Krugman's very very simple solution to end this depression

[Widdekind]

The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

Keynesian Fiscal Stimulus, per se, involves no long-term, permanent, changes to the economy. Instead, FS, per se, involves only "one-time", short-term, government borrowing & deficit spending, for public investments (infrastructure), when credit is cheap (low interest-rates), and labor is cheap (high unemployment).

The New Deal was Keynesian, in that cheap labor & cheap credit were employed, for public investments ("Public works"). However, if the New Deal also involved "government ratchet effects", where supposedly temporary increases in government budgets do not decrease afterwards; then the New Deal was not Keynesian.

The ND was an imperfect implementation of Keynes' FS suggestion, to FDR. FS is not permanent, but is a short-term stimulus to escape recession. If "government ratchet effects" exploit a FS, to then perpetuate their bloated budgets years afterwards; then that is a separate issue, of long-term practical importance, but not of short-term economic relevance

America was NOT a super power or the richest country in the world until AFTER the Great Depression.

So lets look at that shall we? Who were the Presidents during our rise?

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson

4 Democrats one Republican ALL of which pushed Keynesian economics vs the classic economic liberalism from pre-depression times, which led to the Great Depression in the first place.

So until we ABANDONED the very thing youre claiming made us great, we werent great.

the US economy has been growing steadily, since the 18th century. To date, overall, the US economy has been "all rise", and real per capita incomes have been growing, exponentially, for centuries:

Long-term real growth in US GDP per capita 1871-2009​

If the Democrats in the 1930s-60s were the US "rise", then the Republicans of the 1970s-2000s have been the US "fall" ? That is not seen in the actual data, which has been "all rise".

What has happened, from the "Democrat era" to the "Republican era", has been the rise, and then the fall, of progressive taxes on "the rich", i.e. those having high incomes:

Comparing Income, Corporate, Capital Gains Tax Rates: 1916-2011​

and the corresponding fall, and then the rise, of the share of income earned by "the rich":

Slate_IncomeSlides-03​

So, when the masses band together, to "sock it to the rich", and hike their taxes; then they report less income; then when their tax rates fall, they report more income. But, as shown by Hauser's Law, total tax payments don't change much. Meanwhile, without worrying about the other guy's greener grass, US real per capita GDP has been rising for centuries, in a "rising tide lifting all boats". For the majority of people, their economy has improved, in absolute terms

he [Krugman] said they should SPEND like they did in the gear up for World War II. He did NOT say Build up the military to get us out of this depression.

that seems fair -- WWII spending resembled Keynesian FS, in some respects; and in those respects, boosted the US economy

The two biggest depressions we have had ( 1930s and now ) were the direct result of lack of oversight of the economy. Allowing the finacial markets to run wild and take risks their bank accounts cant back up leads to economic misery for all.

The most STABLE economic period we had was between 1945 and 1980 ( the oil embargo huirt us in the 70's but that wasnt due to our economic policies but our political ones ) and during THAT period, the very policies you rail against were in place.

both depressions were caused by speculation on (stock, real-estate) assets. Now, a stock certificate is like a title to a car -- in fact, it is the title to a business' machines & factories. So, speculating on stock is like speculating on titles to cars, buying & selling the same car title, over & over. Perhaps putting it in those terms reveals how un-productive speculation is -- it amounts to a "fad" in "base-ball cards", everybody wants one, they all go broke buying them, and wind up with colored card-stock. Speculation would end, if every sale of a stock -- legally, the title to (part of) a business, including all of its machines & factories -- was assessed a sales tax, even as you cannot sell a (single) car, without paying a tax. Such a tax would end rapid buying & selling of stocks, i.e. speculation. People would only buy titles to US businesses (stocks) if they earnestly meant to invest in that business -- even as you only buy a car, if you earnestly intend to drive it. No longer would US businesses be swapped around like base-ball cards. That is economically pointless behavior, doing no good; and when done en masse, does bad.

Again, when stocks are sold, whole mega-machines & factories are being sold (albeit piecemeal, in partial shares). That the biggest man-made capital assets on earth (or anywhere in space) can be swapped around like trading cards, is not logically legitimate, and has not been economically beneficial. A stock is not a piece of paper, but a (partial) title to machines & factories far exceeding personal vehicles in size, scale, & value; but are treated flippantly, like nothing, swapped on the NYSE like trading cards on ebay. If every sale of a stock "title deed to a business" incurred a 10% sales tax; then non-productive speculation would be dis-incentivized

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The New Deal was Keynesian,.....i then the New Deal was not Keynesian.

