Economics

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Said by a Libertarian. Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy.
Not a great source for a reference to an impartial source about Keynesian economics.
But he does believe in the gold standard. Same monetary system used by all sorts of countries successfully. That would be, uh, oh, maybe 0 (that would be ZERO) countries. None. Lots had it, all got rid of it, but Libertarians love it.
And Hunter Lewis??? You have to be kidding. Publishes in great right wing bat shit crazy con sites like Town Hall. Perfect impartial source. Jesus.

Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy???

All economies are mixed so trying to find a pure libertarian economy is absurd in concept. However, the USA has been the closest thing and it produced the richest and most moral country in human history!

How many millions of innocent human beings been maimed. murdered, or displaced over the past century by "the most moral country in human history:?

can you provide your best example of this. Thanks

 

[jasonnfree]

I hear a lot of bad opinions about Keynesianism, which I think has served us pretty well for decades.

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

For awhile? From 1932 till 2008. Decades. Anyway, I don't think it's a good comparison, consumer debt vs government debt. Government can legally print it's own money. Inflation? People just make more money per year.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hear a lot of bad opinions about Keynesianism, which I think has served us pretty well for decades.

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

For awhile? From 1932 till 2008. Decades. Anyway, I don't think it's a good comparison, consumer debt vs government debt. Government can legally print it's own money. Inflation? People just make more money per year.

That's easy to say unless you are no longer making money and trying to rest on the laurels of the money you already made.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I hear a lot of bad opinions about Keynesianism, which I think has served us pretty well for decades.

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

As Communist Party General Secretary William Z. Foster commented, "The Nazi fascists were especially enthusiastic supporters of Keynes."[65] Former Trotskyite[66] Dobbs recounted that Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter observed that in Nazi Germany, "A work like Keynes’ General Theory could have appeared unmolested—and did." In the introduction to the 1936 German edition of his treatise, Keynes himself suggested that the total state that the National Socialists were then building was perfectly suited for the implementation of his investment schemes:

“ The theory of aggregate production that is the goal of the following book can be much more easily applied to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given output turned out under the conditions of free competition and a considerable degree of laissez-faire.[67]

 

[Rshermr]

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

For awhile? From 1932 till 2008. Decades. Anyway, I don't think it's a good comparison, consumer debt vs government debt. Government can legally print it's own money. Inflation? People just make more money per year.

That's easy to say unless you are no longer making money and trying to rest on the laurels of the money you already made.

Inflation is desirable and inevitable. As long as the rate of inflation is low. Based on the past 30 years, saying you need to worry about inflation shows you do not know how low it has been and looks to continue to be.
If you intend to retire, you need to plan for inflation. SS is keyed to the inflation rate, so takes care of that issue from the gov standpoint. And if you have invested your savings, that will take care of the rest. Inflation mongers always need to be doubted.
And, if you would listen to folks like eflat, they will tell you that borrowing and the national debt will get you. Forget it. It never has, and never will. The national debt is only looked at by thinking individuals as a percent of gnp. And we have been much higher than we are today. And, the national debt ALWAYS decreases when unemployment is low. If you look, you will find that the national debt today is decreasing (as a percent of gnp) month on month as we approach 6% unemployment. The whole bit by the far right to scare the bejesus out of you about the national debt (what we owe per person, what our CHILDREN owe when they are born) is nonsense. No one has ever, or will ever have to pay back the national debt. Except, of course, as a function of taxes paid as a result of working.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And we have been much higher than we are today.

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

THe Republican solution is a BBA to make debt illegal. If Newts BBA had passed today debt would be $0 not $17 trillion!! It passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. It would have effectively ended the liberal influence in America.

 

[jasonnfree]

Anybody here an economist? I've read a lot of opinions here and just wondering, that's all. I hear a lot of bad opinions about Keynesianism, which I think has served us pretty well for decades. Peter Ferrara could give a pretty good anti argument, but what nations can he give a working example of that were successful under his brand of economics.

You asked an honest straight question and got a lot of responses spinning off into ideologies. That tells you a lot about the board.

To answer your question, there are at least five college economics teachers who post at least occasionally here (but no one very frequently!). As soon as one of them does they are deluged with people questioning their credentials unless they fawn on Rothbard. There are perhaps another dozen posters who have a good grasp of economics and are willing to actually look up statistics at their sources and read papers rather than simply quote political blogs. That's pretty much it.

So what does a mainstream economist bring to the table (or how can you spot someone with some training)?

1. Real economists have a familiarity with the history of economic thought. They know who physiocrats and mercantilists were and who Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus were. This is the Classical period of economic theory. They know who Alfred Marshall is. If they have not read Keynes, they are at least familiar with Hicks and Samuelson. For monetary economics they can discuss Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman. They know what general equilibrium theory is and who Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, and Wassily Leontief were. If none of this rings a bell with someone, they have not read economics.

2. Real economists have learned the basic tools of the discipline. They have a little background in history and in mathematics. They are familiar with econometrics and intelligently discuss forecasting, multiple regression, correlation, and lagged variables.

