The reason Keynesianism is still around is because some people have invested thousands in a fancy education just to learn something thats wrong. So instead of admitting its wrong, they just make excuses and defend something so they don't feel like they flushed that money down the toilet.
Dude who the hell let this guy on youtube? Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation? Is this guy fucking stupid? I can write an entire essay about the mechanics of Keynesian Economics and as soon as I got to 1:39, I stopped watching because I was appalled with the amount of remarkable idiocy this guy said. As a finance and economics major, I've studied this for a while and all what he's explaining is political jargon who was probably endorsed by republicans. Everyone, stop watching this shit
@Kim2Sung Yes, he is f*cking stupid. But he's no more stupid than all the people who believe his nonsense. It's a shame. Much of it is simply that they don't like Obama and want the economy to fail, so he won't be re-elected. If the Repubs were in there they'd be spending on the military, because a lot of military facilities are located in the nutcase Repub areas.
Maybe you'll become an economics instructor someday. Good luck! You have your work cut out, but you have truth on your side.
@Kim2Sung Maybe you should force yourself to watch the entire video, as mindless as it is, and find out exactly where his error is. I watched the whole thing, and the only harm was I started growing a tail, my teeth grew longer, and my skin turned leathery. At the end he asks why politicians still believe Keynes if his theories are wrong. I answered that in an earlier post. But I think i know his mistake. Why don't you watch, and we can compare notes and maybe explain the fallacy here?
@keepaopenmind I lied. I did watch the video lol. The only reason I made a gross exaggeration about not watching it is because of that point he brought up at 1:39 which is by all means fundamentally wrong. There's no use in trying to explain this to economic conservatives. An ass will always be an ass. It was my mistake for even trying to make a counterargument and there's absolutely no point in investing my time in educating the parochial - especially online.
@Kim2Sung All right. Yeah, I think that picture around 1:39 is the problem. The monetarists (good name. they think only about money) assume there's a fixed amount of money out there. For the gov't to spend, it has to take it from someone else who would have spent what the gov't takes. That ignores that people and businesses hoard, especially if they think times will get worse. It's not the amount of money that matters. It's the flow of money that matters
Can someone who has actually studied economics answer a question for me? If the government borrows money then they have to pay it back. And by investing in the economy they should get increased tax revenues to pay the debt off. So at the end, the government has invested in the economy with a tax cut or stimulus and also in the bank via interest payments and no money was created or lost. So isn't the govt. like a company, where borrowing and spending is good as long as they pay off the debt?
@iron100159 Not at all. If you're looking at macroeconomics using an approach you normally use to regulate your business or company, that's completely wrong. Microeconomics =/= Macroeconomics. Your logic is correct however when suggesting the "multiplier effect" (look it up on wikipedia). The government should not be worrying too much about the debt - that's the long term goal they're trying to achieve. That's why Keynesian Economics is successful as an economic policy.
@iron100159 Suppose the gov't pays people to plant trees. It pays $3 billion dollars to do so. In 70 years, the trees are worth $3 trillion. The $3B, even adjusted for inflation, is paid off with a profit. Or it pays for the college educations for a whole army of returning soldiers. As a result, the ex-soldiers make larger salaries and pay higher taxes, again resulting in a profit.
It depends on what the gov't invests in. Long range verses short range. In wealth-creating or destroying projects.
@iron100159 You're welcome. Remember, the people who plant the trees don't get the benefits. They just get payment for a job. Their great grandchildren, and the gov't because it's still around, receive the benefits when they harvest the trees. Same with the GI bill. The problem is so many corporations only want short term profits, regardless of the long range effects. The gov't gets to invest in long range stuff that doesn't immediately show a profit. Businesses get the profitable stuff.
@iron100159 Sorry, I said something wrong. Unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps example I gave, where the benefits went to later generations, the GI Bill benefits did go to the returning soldiers. They received higher incomes as a result of their college educations. That was a direct investment in people that paid off to the veterans and the gov't as well.
People who don't like gov't, or who don't like Obama, think the gov't can do nothing right. They are foolish, to put it politely.
Ha of course keynes is wrong, it's been proven time and time again. Bernanke (the biggest Keynesian of them all) has never had 1 prediction/forecast right. The economy is more a social science with some math involved, but ANY government spending slows down your economy in the long-run. The bubbles exist only when governments monetize the debt with fiat currency (printing money, bailouts, government spending on jobs that do nothing to help the economy be regular. Anytime there is a subsidy f
@bradleylax22 You don't know what Keynes said. You just think, or have heard, it just means running a deficit. You need to read what Keynes said before commenting. "ANY gov't spending slows down" the economy? That's insane. The gov't can pay a salary as well as any corporation. Don't believe this propaganda designed to prevent raising taxes on the rich. We're walking into a depression. Unless spending picks up, we'll remain that way. That may be fine for rich folks, but not everyone else.
@baller84milw Keynes isn't wrong. It's just too bad you don't understand economics. And I'm not left wing or for big government. I just don't like recessions or depressions. And I wouldn't count on Obama losing. Why don't you keep your economics separate from your politics?
