How This Happened

[RodISHI]

Well that's Keynes in a nutshell. Spend as much as you can to get out of trouble, deficits don't matter, constant money supply expansion and contraction are fine, etc.

If you don't agree with those things, you don't agree with Keynesian economics.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Paulie]

I'll take your word for it.

Please don't. I'd really prefer you researched it yourself if you care about it. My word really doesn't mean anything, especially if you're not well versed on the subject already. I'm just some dude on a messageboard.

 

[RodISHI]

Please don't. I'd really prefer you researched it yourself if you care about it. My word really doesn't mean anything, especially if you're not well versed on the subject already. I'm just some dude on a messageboard.

I'm really not into study of a whole new subject matter Pauli I have a bit more on my plate at the moment I need to consider.

My economics is simple. Earn what you can. Spend what little you make as effectly as you can. Try to survive the best you can at whatever point in life you may be at. Don't borrow money unless you absolutely have too. Today I live on the pay as you go plan.

 

[Paulie]

My economics is simple. Earn what you can. Spend what little you make as effectly as you can. Try to survive the best you can at whatever point in life you may be at. Don't borrow money unless you absolutely have too. Today I live on the pay as you go plan.

Well then you're already much farther ahead of the curve than most people.

 

[Truthmatters]

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

This is not reality. This is projection. It in no way takes into consideration the reality of what people were facing each of those years. There is more to the real world than projected numbers.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s

Where are their fucking numbers that represent this reality of life in the 1930s?

 

[Red Dawn]

I still don't think I got a satisfactory answer to my question.

If kenynsian economics has been debunked, by "consensus", as a failure, and a fraud, why is every country on earth applying kenysian economics to the current financial meltdown?

One would think if there was broad and empirical consensus that keynsian economics is an abject failure, at least some governments would be moving rapidly to deregulate, slash spending, and allowing the invisible magic hand of the markets to resolve this.

Are we to believe that every government, of every single developed nation on earth is pursuing a policy that they know has been debunked by "consensus"? That hardly seems plausible. It sounds like political and economic suicide.

Japan, Germany, Canada pledge new stimulus packages
Japan, Germany and Canada pledged new measures overnight to confront a financial crisis that has toppled banks, endangered the global auto industry, and now played a part in the demise of Belgium's Government.
Japan, Germany, Canada pledge new stimulus packages - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


China Weighs Economic Stimulus Plan
BEIJING - Chinese leaders began weighing possible plans Monday to expand a massive stimulus package with higher spending on health and social programs amid signs an economic slowdown is worsening
msnbc.com

Netherlands Rolls out Economic Stimulus Package
The Dutch government announced on Friday a six billion euro (7.5 billion dollar) economic stimulus package to help the country cope with the global financial crisis.

France 24 | Dutch govt rolls out €6bn stimulus package | France 24

Sweden unveils $2.8B 3-year economic stimulus plan
- Boston.com
Dec 5, 2008 ... The Swedish government on Friday presented a three-year 22.9 billion kronor ( $2.8 billion) economic package to stimulate employment and ...

$30 Billion Stimulus Announced In Britain
Plan Cuts Sales Tax, Boosts Borrowing for Major Public Projects

British Leaders Announce $30 Billion Stimulus Package - washingtonpost.com

 

[Red Dawn]

I provided a study that was done by two UCLA economists, where they concluded that FDR's policies prolonged the depression. Those policies were Keynesian. Truthmatters dismissed it because apparently, she thinks the economists were biased. They used the raw numbers in their research. Regardless of possible bias one way or another, the numbers don't lie. It doesn't really matter what your initial beliefs are about the situation, it was scientific research. Bias has no impact on the result. The facts researched, produced a factual result.

Truthmatters was just looking for anything she could, to continue holding onto her ideological belief. When all else failed, she attacked their character. In fact, all else didn't even fail, because she ONLY attacked their character, rather than debate the research and the results.

Will you be doing the same as her, or would you prefer to debate the research?

I understand you provided a study by "two UCLA economists".

I could surf the web and find a dozen economists that think Scandanavian style socialism is the highest form of economic system.

The truth is, if your argument and the argument of two UCLA economists is so convincing, and the empirical data are rock solid, how come not a single government anywhere in the developed world is pursuing those policies?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/986882-post67.html

Please, don't try to explain away the failure of every government on the planet to employ your policies as some sort of conspiracy against some Austrian economists. Whenver I hear the complaint that "no one will believe me because it's a conspiracy against me!" I can't take that argument seriously.


The assertion has continuously been made that Keynsian economics has been debunked, and "everyone" knows it. I've not seen a shred of evidence of that in the real world. If the evidence is so convincing, then governments of the world should be applying austrian economics, or whatever you call it.

Saying that there's a conspiracy against you just sounds kooky.

 

[Truthmatters]

This was asked on the news of a spokeperson for this idea and he couldnt answer it either.

