Is Obama A Keynesian?

[LiberalNut]

Both Reagan and Bush 43 used stimulus to promote economic growth.

But, they didn't act counter-cyclically. They produced debt at all points of the GDP curve! They ignored notions of propensities to consume in favor of "trickle down". They believed the supply side is what needed stimulus, not the demand side. Pretty much the opposite of Keynesianism.

Modern monetarism is an outgrowth of Keynesian economics.

Only because Friedman, after seeing the failure of his model in the United Kingdom during the 80s, wised up and joined the neo-Keynesians. FTR, Friedman is one of my heroes.

Therefore even Alan Greenspan, the mother of all bubblers, was a Keynesian.

Alan is not so easy to pigeonhole. He's more into Galbraith, another of my heroes.

 

[Flopper]

How's that Stimulus Package working out?

Not bad for the limited size and scope. An economy that was shedding about 800,000 private sector jobs a month was turned into one that's creating them at about 60,00 a month. Clearly more is needed.

But the model. Do you have any substantive difference with it? Do you know what the ISLM curve is?

The only thing wrong with the stimulus package is it was too small and it allowed too many grants for job creation that would not occur for a number of years.. It should have been 1 to 1.2 trillion with more focus on immediate job creation. If so, I think unemployment would be about 8 percent. I can only guess that Obama was trying to appease Republicans which was a big mistake.

 

[FRAGO 242]

I've watched this video, and the thing I notice is that the interviewer purposefully misstates Keynesian to make it sound like "Kensian" and then correctly pronounces it after the people mistakenly think he's talking about Obama's birthplace.

I'm not sure if it's purposeful but it probably is. It should sound like "Kanesian" for those who don't know.

 

[LiberalNut]

The only thing wrong with the stimulus package is it was too small and it allowed too many grants for job creation that would not occur for a number of years.. It should have been 1 to 1.2 trillion with more focus on immediate job creation. If so, I think unemployment would be about 8 percent. I can only guess that Obama was trying to appease Republicans which was a big mistake.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[loosecannon]

Both Reagan and Bush 43 used stimulus to promote economic growth.

But, they didn't act counter-cyclically. They produced debt at all points of the GDP curve! They ignored notions of propensities to consume in favor of "trickle down". They believed the supply side is what needed stimulus, not the demand side. Pretty much the opposite of Keynesianism.

Modern monetarism is an outgrowth of Keynesian economics.

Only because Friedman, after seeing the failure of his model in the United Kingdom during the 80s, wised up and joined the neo-Keynesians. FTR, Friedman is one of my heroes.

Therefore even Alan Greenspan, the mother of all bubblers, was a Keynesian.

Alan is not so easy to pigeonhole. He's more into Galbraith, another of my heroes.

It will be a long, long time before we know whether that is true, and to what degree both Friedman and Keynes were right and wrong. What we do know is that almost immediately after their theories were adopted as policy shapers they were abandoned incrementally and that real world special circumstances violated the bubble of free market purity in which their theories were intended to play out.

Greenspan was attached to no theory except that of his own self promotion. He sliced diced and crucified econ theory to satisfy his personal missions. He was a politician.

 

[barenakedislam]

He's a Kenyan Keynesian POS.

 

[LiberalNut]

It will be a long, long time before we know whether that is true, and to what degree both Friedman and Keynes were right and wrong.

Sorry dude, Keynes was and is right. Since the adoption of Keynesianism, the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns have all been drastically reduced. The great American middle class was created by Keynesian economics, and eroded under the supply-siders. There's a reason why the Keynesian model dominates in all free market economies with democratic governments. It just fucking works.

 

[loosecannon]

How's that Stimulus Package working out?

Not bad for the limited size and scope. An economy that was shedding about 800,000 private sector jobs a month was turned into one that's creating them at about 60,00 a month. Clearly more is needed.

But the model. Do you have any substantive difference with it? Do you know what the ISLM curve is?

The only thing wrong with the stimulus package is it was too small and it allowed too many grants for job creation that would not occur for a number of years.. It should have been 1 to 1.2 trillion with more focus on immediate job creation. If so, I think unemployment would be about 8 percent. I can only guess that Obama was trying to appease Republicans which was a big mistake.

While that is largely true it is still 100% wrong, imo.

The economy needed to normalize without a stimulus as the downsides to a deficit increase were more dangerous than the benefits a stimulus could contribute under those circumstances.

