The Problem with Keynesianism is that Most Keynesianist dont Understand Keynes

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie does have to write enough about a subject in his OP to make it clear he knows what he is talking about.

He did not do that until challenged on it. Yes, JB, you have to demonstrate competent knowledge of the subject, and you did not do that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie does have to write enough about a subject in his OP to make it clear he knows what he is talking about.

He did not do that until challenged on it. Yes, JB, you have to demonstrate competent knowledge of the subject, and you did not do that.

No I dont, since in that case I was providing quotes for people to draw their own conclusions from. It was never intended to be an exposition, dude.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, stop the lying, JB. You intended to make a statement about Keynes, when in fact you understand very little about him. At least one of the quotes is questionable.

You are such a Fail on this.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

First off, I really really fail to see where you are going with this. Your quotes don't seem to take any kind of logical process, they seem to be nothing more then random quotes. I also think you are misunderstanding some of them.

I am contrasting some of them with the way popular Keynesianists like Krugman seem to think it is.

Those points are:
1. Governments are supposed to pay off their debts during years of good economic growth so that they can defecit spend in years that need government stimulus.
2. Keynesianism is not a form of socialism or Marxism. Krugman, for example, doesnt seem to give a shit about any differences between the three approaches.
3. While Keynes recognized the faults of capitalism, he saw nothing worthy of replacing it and so wanted to make it more efficient and more humane via government leadership and validation of the market and marlet practices. Krugman and the neoKeynesianists of our time seem to think capitalism is not the best model but Fabian soicialism is instead.
4. Keynes, being a Brit, simply assumed the government had the right to intervene into the markets in any way it wanted because in that country all things ultimately belong to her majesty's government. For American neoKeynesianists this is problematic since we do not have that as the foundation to our laws as the Tenth Amendment specifically limits the scope of Federal authority though Keynesianists have been telling everyone that the 10th is an anachronism that needs to be ignored for the last 80 years or longer.

As to the accuracy of the quotes being from Keynes, take it up with Wkiquotes. They seem to have more resources than you do and they apparently have confidence these quotes are from Keynes.

1) Ok most modern keynesianists believe that too, including Krugman. The problem is that during good times their voice gets drowned out by the "all we have to do is grow at the rate of deficit". That second voice is easier to follow and more popular with the people, so therefore it is followed. This is not about keynesianists, it is about them being ignored in good times, by both the right and the left.
2)I have not heard Krugman et al, saying we should nationalize banks, the energy sector or any other sector, so I don't know why you think that they think its socialism.
3) You are going to show how Krugman and others are advocating for a fabian society, which you haven't.

As far as wikiquotes, the problem wasn't on their end, it was on your end. You need to learn how to use it. In the section attributed you need to understand what that means. It means that someone said that he said it. Second hand information at best, with little to no proof that he actually did say it. Yet you claim it as proof that he did say it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, stop the lying, JB. You intended to make a statement about Keynes, when in fact you understand very little about him. At least one of the quotes is questionable.

So now your psychic abilities are failing you, lol, Jakey-pooh.

1. I stated my point in response to an earlier poster.
2. I think the quotes got across what I thought was apparent.
3. You dont have a fucking clue what I know about Keynes, lol.

BTW, if you have a problem with the quotes take it up with Wikiquotes, not me.

You are such a Fail on this.

Hardly, but you do need to get a refund on your Mighty Kreskin School of Psychic Reading, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

First off, I really really fail to see where you are going with this. Your quotes don't seem to take any kind of logical process, they seem to be nothing more then random quotes. I also think you are misunderstanding some of them.

I am contrasting some of them with the way popular Keynesianists like Krugman seem to think it is.

Those points are:
1. Governments are supposed to pay off their debts during years of good economic growth so that they can defecit spend in years that need government stimulus.
2. Keynesianism is not a form of socialism or Marxism. Krugman, for example, doesnt seem to give a shit about any differences between the three approaches.
3. While Keynes recognized the faults of capitalism, he saw nothing worthy of replacing it and so wanted to make it more efficient and more humane via government leadership and validation of the market and marlet practices. Krugman and the neoKeynesianists of our time seem to think capitalism is not the best model but Fabian soicialism is instead.
4. Keynes, being a Brit, simply assumed the government had the right to intervene into the markets in any way it wanted because in that country all things ultimately belong to her majesty's government. For American neoKeynesianists this is problematic since we do not have that as the foundation to our laws as the Tenth Amendment specifically limits the scope of Federal authority though Keynesianists have been telling everyone that the 10th is an anachronism that needs to be ignored for the last 80 years or longer.

As to the accuracy of the quotes being from Keynes, take it up with Wkiquotes. They seem to have more resources than you do and they apparently have confidence these quotes are from Keynes.

1) Ok most modern keynesianists believe that too, including Krugman. The problem is that during good times their voice gets drowned out by the "all we have to do is grow at the rate of deficit". That second voice is easier to follow and more popular with the people, so therefore it is followed. This is not about keynesianists, it is about them being ignored in good times, by both the right and the left.

If these Keynesianists truly subscribed to counter-cycle government budgeting, then they would know that you cant do deficit spending when there is no surpluss to start with. The lack of budgetary recovery puts us into a fragile state where the cure can be worse than the economic disease.

2)I have not heard Krugman et al, saying we should nationalize banks, the energy sector or any other sector, so I don't know why you think that they think its socialism.

They didnt have a problem with Obama nationalizing GM and telling the prefered share holders to go stuff it and cover the unions obligations first, did they?

If saying a prayer in school constitutes an establishment of a state religion then surely nationalizing private industry one business at a time can be understood as a form of socialism.

Krugman and his ideological cousins should have opposed this sort of thing early on.

3) You are going to show how Krugman and others are advocating for a fabian society, which you haven't.

Nah, I am not going to do that as I never intended to do such. If the reader finds a certain resonance with the quotes, that is all I am looking for.

No need for me to wax pedantic overly.

As far as wikiquotes, the problem wasn't on their end, it was on your end. You need to learn how to use it. In the section attributed you need to understand what that means. It means that someone said that he said it. Second hand information at best, with little to no proof that he actually did say it. Yet you claim it as proof that he did say it.

I know what attributed means, but then again ALL history is attributed, isnt it?

We say we are using primary sources when one quotes a person who lived through the event, but then the we are taking the word of the historian about what was said anyway, arent we?

If I read a book that quotes Keynes and the footnotes say the quote is found in chapter X on page Y, who actually checks that stuff out?

Whats more, who cares? The ideologues that completely dominate political discussion today are only concerned with what agrees with their ideology. If it does, then all is right and good, but if it is contrary then the most pernicious act the diabolical author wrote was to publish that work, whatever it was.

The quotes are what they are, take it or leave it as to their reliability which is never very good in the best circumstances, IMO.

It is what it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deny all you wish, but with the beating you have take here, I hope you will work on due diligence next time.

• Oh, stop the lying, JB. You intended to make a statement about Keynes, when in fact you understand very little about him. At least one of the quotes is questionable.

  
  [*]So now your psychic abilities are failing you, lol, Jakey-pooh.
  
  [*]1. I stated my point in response to an earlier poster.
  [*]2. I think the quotes got across what I thought was apparent.
  [*]3. You dont have a fucking clue what I know about Keynes, lol.
  
  [*]BTW, if you have a problem with the quotes take it up with Wikiquotes, not me.
  
  [*]

  You are such a Fail on this.

  
  [*]Hardly, but you do need to get a refund on your Mighty Kreskin School of Psychic Reading, roflmao.