Not All Economists Agree

[Oddball]

Krugman's neo-Keynesianism marks a significant divergence from the pure Keynesian thesis. The incorporation of the IS/LM model (originally introduced by Hicks and developed further by Modigliani, though Hicks was opposed to the nature of its utilization by the neo-Keynesians), and the later incorporations of the Phillips curve and the Mundell-Fleming model created a reliance on neoclassical economics that rendered neo-Keynesianism far more orthodox than anything else. Even Krugman's own "new trade theory" is fundamentally based on upholding trade liberalization, just as Keynesianism in general is fundamentally based on upholding capitalism, contrary to the misinformeds belief of ignorant anti-socialists.

Krugman is a political hack, who shifts his voodoo economic theories to fit his collectivist authoritarian political bent.

Neo-Keynesian societal engineers are about as trustworthy as neoconservatives....That is to say, not at all.

 

[Maple]

The study of economics is a science as it's theory's are tried, tested and proven. Kenesian economics was first introduced during Rosevelt's time, they were tried and they DID NOT work, World War 11 brought this country out of the depression, the kenesian model is a failed model and you are about to witness first hand just what a failure it is when you see 20%+ interest rates and our dollar devalued. It will be an inflation depression.

YOU CAN NOT BORROW AND SPEND YOUR WAY TO PROSPERITY, especially when you have no money of your own to do so. It works that way with micro- economics as well as macro-economics.

For instance, you are in dept up to your eyeballs, would it be a wise decision for you to go out and borrow another billion dollars to buy that dream house???? You would not get the loan so you just print some more paper money flooding the market with all this paper. The law of supply and demand, the more supply- the less value, the less supply the more value. Now there is an economic fact that has been proven.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The study of economics is a science as it's theory's are tried, tested and proven. Kenesian economics was first introduced during Rosevelt's time, they were tried and they DID NOT work, World War 11 brought this country out of the depression, the kenesian model is a failed model and you are about to witness first hand just what a failure it is when you see 20%+ interest rates and our dollar devalued. It will be an inflation depression.

YOU CAN NOT BORROW AND SPEND YOUR WAY TO PROSPERITY, especially when you have no money of your own to do so. It works that way with micro- economics as well as macro-economics.

For instance, you are in dept up to your eyeballs, would it be a wise decision for you to go out and borrow another billion dollars to buy that dream house???? You would not get the loan so you just print some more paper money flooding the market with all this paper. The law of supply and demand, the more supply- the less value, the less supply the more value. Now there is an economic fact that has been proven.

I'm not sure how you can say "YOU CAN NOT BORROW AND SPEND YOUR WAY TO PROSPERITY," and then claim that World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression. What was World War 2 but massive borrowing, spending, and inflating? The truth is that we didn't get out of the Great Depression until after World War 2 when government spending decreased and they lightened up on their control of the economy.

 

[Oddball]

Kenesian economics was first introduced during Rosevelt's time, they were tried and they DID NOT work.....

That's why Keynesian assholes like Paul Krugman have to try to cover their tracks by cynically calling themselves NEO-Keynesians.

Kinda like the socialist wing of the Democrat Party stole the term "liberal" to try and obscure their agenda.

 

[Agnapostate]

Krugman is a political hack, who shifts his voodoo economic theories to fit his collectivist authoritarian political bent.

Krugman's not the least bit "collectivist." His neo-Keynesianism, corruption of authentic Keynesianism though it is, is based on the maintenance of capitalism. You're obviously free to refer to him as "authoritarian" on the grounds that he's a capitalist, of course.

Neo-Keynesian societal engineers are about as trustworthy as neoconservatives....That is to say, not at all.

The problem is that you don't even know what Keynesianism, neo-Keynesianism, or any related economic theories are. You just have some convoluted mishmash of "socialism = Keynesianism = big government = fascism," despite the egregious abuse of political economy that such a conception is.

The study of economics is a science as it's theory's are tried, tested and proven. Kenesian economics was first introduced during Rosevelt's time, they were tried and they DID NOT work, World War 11 brought this country out of the depression, the kenesian model is a failed model and you are about to witness first hand just what a failure it is when you see 20%+ interest rates and our dollar devalued. It will be an inflation depression.

