without the types of regulations we have work out much better. They are three times as good as us, that is why they are called "third world" countries.
........
Since there is so much talk about presidents I would like to know why Jimmy Carter was a bad president. The right in the US is hell bent on painting him as the worst president ever, and that Reagan was our savior. (Ignoring that all signs point to our economic problems starting around the time of Reagan's genius was given to us)
Was it trying to get the US to try and conserve energy and work on alternate sources? Sure we are trying to do many of the sames things he was bad then now but who cares about that. It isn't like sending large amounts of money into the middle east has ever, or will ever be a problem for us. Or maybe it was the Photograph he had taken in place of a portrait to save money, he was a silly man for not blowing large amounts of money on something as important as a picture. Trying to fix healthcare was also stupid idea.....
The primary reasoning I ever see behind Carter being the "omg devil" president is because almost nothing got done. If we base how good a president is on their ability to get people to go along with them, then yes Carter was not a very good president. Using that same logic, George W. Bush got lots of people to go along with him, clearly the greatest president to ever live.
On the Soviet Union topic (I don't remember what president it was, I believe it was Reagan but maybe not) the CIA told the president that they would crush themselves and we didn't not have to do a single thing to help them.
......
Back on the topics of economics, I suppose you believe that FDR was wrong and should have stuck with Hoovers do nothing plan. The regulations put on banks under FDR where also wrong and it was correct for them to start lifting those regulations(started in the late 70s and early 80s)
Also the fact that we had a boom/bust economy from 1776-1930s, followed by the creation of the most power middle class the world have ever seen, not to mention most power country, and then in the 1970-80s started to remove those regulations, the return of the boom/bust was a coinkydink. During the debate over the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act, Russ Feingold saying that we would see a major collapse withing a decade was also a gigantic coinkydink.
You know what I would love, Republicans to stop talking and start acting. Stop giving money to farmers for growing inferior plant(corn/soybean) and return my tax dollars. The last 20 years my state(Michigan) has been paying out more in Fed taxes than we get returned. Meanwhile the majority of"red" states collect more than they pay. For a bunch of people that hate welfare so much and want the free market to work they sure do seem to go out of their way to screw with it. ( it should be pointed out that not all "red" states suck the life out of the rest of us)
The Right would do well to remember that after WWII we had a steady decline of national debt until their hero Reagan took office, since then the only president to continue that trend was Clinton. And yes I know, it had nothing to do with Clinton, it was the Republican Congress that got our spending under control. Which is why once we got a Republican president to go along with the republican congress we almost paid off our national debt.
It is sort of sad, the last time our countries debt decided to skyrocket like it has been for the last 30 years we went through the great depression and WWII. The worst economic disaster the world had ever seen, coupled with the biggest war the world had ever seen. We came out of both looking good. It would stand to reason that the fiscally smarter republicans racking up a similar gigantic debt would get us out of a major problem and leave us looking good to........ oh right, we are in the second worst economic disaster in the history of the US and stuck in the longest war with no end in sight.
Dude....have you studied history, like...at all?
Herbert Hoover, first of all, was not a do-nothing president. Most of the federal regulations that FDR gets credit for starting were actually started by Hoover.
Why was Jimmy Carter bad? You want to know? Ok fine...and this isn't coming from a Republican:
his economic stimulus package was entirely based on Keynesian economics, which fails every time it's tried...and perhaps you haven't heard about the severe period of stagflation the country went thru at that point.
The Camp David accords failed, the Iranian Hostage Crisis didn't work all that great for him, and even Brezhneve snubbed the guy...and at that point Carter was shocked cause...y'know...why would the dictator of the evilest empire lie to him?
Now wait.....you're all in favor of every government program in existence and regulations and all that, but you want them to stop giving money to farmers for growing inferior plant(corn/soybean) and return your tax dollars?
I see...
Moving on...
A period of growth from 1776-1930s?
1. The stock market crashed in 1929, not in the 1930s.
2. We actually went thru an original depression in the 1830s when Andrew Jackson closed down the National Bank, and implemented a new form of currency which he didn't think far ahead enough about how much of it would actually be needed, causing nationwide inflation. While I will confess I have yet to find out when the economy finally got back on track, I can tell you that it was so bad, even his successor Martin Van Buren had a helluva time trying to fix it.