When they show unemployment at 17.2% during the 30s at 4 47 they fail to mention that it fell from 25% when Roosevelt took office to 2% when he left, and for those who say it was all word war 2, it had already fallen significantly by that time. By taxing the upper class higher than than the rest of the country and spending that money on public works projects, jobs are created and the middle class grows. Also, remember that every time government deregulates the banks, they collapse the economy.
@metsfanshea07 You fail to look at the economic opportunity cost. What if that money was not spent on public sector jobs? You fail to see that that money would stay in the hands of people and businesses, that would in turn create more jobs and wealth. Public sector = inefficiency, private sector free market = true efficiency and economic growth.
@badvariance To some extent you're right. But when the private sector isn't spending, then the gov't had better spend. Otherwise, the economy does exactly what it's doing, and will continue to do.
@metsfanshea07 The man actually said that unemployment remained high when the 17.2% was on the screen. I would assume we al agree that is high. Also, taxing the upper class and corporations more only eliminates jobs. The people who work for them are middle class and their jobs get cut when taxes sky rocket.
@nofear54321 That's silly. You can raise taxes on the very wealthy with no loss in employment. In fact, the best times have been when taxes on the rich were highest. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate on those making more than $1M was 91%. And those were the golden years of the USA. Don't be suckered by the Don't-tax-the-rich crowd. Because of the Bush tax cuts, they have lots of money to propagandize with, like giving money to this Cato Institute no-nothing.
@keepaopenmind What does our economy consist of? Businesses. Do you really think raising the highest tax rates, which affect Corporations because they make millions and billions of dollars, will not induce higher unemployment? Who do you think employs people especially the middle class? When taxes are raised on Corporations, they either cut wages, fire workers, or pass that extra fee onto consumers. Nobody with lower income benefits.
@nofear54321 The economy consists of more than just business. Don't forget the people who buy the stuff businesses sell? You're looking at only part of the economy. Sure higher taxes on individuals and businesses hurts the economy. That's why it's better to tax the rich, especially unproductive wealth or luxury.
The economy is really aggregate spending, all the spending by individuals, business, and gov't. Right now, people and corps aren't spending. So the gov't has to pick up the slack.
@metsfanshea07 Also, if you really think it is the deregulation of banks that causes bubbles and the collapses, you aren't paying attention. The subprime loan crisis we have is due to legislation that the Clinton administration passed in the mid 90's that required banks to lower the requirements for loans. This created the bubble and the increase in subprime loans until the collapse in 2008.
@nofear54321 The exact quote is "Unemployment remained very high throughout the 1930s" while 17.2% is on the screen. This is a clear distortion of facts, as it fell from 25% when FDR took office to 2% when he left. Does this guy mention anything about how the largest drop in unemployment in American history came from government spending on public works projects? No, so I fail to understand the argument.
@nofear54321 It was the banks who issued lines on homes that they new people wouldn't be able to pay back, as they had no interest in them; they were selling them away. The rating agencies were in cahoots with them, as they gave them solid ratings. If the Federal Reserve had more power to oversee these lines, they would have immediately realized what was happening. The deregulated market will screw over the entire economy for profit. We need government to make sure they don't.
@metsfanshea07 Do you not understand that these private sector banks had to make the loans because of the government legislation requiring banks to lower the requirements that people had to make to get the loans. It was part of the Clinton administrations attempt to buy votes from people who couldn't afford the house they want.
@metsfanshea07 The Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt, unconstitutional, and destructive institutions that exists. They even have directors on the board that have been presidents of the banks. They print money so that the government can spend money it doesn't have and cause massive inflation of the American people. It is a hidden tax. You can literally trace all bubbles to government involvement into the private sector.
Why do politicians keep using it? Because they know it works. However, what they don't do is run surpluses when the economy's booming. Who wants to dampen a boom? So they really have only been half-following Keynes. This man assumes that all money is being spent or invested, that the gov't can only get money by taking money from someone who otherwise would have spent it. But people and corporations can and do hoard, or reduce their debt. Not spend. That's when the gov't should spend, like now.
@keepaopenmind - They only know it works "politicaly"... it is like trying to avoid the hangover by remaining drunk... They push the problems ahead, make it better in the very short term and then when it explodes a few years laters, someone else takes teh blame, specialy capitalism takes the blame, which then calls for more intervention... This world is simply doomed.
@dtmoura You should read Keynes, not his critics, such as this Cato Institute propagandist. IMO Keynes was a true economic genius. So, I take it you think "austerity," reducing gov't spending, is the proper course at this time?
@keepaopenmind - Sure we need less gov spending. There is no gov's money, it is only taxpayears or printed money. The gov cannot give without having taken in the first place. But my criticism go to govts and not to Keynes. He unintendedly created a weapon that politicians love, which enables them to create short term benefits (for an election), pushing its cost to the next gov. Keynes even wrote in his last article about his work being distorted. If he had lived just +10 yrs...
@dtmoura All right. I just want to go on record, based on my limited knowledge of economics, that if we reduce gov't spending, the economy will get worse.