It grows worse...is there a single economically informed rightist on this forum? The historical record stands in stark contrast to your insinuation that Keynesianism was "first introduced during Rosevelt's time." For instance, Renshaw's Was there a Keynesian Economy in the USA between 1933 and 1945? notes the following:

As Eccles pointed out, counter-cyclical spending was really a conservative option which implied 'sustaining government contributions to general purchasing power while the obstacles to private spending are cleared away'. The basic structure and values of capitalism, the ownership and control of the system, would not be disturbed in the long run if such policies were adopted. Yet despite such spending to make good the failure of private investment and so reduce unemployment in 1933-35, and again in 1938-39, almost one in six Americans were still out of work in 1939. In that sense, as Herbert Stein has argued, "It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to Keynes."

Indeed, Stein's summary was remarkably accurate. As he noted, “It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to [Keynes]...y the outbreak of the war a large part of the fiscal revolution had already occurred. It was accepted policy that we would run deficits in depressions, that we would not raise taxes in depressions in an attempt to balance the budget.”

That's why Keynesian assholes like Paul Krugman have to try to cover their tracks by cynically calling themselves NEO-Keynesians.

You again speak out of ignorance, while not noting the significant divergences between Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism. Perhaps you ought to attempt to address the incorporation of the IS/LM model, the Phillips curve, and the Mundell-Fleming model before making such ridiculous assertions?

Kinda like the socialist wing of the Democrat Party stole the term "liberal" to try and obscure their agenda.

As a legitimate socialist, I can assure you that there is no "socialist wing" of the Democrat Party. For that matter, liberal democratic capitalism is a greater foe of socialism than the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism because of its ability to maintain macroeconomic stability and maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce (as well as the "psychological efficiency" of the workforce through the appeasement of worker militancy), through its utilization of the welfare state. The laissez-faire capitalist is thus ironically the greater ally of the socialist; his policies will lead to a quicker downfall of capitalism.

 

[Oddball]

Don't you have a class of young and dumb froshies to indoctrinate with your voluminous authoritarian/elitist twadle??

 

[American Horse]

quote - in part: "As one of those mythical economists who do not agree with the President, I argue that it is precisely this type of boneheaded thinking that got us into this mess, and it’s the reason we are now headed for an inflationary depression."

He sums it up nicely in this statement:
"If we are going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, the market, not the government, needs to draw the plans. When private citizens invest their own capital, those who invest wisely are rewarded with profits, while those who do not are punished with losses. Bad investments are therefore abandoned, with capital reallocated to more successful ventures." But this, to an ever larger extent, is not being allowed to work. The rhetoric of the president constantly beats this as if it was an abandoned "failed practice of the past".

"Conversely, when governments invest money, these checks and balances do not exist. There is nothing to correct bad investments, as losses are endlessly subsidized by taxpayers. In fact, the more a government plan fails, the more it tends to be funded in the hope that additional resources will finally achieve success. Obama himself proves this by allocating still more funds to government-run schools and student loan subsidies. Other examples, such as Amtrak, the New York MTA, the U.S. Postal Service, Fannie/Freddie, and countless others, prove this process is never-ending – until perhaps the bureaucracy collapses under its own weight." And we've seen this ad-infinitum, and our federal planners no longer take it into account; we can clearly see it in states like California, New York, Michigan, and their satellites.

 

[Agnapostate]

Don't you have a class of young and dumb froshies to indoctrinate with your voluminous authoritarian/elitist twadle??

Three things:

1. I'm one of the froshies, not a professor.

2. I'm one of the most libertarian individuals you'll ever encounter. I'll wager right now that I'm the most extreme civil libertarian you'll ever encounter. I have a perfect social libertarian score of -10.0 on the Political Compass test.

3. There's nothing "elitist" about what I've posted. Frankly, it's anti-elitist, because I'm willing to consult empirical evidence even as an uncertified layman rather than just let the "higher-ups" tell me what to think.

 

[Oddball]

Oh,.....So instead of being a professor, you're just parroting what they shove into your head, under the flawed logical premise of "appeal to authority", without an analytical thought in your skull.

Tell ya what......After you've created and run a few businesses and met some payrolls, come back and tell us all about how your "empirical evidence" works in the real world.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh,.....So instead of being a professor, you're just parroting what they shove into your head, under the flawed logical premise of "appeal to authority", without an analytical thought in your skull.

Tell ya what......After you've created and run a few businesses and met some payrolls, come back and tell us all about how your "empirical evidence" works in the real world.