Oh yeah...and between 1786( around the time the nation officially started) and 1886, we'd already gone thru 20 recessions.
Where do you come up with 3rd World countries having no federal regulation? Most of these countries are ruled by tyrannical thugs who oppress the people in worse ways than most could imagine.
04 Feb 2010, 7:40 am
I'll try again.
.....................................................
So we must do away with Unions, employer safety requirements, minimum wage, product safety requirements and the FCC/FAA/FDA/etc?
We must because for "true" capitalism to take place we can't have anything outside the market interfering with it. We also have proof that it works because all other countries without the types of regulations we have work out much better. They are three times as good as us, that is why they are called "third world" countries.
If you say that capitalism can only work if implemented correctly than you want to do away with Unions, employer safety requirements, minimum wage, product safety requirements and the FCC/FAA/FDA/etc because they interfere with free market. Yes or No?
....................................................................................................
his economic stimulus package was entirely based on Keynesian economics, which fails every time it's tried...and perhaps you haven't heard about the severe period of stagflation the country went thru at that point.
The Camp David accords failed, the Iranian Hostage Crisis didn't work all that great for him, and even Brezhneve snubbed the guy...and at that point Carter was shocked cause...y'know...why would the dictator of the evilest empire lie to him?
So you don't know that the president has little control over inflation, unless they do something really foolish, like say wage or price controls(Nixon didn't try this). Generally the Fed deals with keeping the inflation rate under control, since it actually has major control over inflation.
Camp David accords...... Peace of any kind in the middle east..... should really hide from public... such a loser. Honestly look at how good all the other presidents have done with this.
Funny how the Iranian Hostage Crisis worked out so well for Reagan, may want to read up on your hero there.
..........................................................................
Where do you come up with 3rd World countries having no federal regulation? Most of these countries are ruled by tyrannical thugs who oppress the people in worse ways than most could imagine.
Did you just compare 3rd world countries poor treatment of their people with our regulations?
.....................................................................................................
A period of growth from 1776-1930s?
1. The stock market crashed in 1929, not in the 1930s.
2. We actually went thru an original depression in the 1830s when Andrew Jackson closed down the National Bank, and implemented a new form of currency which he didn't think far ahead enough about how much of it would actually be needed, causing nationwide inflation. While I will confess I have yet to find out when the economy finally got back on track, I can tell you that it was so bad, even his successor Martin Van Buren had a helluva time trying to fix it.
Oh yeah...and between 1786( around the time the nation officially started) and 1886, we'd already gone thru 20 recessions.
Are you trying to defend poor economic policy by bringing up an "original depression"? Just going off this little bit of information you provided I would guess that.....
you take far to many illegal drugs.
04 Feb 2010, 10:49 am
his economic stimulus package was entirely based on Keynesian economics, which fails every time it's tried...and perhaps you haven't heard about the severe period of stagflation the country went thru at that point.
Keynesian Economics as Keynes taught it was an oscillation damping strategy. Sort of like sloshing ballast for port to starboard to keep the ship from capsizing. Keynes was not stupid. He realized that the stimulus money put into the economy when it was stagnating had to be repaid when the economy came around.
It is the politicians who have neither the intellect nor the guts to repay when the economy starts to run properly. The politicians want to keep the Good Times rolling and rolling which is why we are in the predicament we are in.
A counter cyclical stabilization strategy, from a strictly engineering point of view, is quite reasonable. It is what is used to keep tall buildings from breaking apart in a strong wind. Only two things militate against it:
1. Market economies are much more complicated than dynamical structures acted on by Newtonian forces
2. Since humans, particularly politicians (who are barely human) control the matter rather than natural physical laws, the counter balancing process is more likely to be fouled (I wanted to use another F word, but decided against it) up.
ruveyn
04 Feb 2010, 12:32 pm
Since there is so much talk about presidents I would like to know why Jimmy Carter was a bad president. The right in the US is hell bent on painting him as the worst president ever, and that Reagan was our savior. (Ignoring that all signs point to our economic problems starting around the time of Reagan's genius was given to us).
I'm not sure about the Right, but the Left certainly should and does have some real grievances with him.