3. Real economists use simple models but avoid simplistic answers. They know the assumptions they make in using simple models. They are aware of the gaps between data-based econometric models and theory-based models and try to understand how to narrow those gaps.

4. Good amateur economists understand this and are more interested in learning than in defending ideological positions or scoring points. It's the quality of thought that counts. They don't quote (even indirectly) works they have never read or do not understand and they like to look up data.

It goes without saying that people actually interested in economics as opposed to political or ideological flame wars will argue vigorously but refrain from personal attacks. It's hard to learn while you are shouting.

Also note that ideologues never concede a point and think they score victories if they can show someone has changed positions over time. Real economists understand that they can (rarely) be mistaken and that as the data change, institutions evolve, technology develops, and hopefully the state of the economic arts progresses, only fools insist on a rigid consistency.

Arguments are built on reasoning and information. In economics that reasoning includes the models and work of generations of other economists. The information comes from an intimate understanding of data gathering, statistical analysis, and a very large dose of history of both economic conditions and economic thought.

Real economists use these tools and methods to constantly contend and seek to understand what is going on. Poseurs look like they are doing the same in an effort to feel important or advance an ideological agenda.

I'm reposting an answer I got about a year ago from someone that knows and can teach economics. Maybe the experts would return and post more often here if those of us of little knowledge (90% of us on this thread) posted less and listened more and spare the dozens of links and graphs trying to prove a point as a subsitute for a real education.

 

[Dad2three]

And we have been much higher than we are today.

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

THe Republican solution is a BBA to make debt illegal. If Newts BBA had passed today debt would be $0 not $17 trillion!! It passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. It would have effectively ended the liberal influence in America.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

And we have been much higher than we are today.

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

THe Republican solution is a BBA to make debt illegal. If Newts BBA had passed today debt would be $0 not $17 trillion!! It passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. It would have effectively ended the liberal influence in America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.[/B]

yes our country was founded on the principle of very very limited government! Did you know that? Do you know who tricked you into being anti American?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And we have been much higher than we are today.

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

THe Republican solution is a BBA to make debt illegal. If Newts BBA had passed today debt would be $0 not $17 trillion!! It passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. It would have effectively ended the liberal influence in America.

we don't take reading assignments from liberals. You've got to learn to express yourself! Do you understand?

 

[JimmieD]

And we have been much higher than we are today.

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP, which increases the debt/GDP ratio you seem so concerned with.

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP,

of course thats backwards. When govt is big as it was in East Germany, Red China etc. GDP was small because govt wastes money. We got a huge GDP from the stone age to here because Republicans invented or supplied things. Govt does not invent a thing so cant make the economy grow . All it can do is slow growth down. Do you understand now?

 

[JimmieD]

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP,

of course thats backwards.

It's how GDP is calculated. You're the one that was arguing about the importance of the levels of debt/GDP ratio. You're the one who doesn't understand that government spending goes into GDP calculation. So necessarily, if you decrease gov't spending, you decrease GDP which seems to contradict the results you want out of changes in the debt/GDP ratio.

I think it probably means you just don't know how GDP is calculated.

When govt is big as it was in East Germany, Red China etc. GDP was small because govt wastes money. We got a huge GDP from the stone age to here because Republicans invented or supplied things. Govt does not invent a thing so cant make the economy grow . All it can do is slow growth down. Do you understand now?

What's your argument here?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Republicans want to make debt illegal!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When govt is big as it was in East Germany, Red China etc. GDP was small because govt wastes money. We got a huge GDP from the stone age to here because Republicans invented or supplied things. Govt does not invent a thing so cant make the economy grow . All it can do is slow growth down. Do you understand now?

What's your argument here?[/QUOTE]


When govt is big as it was in East Germany, Red China etc. GDP was small because govt wastes money. We got a huge GDP from the stone age to here because Republicans invented or supplied things. Govt does not invent a thing so cant make the economy grow . All it can do is slow growth down. Do you understand now

 

[JimmieD]

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Republicans want to make debt illegal!!

I'm not sure if you're trying to be serious or not. Do you want to make debt illegal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You're the one who doesn't understand that government spending goes into GDP calculation.

the calculation is one thing. Wheter govt spending can grow the economy is another. Do you understand now?

 

[Rshermr]

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

THe Republican solution is a BBA to make debt illegal. If Newts BBA had passed today debt would be $0 not $17 trillion!! It passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. It would have effectively ended the liberal influence in America.

we don't take reading assignments from liberals. You've got to learn to express yourself! Do you understand?

Now, now, now, me poor ignorant con tool. It is not nice to lie. The record for the national debt to gnp was in 1945. Not today. We are, as I have said, on the downturn as unemployment decreases. About 16% lower than the highest point.

Now, me poor ignorant con tool, perhaps you would like to tell us the downside of the national debt. We can not wait to see your brilliance.
And ed, STOP LYING. If you had any credibility, you would be loosing it.

 

[JimmieD]

. You're the one who doesn't understand that government spending goes into GDP calculation.

the calculation is one thing. Wheter govt spending can grow the economy is another. Do you understand now?

Does this mean you're not concerned with the debt/GDP ratio anymore since you don't like how GDP is calculated?