Discussion in 'Economy' started by Toro, Aug 19, 2009.
Keynes Was Really A Conservative - Forbes.com
in the long run, we're all dead.
words to live by.
Interesting article. I think Keynes was a bit hard on Marx though. Still, I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. I am surprised at the seemingly bitter attacks on Keynes from the American right, I can't work out why it is.
Remember a couple months ago we had that lengthy discussion over a couple days about Keynesianism?
In my case, I wouldn't call it a "bitter attack", but I certainly do have my differences with the man. In that discussion I laid out what they were, and why.
If you don't remember the content, you should dig it up and re-read it. It was a pretty great discussion if you ask me.
I do remember it, I think. If I'm right I remember a discussion about the origins of the attacks on Keynes coming from the Chicago School (Friedman I think) as far back as the early 1970s. That one?
Yeah, that's right.
FDR understood that sans some intervention this nation was going to become some kind of truly socialist nightmare.
Now, I fully understand why his detractors at the time though FDR was a socialist, of course.
But had he done NOTHING, the pain of the people would have been so egregious that they'd have followed any demogogue (far right or left!) which promised them relief from their immediate suffering.
FDR saved his CLASS by forcing them to give enough back to the people to give them hope.
Now does that sound familiar to something that is happening today, folks?
The rich got so greedy that they broke capitalism, again.
Now the current POTUS must impose more socialistic measures to counteract the mess that the master class has made of what was once the wealthiest nation on earth.
It's sad but that's what happens to a people who start believing that greed is good, and that their government is evil.
Eventually the master classes collective greed breaks the social contract so badly that some radical steps need to be taken to keep the whole system from collapsing into anarchy.
Two ways to fix things...either some totalitarian governemtn (think NAZI germany) or some bending of the market monopolies to give the people a chance to survive until the economy recovers.
FDR saved capitalism, folks.
Let's just hope Obama is up to the task, too.
So far, I don't think Obama is up to the task. The only people running this country are the corrupt bankers like Goldman Sachs.
yeah, yeah, yeah, and JFK, LBJ, FDR and other liberals were never really Democrats either.
Nixon finally conceded that he was "Keynesian." The current U. S. economy, even then: Is not "Keynesian," however. In Nixon's case, of course, there also a problem with the concept, "crook."
Obama is less remembered for having carried his campaign to the streets of now Jew-Free Germany:
than he is for the pictures with the little German moustache that are now making the rounds in Kennedy's Massachusetts. The famous Massachusetts, senior senator's own father. not unlike the famous in-law's father, of Schwarzenegger: Themselves had problems with the concept, "Keynesian." "Fascists," they could admire and support, and even work with.
"Keynesian" policies are so hard for so many people to immediately understand.
The bail-out of this nation's failed financial institutions, and manufacturers--and not a global bail-out of all the financial institutions and manufactuers of all the nations: Is actually fairly "Fascist." It even makes better sense to so-state when in fact not all the nation's financial houses were so generously regarded. Bernie Madoff, of course, had that part down pat.
In the cited article, Keynes is properly identified with "stimulus," for which there is some nature of "response' in the economy. The bail-outs created no response at all, and were not a stimulus. The socialism with which Bush-Cheney, Obama-Biden, are to be identified with is "Fascist," It is widely shown that bankers have even continued with business as usual, and bonuses as usual, and pay rates as usual. "Communist," or "red-(state(?)), socialism" is not at issue in the current economic policies. The public ownership is for the profit of the government and the nation.
Again, as is usual--even in the current "Fascism:" Living people are not involved. They go into unrelieved unemployment, and into foreclosures, and then onto other defaults of obligations. They get identified so that they can be named, and then hunted down later.
Jewish people seem best, to understand the part about, "not being involved." Even in America, tt was all supposed to be left up to Bernie. Even when the famous Nazi Jew-laws were being put into place, still many understood about, "not being involved," Even then. Neither old Joe Kennedy, nor Nazi Collaborator Schwarzenegger, were involved.
Again, "Fascists" already know about that!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So apparently, in the Post-Racial Colonies, it is really all about, "Back to Basics," after all! Even The Ivy League understands about this(?), and at Yale! Clergy, in South Chicago, understand this!"
No, it was more like me explaining to you why I disagreed with Keynesianism, and why I thought the Austrian School should be given a chance.
I did mention Friedman though, when I put Reaganomics into perspective. It was said that Reagan wasn't a Keynesian, but he utilized a 3-prong approach to the situation he was faced with, one of which included blatant Keynesianism. There has not been one president since Keynesianism was first utilized by the US government, that hasn't been a Keynesian.
Separate names with a comma.