The Problem With keynesian economics

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Actually we had a near zero deficit under a bi-partisan government in the late 90's when the economy was booming


So you're completely wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Yeah we wouldn't want those pesky states to decide how to use the stimulus money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Actually we had a near zero deficit under a bi-partisan government in the late 90's when the economy was booming


So you're completely wrong.

its really simple, if Demcorats wanted a zero deficit they would support a Balanced Budget Amendment too. Why do you think they have killed all 30 Republican Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's?????

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Frankly the stimulus wasn't big enough. And everyone knew it.

We've learned this lesson before. FDR increased spending in the 30's but it didn't seem to help much, unemployment was still very high. Then WW II came along and spending went up 10 foldish and the government essentially hired any able bodied man who needed a job to kill German and Japanese. When the war ended all those guys had stacks of cash saved up (the benefit of the 30's was they had learned austerity) and they bought houses and had kids and opened business and BOOM the economy was fixed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yeah we wouldn't want those pesky states to decide how to use the stimulus money.

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Krugman actually said that was the best part of the stimulus. which proves he doesn't understand Keynes at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Frankly the stimulus wasn't big enough. And everyone knew it.

We've learned this lesson before. FDR increased spending in the 30's but it didn't seem to help much, unemployment was still very high. Then WW II came along and spending went up 10 foldish and the government essentially hired any able bodied man who needed a job to kill German and Japanese. When the war ended all those guys had stacks of cash saved up (the benefit of the 30's was they had learned austerity) and they bought houses and had kids and opened business and BOOM the economy was fixed.

Everyone?

Obama says stimulus package is right size, scope | Reuters

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Frankly the stimulus wasn't big enough. And everyone knew it.

of course the bigger the stimulus the bigger the mal-investment and the greater the recession that results.

THe Fed stimulated the housing market to cause the current depression and liberals still want more.

How do you argue with that kind of pure ignorance??

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Yeah we wouldn't want those pesky states to decide how to use the stimulus money.

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Krugman actually said that was the best part of the stimulus. which proves he doesn't understand Keynes at all.

Yeah what would he know next to your genius.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Frankly the stimulus wasn't big enough. And everyone knew it.

We've learned this lesson before. FDR increased spending in the 30's but it didn't seem to help much, unemployment was still very high. Then WW II came along and spending went up 10 foldish and the government essentially hired any able bodied man who needed a job to kill German and Japanese. When the war ended all those guys had stacks of cash saved up (the benefit of the 30's was they had learned austerity) and they bought houses and had kids and opened business and BOOM the economy was fixed.

Everyone?

Obama says stimulus package is right size, scope | Reuters

He lied.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Frankly the stimulus wasn't big enough. And everyone knew it.

of course the bigger the stimulus the bigger the mal-investment and the greater the recession that results.

Yeah just like the great depression of the late 40's and 50's.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yeah we wouldn't want those pesky states to decide how to use the stimulus money.

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Krugman actually said that was the best part of the stimulus. which proves he doesn't understand Keynes at all.

Yeah what would he know next to your genius.

Krugman is mostly a bleeding heart liberal fool so he usually gets the economics wrong and doesn't care becAUSE his BLEEDING heart comes first

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Krugman actually said that was the best part of the stimulus. which proves he doesn't understand Keynes at all.

Yeah what would he know next to your genius.

Krugman is mostly a bleeding heart liberal fool so he usually gets the economics wrong and doesn't care becAUSE his BLEEDING heart comes first

Its good to see you arguing based on logic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yeah what would he know next to your genius.

Krugman is mostly a bleeding heart liberal fool so he usually gets the economics wrong and doesn't care becAUSE his BLEEDING heart comes first

Its good to see you arguing based on logic.

are you afraid to say exactly where the lack of logic is???

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Krugman is mostly a bleeding heart liberal fool so he usually gets the economics wrong and doesn't care becAUSE his BLEEDING heart comes first

Its good to see you arguing based on logic.

are you afraid to say exactly where the lack of logic is???

You're a total moron.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its good to see you arguing based on logic.

are you afraid to say exactly where the lack of logic is???

You're a total moron.

why be so afraid to present you most substantive reason to oppose intellectual conservatism. What does your fear tell you, liberal?

 

[BakshisMouse]

The way I see it, that's probably going to require further government spending on productive initiatives and more aggressive stimulus by the Federal Reserve.

too stupid but perfectly lliberal. It was Fed stimulus that caused the current depression!! You want a fical and monetary bubble but lack the IQ to know it.

Yes, Alan Greenspan is largely responsible for the depression by not taking action against the risk financial firms were taking. He could have slowed their risk-taking by ordering open market sells of bonds to increase the interest rake. Ben Bernanke also did not anticipate the downside financial firms were giving the economy.

However, now that the bubble is popped, and the Dodd-Frank act is passed, the possibility of a new bubble is lessened. In the years after WWII up to 1980, there were no significant asset bubbles. They were prevented by effective regulation like Glass–Steagall. After these regulations were removed, bubbles and inequality flourished.

When good regulations are in place, stimulus by the Federal Reserve are less likely to lead to bubbles, and more likely to lead to real progress, especially if the economy is deeply depressed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, Alan Greenspan is largely responsible for the depression by not taking action against the risk financial firms were taking.

too stupid!!! when the Fed pumps up the money supply to stimulate the economy the banks have to make loans or their competitors will! The guy at Citibank famously said, you have to keep dancing until the music stops. Imagine if the Fed was giving free cars to the dealerships. This is easier for a liberal to understand. All the dealers would have to move them. If one did not he would shrink compared to competition.

So the problem was the Fed, not the banks. Catching on now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

However, now that the bubble is popped, and the Dodd-Frank act is passed, the possibility of a new bubble is lessened.

of course that's idiotic as long as there are liberals around who constantly want a new fiscal stimulus bubble and the Fed that is always threatening a quantitative easing monetary bubble !!!

What a liberal will lack the IQ to understand is that the USSR was nothing but a series of liberal bubbles. Ask your Mama to explain. How old are you anyway?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Yes, Alan Greenspan is largely responsible for the depression by not taking action against the risk financial firms were taking.

too stupid!!! when the Fed pumps up the money supply to stimulate the economy the banks have to make loans or their competitors will! The guy at Citibank famously said, you have to keep dancing until the music stops. Imagine if the Fed was giving free cars to the dealerships. This is easier for a liberal to understand. All the dealers would have to move them. If one did not he would shrink compared to competition.

So the problem was the Fed, not the banks. Catching on now??

The action the fed was taking encouraged the actions of those financial firms. As I said, Greenspan could have helped prevent the crisis by taking money from the economy by ordering open market sales of bonds.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As I said, Greenspan could have helped prevent the crisis by taking money from the economy by ordering open market sales of bonds.

what you mean to say is that Greenspan could have reversed the bubble or not let it form at all by decreasing the money supply. Don't blame the banks for what the liberals did!!