I love the way fools will talk about Keynes without having read him!!
He was a general ego maniac who left nothing specific. If he had Widdkind would quote him, not pretend he said what he didn't say.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

both depressions were caused by speculation

too bad our greatest economists and Newspapers think it was liberal government

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor

" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"





You may not have heard of the Federal Reserve system but it exists to inflate and deflate the currency supply through the housing market. They inflated too much for too long. This caused what they call a housing bubble. While the bubble was inflating all the big banks and many insurance companies bought bubble mortgages thinking they were sound rather than merely purchased or made possible by newly printed funny money. When the bubble deflated they all lost money on the mortgages. It would be analogous to the government making cars and giving them to GM so everyone could have a car. If GM got them by the ton and for very little money of course they would find a way to move them . This is essentially what the Banks did with the free money. In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency, That empowered money lenders say Lynn Turner.

Just as significantly you had very badly conceived accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with Bush, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!


Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”-Alan Greenspan

Courtesy A. Smith:FDR created Fannie.
LBJ Privatized Fannie - creating an "enron" like environment:
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Thanks, LBJ

Carter's Community Reinvestment Act - accelerated by Clinton - pushed risky loans:
Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clinton pushed Fannie into Subprime - the most critical mistake:
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

Even the NY Times figured this out: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Bush and McCain attempted to reform Fannie on 17 occasions
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone Only To Have Dems Ignored His Warnings :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

The risky subprime loans fueled another layer of risk - derivatives
https://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2947518

The LA Times reported on Clinton's "subprime" success in 1999:
Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites' - Los Angeles Times

 

[expat_panama]

...in those terms reveals how un-productive speculation is -- it amounts to a "fad" in "base-ball cards", everybody wants one, they all go broke buying them, and wind up with colored card-stock. Speculation would end, if every sale of a stock -- legally, the title to (part of) a business, including all of its machines & factories -- was assessed a sales tax...

That's the party line and Marx himself couldn't have said it better!

It's always been a basic tenet that the evil 'pin-stripe boys' produce nothing while gambling on the backs of the proletariat--

--and the amazing thing is how many mindless dupes buy into this even while knowing full well that almost all workers are employed by the same corporations that couldn't exist unless people bought stocks. Americans have known for centuries that the power to tax is the power to destroy, destroying corporations with taxes would mean the destruction of America.
.

 

[Widdekind]

evil 'pin-stripe boys' produce nothing while gambling on the backs of the proletariat--.

if you want to invest in a corporation, lend it money (buy its bonds); if you want to influence a corporation, buy it (buy its stocks), and show up at shareholder meetings.

if you want to make a quick buck, doing nothing productive, speculate on stock prices (and make sure there are no transaction fees, like a 10% sales tax on buying & selling capital assets, like machines, factories, & firms -- so you can "play baseball cards" with huge businesses, and maybe make a quick arbitrage on prices). Gambling on stock prices, in the secondary stock market ("used business market", in analogy of stocks, to titles of used cars) does not directly affect workers, in any obvious way -- stock speculators risk their own money, "playing baseball cards", with little real, or productive, impact (unless there happens to be a shareholder meeting on the day they buy & resell the stock?). Are businesses structured, for their own customers & product markets (production); or for the stock market (speculation) ? If whole capital machines, factories, & firms can be swapped around willy-nilly without transaction costs like sales taxes; then i guess the latter. Does being so flippant, with whole firms, seem prudent ?

if you want to strangle business, raise taxes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

classic economic liberalism from pre-depression times, which led to the Great Depression in the first place.

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Widdekind]

classic economic liberalism from pre-depression times, which led to the Great Depression in the first place.

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

the Fed caused the stock-market bubble; and the business over-investment, enticed by then-new consumer credit (installment payment plans often offered by the sellers themselves) ?

Inexpertly, the "roaring" 1920s were fueled by debt. Corporations offered consumers credit -- businesses basically gave their 'widgets' away for free (today), and a promise to repay (over time). But, in the short-term, businesses must have been borrowing to pay their workers. So, in aggregate, workers were paid, on borrowed money; and then on top of their borrowed wages, they borrowed to buy all the latest 'widgets' (cars, refrigerators, vacuums). So, the entire private sector was borrowing, to buy labor, and to buy the products built with that labor. Credit super-charged the economy, artificially raising employment (lowering UE) and output (real GDP) above natural levels. To do so, businesses & individuals wound up deep in debt.