- Paved the way for religious opporturism invasion
- Began the United States' shift towards neoliberalism
- Started the disasterous trend of deregulation - notably with the Airline Industry
- His implicit support for the monsterous Anastasio Somoza
04 Feb 2010, 2:42 pm
- Paved the way for religious opporturism invasion
- Began the United States' shift towards neoliberalism
- Started the disasterous trend of deregulation - notably with the Airline Industry
- His implicit support for the monsterous Anastasio Somoza
Deregulation started with Nixon. google nixon bretton woods. Neo liberalism, as in Reagan? Not really sure what the religious opporturnism invasion is, going to assume the Right should love him for this.Implicit support support? Like because he did nothing to stop and/or tried to help him giving the impression that he supported him? I assume this is the use of implicit here. Can I say George W. Bush gave implicit support of Putin because he liked his soul?
04 Feb 2010, 8:50 pm
His history was not far off. Sand confirmed his facts, and I (a history major) don't see any serious problems with his claims.
Most? No, not at all.
"Fails every time it's tried" is just a false statement on the face of it. The stagflation started before Carter came into office and can hardly be blamed on him. Also, it wasn't the result of Keynesian economics so much as politicians trying (and failing) to take advantage of the Philips Curve. The monetarists seem to have been right with their policy irrelevance hypothesis.
It's very disingenuous of you to so casually dismiss Keynesianism. The majority of academic economists are Keynesian. I haven't studied econ above an introductory level, but I assume there is a reason why most people better-informed than myself seem to think there is something to Keynes's ideas.
He got an agreement to have our hostages returned. Reagan took the credit, but Carter was the one who really did the legwork there.
That was probably sarcasm. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
05 Feb 2010, 12:19 am
His history was not far off. Sand confirmed his facts, and I (a history major) don't see any serious problems with his claims.
Most? No, not at all.
"Fails every time it's tried" is just a false statement on the face of it. The stagflation started before Carter came into office and can hardly be blamed on him. Also, it wasn't the result of Keynesian economics so much as politicians trying (and failing) to take advantage of the Philips Curve. The monetarists seem to have been right with their policy irrelevance hypothesis.
It's very disingenuous of you to so casually dismiss Keynesianism. The majority of academic economists are Keynesian. I haven't studied econ above an introductory level, but I assume there is a reason why most people better-informed than myself seem to think there is something to Keynes's ideas.
He got an agreement to have our hostages returned. Reagan took the credit, but Carter was the one who really did the legwork there.
That was probably sarcasm. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing.
He's also treating me like a Republican; if he wants to talk to someone like they're a Republican, he's got Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to bug.
Oh, I'm well aware that most academic economists are Keynesian; that's why the few I happen to really like include Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.
Don't automatically assume they're better informed than you, dude.
If you're going to insult politicians and the people who elect them( and I have no problems with that, btw), please don't do it by suggesting "keynesian economics is so good, most don't even understand it".
Keynesian economics comes down to spending money one doesn't have, with the hopes that in time those costs will be returned.
Keynesian economics are one of those things that--superficially--look fantastic on paper, but fail every time they're tried, party due to their extremely pragmatic nature. Looks to work great in the short run, but absolutely & utterly flops in the long run.
Even reading his comments on the Great Depression shows of someone who has no real grasp whatsoever of economics.
Blame politicians all you want for it, but it's not like the majority of people who elect them understand the issue any better.
You should try listening to those who go with supply-side economics. That economic strategy does work. My top recommendations, again, are Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and also Ludwig Von Mises.
Well I would certainly hope Carter tried something, as it happened under his administration. Actually a lot of things lead to the hostages being released: US forces sent weapons to Iraq to aid in their war on Iran, pretty much the entire international community was opposed to them for this act....so top it off with Reagan telling them--upon winning the election--that he'll bomb them to kingdom come if they're not released, yeah....I think Khomeini would finally agree to free them with all that pressure...
05 Feb 2010, 12:55 am
No educated person, democrat or independent would ever list Nixon or Reagan as top presidents. No person that has any understanding of economic fact would ever claim that supply-side is correct and keynesian is always wrong. There is no proof of supply-side economics working ever, and to say it has is nothing more than another republican myth that ranks up there with Reagan being the greatest president ever.
You talk like a republican, you repeat republican myth, and you wonder why you would be treated as a republican?
You have yet to back up your superior economic understanding and theory.
Answer these questions to start.
Why did the greatest growth of a middle class and a country ever in the history or the world take place during keynesian style economic policy(recovery starting in the 1930s and then growth from the 1940s until the 70s)?