I dislike much of what the federal gov't does and would like to see a return to federalism and State power or control. The federal gov't is way too powerful. But what gov't spending would you cut? Across the board? The military? That's a big chunk. Reduced salaries or pensions for gov't employees? Any departments you'd cut?
@keepaopenmind - I needs to happen gradually, over the years, not overnight. Check Ron Paul's plan in his website. Military? Sure, but it is much broader topic. You can also cut all the federal dpts that are doing State work, like the Department of Education. But mainly, the Fed govmt should not bail out broken companies or banks. And of course, the lower gov spend should come with tax cuts so you unleash the free enterprise to generate the jobs the country needs.
@dtmoura If you're a Ron Paul supporter, then no wonder you think "the world is simply doomed." He has some good ideas, like Ralph Nader, but he has no chance.
Schools and Police are traditionally the province of the States. But the federal gov't just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It grows from war to war and crisis to crisis. And within the fed gov't, the president keeps growing in power. We're heading for an elected dictator.
Well, Bush's lower taxes aren't exactly creating new jobs now.
@keepaopenmind "This man assumes that all money is being $pent or Invested... But people and corporations can and do hoard, or reduce their debt. Not $pend."
"hoard" = to $ave (in a bank) = more money availible for lending = Investment$ increase.
"reduce their debt" = $pending.
Your argument is absurd, see how you've contradicted yourself by imagining 'hoarding' as a phenomena. But it's not a real phenomena, you're actually making it up so as to deny simple truths of reality.
@keepaopenmind It's amazing how after 4 recessions in the past 2 decades, one of which the 2007 subprime crisis crippled the economy, people still are turning a blind eye to Keynesian Economics when we've been following an economic policy that resembles the Austrian model. It makes me wonder if people are fucking stupid or if Republican rhetoric and corporate bribes are really getting a hold of this nation.
@Kim2Sung I think it's a little bit of both. I expect ten years from now, when things still haven't picked up, somebody will come up with the bright idea of trying Keynes' ideas again.
People tend to think of the gov't in the same way they think of themselves. They can't run in the red for very long, and they assume the gov't can't either. Plus, they confuse the deficit with the economy. The right, especially, thinks the deficit is more important than the economy. The economy is more important.
@Kim2Sung We have not been following the Austrian model. Most of George W. Bush's policies were very liberal, and leaned to the side of Keynesian economics. He was almost as spendthrift as Obama. It is essential to understand America does not have a free market economy. It is a mixed economy. The government has been increasing its involvement in the economy for decades now and only damages and convolutes everything.
@nofear54321 Is that true ehhh? That makes a lot of sense considering the fact the gov't has been spending during a boom period (aka post-9/11) when Keynesian economics said not to. How about when Bush tried taking down the crown jewel of public welfare, Social Security in 2004? And how do you define involving itself in the economy? - you make it sound like in the past 2 decades the gov't has controlled a large chunk of many of our industry's means of productions.
@nofear54321 America may not have explicitly said its following the Austrian model but it certainly is not a mixed economy. One indication where we have not been following keynesian economics is the growing rift between the income gap of the rich and poor - something keynes himself explicitly designed his economic model to alleviate. A declining middle class is not the indication of a strong policy in keynesian economics. I like how you spoke up bro but you need to dig deeper
@Kim2Sung America certainly has a variation of a mixed economy. A market economy is a true Laissez-faire form of operation. However, in the U.S. the government stimulates sectors of the economy with funds, heavily regulates and taxes our corporations and industries, and in a way picks winners and losers. One of the main misconceptions that people have is that America is still a market economy. They see the economic problems as causes of capitalism. However, it is the government involvement.
@nofear54321 You still dont get it do you. Just because a nation adopts a mixed economy system doesnt mean anything. A mixed economy is not synonymous with Keynesians economics whatsoever - Keynesian economics focuses on governmental fiscal policy, a basic function of government that controls spending curves irregardless of total revenue collected. Fine, America doesnt completely adhere to true capitalism but its economic system has been economically conservative in the past 30 yrs
@nofear54321 Spewing gross generalizations that the government is bringing down American business in this "mixed economy" you keep justifying is a complete lie I'd only expect an anti-government militant or more namely a libertarian would say. Government regulation doesnt pick winners and losers, that's capitalism - the ultimate proof of Darwin's natural selection theory on a socioeconomic scale.
@nofear54321 Economic problems are caused by capitalism itself - do more research and look back on history and then come back and argue with me. Your understanding of economics is parochial and stubborn as an ass. I'm not going to argue with some renegade who jumped on the libertarian band wagon just because he's averted by the government some way or another. People with staunch political beliefs and want to mix it in business have no place in Economics.
haha who would dislike this? a bunch of egotistical people who think they are rational...im pumped up for the new world that the free market can bring us. Ron Paul 2012
govt borrows from its federal reserve (not part of govt and legal has no right to print money) they just print it and give it to govt which in creases nation debt which is good if an increasing amount of people. its like having 20 peas for 3 people peas are not that valuable add another 10 people and peas are worth more. last thing you have to spend all money that is given out by govt thats why bail outs failed
Note to any bystanders. For once I recommend paying attention to tbarr. Undertake the Google searches that he recommends and, when you realize just how divorced from reality he is, do another Google search for mental health professionals in Minnesota and forward their contact information to tbarr so that he can get the help he obviously needs.
