The Ecomony will not Recover until the Government Spends MORE Money!!

John Maynard Keynes is not what economics is based on. He's an individual. So he's irrelevant to the topic. Unless you're talking about his analysis. Otherwise, his views do not dictate what happens. He's just one guy, like you, like me, that says things. Why are facts relegated to be called 'leftist talking points'? I don't understand that line of thinking. Economics isn't partisan. It's absolutely separate from ideologies of politics. It operates a specific way under a capitalist based mix-market economy (which is what we have, anyone who thinks we have a free-market economy is a dope) and no politician can dictate how it operates. They CAN however use how it operates naturally and provide incentives for it to grow and operate smoothly or they can create policies that ruin it or both. No politician can change the natural operation of such a thing. You can only analyze history, something you apparently do not do, and see what policies worked and what policies didn't work.

There's no James Maynard Keenan required for any of that. Like I said, economics works in our model with or without him, with or without good policies and it's up to our politicians to understand from experts (which may or may not include James Maynard Keenan) how to promote growth and follow that up with action. It's widely known that adding austerity to recession in our style of economy has caused more problems and solved very few. Paul Ryan wants austerity while we have an artificial 'growth' which is basically saying "Cool, more jobs at McDonalds less actual buying power for people and oh look, the stock market is booming for people who actually HAVE two cents to rub together" which is all just a smoke screen. Pretty much every economist worth a damn are saying we are in a recession, it's gonna get worse and the way we can improve it is to give buying power to consumers via gov't spending. It's simple, it's effective and it's literally an INVESTMENT that nets the country and it's citizens more money.

BTW, we already got Paul Ryan's budget plan and then some. Hold onto your butts, folks.

 

You said "what does Keynes have to do with Economics?"

As though Keynes worked at a muffler shop. I submit that you didn't know who the hell he was, and that our present monetary management system as run by the FED is based - now very loosely - on Keynesianism.

Erm...he's dead.

Because they're not facts.

John Maynard Keenan?

akphidelt exemplifies neo-Keynesianism. He believes that without the FED inflating our money supply and artificially prompting spending of this newly diluted currency, we can have no growth. That is nonsense; Britain (as BritishBoy pointed out) has expanded its GDP while cutting spending. We did; in the past. We are borrowing from our kids and grandkids to inflate our currency badly; the only reason it hasn't had an effect to this point is that the money remains unborrowed (read; not in circulation) because the economy isn't at all sure how to address Obama's ACA, nor his decidedly business antagonistic regulatory efforts, nor what he will do in the future. Business remains afraid.

If that changes, however, there are billions of dollars to be lent, and that money will quickly inflate our dollar beyond our ability to control it IMO. Meanwhile, we have created for ourselves the odd situation of being in danger of deflation because the economy is so bad. Obama isn't offering the traditional fixes to a sluggish economy (tax and regulation cuts, etc). He is piling on in the exact opposite direction, and we have not recovered as a result. Keynesianism has become the effort to create one increasingly large bubble after the next, so our increasingly volatility and uncertainty should come as no surprise.

This will not end well. These people need to be thrown out on their asses.

 

Oh good grief John Maynard Keynes is the one that came up with the idea of a stimulus. Saying he is irrelevant is like saying shotguns aren't relevant to bird hunters. Until he came along no one had ever heard of let alone tried government spending to prime the economic pump. Until then recessions lasted on average no longer than they do now and employment rates recover much more quickly.

 

So...your beef is with him? And we did, actually, have a 50 year boom due in huge part to having an economic system that put consumers first by creating safety nets and ways for people to remain IN the system. Supply side economics benefits businesses, puts people OUT of the system and creates boom/bust cycles. Add to this, removing safety nets, and you're playing with fire. Add to this corporatism in our policies and you get stupid ass, avoidable bubbles. Add to this international 'free trade' and incentive to move work outside the US and you get Detroit.

Again, Keynes is irrelevant. Who CARES who came up with the idea of increasing taxes so that spending can increase and people remain IN the system and become consumers? Consumers drive the economy, not businesses. They would not exist without someone to give them money for something in return. So you give the consumer (*)(*)(*)(*)ing MONEY so there's a reason for a business to even exist at all, and you get things called JOBS.

