Keynes was a Conservative

[Toro]

Interesting take.

Keynes Was Really A Conservative - Forbes.com

 

[del]

in the long run, we're all dead.

words to live by.

 

[Diuretic]

Interesting article. I think Keynes was a bit hard on Marx though. Still, I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. I am surprised at the seemingly bitter attacks on Keynes from the American right, I can't work out why it is.

 

[Paulie]

Interesting article. I think Keynes was a bit hard on Marx though. Still, I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. I am surprised at the seemingly bitter attacks on Keynes from the American right, I can't work out why it is.

Remember a couple months ago we had that lengthy discussion over a couple days about Keynesianism?

In my case, I wouldn't call it a "bitter attack", but I certainly do have my differences with the man. In that discussion I laid out what they were, and why.

If you don't remember the content, you should dig it up and re-read it. It was a pretty great discussion if you ask me.

 

[Diuretic]

Interesting article. I think Keynes was a bit hard on Marx though. Still, I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. I am surprised at the seemingly bitter attacks on Keynes from the American right, I can't work out why it is.

Remember a couple months ago we had that lengthy discussion over a couple days about Keynesianism?

In my case, I wouldn't call it a "bitter attack", but I certainly do have my differences with the man. In that discussion I laid out what they were, and why.

If you don't remember the content, you should dig it up and re-read it. It was a pretty great discussion if you ask me.

I do remember it, I think. If I'm right I remember a discussion about the origins of the attacks on Keynes coming from the Chicago School (Friedman I think) as far back as the early 1970s. That one?

 

[editec]

John Kenneth Galbraith, whose politics were well to the left of Keynes, not to mention Drucker, agreed with this assessment. "The broad thrust of his efforts, like that of Roosevelt, was conservative; it was to endure that the system would survive," he wrote. But, Galbraith added, "Such conservatism in the English-speaking countries does not appeal to the truly committed conservative."

Yeah, that's right.

FDR understood that sans some intervention this nation was going to become some kind of truly socialist nightmare.

Now, I fully understand why his detractors at the time though FDR was a socialist, of course.

But had he done NOTHING, the pain of the people would have been so egregious that they'd have followed any demogogue (far right or left!) which promised them relief from their immediate suffering.

FDR saved his CLASS by forcing them to give enough back to the people to give them hope.

Now does that sound familiar to something that is happening today, folks?

The rich got so greedy that they broke capitalism, again.

Now the current POTUS must impose more socialistic measures to counteract the mess that the master class has made of what was once the wealthiest nation on earth.

It's sad but that's what happens to a people who start believing that greed is good, and that their government is evil.

Eventually the master classes collective greed breaks the social contract so badly that some radical steps need to be taken to keep the whole system from collapsing into anarchy.

Two ways to fix things...either some totalitarian governemtn (think NAZI germany) or some bending of the market monopolies to give the people a chance to survive until the economy recovers.

FDR saved capitalism, folks.

Let's just hope Obama is up to the task, too.

 

[Neubarth]

So far, I don't think Obama is up to the task. The only people running this country are the corrupt bankers like Goldman Sachs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Interesting take.

Keynes Was Really A Conservative - Forbes.com

yeah, yeah, yeah, and JFK, LBJ, FDR and other liberals were never really Democrats either.


sigh

 

[mascale]

Nixon finally conceded that he was "Keynesian." The current U. S. economy, even then: Is not "Keynesian," however. In Nixon's case, of course, there also a problem with the concept, "crook."

Obama is less remembered for having carried his campaign to the streets of now Jew-Free Germany:
than he is for the pictures with the little German moustache that are now making the rounds in Kennedy's Massachusetts. The famous Massachusetts, senior senator's own father. not unlike the famous in-law's father, of Schwarzenegger: Themselves had problems with the concept, "Keynesian." "Fascists," they could admire and support, and even work with.

"Keynesian" policies are so hard for so many people to immediately understand.

The bail-out of this nation's failed financial institutions, and manufacturers--and not a global bail-out of all the financial institutions and manufactuers of all the nations: Is actually fairly "Fascist." It even makes better sense to so-state when in fact not all the nation's financial houses were so generously regarded. Bernie Madoff, of course, had that part down pat.

In the cited article, Keynes is properly identified with "stimulus," for which there is some nature of "response' in the economy. The bail-outs created no response at all, and were not a stimulus. The socialism with which Bush-Cheney, Obama-Biden, are to be identified with is "Fascist," It is widely shown that bankers have even continued with business as usual, and bonuses as usual, and pay rates as usual. "Communist," or "red-(state(?)), socialism" is not at issue in the current economic policies. The public ownership is for the profit of the government and the nation.