@FletchforFreedom A note to all who read this liars posts. first he has not given one example in the last 100 years that supports his econ theory .. and yet he claims its works. he cited reagen. whoops that boy tripled the national debt and gave us a bubble burst housing problem. JUST LIKE BUSHPUNK DID.. YET THIS fletch ignoramous ignores these facts. and calls me mentally unstable cause I point them out.. he is a typical repig liar and pious punk. the brain dead 1 is FLETCHY
This guy does not understand Keynesian economics, at all. Hoover was for "big government?" Sorry, Charlie. And neither was FDR. FDR believed in balancing the budget, which is no way to get out of a depression. That's why it wasn't until the US ran HUGE (check it out) deficits when WW2 came along, that the US got out of the Depression. Nothing magic about war. It was gov't spending. That's what it's going to take now because people aren't spending. Austerity is the exact wrong thing to do now.
@keepaopenmind you repub idiots put us into a double dip in 36 because you kept harping about spending.. you can rewrite history all you want for yourself. the truth is out there for those of us who aiunt HOME SCHOOLED and learned real history
@tbaarr1 Don't call me a repub idiot. Yes, the deficit hawks reduced spending in 1936 and another recession happened. It's still happening in Japan. The gov't needs to spend because people and corporations aren't. It's real simple. But if you're concerned about deficits, which the idiot repubs are, then raise taxes. But get the economy going. Tax cuts, which normally would help, won't help now because people still won't spend. They're reducing their debt and, so, not spending.
@keepaopenmind The old canard about the Roosevelt Recession of 1936-1937 being the result of deficit hawks has also resulted in economists laughing any who bring it up off the stage for several decades. Since no such deficit cutting actually happened and the downturn began long before any such discussions took place, it is absurd. What immediately preceded the downturn was passage of the Wagner Act - a key example of regime uncertainty (see Higgs seminal work).
@keepaopenmind Lets see.I called you a repub because why..Oh ya. you support the libertarian view of big gov is bad.. HMM lets see who is a repub in office who is saying that same thing.. oh ya. That would be the libertarian KOCH WHORE scotty walker of wisconsin.. the little libertarian thats about to be recalled.. and yet you say your not a repub but you support the repub/libertarian direction of your KOCH HANDLERS..Just like johnboy bonehead does and mich mc doodle..thus U R repub BY default
@tbaarr1 Well, you're wrong about me being a repub idiot. I'm a registered Democrat. I don't like Koch at all. He's paying, with his tax reductions, for much of the propaganda that's out there. It boils down to "don't raise taxes, to heck with everybody else." Walker is a Republican. I don't like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the "war on terror." I really don't like how the First Amendment has been twisted. I don't like austerity or anybody who ignorantly criticizes Keynesian economics.
@keepaopenmind Nice try. In fact, FDR ran against Hoover's massive increase in government and then openned the spending floodgates (which prolonged the Depression for years). In fact, the economy didn't improve until 1946 when governmnet was massively cut (there's a reson why the man who developed the GDP calculation specifically argued against including wartime governmnet spending). The notion that spending has EVER resulted in recovery has been comletely disproved.
@FletchforFreedom Nice try, nothing. Let me ask you a question, since you presume to know some economics. When, according to Keynes, should the government run a surplus. When should the government reduce spending? When you can answer that, I'll continue. Otherwise, you simply need to check your facts..
@keepaopenmind Keynes argued spending should be reduced upon acheivement of full employment. The problems are legion: a) government spending has never stimulated anything, b) there is no point at which full employment can be acheived in that manner, c) no example exists of governments following that part of Keynes' advice - having used Keynes as an excuse to spend earlier and d) Keynes advocated holding down interest rates - inevitably inflationary and further undermining the economy.
@FletchforFreedom Right. Good. I'll accept 4% unemployment. When we reach "full employment," I'll agree that we should then cut spending and run a surplus. No booms and no busts. Gradual growth. But full employment, above all else. I'm no fan of big federal government. It does a lot of things I don't like. But this is serious. We could be in this for years. We need full employment, so everybody will feel comfortable spending again.
@keepaopenmind The problem is that governmnet spending NEVER reduces unemployment. It is a logical (and practical) impossibility. It is a complete myth. By definition, every dollar spent by government must be taken from the productive private sector where it otherwise CAN create jobs; it is then filtered through 30% to 60% loss through waste before being misallocated to "green jobs" or other idiocy that the market cannot sustain. Stimulus spending has destroyed millions of jobs.
@FletchforFreedom "government spending NEVER reduces unemployment." Really? You believe that? What's the matter with government spending as opposed to, say, corporate spending? Only the private sector can create jobs? That's absurd. Can't you see that? Or do you just not want to believe it? I'm as libertarian as you. There's a lot the feds do that I don't like. And economics is not a science. But we need full employment.
So, I guess you're in favor of "austerity," reducing government spending?