Your problem is you think you belong to the club. The corporations that run this country don't care about you and that is why your business did shitty the last 8 years, and they broke profit records.

Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006
Share of Income Going to Corporate Profits at Record High

Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

How's your business doing?

Were you happy with how much you paid in taxes under GOP rule?

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh,.....So instead of being a professor, you're just parroting what they shove into your head, under the flawed logical premise of "appeal to authority", without an analytical thought in your skull.

Actually, I've never received any formal training in this matter, comrade. I'm an autodidact.

That said, I have received formal training in logic as a component of my philosophy major, and I'm pleased to inform you that your identification of my "appeal to authority" is inaccurate.

Tell ya what......After you've created and run a few businesses and met some payrolls, come back and tell us all about how your "empirical evidence" works in the real world.

I'm curious as to what you think empirical evidence is. Your "evidence" is merely integration of the perspective of a single person; the evidence that I've referred to relies on integration of the perspectives of thousands.

 

[Oddball]

Your problem is you think you belong to the club. The corporations that run this country don't care about you and that is why your business did shitty the last 8 years, and they broke profit records.

Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006
Share of Income Going to Corporate Profits at Record High

Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

How's your business doing?

Were you happy with how much you paid in taxes under GOP rule?

For someone with as glaring a persecution complex as you have, there's precious little room to be going around telling others what their problems are.


Unlike you, I don't see myself as a victim of a world of hobgoblin strawmen beyond my control....I concern myself with the things that I can control and go from there.

 

[Oddball]

Actually, I've never received any formal training in this matter, comrade. I'm an autodidact.

That said, I have received formal training in logic as a component of my philosophy major, and I'm pleased to inform you that your identification of my "appeal to authority" is inaccurate.

I'm curious as to what you think empirical evidence is. Your "evidence" is merely integration of the perspective of a single person; the evidence that I've referred to relies on integration of the perspectives of thousands.

My evidence is my life, along with the other people I've worked and interacted with throughout my various business ventures...Extremely few of whom didn't start their ventures from scratch.

Now, what is it of value that you produce, that someone -anyone- would want to buy??

 

[sealybobo]

Your problem is you think you belong to the club. The corporations that run this country don't care about you and that is why your business did shitty the last 8 years, and they broke profit records.

Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006
Share of Income Going to Corporate Profits at Record High

Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

How's your business doing?

Were you happy with how much you paid in taxes under GOP rule?

For someone with as glaring a persecution complex as you have, there's precious little room to be going around telling others what their problems are.


Unlike you, I don't see myself as a victim of a world of hobgoblin strawmen beyond my control....I concern myself with the things that I can control and go from there.

Don't let me hear you complaining about socialism or Obama then.

Because I'm complaining about what the last administration did. You guys are the current USMB whiners.

I'm just stating facts.

 

[Agnapostate]

My evidence is my life, along with the other people I've worked and interacted with throughout my various business ventures...Extremely few of whom didn't start their ventures from scratch.

Yeah...anecdotal. Not suitable for policy formation, considering the widely varying spectrum of human experiences and behaviors. The American population is not a homogenous group.

Now, what is it of value that you produce, that someone -anyone- would want to buy??

Some bomb ass pretendo.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...anecdotal. Not suitable for policy formation, considering the widely varying spectrum of human experiences and behaviors. The American population is not a homogenous group.

Who said anything about policy formation??

And you're damned right we're not a homogeneous group. Everyone has their own obstacles and challenges to overcome.....Some more than others. So what??

 

[Zoomie1980]

We have the premier military power, therefore we'll have the world's reserve currency. That's just how it works.

I don't think that's how it works.

I think as our economy (and specie) goes into the shitter, it won't matter how many nuclear bombs we have.

And as our economy goes into the shitter how long do you think we're be the premier military power, anyway?

Armies and Navies cost money....one hell of a LOT of money.

Push come to shove we would USE our military might to ensure our own military survival. Our missile defence is now robust enough, and the old Soviet era offensive arsenal so decayed as to allow us survive any offensive strike but no one else would have any hope of surviving one of ours.

In an apocalyptic world we could easily hold the entire planet nuclear hostage and take what we need to survive. We have the ONLY blue ocean navy on the planet and would use it as needed anywhere. China would not last six months if the day ever came.

So that entire premise is moot....