The Problem With keynesian economics

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Jun 23, 2008
16,692
2,248
88
Michigan, USA
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut
 
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut

That isn't the only problem, they also forget that Keynes was pretty adamant that government spending in and of itself was not going to grow the economy. He clearly advocated that spending be targeted to the area of the economy that needed help. The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.
 
The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.
 
The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?
 
I have a suspicious that Obama thought he was implementing Kenyan economics and not Keynesian
 
The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?

Too bad Coolidge isn't around. He could set Steely Boy straight on what to do during a recession.

Roaring twenties anyone??
 
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut

That isn't the only problem, they also forget that Keynes was pretty adamant that government spending in and of itself was not going to grow the economy. He clearly advocated that spending be targeted to the area of the economy that needed help. The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

I don't see why you draw that conclusion from Keynes. While he did think targeting money at certain areas was optimal, there is also the famous example of paying people to dig holes.
 
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut

That's not a problem with Keynesian theory. That's a problem with the people in charge of implementing policy.
 
The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

If I told you I was a democrat and one of my talking points was if guys named Joe Steel empty their bank account into mine i'll save half the world's children from eventual starvation would you oblige?
 
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut

That isn't the only problem, they also forget that Keynes was pretty adamant that government spending in and of itself was not going to grow the economy. He clearly advocated that spending be targeted to the area of the economy that needed help. The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

I don't see why you draw that conclusion from Keynes. While he did think targeting money at certain areas was optimal, there is also the famous example of paying people to dig holes.

Except, as usual, he is being misrepresented. What he actually said was.

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 "The General Theory.."

Not even close to what you thought he said, is it?
 
That isn't the only problem, they also forget that Keynes was pretty adamant that government spending in and of itself was not going to grow the economy. He clearly advocated that spending be targeted to the area of the economy that needed help. The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

I don't see why you draw that conclusion from Keynes. While he did think targeting money at certain areas was optimal, there is also the famous example of paying people to dig holes.

Except, as usual, he is being misrepresented. What he actually said was.

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 "The General Theory.."

Not even close to what you thought he said, is it?

It's exactly what I just said he said. He's saying that "build[ing] house and the like" (what we could think of as more productive uses) would be optimal, but if the face of the political or practical difficulty, spending in a shattered way is "better than nothing".
 
I don't see why you draw that conclusion from Keynes. While he did think targeting money at certain areas was optimal, there is also the famous example of paying people to dig holes.

Except, as usual, he is being misrepresented. What he actually said was.

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 "The General Theory.."
Not even close to what you thought he said, is it?

It's exactly what I just said he said. He's saying that "build[ing] house and the like" (what we could think of as more productive uses) would be optimal, but if the face of the political or practical difficulty, spending in a shattered way is "better than nothing".

One of us needs to go back to school and study English, and it isn't me.
 
The argument he's making is pretty direct. Pity you don't seem to understand it.

It does not involve digging holes without purpose, there is actually something in the holes. But you refer to walk around with your head up your ass and deliberately misrepresent what he said.
 
The argument he's making is pretty direct. Pity you don't seem to understand it.

It does not involve digging holes without purpose, there is actually something in the holes. But you refer to walk around with your head up your ass and deliberately misrepresent what he said.

That "something" in the holes is money. From an economic prospective, having people dig money out of holes you've made is no different than paying them to just randomly dig holes.
 
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut

That isn't the only problem, they also forget that Keynes was pretty adamant that government spending in and of itself was not going to grow the economy. He clearly advocated that spending be targeted to the area of the economy that needed help. The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

MIGHT have helped. MIGHT.
 
The Basic Premise of Keynesian economics is that you Spend money when the Economy is Down to Stimulate it, Then Make cuts when the Economy is up.

It's 2 Sides of a Coin. The Problem is the Keynesian are only Keynesian when the Economy is down. When it is Up they forget about the Rules of Keynesian Economics and Continue to Spend more than we have instead of Making cuts.

We never cut

That isn't the only problem, they also forget that Keynes was pretty adamant that government spending in and of itself was not going to grow the economy. He clearly advocated that spending be targeted to the area of the economy that needed help. The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

I don't see why you draw that conclusion from Keynes. While he did think targeting money at certain areas was optimal, there is also the famous example of paying people to dig holes.

Not to mention the ridiculous broken window fallacy.
 
The real reason the stimulus failed is the money went to prop up state budgets instead of being spent in a way that would have helped.

Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?

Sure.

It was called "The Great Depression".

And it didn't end until government started spending loads of money. First on infrastucture then on a war.
 
Why do you continue to wallow in this nonsense? Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure from being wrong?

The stimulus was not a failure. It saved jobs and kept the economy from total collapse.

Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?

Sure.

It was called "The Great Depression".

And it didn't end until government started spending loads of money. First on infrastucture then on a war.

The government spent loads of money for years before the depression ended, did you forget about the New Deal?
 
Sure it did, and you can prove this by pointing to all the times the economy failed after a crash where there was no stimulus.

Or can you?

Sure.

It was called "The Great Depression".

And it didn't end until government started spending loads of money. First on infrastucture then on a war.

The government spent loads of money for years before the depression ended, did you forget about the New Deal?

And that spending greatly improved the economic situation. Then they listened to the tea party of the day and cut back. The economy fell back in to recession.
 

Forum List

Back
Top