@keepaopenmind What's wrong with gov't spending is that gov't a) cannot magically create wealth and b) is grossly inefficient. Every dollar it spends must first be taken from the private sector where it CAN create jobs. It is then filtered through gov't, which wastes between 30% and 60% of it aznd then is misallocated to things like "green jobs" that vanish becasue the market cannot sustain them. It is logically, economically and empirically impossible for gov't to create jobs on a net basis.
@FletchforFreedom Suppose a corporation, with plenty of cash, doesn't hire Americans and instead builds factories overseas. Then the gov't taxes that corporation and hires Americans to do whatever, "green jobs," "war jobs," whatever. The person now has a job. You may not like the work the Civilian Conservation Corps did, "green" planting trees, fixing up parks, but those were jobs to the people who got them. It may happen again, too.
But, you're avoiding my question. Austerity? Yes, or no.
@keepaopenmind If by "austerity" you mean massive decreases in governmnet spending - economics indicates it is a universal benefit. If a business builds a factory overseas, it is because it is economically sound to do so. Empirically, this creates even more jobs HERE (the fact is that MORE and HIGHER PAYING jobs are INsourced than outsourced) and ultimately more Americans are put to work, not to mention the fact that consumers benefit from the efficiencies...
@keepaopenmind ... making still more resources available in the private sector to create still more jobs. That the governmnet takes money to create jobs certainly creates THOSE jobs but it can ONLY do so at the cost of GREATER resources available to create jobs had they not been taken from the private sector in the first. And the CCC put people (out of work due to government wage manipulations) to unproductive work for LESS than the new legal minimu, It was an economic disaster!
@FletchforFreedom In a way, I hope we do austerity, just to shut the morons up. You'll see how stupid it is. Let's leave it at that.
You're full of it if you think the Civilian Conservation Corps was an economic disaster. The value of the trees they planted, alone, more than paid for it. It created true wealth, but you probably ignore stuff like that. And it gave jobs to people. Maybe you don't worry about that. "Let the poor starve. That'll reduce unemployment." Is that how you see things?
@keepaopenmind There isn't a competent economist ANYWHERE arguing that the CCC was anything BUT an economic disaster. If the value of those trees created "true wealth", then BY DEFINITION, the MARKET would have seen them planted. And the ONLY reason that the CCC "gave jobs to people" is because governmnet policies destroyed MORE jobs. The FACT is that the programs you are pushing create MORE unemployment, so, if anything, YOU are pushing to "let the poor starve" - not me.
@FletchforFreedom You're just plain crazy or so blinded by your economic fundamentalism,that the markets know better, and governments can do no right, that there's no point talking with you. You need to leave your ivory tower and get out in the world. Experience reality. Find someone who was actually in the Civilian Conservation Corps and ask them if it was an economic disaster. There aren't too many left. Hope you come to your senses someday. Happy Holidays.
@keepaopenmind I never said markets could do no wrong. But that the Cililian Conservation Corps was an economic disaster is neither speculation, nor opinion; it's indisputable history. I am not saying that you are wrong in your opinions; you are unequivocally wrong in your facts. The position I am taking is consistent with the well documented reality (not to mention the experiences of my great grandfather (now long passed). If you have a credible example of gov't doing "right", feel free...
@keepaopenmind The issue is not libertarianism, albeit the Keynesian libertarian is the equivalent of mermaids, unicorns and centaurs. I can see that your position is absurd being completely contrary to literally ALL of the empirical evidence. Full employment in an economic sense can only be acheived with maximum economic efficiency. EVERY interference or expenditure by government undermines that.
@FletchforFreedom SO tell when your non kaynes , tax break small gov theory worked long term sonny. IT was not when coolidge tried a trickle down in the 20's because we had the great depression 8 years later. it was not when reagen tried it again because his bubble burst in 86 and the only reason the recession was mild was because THE FDR program called FDIC bailed out the S/L at taxpayer expense. it was not during clinton. because he used big gov and raising taxes.SURE WASNT BUSHPUNK.. SO WHEN
@tbaarr1 It worked after the Civil War. It worked under Coolidge til the Fed expanded credit causing the Great Depression. No "bubble burst" occurred in 86 and it worked like a charm, interrupted only by the Kuwait invasion (mildest recession ever) until Clinton's tax hikes (resulting in the slowest post recession growth ever) killed it. And the S&L crisis was CAUSED by FDR policies (specifically the separation that created them) nor did the FDIC fix it. Your history ... isn't.
@FletchforFreedom I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES. I worked in real estate .I SAW THE failures first hand..and FDIC BAILED OUT EVERY FAILED SAVINGS IN LOAN. that was not a fix. the fix came in feb 1989 when BUSH SR raised taxes on everyone..I STATE fdic kept the recession from happening big time cause taxpayers bailed out the failed banking industry from 86 till 92. and the S?L crises was caused by JAKE GARN gutting glass Stegall in 1982. glass stegall kept the no down loans from happening under clinton
@tbaarr1 All you’ve “proved” is that you are an economic incompetent (as if referencing Mother Jones didn’t demonstrate that already), having achieved what I would have thought impossible – putting forth an asinine Republicans-are-the-root-of-all-evil “theory” of economics and history so divorced from reality that not a single economist or historian on the entire planet agrees with it. That’s impressive.