Again, as is usual--even in the current "Fascism:" Living people are not involved. They go into unrelieved unemployment, and into foreclosures, and then onto other defaults of obligations. They get identified so that they can be named, and then hunted down later.

Jewish people seem best, to understand the part about, "not being involved." Even in America, tt was all supposed to be left up to Bernie. Even when the famous Nazi Jew-laws were being put into place, still many understood about, "not being involved," Even then. Neither old Joe Kennedy, nor Nazi Collaborator Schwarzenegger, were involved.

Again, "Fascists" already know about that!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So apparently, in the Post-Racial Colonies, it is really all about, "Back to Basics," after all! Even The Ivy League understands about this(?), and at Yale! Clergy, in South Chicago, understand this!"

 

[Paulie]

Interesting article. I think Keynes was a bit hard on Marx though. Still, I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. I am surprised at the seemingly bitter attacks on Keynes from the American right, I can't work out why it is.

Remember a couple months ago we had that lengthy discussion over a couple days about Keynesianism?

In my case, I wouldn't call it a "bitter attack", but I certainly do have my differences with the man. In that discussion I laid out what they were, and why.

If you don't remember the content, you should dig it up and re-read it. It was a pretty great discussion if you ask me.

I do remember it, I think. If I'm right I remember a discussion about the origins of the attacks on Keynes coming from the Chicago School (Friedman I think) as far back as the early 1970s. That one?

No, it was more like me explaining to you why I disagreed with Keynesianism, and why I thought the Austrian School should be given a chance.

I did mention Friedman though, when I put Reaganomics into perspective. It was said that Reagan wasn't a Keynesian, but he utilized a 3-prong approach to the situation he was faced with, one of which included blatant Keynesianism. There has not been one president since Keynesianism was first utilized by the US government, that hasn't been a Keynesian.

 

[Diuretic]

Got it now I remember.

 

[Diuretic]

Nixon finally conceded that he was "Keynesian." The current U. S. economy, even then: Is not "Keynesian," however. In Nixon's case, of course, there also a problem with the concept, "crook."

Obama is less remembered for having carried his campaign to the streets of now Jew-Free Germany:
than he is for the pictures with the little German moustache that are now making the rounds in Kennedy's Massachusetts. The famous Massachusetts, senior senator's own father. not unlike the famous in-law's father, of Schwarzenegger: Themselves had problems with the concept, "Keynesian." "Fascists," they could admire and support, and even work with.

"Keynesian" policies are so hard for so many people to immediately understand.

The bail-out of this nation's failed financial institutions, and manufacturers--and not a global bail-out of all the financial institutions and manufactuers of all the nations: Is actually fairly "Fascist." It even makes better sense to so-state when in fact not all the nation's financial houses were so generously regarded. Bernie Madoff, of course, had that part down pat.

In the cited article, Keynes is properly identified with "stimulus," for which there is some nature of "response' in the economy. The bail-outs created no response at all, and were not a stimulus. The socialism with which Bush-Cheney, Obama-Biden, are to be identified with is "Fascist," It is widely shown that bankers have even continued with business as usual, and bonuses as usual, and pay rates as usual. "Communist," or "red-(state(?)), socialism" is not at issue in the current economic policies. The public ownership is for the profit of the government and the nation.

Again, as is usual--even in the current "Fascism:" Living people are not involved. They go into unrelieved unemployment, and into foreclosures, and then onto other defaults of obligations. They get identified so that they can be named, and then hunted down later.

Jewish people seem best, to understand the part about, "not being involved." Even in America, tt was all supposed to be left up to Bernie. Even when the famous Nazi Jew-laws were being put into place, still many understood about, "not being involved," Even then. Neither old Joe Kennedy, nor Nazi Collaborator Schwarzenegger, were involved.

Again, "Fascists" already know about that!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So apparently, in the Post-Racial Colonies, it is really all about, "Back to Basics," after all! Even The Ivy League understands about this(?), and at Yale! Clergy, in South Chicago, understand this!"

Not being schooled in economics I have a lay person's view of the topic. I know that Keynes' theory is much more than "stimulus" but that's about all I personally know about it. What is interesting to me is what existed before Keynes in terms of economic theory and practice. If Keynes saved capitalism after the Great Depression (or during it or whatever) then what was guiding the economies of the west at the time?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nixon finally conceded that he was "Keynesian." ...