 

Oh yeah! 42% of what the productive economy produces isnt enough! We are barely spending more then what we spent during the Vietnam era. Only 25% more of our GDP! Our rulers need more cash to spend on failed green energy! More money that won't build any infrastructure worth mentioning! Spend every last dime we have! The people live to serve government, take from them! Fill the politicians pockets! A mansion for every staffer, RAWR!

No but really you have made no case for what they should be wasting money on. Simple calls to steal more are leftist brain fluff, that can't ever point to a time where that improved things. You will just come up with the usual losers argument of "things are worse now, but would have been even worse if Harry Reid didnt spend 5 billion on the Chinese energy firm his son lobbies him for".

 

dumbeat staement ever. If you believe in big government you believe in straling as much as you can. Keynes by thought government spending over 25% hurt the economy. We are at 180% of that.

yes they can. They dictate what you can and cant do (fracking taxi cab medallions) and they can take what you make throygh taxation or debt spending.

how is interference natural?

When has stimulus worked and not prolonged recessions my history major friend? Did we have recessions before stimulus? We're they shorter?

That is the guy from tool.

There is no austerity. You are just repeating what someone wants you to think.

Your government is pushing 80b a month into the stock market. Leftists call for more. Not Paul Ryan. Don't blame it on him.

so only hard core leftists with track records of being wrong like krugman?

It ended in June of 09. This what lefterism makes a recovery feel like.

if you go on another spending spree. Where so you think the money comes feom and where does it go?

How do you go about that? Free cash give away? When has that worked and not lead to inflation? Why do you think consumption that will put us further in debt will solve the problem? Share your historical examples.

No you didn't pass it. We got stuck paying a few trillion more per decade with the Reid plan.

 

Actually, you're wrong. The FED has WAY more control over our economy.....

Why is it ALWAYS the left that whines and complains about banks... but thinks government debt creation should drive the economy?

We'd ALL be better off on an economy built on solid economic principles instead of government debt creation which ALWAYS benefits the banks and corporations LONG before it benefits the common man. Talk about trickle down.......

 

Oh here we go...lol

Are you drunk? I can't even understand what this means. 180% of 25%? Straling? Please be more clear. Not being sarcastic, but I don't want to respond until I know exactly what it is you're saying.

You're talking about specifics of exchanging currency, but they cannot create demand for anything. The taxi-cab medallion thing you're talking about (wtf is that even a reference to?) doesn't create more people wanting to ride in taxi's. It doesn't diminish that demand either. Just as requiring to get a driver's license doesn't change how many people want to own cars in general.

You're mistaking what I'm saying. You're calling it interference. Like if you blew a breath into wind, that's interference with wind and no one else can feel it. What I'm saying is that an economy naturally behaves based on it's model. By knowing how it operates, you can ensure it has the best opportunity to grow by giving it boost here and there. You're not changing how it works. You can't change a dog to eat vegetables and it seems like you think I"m suggesting exactly that. However, you can domesticate a dog to be a house pet. It doesn't change the natural instincts of the dog or what the dog eats.

Why are you asking me and what are you calling a recession? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
I would think -34% over 2 years is huge compared to -1% over 3 years. If you notice, we started adoption of non-austerity during recessions and you can see that the recessions are ridiculously tiny compared to before. Asking a general question like 'were there recessions?' is kinda dumb because asking if a dude is bleeding is different between a guy with a paper cut and a guy who just got his arm chopped off. It removes the nuance needed to address the situation.

My bad. I'm tired. He also has nothing to do with the natural flow of economies.

Are you kidding? Gov't shut down? Paul Ryan's budget plan (with extra cuts)? Austerity literally is government spend cuts in a perceived notion that it's saving money. You don't earn money by putting it in savings. You earn it by investments, i.e. in this case you should invest in the economy.

The stock market is not the economy and right now it's so fake in terms of value, there's no telling how much it's going to plummet in the near future. People keep thinking that's a sign of a healthy economy and always ignore unemployment and GDP and purchasing power in general for the masses.