@tbaarr1 Virtually NO economist or historian blames either Coolidge or “trickle down economics” (a slur also used only by economic dimwits as we shall see), a concept unknown at the time, for the Great Depression. Most economists agree that it was caused by the FEDERAL RESERVE actions in the late 1920s. The vast majority of economists (and most historians) agree that FDR then prolonged it for several years.
@tbaarr1 FDR, who had run against Hoover’s massive increase in government (which demonstrably made things worse), massively increased government and created regime uncertainty that extended the recession until 1946 (as economic analysis shows). One thing done was to create an artificial distinction between commercial banks and savings and loans. S&Ls covered long term mortgage assets with low return demand deposits – a disaster waiting to happen.
@FletchforFreedom You are truely deluded if you believe what you say. the great depression was caused by an application of what is now know as trickle down.. and I WILL CALL YOU AN OUT AN OUT LIAR when you say there was no bubble burst in 86..ITS what brought down lincoln savings and exposed the mikey milican junk bond bull. which if you had half a brain you would research and see they are a very close animal to the aig bull..houses lost 50% value in cali from 86-89. townhomes lost 75%. LIAR
@FletchforFreedom be sure to tell us more of your lies sonny. a google search for the words bank deregulation timeline shows a very easy to follow page done by mother jones. its the second choice of the search..1982: Sen. Garn coauthors Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which deregulates savings and loan industry... thats a quote from it that caused the 86 bubble burst.."junk-bond king" Michael Milken,collateralized debt obligations" (CDOS)Securities made up of myriad loans and bonds
@tbaarr1 I am quite familiar with the deregulation timeline, but only uniformed imbeciles still blame that for the S&L crisis. When stagflation hit in the late 1970s and interest rates spiked, depositors pulled most of their deposits out of low-paying S&Ls and well over half the industry’s wealth was GONE before deregulation was even discussed. THAT was the cause of the crisis. Deregulation came to late so that, in order to stay afloat, some engaged in absurdly risky practices.
@tbaarr1 Deregulation, composed by St. Germain of Florida (A Dem which would blow your position out of the water even if it weren’t already moronic) didn’t defund the industry; Depression era regulations did. And as any idiot (except apparently YOU) can check, there was no “bubble” that burst in 1986 (or thereafter), Look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the National Bureau of Economic Research and see how imbecilic your claim is.
@tbaarr1 BTW, the Reagan economic program, which bears no resemblance to the “trickle down” mischaracterization, was such a disaster that, even within the constraints of economic statistical gathering, the 1980s was a period (better than nearly every other decade) was one that was so disastrous that, even including the double-dip recession Reagan inherited, the rich got richer and the poor got … RICHER (see the Census Bureau and IRS figures).
@FletchforFreedom hey liar reagen called his program trickle down. and bush sr called it voodoo econ in the 3rd debate in 1979. so you are just proved as a liar. and that recession that reagen inherited began after nam ended. that was repub nixon and fords mess. left over from the 20 year Nam war that repub ike stuck our nose into in 1955-56 and we finally left 30 april 1975. so be sure to put the blame where it belongs. on the repubs that caused it. trickle down serves the rich only. LIAR
@tbaarr1 Okay, now you ARE lying as Reagan NEVER called it "trickle down" and, apparently, the only thing Bush ever said that you agree with was proven empirically false. Well, done, imbecile! Now, the only proven liar is yourself. And you remain historically moronic. Vietnam ended long befire the recession began and while Nixon (one of the most liberal presidents in history) was in large part responsible, it should be remembered that Kennedy and Johnson got us into Nam, not Ike.
@tbaarr1 Eisenhower sent no troops. Kennedy sent the first advisory troops and Johnson sent the first combat troops (on the Gulf of Tonkin lie). And that you are too lazy and stupid to look up the facts from the IRS and Census Bureau blowing your "serves the rich only" delusion hardly makes ME look bad.
@FletchforFreedom hey dumbass the vietnam wall in washington has troop deaths listed in 1958 and 59. we had advisors and troops in nam during ike. you idiot. and bullshit the term trickle down was a primary election tagline
@tbaarr1 hey dumbass, we had advisors under Ike, yes; troops, no (as any idiot - apparently except you - can look up in about 3 seconds). And the term "trickle down" was a slur used to make fun of Reagan's economic policies. It was NOT anything that Reagan - or his campaign - ever said. That's may take a tad longer to look up, but you still come out factually wrong (as if that might be a surprise to ANYONE at this juncture).
Map showing Ho Chi Minh Trail North Vietnam forms Group 559 to begin infiltrating cadres and weapons into South Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The Trail will become a strategic target for future military attacks.
U.S. Servicemen Killed in Guerrilla Attack
Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sergeant Chester M. Ovnand become the first Americans to die in the Vietnam War when guerillas strike at Bienhoa.