Why since the 80s has wealth continued to be hoarded by the top 1% while the middle class shrank with lowest taxes on the rich since the 30s?
Why during the 90s did we see the greatest growth of the last 40 years during a period of the highest taxes?
Why is it that over 40 years of supply-side economic policies being put in place have we seen continued destruction of the middle class?
What economic information have I posted on this board that shows I don't know what I am talking about AND proof. I don't follow the republican, i am right and you are wrong because I said so, as a way of showing proof.
05 Feb 2010, 1:02 am
Keynesian economics comes down to spending money one doesn't have, with the hopes that in time those costs will be returned.
Keynesian economics are one of those things that--superficially--look fantastic on paper, but fail every time they're tried, party due to their extremely pragmatic nature. Looks to work great in the short run, but absolutely & utterly flops in the long run.
Umm.... actually yes, it is generally good to assume that large academic bodies who have spent years in doing research are more informed than you.
Keynesian economics comes down to this theory.
1) People are semi-rational.
2) This semi-rationality leads to booms and then busts.
3) Generally, the utility-maximizing government policy to counterract the negative effects of busts is to run governmental deficits, possibly also practice loose monetary policy.(Keynesians originally rejected the latter, but modern Keynesians accept it)
As for the long-run, honestly, much of our deficit was run up under Reagan, and he was really the first president since FDR to actually grow the deficit as a percentage of our GDP by a significant amount. GW Bush and Obama were the next two.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So, really, your criticism of policy really goes a lot more with supply-siders.
As for what Keynesianism really is? Well.... it's actually an economic theory. It also has policy recommendations, but it isn't *just* policy recommendations, but also a set of ideas about the workings of the macroeconomy.
It really depends on what you calling "supply side economics". If you are talking about cutting taxes until you run massive deficits, then no, that really hasn't worked. How can we tell? There are massive deficits, that's obviously a problem. If a theory is to be said to work in the "long-run" it has to be long-run sustainable, but yet supply side economics hasn't shown much long-run sustainability given the large deficits run up by attempting such policies.
Additionally, there is reason to think that deficit spending dis-incentivizes capital creation. Although tax cuts can provide more money to people to invest, this is almost entirely crowded out by the fact that deficits require being financed with people investing in government bonds. So, let's say that the deficit and the amount in taxes reduced is D.
Well, in order to finance D, we need to get an amount of investment equal to D. So, we have to subtract D from world investment. However, how much will investment go up by due to the tax benefit? Well, we can't assume that all of it will go to investment as people are likely to also consume more. So, let's make this (1-MPC)D. Well... here's the issue, if investment goes up by (1-MPC)*D and goes down by D, then investment suffers a net loss of MPC*D, which... if investment drives growth means that we don't have a winning idea.
Now, I will admit that I am simplifying the idea. But, honestly, I would really think that the best thing that reducing marginal income taxes will really do is just get people to remove money from tax shelters, and that would just be a good idea without invoking anything known as "supply-side economics".
That being said, Mises was an Austrian, and although he favors investment, his biggest issue is reducing all governmental intervention so that prices properly show market information rather than the desires of policy-makers. This stands somewhat against trying to set up government laws to favor supply. Additionally, Mises was a macroeconomics skeptic, macroeconomics was created by Keynes and most Austrians are skeptical to it on some level, while supply-side economics gets part of it's idea from increasing aggregate supply, and is more of a macroeconomic idea.
05 Feb 2010, 1:14 am
Why since the 80s has wealth continued to be hoarded by the top 1% while the middle class shrank with lowest taxes on the rich since the 30s?
Why during the 90s did we see the greatest growth of the last 40 years during a period of the highest taxes?
Why is it that over 40 years of supply-side economic policies being put in place have we seen continued destruction of the middle class?
What economic information have I posted on this board that shows I don't know what I am talking about AND proof. I don't follow the republican, i am right and you are wrong because I said so, as a way of showing proof.
One idea for the first is possibly the GI bill. It is also true that the US was one of the few relatively unscathed economies after the war, so it would have had some economic strength, but I don't know if this would effect intra-societal distribution much.
