The Berniephobes are wrong

Of course it is. Do you want to do away with SS and Medicare. How about the Fed...that’s socialism.

 

Or pay their labor or induce them to change their habits in polluting or provide better working conditions using so call, incentives. The government “bribes” corporations and businesses all the time. That’s part of socialism

 

Absurd on its face. Keynes didn't ignore the public sector.

You're no closer to identifying a core set of beliefs economists are pushing on government.

I did not say Keynes was responsible for stagflation.

You didn't read the Bernanke speech. Here it is, again:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

From the speech:

"However, in 1963, Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz transformed the debate about the Great Depression. That year saw the publication of their now-classic book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. The Monetary History, the name by which the book is instantly recognized by any macroeconomist, examined in great detail the relationship between changes in the national money stock--whether determined by conscious policy or by more impersonal forces such as changes in the banking system--and changes in national income and prices. The broader objective of the book was to understand how monetary forces had influenced the U.S. economy over a nearly a century. In the process of pursuing this general objective, however, Friedman and Schwartz offered important new evidence and arguments about the role of monetary factors in the Great Depression. In contradiction to the prevalent view of the time, that money and monetary policy played at most a purely passive role in the Depression, Friedman and Schwartz argued that 'the [economic] contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces' (Friedman and Schwartz, 1963, p. 300)."​

A Congressional mandate. That means your claim the Fed does as it pleases is BS.

You're way out of your depth.

When you're in a hole, stop digging...

 

You are trying to educate slugs. They won't learn from you but you can always follow their trail to where they go to escape your lesson.

 

It isn't socialism. It is corruption.

 

No. It is social spending. I view it as an inappropriate role for federal government but nobody agrees with me.

 

You think it isn’t happening now ? Trump has more then socialized / corrupted the farmers, the billionaires with tax cut give always and the energy corporations. Welcome to whatever.

 

Yes I think it is happening. I didn't say otherwise. But it isn't socialism.

 

Ha ha..
Corporations are special ?

 

Giving money from tax payers funds to the rich is good, buy giving monies to the poor, is bad ? Sounds like a strategy long invoked by republicans,

 

We’ll wait while you “ make up “ a name for it.
Be sure it ends in “ ism”. It sure as s.h.i.t isn’t capitalusm

 

If I could I would like all of your posts in this thread (as I would @fmw). I slightly differ from "the government needs to do less" in that I believe in a mixed economy, however where the Government do get involved (for example a State owned enterprise) it must be run according to the principles of capitalism, in other words it must be profitable.

A mixed economy differ from Socialism in that where there are Government interference it is profitable and not simply a bloodsucker or financial drain on the country. Therefore protect jobs in an industry but also create wealth for society.

 

And, social spending is “socialism”. Notice, they both use the word “ social’. Ism, refers to the “practice of “. Socialism then, is the practice of social spending. This isn’t hard core English vocabulary. This is pretty basic. If you want to belong to a party that doesn’t like the word “ socialism’ fine,

Then, call it “goballygoopism “. But don’t pretend socialism is anymore then what the English language says it is. This isn’t TRUMP university where anyone is entitled to make s.h.i.t up.

 

Sure. Let’s do less. Let’s just eliminate the CDC. How about Medicare and SS and Medicaid. Go for it, see where it gets you with your own Republicans .

 

And not just a coincidence.

 

One thing you need to consider...,. the first and foremost objective of that time was to Unite the Colonies against King George. It was understood that slavery had to be dealt with at a future date and there were a lot of the Founders that wanted to undo it. Another thing about history....it is real easy for you to wag your finger today and claim a sense of moral superiority over the men of those times. They were raised in an entirely different culture that had continued for several hundred years. There are several fingers of blame. The fact is, we have come a long way. There is still slavery in Africa and the mideast. I do not make excuses on American slavery. My ancestors all opposed it and a couple sacrificed limbs and life to oppose it. So I am directly opposed to the slavery of wealth redistribution. We do not need any more.

 

Of all the Democrat Candidates.... Bernie is the only one that cannot so much as feign a smile. He is quite good at waving his arms. Think he would be quite good at directing us deplorables to "re-education centers"....he seems the type.