@tbaarr1 Neither Buis nor Ovnand were combat troops as, again, ANYONE can research in about 30 seconds. They were advisors you ignorant lying asshole. See, I can use the same language you do - except I don't need to spout easily dismissed falsehoods while doing so. Put simply, unlike when you use the terms, when I call you "ignorant" and "lying", that's not an attack - it's demonstrable fact. And, at this point, a fair argument can be made that the same is true for "asshole".
@tbaarr1 Even Wikipedia gets this one right you moron! "[Chester M. Ovnand] and Dale R. Buis were killed at Bien Hoa, 20 miles northeast of Saigon. He was part of the MILITARY ASSISTANCE ADVISORY GROUP sent to TRAIN the South Vietnam army. The Vietcong attacked while the two were in a mess hall watching a movie. (caps added)" That you are too stupid or too dishonest to state the actual facts hardly makes ME look bad.
@FletchforFreedom the fact that they were advisors does not meaan they were not combat troops. advisors are better trained then the average troop. but your pun k ass cant comnprehend a big picture just your little tidbit that supports your lies.. just like you talk against keynes even though your kideas only have worked after the civil war. they sure didnt work with the reagen bubble burst
@tbaarr1 That's PRECISELY what it means. As Truman's position makes clear, advisors are sent to advise and combat troops are sent to engage in combat. And, again, just because you keep distorting my position does not change the FACT that Keynesianism has failed every time and the free market has worked every time (not just after the Civil War). You couldn't do a better job proving yourself an idiot if you tried. Not having won a single point, do you still wish to be proved a fool?
@FletchforFreedom again dufus. the french were in control until 54 so IKE could have pulled our guys out when the french left. BUT NO,he sent in more troops.. stay stupid. your econ theory is a loser and has not worked since maybe the civil war. and thats why its not used since. and when it was applied as you say under reagen. IT FAILED. 81 reagen in 86 S/L failures 87 crash of the stock market.. 2001 bush in 2007 banks failing and stock market crash in feb.. 2008 major failures . mirror images
@tbaarr1 Your lies are simply getting more transparent. The French departure was a transfer of functions to the US not a sign for US withdrawal and, Ike raised the number of advisors from 327 to a whopping 685 (at the request of the South Vietnamese government). It wasn't til Kennedy that significant troop deployment began. Are you too stupid or too lazy (probably both) to check your facts before making such brainless assertions?!?!
@tbaarr1 Fortunately, there is not an economist on the planet stupid enough to adhere to your comical analysis. Applying the market worked post Civil War, the shrinkage of gobvernment post WWII, when Kennedy cut taxes (much as Reagan did later) and when Reagan did so (and cut regulations) as well (resulting in almost TWO DECADES of nearly uninterrupted prosperity). Even Bush's tax cuts were successful at improving the economy. YOUR economic suggestions have never worked ONCE.
@FletchforFreedom oh and be sure to sing the praises of reagen again. he tripled the national debt. and then your bushpunk doubled it again. and only now do you repigs whine about the debt. YOU NEVER DID WHEN BUSHPUNK WAS SPENDING LIKE A SAILOR AND PAYING FOR IRAQNAM WITH EARMARKS..STAY STUPID
@tbaarr1 Rant back all you want. I'm done with you. Having shown your "facts" to be utter BS, your history to comically inaccurate and your knowledge of economics to be non-existent, I need do no more. Literally, NO ONE will ever take you seriously on this board - ever.
While I very much appreciate you making me look like a verutable Einstein by comparison, I have better things to do.
@FletchforFreedom yes you do ook like an asshole. you clearly stated the only time your theory worked was at the civil war. as your reagen example failed. proven by the bubble burst of the 80's.. You defend a loser econ strategy and then have the gall to call me a fool.. you look like einstiens turd. thats for sure loser.and what history is inaccurate. a google search reveals everything i pointed out. so that makes you the fool /idiot. now be sure to put on your tin foil hat
@tbaarr1 In fact, I accidently let you get away with another stupid factual inaccuracy in your attempt to blame all the world's ills on Republicans instead of dealing with reality. The Military Assistance Advisory Group - the advisors sent in prior to the deployment of any combat troops under Kennedy - was actually sent in 1950 by order of President Harry Truman - NOT Eisenhower. So advisors, initial combat troops and massive escalation were ALL, in fact, done by Dems. You lose.
@FletchforFreedom try again idiot. the french had control till 54. they left and thats when ike stuck our nose in it. LIAR.. i bet you blame kennedy for bay of pigs too. even though it was concieved and trained and the attack date set by vice pres nixon.. stay stupid asswipe
@tbaarr1 Another one even Wikipedia gets right: "In September 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam to assist the French in the First Indochina war. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces." You should just crawl back into your hole - you're just embarrassing yourself.
@tbaarr1 Then you prove how stupid and desperate you can be. Only a blithering idiot could argue that a president is not responsible for something done by his administration because the least powerful elected offical (the VP) had input. Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy (his economic policy most resembled Reagan's) and dislike Nixon (one of the most liberal presidents in history), but anyone still pretending, contrary to reality, that there was ever a Reagan bubble is an obvious fool.