Again, "Fascists" already know about that!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So apparently, in the Post-Racial Colonies, it is really all about, "Back to Basics," after all! Even The Ivy League understands about this(?), and at Yale! Clergy, in South Chicago, understand this!"

from the big bad boogy man of socialism to fascism. wtf is up with the bankrupt ideas people like you are selling?

 

[mascale]

There are better tables than in the link below, but the matter is shown. Lord Maynard Keynes did not invent the federal deficit, but in fact--The United States has been spend-on-the-rich for decades, going onto centuries.

The Public Debt — Infoplease.com

1) In the United States, The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
1a) That is a computing flaw, in the Law.
2) Said system doesn't work. The Poor failed to repay the mortgages, the rich financial houses all failed.
3) The recent bail-out of the rich is so far about $2.0 tril., and Obama has even correctly identified Ben Bernanke, Hero of Our Nation, has having correctly started the "Blitz" response, in the Bush Adminstration.
4) Ben Bernake did not bail-out England, however, France, China, or even Lehman Brothers. "Other" national groupings were not included.
5) Centralized banking and credit is actually in The Communist Manifesto, but therein is supposed to benefit an international worker's revolutionary civilization.
6) The U. S. Federal Reserve is not international, unlike the International Monetary Fund, but is local and parochial--and works within the national system, wherein, "The Rich Get Richer, and The Poor Get Poorer."
6a) There is a computing flaw in that system, which is generally not statistically adjusted.
7) The common English Translation of (6) above, is "Screw Everyone Else," who is not rich, in the nation--or of the certain groupings, expected and allowed to be rich.
8) The U. S. Federal Reserve is a central government creature, though is legally independent of it.
9) The U. S. Federal Government is widely regarded to be a Central Government.

State Run economies, of Central Governments, include the former Soviet Bloc nations, Mainland China--and even, more or less now--and then continuing, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Third Reich. Albania, too--is possibly state-run, of the less than-mega Central Government state-run.

In the above, Mussolini and Hitler were not Internationalists, but were nationalists.

And so you see, that State Run economies are Socialist, but clearly differ according to means and agenda.

Back to the $2.0 tril. dollar bail-outs of the rich. The comparison is with "Cash For Clunkers," which created a $3.0 bil. sales bonanza, in three-weeks time. The $2.0 tril. is mega-state-run, and only of benefit to U. S. National organizations. Cash For Clunkers was available for any nation's cars--that met the standard, from worldwide. The cost was $3.0 bil., about 1 tenth of one percent of what the bail-out monies cost. Upward of 25,000 have immediate new jobs.

The bail-out monies created no such stimulus. Yes, the Cash For Clunkers money spending was confined to the United States, but the Japanese are still likely happy with the outcome--as an example. It was also vaguely redistributive. People with clunkers are not regarded mega-buck inventors of the internet, for the most part--or even therein employed. It is not shown that most of inner city, Washington, D. C., has moved to Seattle. It is not shown that most of inner city Detroit has actually moved to Seattle, for example--just noted in passing. That, clearly, is Lawyers-Obamas, Ivy League, supported. Detroit and D. C., could, however, participate in Cash For Clunkers.

Cash For Clunkers was an equal-dollar amount, and an egalitarian and equalitarian distribution. In contrast, The $2.0 tril. bail-outs mainly preserved the status quo, and clearly failed.

Again, the "bailout monies mainly preserved the status quo, and failed." It is not shown that the new millionaires of the Obama Adminstration intend to send all their money to bail-out the Social Security Trust Fund. Even the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the cost of the new Obama Millionaires will be $7.0 tril. of new Federal Deficits.

Obama owes his Presidency to the cross-over Republicans who support that.

So During the recent two-years, not much stimulus happend. Instead, a whole lot "preservative" happened. Mostly, it is Central Government Run, and mostly it is cofined to the one nation.

Peanut Butter and Preservatives are not generally regarded the stuff of economic stimulus worldwide.

So mostly, the bail-outs represent a U. S. Central Government, coordinated effort--to not only run, but to buy U. S. companies. It is being done on behalf of certain U. S. Nationals, and to the exclusion of others.

Keynes, however, who is dead: Is Not Involved!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Not all companies, again, were intended to be included, Lehman Brothers was not included, and Bernie Madoff was not included--just magically, somehow, in America! That part, South Chicago--especially its clergy, and Rev. Billy Graham--who knew Nixon--understand! The Holy Father, from his own Christian experience of the Hitler Youth--can guess that it is really not all bad! Every so often, the times are just like that! It's In the Bible, and in the Old Testament!)