Keynesian economics

[Supposn]

Generally, governments' economic stimuli are politically popular and their attempts to dampen their economies are unpopular. Both Keynesian and other economic philosophies must deal with occurrences of “overheated” economies.



Government’s TEMPORARY expenditures for stimulus programs during economic recession or depression stress are popular. When stimulus dollars are spent for needs that are likely in the future to increase and their amounts (due to currency inflation) are additionally more likely to increase, they are both economically and politically sensible.



At such economically stressful times TEMPORARY increased federal spending. grants or loans for increased durations of unemployment insurance, and sustaining necessary federal, state or local public services, (i.e. the general physical and social welfare of our nation) within the nation’s financial capabilities, are (in my opinion) economically justifiable.



A problem arises when public funds or credit is risked for loans, (particularly loans directly or indirectly for non-government entities) are due to their extent of risk or other attributes of the loans to be intrinsically less justified.



The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”. USA’s laws and regulations are obviously inadequate. The lack of governments’ explicitly drafted, equally and diligently enforced regulations are “not the solution, but rather the cause of our problems”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truthmatters]

to bad history and economics dont agree with you

 

[Annie]

Krugman?s Tales From The Crypt | The New Republic

Krugman’s Tales from the Crypt
Josef JoffeJuly 10, 2010 | 12:00 am 11 comments
|More
Print
If repetition doesn’t improve the argument, try escalation. Paul Krugman, Princeton’s Nobel laureate-turned-columnist, has been haranguing the Europeans, and the Germans in particular, to drop their fiscal tightwad act: Don’t cut government spending, keep the deficits rolling. When Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered $ 100 billion in cuts and new taxes, Krugman warned her that she might end up worse off than Herbert Hoover—like Heinrich Brüning, Germany’s Reich chancellor from 1930 to 1932, “whose devotion to financial orthodoxy ended up sealing the doom of the Weimar Republic.“

That didn’t impress Merkel or her fellow Europeans, among them Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of Britain. The French president imposed savings of $120 billion, and his British counterpart cut $190 billion (over the next several years). So Krugman escalated. If the “Great Depression” wouldn’t work, how about the “Long Depression” that American economists date from 1873 to 1896—a slew of panics and crashes bouncing back and forth across the Atlantic, interrupted only by weak growth. “We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression,” which, according to the Cassandra of the New York Times op-ed page, will probably look like the nineteenth-century version...

Above all, stimulus packages don’t deliver much stimulus. The U.S. will run a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year, and unemployment has hardly budged. If you want to know why, look at recent research like “New Keynesian Versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers,” by a team at Stanford (NBER Working Paper No. 14782) and at the data analyzed by Harvard’s Edward L. Glaeser.

Meanwhile, the new orthodoxy of the White House (“spend, spend, spend”) is beginning to crack, as Obama’s political advisers urge the President to listen not to Krugman, but to the rising public anger about deficits. Maybe Mr. Obama should also keep in mind his Grand Guru Keynes who wrote in his laborious prose in 1937: “Just as it is advisable for the Government to incur debt during the slump, so for the same reason it is now advisable that they should incline to the opposite policy.”

Josef Joffe is editor of Die Zeit and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies, as well as an Abramowitz Fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford.

 

[boedicca]

The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”.

This bit in your mostly incoherent post caught my eye.

Why do you limit "Too Big To Fail" to only non-government entities. Why should Government (eg, ObamaCare) or Government Sponsored Entities (yes, I am thinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) be allowed to grow "to big to be permitted to fail" (sic)?

 

[Supposn]

The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”.

This bit in your mostly incoherent post caught my eye. Why do you limit "Too Big To Fail" to only non-government entities. Why should Government (eg, ObamaCare) or Government Sponsored Entities (yes, I am thinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) be allowed to grow "to big to be permitted to fail" (sic)?

There have been USA Government Supported Entities, (GSEs) have existed in the USA since the First World War. Fannie Mae was created during the depression to provide a secondary market for the federally insured FHA loans. It worked fine. After the Second World War Freddie Mac was created because due to the newly created VA loans, (Fannie Mae was growing too large). Both GSEs attracted financial institution investors, and eventually they evolved to having individual investors and non-government members on the board of directors. The increased private investors better promoted the purpose of the GSEs. GSE’s very well accomplished their purpose which was to decrease the interest rates and increase the secondary market and the pool of funds available for federally insured loans.

The problem was that the financial communities’ lobbyists finally got what they wanted. A Democratic Congress passed and Nixon signed to be enacted an act that enabled the GSEs to deal with commercial, non-government insured loans.