Income effects are still being debated, but they probably aren't a result of tax changes. I mean, I don't think that lower taxes make the rich that much greedier. Often skill-favoring technological change is cited as a reason as the differential in wages between college graduates and high school graduates has been increasing. Another theory is that markets are having minor failures in regards to compensation of top-employees, which is a result of higher competition for skills, and the poor ability to evaluate them in conditions where minor things can cause large changes. (winner-take-all markets) It is also possible that something has corrupted the institutions.
Clinton really didn't do a lot economic policy wise that a Republican would hate too much. I mean, our anti-Clinton guy here was only able to cite attempts at creating government healthcare, some major court cases, and a minor tax hike, but Clinton also signed NAFTA and welfare reform.
The decline of the middle class is likely involving other variables. I don't know of a plausible idea of why income distribution will be so adversely affected by tax changes.
That being said, you are likely correct to go after "supply-side economics". The only credible figure who has ever seemed to support the idea is Robert Mundell, and he is not as caught up in the idea as figures like Arthur Laffer and others. Even then, I am not going to say that nothing that could ever be labeled "supply-side economics" could be correct, only that it seems questionable, and political implementation is generally not that good.
Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 05 Feb 2010, 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
05 Feb 2010, 1:17 am
You talk like a republican, you repeat republican myth, and you wonder why you would be treated as a republican?
You have yet to back up your superior economic understanding and theory.
Answer these questions to start.
Why did the greatest growth of a middle class and a country ever in the history or the world take place during keynesian style economic policy(recovery starting in the 1930s and then growth from the 1940s until the 70s)?
Why since the 80s has wealth continued to be hoarded by the top 1% while the middle class shrank with lowest taxes on the rich since the 30s?
Why during the 90s did we see the greatest growth of the last 40 years during a period of the highest taxes?
Why is it that over 40 years of supply-side economic policies being put in place have we seen continued destruction of the middle class?
What economic information have I posted on this board that shows I don't know what I am talking about AND proof. I don't follow the republican, i am right and you are wrong because I said so, as a way of showing proof.
Half of these I can easily answer right offhand:
recovery actually began in the late 1940s. During FDRs administration, he kept throwing out every possible new regulation to prevent growth. When WWII came, he was so focused on war--worth noting, we were having a million problems on the military-based front as it was--that he didn't have time to focus on any of his economic policies. Many of these policies had apparently ended due to his inability to continue focusing on them, as again, he had to pay attention to war. Harry Truman( who I have yet to hear any Republican back, Einstein) was far easier on taxes, and while the economy didn't boom under his administration, it did give many the opportunity to start re-investing. As for an improvement in the economy during the actual war, supplies needed to be made for the troops overseas, which opened up factories. In that case, Hitler and Hirohito declaring war on us pulled us out of that one...and only because--again--it took FDR's focus off of anti-business regulations.
It wasn't Keynesian economics at all that improved things.
Here's a thought about the middle class shrinking, but the upper class "hoarding": could it be that maybe many people in the middle class are no longer there, as they joined the upper class? I, myself, have no desire to be part of the middle class forever...I want to be part of the upper class one day, myself.
The '90s were not a period of the highest taxes; despite payroll taxes having been raised in the '80s, and Bush Sr. having raised taxes as well, the economy was already on its way back to booming. The '90s saw a period of massive tax reform as I've been more than willing to admit several times over.
I'll yet again repeat my answer about the middle class, since you yourself technically asked the same thing, twice: many folks who were in the middle class are no longer there; they've moved up, which is why it looks like there's a massive gap...and many folks in the lower class moved up to the middle class as well; that can easily look very distorting, I realize.
Ah, you're right and I'm wrong because you say so. Gee....you accused me of being a Republican, even after I mentioned several Democrat presidents I happened to like, and the funny thing is the only person on the GOP side anyone has bothered to question me on at this point is Ronaldus Magnus. No one even knows why I like Nixon, and no one has asked me about Coolidge, Fillmore, or Lincoln.
Dude...lemme tell ya something: I come to these forums to talk with other fellow Autistic folks, in most cases, who I usually see to be a "cut above the rest", and smarter than the average folk that I hear from on the street.
Why didn't I get incredibly thorough with my argument about free-market policies? Do you know how long I've been standing my ground on this thread? If I were to try to explain every single argument thrown my way, I'd have no time for anything else...which is why I also referred ya to Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, as well as Ludwig Von Mises.