As well, it would make sense for Paul Ryan to want to spend money on social services and throw it at his friends on Wall Street. He's transparent as (*)(*)(*)(*) and looks like Eddie Munster's kid to boot. DAT WINDOW'S PEAK! Sorry, couldn't resist, but the guy is the worst corporatism shill I've seen in a while.

And you would rather have Peter Schiff? lol He lost millions of dollars of his client's money at his offshort pyramid scheme which seems to only ever benefit himself...lol

 

Obama disagrees with you. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

 

Medallions are a method to regulate the number of cabs in places like NYC. If you want to start a cab company in New York--it would be cheaper to just never work again if you have that kind of money (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/n...s-stifling-the-dreams-of-cabdrivers.html?_r=0)

 

when a government starts pumping money into the economy to get it to grow it has to continue to keep pumping money into the economy because the economy gets dependent on that money. so there is no such thing as a one time stimulus it has to continue to continue the effect

economies grow caused by the creation of wealth government doesn't create wealth it just redistributes it

it is like having a bucket half full with a hole at the bottom and you want to fill that bucket to the top you will never fill that bucket to the top by only adding back the water that leaked out of the bottom

 

The first recession worthy of the name was in 1819. The government did nothing. The economy recovered within months.
The first real economic crisis was the Panic of 1837. Andrew Jackson and Levi Woodbury had eliminated the National Bank making our currency unreliable. European investors called in their debts, which banks-with no government protection-could not pay. The government did nothing. The recession lasted six years until the debts were finally paid.
A slight slump in the 1850s prompted more agitation about slavery. The government did nothing. It recovered.
The Panic of 1873 was related to gold and silver speculation, but the rapid development of big businesses quickly recovered. Farmers were unaffected.
The McKinley Tariff of 1890 somehow caused another crisis about the gold standard and a three-year recession called the Panic of 1893. Mckinley lost his seat in Congress but rebounded and became President in 1897.
The return of soldiers at the end of World War I caused some high unemployment numbers and drove Harry Truman into bankruptcy and into politics. The government couldn't have intervened because Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and the Republican Congress refused to cooperate with him. The economy quickly recovered and had a 10-year unregulated boom.
That led to the Great Depression. The tradition of doing nothing would not work. Banks closed down so life savings were lost. The stock market crash left businessmen broke. They didn't know how to be poor, much less get rich only be rich. Farmers could still eat their own produce but unemployed factory workers were starving and couldn't get their money from the bank or their last week's wages-because the factory owners couldn't get their money either.
FDR closed all the banks and reopened only those ready to do fair business. Then he started a series of government programs that both gave poor people jobs and did something useful like create sewers and sidewalks.
Unemployment compensation, Social Security, Disability and Welfare followed to guarantee no one had to starve. Farm subsidies, business regulations and the minimum wage proceeded to create a government-regulated economy.
That was Keynes idea.
Think of this:
Before income tax no one knew how much anyone else was paid.
Before property tax no one knew how much their own house was worth.
Business transactions included trading goods and services, livestock and food, so people could get what they needed in exchange for any personal possession.
Would anyone like to trade 10 dresses for a car?

 

And you know investments don't have quick return, right? To explain it another way, let's say you invest 20 bucks in something and after 1 year, you only get back 1 more dollar, for 21 dollars. But let's say that investment is designed to be long term (1 year is short) and after 5 years that 20 bucks earns 200 dollars. You can't say that the 20 dollar investment wasn't wise because in year one, you only got 1 dollar back. This is silly.

Again, you're forgetting that over half of the wealth in the country is literally stagnant. The other half is moving in small circles and eventually stopping. An economy without moving money is a dead one.

How is that possible? According to the law, the max allowable to spend is 400b? Besides, TARP's function is assuming that bankers AREN'T (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. We know this to be untrue. Again, the money is being sponged up and remains largely stagnant. It's a good example of a good idea implemented quite poorly, and still no one's held accountable for the fraud being manipulated. Don't think that I'm for anything that doesn't properly stimulate the economy. To stimulate the economy, you create consumers, not throw money at banks who aren't using that money for loans (which create consumers, btw). But this is a whole institutionalized fraud thing going on as a result of deregulation as well.