 

Correct; and this is where you are making your mistake: Keynes was never part of the classical economics school which had resulted in the Great Depression. Keynes wrote his "General Theory on Employment, Interest and Money" (1935) as his antidote to the failed classical system.

Refuted above. Chicago school/neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism as a result of the stagflation in the 70's, when it appeared (Keynes') fiscal policies could no longer maintain full employment with low inflation. (I have already explained how the newly emerging mainstream economists in this era made a mistake when they returned to neo-classical/supply-side theory.

Indeed you did not, but mainstream economists faced with stagflation in the 70's, rejected Keynes and adopted the wrong neo-classical economic theory.

Note the section I underlined. Keynes wrote his General Theory in 1935.

Keynes promoted fiscal policy ie government spending to maintain full employment. So the "prevalent view at the time (in the 70's?) re the cause of the Great Depression" had nothing to do with the 'golden age of capitalism', 1946-1970's, in which Keynesian fiscal policies held sway.

This begs the question: who exactly were the fools who held "the prevalent view of the time, that money and monetary policy played at most a purely passive role in the Depression"?

Certainly not Keynesians, but very possibly neo-Keynesians. In any case Friedman ushered in the new mainstream orthodoxy that is still in place today, followed by Summers, Rogoff and Krugman - all following variants of neoliberalism.

No it doesn't...or rather, I don't claim that at all; what I do claim is the Fed is independent of elected politicians, re seting interest rates. ​

I'm not in a hole yet: and you had better look out for the hole appearing next to you.

 

Have you ever bothered to understand why Fidel Castro's revolution occurred in the first place.....?

See above; you are certainly in need of education....

 

Totally uninterested, other then to say, Bernie must have good reason not to smile when dealing with Trump supporters.

 

So Castro's Revolution was justified and the stories of all the refugees flocking to Florida with tales of jail and torture are propaganda......I see. Well we'll see how that plays out in Florida. No, I'm not going to one of your re education camps. Not while I have my second amendment.

 

I doubt if you smile much either. But I smile and so does our President. Bernie was hardly dealing with Trump supporters last night. They're all fellow "comrades".

 

Castro's revolution was a reaction to a vicious Right Wing Dictatorship.

If you bother to educate yourself, you will learn there is an alternative to Left wing totalitarianism, where incentive and reward for effort are lacking, and Right wing fascism, where reward for effort is skewed to the ruling elite.

Bernie's democratic socialism is somewhere in the middle, where no-one gets left behind.

 

Me: "You can't define what so-called 'mainstream economists' believe and apply your definition to economists 'running the Fed and treasury.'"​

You: "Yes I can, they are neoliberal economists of the school that has been in the ascendancy since Thatcher and Reagan, and they are running the Fed and treasury. The rest of your reply is little better than sham ideology, since you completely ignored all my material relating to the Fed advisor and mainstream economist Summers, in particular."​

Me: "You haven't identified a set of beliefs they share and then described in even the most general terms how they influenced--and influence--government. I guess you're just not going to do it."​

You: "The set of beliefs: neoliberalism/neo-Keynesianism all based on classical economics beginning with Adam Smith, which posits production and distribution in 'invisible hand' markets ALONE, with fantasies about full employment in conjunction with market clearance at stable prices. No consideration of a role for the public sector in wealth creation AT ALL."​

We were talking about who runs the Fed and Treasury now. You couldn't back up your claim, couldn't identify the beliefs of the economists you say set policy, so you go off on an irrelevant tangent about the Depression. You even have the gall to claim I made a "mistake."

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because I have no interest in playing games.

Have a nice day.

 

Correct. And I identified the classical school - on which the mainstream view is based - to which those people running the Fed adhere, now.

I just did. I'm mystified by your inability to at least acknowledge I have done that, whether or not you agree with my contention that those people belong to the "mainstream".

[Do you reject the reality of orthodoxy (mainstream economics), and heterodoxy (eg MMT) in different economic schools, and hence are incapable of comprehending my argument?).

You forced me to comment about the Depression....and stagflation in the 70's.........because you apparently don't understand Keynes' separateness from the current neoliberal orthodoxy

You need to acknowledge the sentence in bold type above.