Then, when their assets evaporated in the stock-market bubble, people lost allot of net worth. Over-simplifying, everybody wound up bankrupt. So they all stopped borrowing (removing the "nitro" from the economy). Then, they even stopped spending (contracting the economy further), in order to pay down debts. So, the US economy whiplashed from debt-fueled over-spending on credit ("nitro in the tank"), to under-spending (over-saving) to pay down debt. Consumers stopped buying 'widgets' from businesses; businesses stopped buying labor from workers. The economy slumped.

Meanwhile, debts were paid down (amidst some bankruptcies & defaults). But, "once bitten twice shy", nobody in the private sector was willing & able to borrow the money gradually flowing back into banks. Banks accumulated excess reserves, even as interest-rates fell. The money simply sat in banks. Once you account for the money multiplier (x10), those excess reserves could have underwritten billions of 1930 dollars of loans. Perhaps that's why Keynes suggested, to FDR, that Government could borrow the accumulating credit, "cheaply", at low interest-rates, without crowding out private sector borrowers, via Fiscal Stimulus.

Inexpertly, debts were paid back, ultimately to banks. But accumulating excess reserves were not lent back out. Thus, the money supply contracted, causing deflation. And, with everybody saving, and nobody spending, the economy contracted. If (MV = PQ), then M fell, P fell, Q fell, and V fell (the rate at which people were spending money decreased, since they were saving money more of the time).

Personal consumption (C) is two-thirds of GDP. And consumers stopped borrowing completely -- bank interest-rates fell, and did not rise again for decades. Only businesses & governments still demanded credit, and so still had to pay 2-5% yields. Fiscal Stimulus, from government (and big business?) gradually improved the economy. But, bigger Fiscal Stimulus would have been necessary, to offset the decrease, in personal consumption (C), through private & public investments (I, G), when the latter together represented less than half as much total spending (1/3 : 2/3). In some sense, businesses & government had to "push market" private & public investment, to offset the decline, in (credit-based) personal consumption, traditionally the demand-side "pull marketing" approach.


http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=8mu

 

[Rshermr]

classic economic liberalism from pre-depression times, which led to the Great Depression in the first place.

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

Get out quick, ed. you are making a fool of yourself. Do you know what the Great Depression was, and when it started??
Do you know when the federal reserve was established, and what it is????

 

[Widdekind]

Inexpertly, those who "ran" on the banks were those who had lost confidence in those banks. And, banks had, in fact, made many bad loans, to and for speculation, on the stock market. And, only a few percent of the US population had (being wealthy & sophisticated enough) partaken in stock-market speculation. So, perhaps banks had taken deposits of "many poorer blue collar workers", and used their money, for loans to "fewer richer white collar speculators" (or speculated directly themselves). When the stock-market crashed, and word got out, the masses "ran" to the banks, to "get their money back". Bank runs imply a loss of confidence, in banks, whose balance sheets were tied to the stock-market. People were walking away with currency, preferring to hold it themselves than risk it to "speculating bankers"; and, thereby, emptying the banks of the same, and motivating FDR's executive order to return gold to banks.

i perceive the following aspects of the GD:

• speculative bubble (stock)
• loss of confidence in banks (stock assets)
  
• consumer debt (houses, cars, appliances)
• corporate debt (wages ??)
• speculator debt (banks ??)

If so, then the debt-fueled "roaring" 1920s left persons, businesses, and speculators (banks) deep in debt; everybody had been borrowing to spend beyond their means. Then, with the stock-market crash, and loss of confidence in banks, the credit market was "attacked" with bank-runs. To cash out depositors, banks began calling in all their own loans. The bank runs "pulled the plug", inducing banks to switch, from lending, to demanding payment. In turn, non-bank private lenders demanded repayment, too. So, everybody began paying down debts (total private debt declined $50B from 1929-33), ultimately to banks (total deposits declined by $15 during that period, implying that bank loans, mirroring the same on bank balance sheets, declined by a similar amount). Thus, the public loss of confidence in banks, and the public "attack" on banks with bank-runs, induced a cascade of demanded-loan-repayments -- the public demanded money from banks, who demanded money from investors, who demanded money from others. Thereby, the US economy switched from debt-fueled spending beyond means ("super-spending mode"), to debt-repayment ("super-saving mode").