Then you have Japan which has the most ridiculously effect transportation on the planet...oh and it was centrally planned and public. Basically, this thinking that privatizing = best is false. There's nothing wrong with creating new infrastructure as state owned to put the pieces in place THEN sell off to private market once it's established. If you rely on privatized industry to develop infrastructure, you get what we have now, large black spots in terms of broadband internet coverage. If the government stepped in and put into a place a future proof structuring that could be upgraded at will by private companies when handed over, we'd be getting somewhere and might be competitive on that front. As well, infrastructure spending has been decreasing over the last 6 years. And it's showing now more than ever. If the roads were private market, I predict as little money as possible would be spent on roads as upkeep and until a court proved that a guy died from driving over a gnarly pothole sending him out of control or a bridge collapsed, nothing more would be done other than to put the checks in the boxes. I mean, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es gotsta get paid, right?

Also, it's no secret Wall Street owns capital hill. I wouldn't be surprised if hedge fund managers and investment bankers and stock brokers living the high life don't have a special security card to get in and out of the white house and have a beer with Obama without dealing with secret service and bodyguards. Obama: "Yeah, Steve, come on up!"

You seem to think I don't know where the corruption lies, which couldn't be further than the truth. Can't throw a dollar bill on the ground in congress without all the seats simultaneously emptying. Public servants my ass.

 

We are a big nation. Why do you think it is efficient to spread 3G to every corner where it isn't profitable to do so? I mean 4G. I mean whatever they have come out next time. Our private coverage network is far bigger then Japan's.

Where do you think the money comes from? What does money represent? Did you create value when you printed money or did you just tax the value created by others out there? You see the point I am making right.


If there is a bridge in disrepair name it so we can find out what happened to the money that was supposed to maintain it.

 

Which doesn't happen until there's a reason for productivity...demand for the product, which comes from people with money to spend. Arguing supply-side economics is ass backwords.

 

I agree and I disagree. Demand is very important and most demand is consumer driven. But there are supply side economic situation which create demand, that being creating new or better products than are currently on the market. During down business cycles it is important that demand be increased, but government spending does not increase overall demand, it simply changes the set of people who are doing the demanding. During a down business cycle who exactly reduces demand? The less wealthy who are either unemployed or underemployed or afraid of being unemployed. The top 50% continue their demand at similar levels as during the up cycle. We can safely say that until demand goes up, the down cycle will continue. During the up cycle with the bottom 50% start spending again, coupled with new products the economy continues to grow, and so long as it is in the up cycle supply side economics play a large part of the sustenance of that up cycle. Nothing is clear cut, and the model is occasionally wrong, such as the period of stagflation during the Carter error when we were in a down cycle and interest rates continued to climb stifling growth.

 

This assumes that you can generate new (i'm assuming you mean 'better' products? I.e. 4K TV over HD?) products exactly when needed and that the products are things people without money to spend will be so overwhelmed by that product they will dip into their savings or food money to buy it when they are unemployed/underemployed. I'm fairly certain that most sane people would skip out on that TV (I still rock 2 CRT's myself, no flat screen TV in the house) if it meant the difference between paying rent or helping the economy by buying something they can't afford. Currently, we have a system that is ridiculously top heavy. It's just people who had the ability to weather the storm better than everyone else playing patty cakes. They're not making new jobs by making new products on a whole. The only industry really expanding right now is low paying service industry jobs. We're still not producing a whole lot more save for a few notable examples (such as Apple's decision to do final assembly of the Mac Pro inside the states).

However, we still have the issue that trade agreements provide great incentives to not have production jobs inside the United States which is where the middle class was born from: Production itself, as you said. I'll still have to disagree with you that any form of supply-side economics is ultimately employer beneficial, not employee and that's a huge disadvantage for anyone trying to weather a downturned economy since the employer has ultimate power of whether or not to hire an employee since they know the market is on a down turn trend, so there's probably not a lot of customers to warrant hiring another employee...and we're back to where we started, demand driven economy.

 

Why did this get necroed exactly?