The timing of publication seems good for this thread:

The Lowdown on Crude Keynesianism
Keynesian "economists" push a second stimulus
By William Anderson
Published: 15 July 2009
As the economy goes south, we hear calls for a “second stimulus,” most prominently from Paul Krugman, the Nobel-prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist. To argue against further accumulation of government debt and the printing of new money, according to Krugman, is to fall back on “discredited” economic thinking:

For the past 30 years, we’ve been told that government spending is bad, and conservative opposition to fiscal stimulus (which might make people think better of government) has been bitter and unrelenting even in the face of the worst slump since the Great Depression. Predictably, then, Republicans — and some Democrats — have treated any bad news as evidence of failure, rather than as a reason to make the policy stronger.

In dealing with the crude analysis that accompanies such Keynesian thinking, I use Krugman’s columns because he is the most popular exponent of that viewpoint. If one wishes to learn Keynesianism, read Krugman’s columns.

The Keynesian economic “theology” holds that only spending matters. Keynesians believe that it does not matter who does the spending, although it is preferable for government to do it, since politicians love to buy votes with other people’s money.

A recent quote in a Krugman column demonstrates this point. He claims that since private borrowing is down, even with the government’s current rapid accumulation of debt, overall borrowing is less than what it was during the boom. Thus he concludes the overt worrying of some over the massive increase in government debt is just another tale of woe from the “economic Cassandras.”

Continued at [Link]

__________________
“Some writers have so confounded society with government as to leave little or no distinction between them ... [Yet s]ociety is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness.” - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

"Bleeding head good. Healed head bad."

They certainly will refer to the 'type' of spending. Military Keynesianism, a popular choice amongst the right wing, is less effective.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

I would rephrase this to state:

"They certainly will refer to the 'type' of spending. Military Keynesianism, a popular choice amongst the right wing, is more harmful."

__________________
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Forum Rules and Guidelines: http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...uncements.html

Keynesianism is about protecting capitalism. The attempts to hide from that reality, such as the inappropriate use of stagflation to attack the Phillips Curve, have failed.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Keynesianism is sheer nonsense and as such is the destruction of capitalism

There is no such thing as equilibrium in any economy.

Actually, that you state you are simply "opposed" to both makes me very suspicious about the type of bias you bring!

It is a corporations responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, which they clearly were not doing. They are even required by law to do this, so I can't fathom how they weren't breaking the law.

Speaking of ARM loans, the banks were doing a lot of strong-arming of customers. I'm sure many people did ask "the experts" what they can afford and what happens to an adjustable rate loan. The problem was that they were in many cases being given, to put it nicely, bad advice.

Consider that the very people one typically asks for advice about how to proceed in the very complicated procedure of buying a house were on-the-take in the bubble bonanza itself. Many people were in the situation, and it's hard to see how they would know they were in this situation, of asking The Devil Himself for advice about selling their souls.

Theoretically the decision always comes back to the loan-applicant. The reality is much more complicated.

__________________
I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure. People tell me I'm argumentative, but I beg to differ. All I know is it's bad luck to be superstitious.

Prime example of principal agent problem.

__________________
X▲
▲ ▲