Then, to top it all off, what money was accumulating back into banks (excess reserves) was not being borrowed (since everybody was paying down debts, not taking out new ones). Given the money-multiplier (x10), those accumulating excess reserves could have generated billions of dollars in new loans... but didn't. Interest-rates fell, implying banks were trying, and failing, to push loans. In 1929, 10% of US GDP spending was done on credit; in the early 1930s, debt repayments amounted to 25% of US GDP. Thus, the switch from "over-spending" by +10%, to "under-spending" (for saving) by -25%, accounts for almost all of the drop in GDP.

so, i perceive that:

• speculative bubble led to loss of confidence in banks
• public "attack run" on banks induced cascade of demanded debt repayments
• economy switched from "over-spending" +10% on new debt, to "under-spending" -25% to pay down old debt
• aggregate spending (GDP) fell by 40%
• loss of confidence in banks kept new cash out of banks, and left their cash reserves un-borrowed
• nobody was borrowing, everybody was saving, few people were spending, GDP fell
• few people were depositing into banks, nobody was borrowing from banks, money stopped circulating, leading to deflation

??

executive order 6102 stopped Great Depression ?
i perceive, that public "attack runs" on banks induced a domino-cascade of called loans, which switched the US economy, from debt-fueled expansion, to debt-repaying contraction. The following figures show, that after 1933, US banks stopped failing; and US private debt-levels (which had been falling -$10B / year) stabilized. Then, US aggregate spending (GDP) promptly began improving. Thus, as soon as FDR ended the bank-runs, banks (and private lenders) stopped running on their debtors. Private debt stabilized, with a trickle of new loans presumably offsetting gradual repayment of old loans. Public debt, from the New Deal, increased, making up for the lethargic private sector, and improving the US economy:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELH...AAF2o/fKXAbMZ0cY4/s1600/FDICBankFailures3.jpg
http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/061310_1206_Empiricalan72.png​

references
Debtwatch No. 42: The economic case against Bernanke | Steve Keen's Debtwatch

 

[Oddball]

4 Democrats one Republican ALL of which pushed Keynesian economics vs the classic economic liberalism from pre-depression times, which led to the Great Depression in the first place.

What pure crap.

Classical liberalism has no place in it for central banking and inflating/deflating worthless fiat currencies.

The depression was created and exacerbated by failed Keynesian monetary economic engineering...Redundant as that may be.

 

[expat_panama]

​

evil 'pin-stripe boys' produce nothing while gambling on the backs of the proletariat--.

if you want to invest in a corporation, lend it money (buy its bonds); if you want to influence a corporation, buy it (buy its stocks), and show up at shareholder meetings. If you want to make a quick buck, doing nothing productive, speculate on stock prices (and make sure there are no transaction fees, like a 10% sales tax...

It's time to eschew obfuscation; that means we need to not use big words that hide what we don't know. Let's work toward clarity step by step and you tell me at what stage you'd take issue.

• Most hiring and manufacturing is done by corporations, and they exist only when people buy their stock.
  
  
• Most people trade their own money for stocks only if they'll have more money when they sell the stocks.
  
  
• If selling stock is taxed, then less stocks will be sold and that means some employees won't be hired and some things won't get made.
  
  
• The economy would contract and overall tax revenue would fall. We'd see yet another case where more taxes draw less revenue.

​

If you want we can call stock buying 'speculation', aw hell --go ahead and call it 'rectabulated contravention'. Bottom line is taxing stock sales means fewer stocks getting sold, fewer corporations existing, and less production and hiring.

 

[Widdekind]

Most hiring and manufacturing is done by corporations, and they exist only when people buy their stock.

you mean "products" ? Many privately-owned, non-publicly traded, corporations exist, and earn profits.

Stock-certificates are titles to a business (its plant, property, & equipment). Buying and selling stock has no more effect, on the business, than buying or selling a car, affects the car. Only "who drives" is affected. When you buy a car, from someone else, the car doesn't notice, and doesn't see any of the money. Likewise, when you buy a business, from a previous stock-holder, the business doesn't notice, or see any of the money.

If you want to give a business money, buy its products; or its "bonds" (i.e. lend it money)

 

[expat_panama]

Most hiring and manufacturing is done by corporations, and they exist only when people buy their stock.

you mean "products" ? ...