Banks with FDI accounts lobbied to re-continue acting as investment banks. (Since the crash the reopening of audited banks, such banks had been prohibited from acting as investment banks). While regulations that had well served our economy were being decreased or terminated, the financial industry was creating new unregulated financial products that increased speculators’ credit leverage.

If only the GSEs had remained legally limited to dealing only with federally insured loans, a financial fiasco that severely harmed USA’s and many other major national economies could not have occurred. The USA credit was at stake because there is an implied guarantee that the United States Treasury will is a guarantor of the GSE’s. The GSE’s were now dealing with non-federally insured loans that the USA originally had no reason to guarantee.

Private financial institutions were speculating and risking “public credit”. Heads they win, tails the USA and the world loses. This was a perfect storm due to inadequate government regulation of GSEs, private entities and their financial products.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

This bit in your mostly incoherent post caught my eye.

Why do you limit "Too Big To Fail" to only non-government entities. Why should Government (eg, ObamaCare) or Government Sponsored Entities (yes, I am thinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) be allowed to grow "to big to be permitted to fail" (sic)?

Boedicca,
. . . I do not wish to limit the size of the United States Defense Department because they’re unable to create a Viet Namese or an Iraq or an Afghanistan democratic republic. I don’t think that’s a military task and I don’t believe although we may encourage and to some extent nurture the growth of a democracy, we cannot do it for “them”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[psikeyhackr]

What did Keynes ever say about planned obsolescence?

Keynes was born in 1883, the year Marx died. When Henry Ford introcuced the Model-T Keynes was 25 years old.

How much do American consumers lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year? How much is lost world wide on automobile depreciation? What do economists say about that? But when we buy more cars the nitwit economists add it to GDP and say nothing about all of that DEPRECIATION.

Buy a $2000 laptop that will be worth $500 in two years. The economists will ignore that depreciation too.

Ever heard of NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT? Only the depreciation of CAPITAL GOODS gets subtracted. We are running a planet of 7 billion people on defective grade school algebra. PhD economists are SO INTELLIGENT!

discussions (dot) pbs (dot) org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

Double-entry accounting is 700 years old and netbook computers are more powerful than 1980 mainframes. When was the last time you heard an economist suggest that accounting be mandatory in our schools? [82]

psik

 

[Big Fitz]

Keynesian economics has failed every time it's been tried in time of crisis.

 

[Yukon.]

Supposn,

Thgank you for the thoughtful post. Unfortunately most of the people who post here never got past Elementary School therefore they have no idea what you mean. They only understand the likes of Limpdick, Beck, and O'Reilly.

 

[Big Fitz]

The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”.

This bit in your mostly incoherent post caught my eye.

Why do you limit "Too Big To Fail" to only non-government entities. Why should Government (eg, ObamaCare) or Government Sponsored Entities (yes, I am thinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) be allowed to grow "to big to be permitted to fail" (sic)?

Government should be prevented from competing with both charitable giving as well as any activity of the private sector.

Government is the personification of force, and therefore should be prevented from playing in the game but instead restricted to being only the referee. The instant the referee takes sides, a fair game i impossible and no player can win... save the referee who gains all.

 

[Truthmatters]

How does one referee if there are no rules in the game?

 

[Big Fitz]

No rules? >chuckle< You are really naive to believe there are no rules.

To be left at the mercies of unmoderated, uncontrolled economic forces is to court disaster as well as fantastic gain in a landscape of economic darwinism. This is the economic world unbound by control and it is a dangerous and destructive place like the laws of nature, unbound, are destructive and dangerous. Like fire, it is either mankind's greatest tool or enemy, depending completely on the amount of control and context in which is provided for appropriate use. From smelting steel to warming your house. Rules allow for safe usage of a force that would consume the entire world.

You claim there are no rules currently? You are sadly mistaken. We have worse than no rules, we have corrupt rules in place of an anarchy. A place where losers and winners are selected by political caprice and the lust and greed of small men with shallow minds pushing towards personal power for themselves and their friends. This is the referee, involved in the game. Missing calls they should make to be fair. Calling penalties where there are none. Granting scores for failures. Taking away scores when accomplished.

No rules, indeed. It is only when government is pushed back into it's rightful place, applying law and protecting opportunity equally for all, will there be a return to good and rightful economic opportunity in this nation... and the world.

>chuckle< no rules... :::shakes head:::

 

[Truthmatters]

The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”.

This bit in your mostly incoherent post caught my eye.