The housing market/commercial RE needed to normalize, personal, state, county and national debt needed to normalize and the banks needed to de-leverage. Insurance companies, Fannie, Sally and Freddie needed to normalize and oversight needed to be restored.

Perhaps half of that has occurred and until it has all occurred stimulus will be a short term fix to a long term problem that won't go away.

WE could still see a double dip or what some consider catastrophic inflation. One or the other is probable.

 

[Revere]

It will be a long, long time before we know whether that is true, and to what degree both Friedman and Keynes were right and wrong.

Sorry dude, Keynes was and is right. Since the adoption of Keynesianism, the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns have all been drastically reduced. The great American middle class was created by Keynesian economics, and eroded under the supply-siders. There's a reason why the Keynesian model dominates in all free market economies with democratic governments. It just fucking works.

You mean that coma called a recovery during the Great Depression? And this one, too?

 

[FRAGO 242]

How can a free market be "dominated" by any type of ideology?

 

[LiberalNut]

Revere, do you have a substantive difference with the notion that the ISLM and Phillips curves pretty much describe the macro-economy?

Do you have the slightest clue what I'm asking?

 

[loosecannon]

It will be a long, long time before we know whether that is true, and to what degree both Friedman and Keynes were right and wrong.

Sorry dude, Keynes was and is right. Since the adoption of Keynesianism, the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns have all been drastically reduced. The great American middle class was created by Keynesian economics, and eroded under the supply-siders. There's a reason why the Keynesian model dominates in all free market economies with democratic governments. It just fucking works.

You think in very shallow terms.

Something may appear to work well for extremely short periods of time, like 60 years. But in the long run, that success will eventually show it's limitations.

Even Keynes would rapidly admit that his theory was based on a particular free market environment that has never, ever existed.

 

[LiberalNut]

How can a free market be "dominated" by any type of ideology?

There is no such thing as a "free market". Never has been. There is no such thing as a "perfectly competitive market". There never has been. Free market is, in the modern vernacular, synonymous with the Keynesian "mixed economy".

 

[loosecannon]

How can a free market be "dominated" by any type of ideology?

You have asked a correct question.

Nobody will answer you honestly. Because despite pretenses, they don't know how.

 

[FRAGO 242]

How can a free market be "dominated" by any type of ideology?

There is no such thing as a "free market". Never has been. There is no such thing as a "perfectly competitive market". There never has been. Free market is, in the modern vernacular, synonymous with the Keynesian "mixed economy".

Peace is, in the modern vernacular, synonymous with the massive warfare and welfare state. Say what you mean please.

 

[LiberalNut]

But in the long run, that success will eventually show it's limitations.

To quote Keynes himself..."In the long term, we're all dead." The real economy happens in the short term. In the long term, the really long term, either technology saves us or we destroy ourselves in WWIII. That's how I see it.

 

[loosecannon]

It will be a long, long time before we know whether that is true, and to what degree both Friedman and Keynes were right and wrong.

Sorry dude, Keynes was and is right. Since the adoption of Keynesianism, the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns have all been drastically reduced. The great American middle class was created by Keynesian economics, and eroded under the supply-siders. There's a reason why the Keynesian model dominates in all free market economies with democratic governments. It just fucking works.

You mean that coma called a recovery during the Great Depression? And this one, too?

You are onto something. I don't know if you can bring it to fruition.

 

[LiberalNut]

Say what you mean please.

Very well. In nations where policy makers are elected, the dominant ecometric model used is Keynesian.

 

[loosecannon]

But in the long run, that success will eventually show it's limitations.

To quote Keynes himself..."In the long term, we're all dead." The real economy happens in the short term. In the long term, the really long term, either technology saves us or we destroy ourselves in WWIII. That's how I see it.

iow Keynes was wrong in the long term, something he himself would have likely admitted and Friedman and yourself did already admit on Keynes' behalf.

 

[FRAGO 242]

But in the long run, that success will eventually show it's limitations.

To quote Keynes himself..."In the long term, we're all dead." The real economy happens in the short term. In the long term, the really long term, either technology saves us or we destroy ourselves in WWIII. That's how I see it.

Who needs all those nifty charts, and theories, "in the long term, we're all dead". Just print a billion dollars per person. We are all billionaires for a day and rich. Savings, and investment? What? Spend, Spend, Spend! In the long run we are all dead.

^^^And this is the nonsense we are all supposed to think is sound and necessary. What a loon...