Pretty funny stuff.

 

[Red Dawn]

This was asked on the news of a spokeperson for this idea and he couldnt answer it either.

Pretty funny stuff.

I'm not surprised! Its a difficult question for those austrian economists (or whatever they're called) to answer - if your theories are so robust and convincing, why aren't any governments, world banks, and national economic ministries following them?

On a message board, the standard answer that its a conspiracy against the austrian economists by banks and governments colluding against you and your theories.

But, if you had to give that answer to the faces of a gaggle of reporters, you might look like a kook! So, silence or dodging the question is the next best response!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not surprised! Its a difficult question for those austrian economists (or whatever they're called) to answer - if your theories are so robust and convincing, why aren't any governments, world banks, and national economic ministries following them?

On a message board, the standard answer that its a conspiracy against the austrian economists by banks and governments colluding against you and your theories.

But, if you had to give that answer to the faces of a gaggle of reporters, you might look like a kook! So, silence or dodging the question is the next best response!

I think it's two-fold. The Keynesians have a much "nicer" sounding argument than we Austrians. Meaning that the Keynesians say that you can avoid the recession by spending and inflating. We Austrians are saying that the recession is absolutely necessary and there's no way to avoid it.

Secondly, we Austrians are advocating that the government do nothing to try to avoid this recession. The government does not want to be seen as useless so they feel that they have to do something, and of course we Austrians know that everything the government does simply makes the situation worse.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I still don't think I got a satisfactory answer to my question.

If kenynsian economics has been debunked, by "consensus", as a failure, and a fraud, why is every country on earth applying kenysian economics to the current financial meltdown?

The problem with your question is that you came into this thread and asserted that one of us claimed that Keynesian views have fallen out of favor with mainstream economists, and has been debunked by consensus. We do not agree with Keynesian views, but nobody asserted that Keynesian views have fallen out of favor or have been debunked by consensus. You simply made that up and asked us to defend it, and when nobody tried to do so you claimed we were dodging the question.

Please provide the quote where one of us Austro-Libertarians claimed that Keynesian views has been debunked by consensus.

 

[Truthmatters]

The problem with your question is that you came into this thread and asserted that one of us claimed that Keynesian views have fallen out of favor with mainstream economists, and has been debunked by consensus. We do not agree with Keynesian views, but nobody asserted that Keynesian views have fallen out of favor or have been debunked by consensus. You simply made that up and asked us to defend it, and when nobody tried to do so you claimed we were dodging the question.

Please provide the quote where one of us Austro-Libertarians claimed that Keynesian views has been debunked by consensus.

I think its in the study provided. The writers obviously feel as does the poster who posted it that Keynesian theory has been proven wrong.

Problem is its just what they wish were true. The facts are that your theories have NEVER been proven by implimentation. Many people realize that the GD dragged on for many reasons including those that were uncontrolable at the time like the Dust Bowl of the 30s.

 

[Truthmatters]

I would like to ask if you blieve in the statement " If you have money you can make money in any market"?

Its a pretty well established fact of the market. Would this fact change in a completely unfettered market as in your theory?


I submitt it would be even more so effective.


What this simple fact of the market leads to is a concentration of wealth into smaller and smaller hands. The wealthy TEACH their children about the market and how to navigate it. The poor have no idea how the market works because they have no meaningful contact with those with wealth. The schools dont teach it. The poor are left to mystify how the whole thing works. The middleclass are those who are begingin to figure it out and are in the begining stages of wealth accumulation.

Then comes the deep swing of the market fourtunes provided by the unfettered market. The poor starve, the middleclass are forced to use what little they have accumulated to survive the trough. The wealthy make money in the down time. It is obvious to ANYONE what this leads to. It simple and plan for anyone who cares to face the truth. An Unfettered market will lead to a deep consentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
You end up with an untrawealthy minute segment controling the entire economy at the expense of the vast majority. This would very obviously be the end of any democracy because the people would revolt and or the Few would be very able to BUY the government right out from underneath the majority.


Show us one momment in history where your ideas have been proven to work?

You cant because there is no momment in history where it worked.

If it would work as well as you think it would it is what would have naturally developed at least SOMEWHERE in history.

Its an idea just like communism in that it works great on paper but once you try to employ it with real human beings it fails miserably.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think it's two-fold. The Keynesians have a much "nicer" sounding argument than we Austrians. Meaning that the Keynesians say that you can avoid the recession by spending and inflating. We Austrians are saying that the recession is absolutely necessary and there's no way to avoid it.

Secondly, we Austrians are advocating that the government do nothing to try to avoid this recession. The government does not want to be seen as useless so they feel that they have to do something, and of course we Austrians know that everything the government does simply makes the situation worse.