I've already mentioned presidents I liked from both parties, but you specifically went after me about Reagan( which I hate to say has nowadays been stereotyped as a "liberal approach"), and didn't even bother asking me why I like Nixon.
So anyone that doesn't agree with you is automatically a ring-wing evangelical Republican, is that it?
I see...............
05 Feb 2010, 1:26 am
Keynesian economics comes down to spending money one doesn't have, with the hopes that in time those costs will be returned.
Keynesian economics are one of those things that--superficially--look fantastic on paper, but fail every time they're tried, party due to their extremely pragmatic nature. Looks to work great in the short run, but absolutely & utterly flops in the long run.
Umm.... actually yes, it is generally good to assume that large academic bodies who have spent years in doing research are more informed than you.
Keynesian economics comes down to this theory.
1) People are semi-rational.
2) This semi-rationality leads to booms and then busts.
3) Generally, the utility-maximizing government policy to counterract the negative effects of busts is to run governmental deficits, possibly also practice loose monetary policy.(Keynesians originally rejected the latter, but modern Keynesians accept it)
As for the long-run, honestly, much of our deficit was run up under Reagan, and he was really the first president since FDR to actually grow the deficit as a percentage of our GDP by a significant amount. GW Bush and Obama were the next two.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So, really, your criticism of policy really goes a lot more with supply-siders.
As for what Keynesianism really is? Well.... it's actually an economic theory. It also has policy recommendations, but it isn't *just* policy recommendations, but also a set of ideas about the workings of the macroeconomy.
It really depends on what you calling "supply side economics". If you are talking about cutting taxes until you run massive deficits, then no, that really hasn't worked. How can we tell? There are massive deficits, that's obviously a problem. If a theory is to be said to work in the "long-run" it has to be long-run sustainable, but yet supply side economics hasn't shown much long-run sustainability given the large deficits run up by attempting such policies.
Additionally, there is reason to think that deficit spending dis-incentivizes capital creation. Although tax cuts can provide more money to people to invest, this is almost entirely crowded out by the fact that deficits require being financed with people investing in government bonds. So, let's say that the deficit and the amount in taxes reduced is D.
Well, in order to finance D, we need to get an amount of investment equal to D. So, we have to subtract D from world investment. However, how much will investment go up by due to the tax benefit? Well, we can't assume that all of it will go to investment as people are likely to also consume more. So, let's make this (1-MPC)D. Well... here's the issue, if investment goes up by (1-MPC)*D and goes down by D, then investment suffers a net loss of MPC*D, which... if investment drives growth means that we don't have a winning idea.
Now, I will admit that I am simplifying the idea. But, honestly, I would really think that the best thing that reducing marginal income taxes will really do is just get people to remove money from tax shelters, and that would just be a good idea without invoking anything known as "supply-side economics".
That being said, Mises was an Austrian, and although he favors investment, his biggest issue is reducing all governmental intervention so that prices properly show market information rather than the desires of policy-makers. This stands somewhat against trying to set up government laws to favor supply. Additionally, Mises was a macroeconomics skeptic, macroeconomics was created by Keynes and most Austrians are skeptical to it on some level, while supply-side economics gets part of it's idea from increasing aggregate supply, and is more of a macroeconomic idea.
Well, to be fair, here's what I realize:
Supply-side economics does in fact work...pending the majority understand that they can't spend more than exists.
Yes, cutting taxes is definitely beneficial( to a degree), but I didn't include a railroad train of spending in that; Reagan was actually under the belief that--if he'd raise taxes on payroll as he promised, Congress would cut spending. Very, very naive.
Yeah...that doesn't happen cause humans don't understand that.
I believe the problem is the majority of the world follows Keynesian economics, but doesn't understand then why the busts keep happening. They don't want them to keep happening, and the only way they won't is by following Supply-side...which they won't.
The incentives you mention in reducing the debt is known as Crony Capitalism, and that is part of Pseudo Capitalism. The unfortunate thing is, when something goes wrong, Capitalism gets blamed for it. When something goes right, federal activity is praised for it.
I think most of these things even follow something Ayn Rand once said:
"but we can't all be Objectivists"; I loved that quote, because she was basically suggesting that, inasmuch as she believes in her ideas to work, she really didn't have faith in most people to understand them enough to put them into practice properly. I give her a lot of credit for that.