Let's think. A corporation is formed (exists) the minute the stock issuance is paid for. Making and selling products is nice but not required for the corporation's existence. Some corporations are formed and owned for other purposes.

...Many privately-owned, non-publicly traded, corporations exist, and earn profits...

Getting into tedious circles can be a bad idea, but for the moment I'll just assume that you're being honest and that you really don't know. I'll explain it.

Ownership of those kinds of corporations is accomplished when people pay a lawyer for incorporation and stock issuance, or the people buy the stock from someone else that paid the corp. lawyer. Regardless, all these corporations exist because people paid money so that they could own the corporation's stock. Taxing those payments will make fewer possible.

Are we back together now?

 

[Widdekind]

Making and selling products is nice but not required for the corporation's existence. Some corporations are formed and owned for other purposes.

you're serious ? In aggregate, a macro-economically significant number of businesses are purely "non-productive" ?

Ownership of those kinds of corporations is accomplished when people pay a lawyer for incorporation and stock issuance, or the people buy the stock from someone else that paid the corp. lawyer. Regardless, all these corporations exist because people paid money so that they could own the corporation's stock. Taxing those payments will make fewer possible.

why would we want many purely "un-productive" pseudo-firms ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

classic economic liberalism from pre-depression times, which led to the Great Depression in the first place.

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

Get out quick, ed. you are making a fool of yourself. Do you know what the Great Depression was, and when it started??
Do you know when the federal reserve was established, and what it is????

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Rshermr]

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

Get out quick, ed. you are making a fool of yourself. Do you know what the Great Depression was, and when it started??
Do you know when the federal reserve was established, and what it is????

are you saying Friedman and Bernanke were wrong in concluding that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression? If so please say where their mistake is or admit, as a liberal, you lack the IQ to do so.

Ed, what is your problem. Are you so ignorant that you do not know that Friedman had a position on the cause of the great depression that most economists disbelieved? Are you also aware that Bernanke was simply supporting Friedman? Does anyone really care, ed. Do you know how many "causes" of the great depression that have been identified by economists. But only one cause has united the majority of economists, and you would not want to admit to the support for that reason. Instead, you pick an outlier because it fits the desires of your tea party bosses. Ed, again, find something of interest and research it and stop being a complete tool.

 

[expat_panama]

...corporations exist because people paid money so that they could own the corporation's stock. Taxing those payments will make fewer possible.

why would we want many purely "un-productive" pseudo-firms ?

The essence of Marxism it the outrageous arrogance of state planners that believe they have the right to determine which economic activity is allowed to exist and who is permitted to work doing what. That mode may be popular some places but most Americans prefer to manage their own financial affairs in a manner they find best to feed their families.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But only one cause has united the majority of economists, .

so what is that cause and why do you think it is correct???????? and, why do you think Friedman and Bernanke are wrong. You're the man to tackle this probelm, no doubt!!

 

[Rshermr]

But only one cause has united the majority of economists, .

so what is that cause and why do you think it is correct???????? and, why do you think Friedman and Bernanke are wrong. You're the man to tackle this probelm, no doubt!!

no, ed. You probably won't understand this, but I have a degree in econ, taught it at a 4 year school, spent years studying aprticular aspects of economics. The weight of my reading and study has given me a belief based on a whole lot of information. And, you see, I know I have only a small amount of the knowledge of many economists who have looked at the data more closely than I.
I do not have your advantage of simply taking tea party talking points and believing them. I actually have to look at the information available to come up with the beliefs that I have.
Much easier to simply believe what you are told and what you want to believe, isn't it. It simply lacks integrity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But only one cause has united the majority of economists, .

so what is that cause and why do you think it is correct???????? and, why do you think Friedman and Bernanke are wrong. You're the man to tackle this probelm, no doubt!!

no, ed. You probably won't understand this, but I have a degree in econ, taught it at a 4 year school, spent years studying aprticular aspects of economics. The weight of my reading and study has given me a belief based on a whole lot of information. And, you see, I know I have only a small amount of the knowledge of many economists who have looked at the data more closely than I.
I do not have your advantage of simply taking tea party talking points and believing them. I actually have to look at the information available to come up with the beliefs that I have.
Much easier to simply believe what you are told and what you want to believe, isn't it. It simply lacks integrity.

When they fired you for your psychosis, did you get to keep your health insurance?