Fair enough, but I have seen many statements on this board that "everyone" knows that keynesian policies are a failure and discredited. I'd like to see those posters retract that assertion, since you clearly agree with me that Keynesian economic policies are obviously, and universally still the accepted way to deal with extreme business cycles in capitalism. There's not a single developed country in the world that is employing libertarians policies, they're all employing keynsian policies to address this meltdown.

Kenysian policies "sound nicer", and that's why the austrian economists are dismissed? Sorry, I can't take that argument seriously at all. Its hardly an argument, in fact. I don't even know what "sounding nicer" really means. Its an emotional assertion.

There's a lot of smart people who work in the economic ministries and governments of the world. If the Austrians arguments were so convincing, I doubt that governments, politicians, and economists the world over would be following policies that were allegedly proven to fail, i.e., keynsian policies.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its a dog and pony show the ultra weathy like to keep proping up so that people like these guys will tout it and help them in their attempts to twart regulations and taxes on them. It is a fun little game the ultra wealthy play on the unsuspecting fools of the lower classes. I just wish knuckelheads would quit buying in and instead help us set up well thought out regulations that work in everyones favor.

There will never ever be a unfettered market, get used to it.

 

[Paulie]

Fair enough, but I have seen many statements on this board that "everyone" knows that keynesian policies are a failure and discredited. I'd like to see those posters retract that assertion, since you clearly agree with me that Keynesian economic policies are obviously, and universally still the accepted way to deal with extreme business cycles in capitalism. There's not a single developed country in the world that is employing libertarians policies, they're all employing keynsian policies to address this meltdown.

Kenysian policies "sound nicer", and that's why the austrian economists are dismissed? Sorry, I can't take that argument seriously at all. Its hardly an argument, in fact. I don't even know what "sounding nicer" really means. Its an emotional assertion.

There's a lot of smart people who work in the economic ministries and governments of the world. If the Austrians arguments were so convincing, I doubt that governments, politicians, and economists the world over would be following policies that were allegedly proven to fail, i.e., keynsian policies.

What he was saying is that politicians choose the easy path, because the easy path makes it look like they're directly trying to help the citizens. Throwing money at the problem gives the appearance that something is being done to "fix" things. This obviously leads to votes, because if the government had let the situation correct itself, chances are (especially leading up to a big election), many of the politicians would have been voted out by the people who expect their leaders to fix everything for them.

It makes it look like the government did something to avoid a hard recession, only look at the current situation! They didn't avoid ANYTHING! We're still being told by the media that it could last as long as next year, or even into 2010 and beyond! How did they "fix" anything? How will they have "fixed" anything, when in 5 or so years, all this money they filled the banks up with hits the street and prices shoot up, asset classes get inflated leading to another inevitable bubble, etc? All the money they injected after the tech bubble popped, along with the artificially low interest rates, ended up going into housing, which led to this current situation. It was too much money chasing an asset. Regulation or not, the housing market would still have overinflated. People would still have dealth with values dropping because that's an inevitability in a bubble. Perhaps it wouldn't have been quite as extreme, but it would still have been a problem. You can't jus throw a Trillion dollars out into the market, drop rates to 1%, and expect there not to eventually be a problem.

Here's a question for YOU..

After this dust settles, and in ~5 years we have another bubble we're dealing with because of all the money the Keynesians threw at the problem (and there will be as history has proven), and because of the extremely low interest rates dangling in front of the world's faces, how do reconcile the Keynesian approach that was taken?

At what point do you finally realize the error in their ways and at least advocate SOME kind of different approach? I'm not even saying to advocate Austrian policies, but SOMETHING else besides Keynesian?

 

[Truthmatters]

Throwing money at the problem.

Here is one of the tag lines used.

Its completely full of Bullshit.


When you have a problem you fix it. This involves using the best minds to compile the data and construct a solution. Then you impliment it. You have to pay the people to compile the data, construct a solution and then pay the people to impliment it as well as pay for the needed suplies to fix it. They pretend government is supposed to do this without money unlike ANY other entity in exsistance does, including Corporations.

Its an idiots line.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not talking about paying people to figure things out idiot, I'm talking about volunteering trillions of tax dollars to buy up toxic assets, reflate banks, and force consumers to spend more money again.

You're such a fucking idiot truth, seriously. You offer nothing to this discussion. Red Dawn at least invokes a serious debate. You are literally lost in space in this discussion and remain out of your league.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not an ideologue when it comes to Austrian Econ. I'd just like to see SOME kind of other approach besides the Keynesian method which history has proven to be a failure.

You're arguing for a method that's already shown itself to fail.

YOU are the one who's the ideologue. While I remain a steadfast supporter of Austrian econ, I'll gladly accept another method besides Keynesian. The data doesn't lie Keynes fails.

You refuse to admit it in the face of the obvious. That makes you an ideologue.

But answer my question Red Dawn. How do you reconcile Keynesian policy, when in 5 or so years, we have another bubble from all this excess liquidity and low interest rates?