Why do you limit "Too Big To Fail" to only non-government entities. Why should Government (eg, ObamaCare) or Government Sponsored Entities (yes, I am thinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) be allowed to grow "to big to be permitted to fail" (sic)?

Government should be prevented from competing with both charitable giving as well as any activity of the private sector.

Government is the personification of force, and therefore should be prevented from playing in the game but instead restricted to being only the referee. The instant the referee takes sides, a fair game i impossible and no player can win... save the referee who gains all.

Referees dont make the rules do they?

They merely inforce the rules.

If government were merely a referee then they would not be making the rules anymore huh?

You are the one that used an analogy that said the government shouldnt write the rules.

 

[Big Fitz]

You're splitting hairs in an effort to wriggle free of an uncomfortable truth. The league makes the rules, the referees are league officials and involved in the process. What you are trying to say is that the executive, legislative and judicial branches are not even part of the same government because they serve different purposes of the same whole.

But as I said many times before, I don't often expect intellectual honesty from the left. With it, their ideals die like shadows exposed to sun.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your analogy was bad.

You want to try a new one?

 

[Big Fitz]

Your analogy was bad.

You want to try a new one?

Yes yes, get pwned and try to deny it by trying to split hairs.

That's a good liberal plebiscite. The party line is all... the party line is all. Remember your conditioning obey obey obey.

The New Democrat Mascot.

 

[Truthmatters]

So you use a bad analogy and that means you own something?

Look , If you cant defend your failed ideas with reason then why dont you get soem new ideas that might work instead of clinging to idiot ideas like Government is just supposed to be a referee.

That is not what the founders planned for good reason.

They planned a country where the people ruled the nation not corporations.

 

[Big Fitz]

So you use a bad analogy and that means you own something?

Look , If you cant defend your failed ideas with reason then why dont you get soem new ideas that might work instead of clinging to idiot ideas like Government is just supposed to be a referee.

That is not what the founders planned for good reason.

They planned a country where the people ruled the nation not corporations.

Being deliberately obstinate on something pretty much every one else I've heard from gets doesn't make me wrong or you right. Analogy's perfectly valid. Your hair splitting is transparent partisan hackery.

It is not the government's responsibility to compete with business in the private sector, pick winners and losers for economic outcomes, replace charities or decide how much personal property or wealth someone should have. They should only be concerned about is if someone is being defrauded, harmed or cheated. Everything else is to be left to the free market. And if all you do is stick to regulation as our founding father's intended (James Madison among others vetoed MANY charity bills) expenses are small, the people have money to spend and improve their lives and busybodies have fewer avenues in which to fuck with people they have no business fucking with.

A nation controlled by corporations? talk about asphalting over the issue here because you can't deal with what's at hand. When you unload the goalposts from the truck, let me know where they are. Till then, nice forfeit.

 

[Truthmatters]

declaring victory again huh?



"They should only be concerned about is if someone is being defrauded, harmed or cheated. Everything else is to be left to the free market. And if all you do is stick to regulation as our founding father's intended (James Madison among others vetoed MANY charity bills) expenses are small, the people have money to spend and improve their lives and busybodies have fewer avenues in which to fuck with people they have no business fucking with."

How in the fuck can 2000 year old laws police a market that was not in exsistance when they wrote the regulations they did write.

This is why they left us a system that could grow with the needs of the people.

They would laugh in your face.

 

[Big Fitz]

declaring victory again huh?



"They should only be concerned about is if someone is being defrauded, harmed or cheated. Everything else is to be left to the free market. And if all you do is stick to regulation as our founding father's intended (James Madison among others vetoed MANY charity bills) expenses are small, the people have money to spend and improve their lives and busybodies have fewer avenues in which to fuck with people they have no business fucking with."

How in the fuck can 2000 year old laws police a market that was not in exsistance when they wrote the regulations they did write.

This is why they left us a system that could grow with the needs of the people.

They would laugh in your face.

You've said nothing to disprove the accuracy of my analogy. Your claims are baseless.

How in the fuck can 2000 year old laws police a market that was not in exsistance when they wrote the regulations they did write.

Oh I don't know.... why do the laws of physics still work? They're old and obsolete, I want new ones where I can fly. Quit being an obstinate fool.

This is why they left us a system that could grow with the needs of the people.

Non germane irrelevant statement. Has no bearing on the conversation unless you'd like to provide a LOT of context.

They would laugh in your face.

Since you made NO logical sense, who would laugh and about what? The only village idiot I see here right now is you trying to confuse a very easy subject because it doesn't mesh what you think the world SHOULD be, not what it really is. But newsflash... you and your bloated narcissism don't get to deign what reality is.