@FletchforFreedom hey jackass. i knew you would say that.. now do some history research. hey look. NIXON was IKES VP. and the overseer of the cia.which funded the training..the training was done under ike's term.you blithering IDIOT. THe attack plan was created under IKE and the attack date was preset while IKE was still in office.So the repubs set up kennedy with a no win. either have the issue come out as an embarrassing example of repig aggression by stopping the attack from occuring.or go on
@tbaarr1 hey jackass, I set you up to further prove your own stupidity. Your "facts" are, again, entirely wrong. While Ike approved the original operating plans, they called for infiltration rather than invasion. Those plans failed. A new plan (having nothing to with the Bay of Pigs) was proposed and tghe president elect was briefed. When that plan was rejected AFTER Kennedy was president, the Bay of Pigs was a NEW scenario approved by Kennedy. No "pre-set" date existed.
@FletchforFreedom bullshit. it s was an invasion that the cia was training those boys for. but your a history rewriter . you just keep repeating lies till someone believes your lies.. You learned that from karl rove or rush limpdruggie.. your obviously not a student of war history. so just keep lying
@tbaarr1 The notion that Kennedy was handcuffed with a no-win situation requiring invasion is obvious bullshit only believed by the unbelievably incompetent. You are simply a buffoon that (THANK GOD!) no one with an actual functioning brain will ever take seriously.
@FletchforFreedom the handcuff was either let the invasion happen or suffer the exposure when the cia trained cubans started exposing the last 2 years of the mission that nixon planned. there is also some proof that the repub handlers leaked the invasion info to castro so there was no possible way kennedy could claim a victory if the cuban expats succeeded. keep lying loser
@FletchforFreedom yes you are a true example of the repig thinking that made the mess this country is in. you repigs make the problem and then you let others take the blame. just like you try to blame clinton for the bushpunk bubbleburst. .STAY STPUID LIAR
@tbaarr1 Please explain, moron, how Bush could have caused a recession that began BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE. You can't because it is obviously impossible. The NBER considered dating the recession in the third quarter of 2000 (the first massive plunge in GDP) and the traditional definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage (which would begin 1/1/2000 - before inauguration). Still the leading economic indicators were in freefall for a full year before Bush took office.
@FletchforFreedom another repig karl rove lie. the market tumbled becasue of the bullshit in fla. then it really tanked when bushpunk allowed silicon valley wholsale outsourcing..your bushpunk said in 2003 the economy was going so great that they would have to raise interest rates to stall possible inflation.And that started the foreclosures of the greater fools..which lead to the exact same bubble burst as in 86..KEEP lying loser. a simple google search proves you to be a liar
@FletchforFreedom keep lying, the truth is out there to easily find for those of us who grew a brain and stopped listening to your libertarian lies and the repub lies.. that timeline clearly shows how phil gramm in 1999, when repubs controlled congress, regutted glass stegall and allowed the same crap of the 80's to happen again in a mirror image of the 80's. and both were a mirror image of the 20's.Keep lying sonny. I JUST PROVED YOU A LIAR.A sub prime is an adj rate loan of the 80's renamed
@tbaarr1 I don’t care if you lived in a sewer and stewed sewer rats for a living. The (easily checked) facts are entirely against you. In the 1990s, the economy was already in a downward spiral (following the Clinton tax hikes) by 1997 (see the leading economic indicators) and likely would have collapsed sooner had capital gains tax cuts not been passed. The “gutting” of Glass-Steagall demonstrably had NOTHING to do with either the recession of 2001 or the current economic crisis.
@FletchforFreedom You can use all the fuzzy math you want LIAR .there was a housing bubble in 86 under reagen. there were massive savings in loan bailouts. and bush sr had not fixed the problem by 92. thats why he got booted. and clinton inherited that 12 year repub mess BUT you havve your home schooled lies to support you..I lived thru it. and will CALL YOU A LIAR CAUSE YOU ARE SONNY. and gutting glass stegall allowed the toxic AIG bundles to be made. just like the milikan crud, GOD YOUR A LIAR
@tbaarr1 There's no "fuzzy math" involved. It is called universally accepted fact. It is easily looked up when booms or busts have occurred and NONE EVER took place in the late 1980s. That the S&L crisis took place (beginning long before then and as a direct result of poor governmnet regulation) is simple reality. Likewise that the economic downturn in 1992 corresponds to the invasion of Kuwait is acknowledged by everyone (and the economy was growing strong before Bush left office).
@tbaarr1 Since, of course, in the real worls, nothing in Glass-Steagall (let alone anything repealed) ever had ANYTHING to do with the types of investments AIG (or anyone else) engaged in, which had all been perfectly legal for decades and were not even remotely problematic til the Fed manipulated the money supply and created the crisis, all you've done is prove once again that you are economically, historically and legally clueless.
@FletchforFreedom Now your lying about glass stegall..Nov 1999: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act guts Glass-Steagall, setting off wave of megamergers among banks and insurance and securities companies.. this is exactly what allowed aig to get into the securities business with thos toxic assests it insured. LIAR
@tbaarr1 As, of course, AIG has ALWAYS been an insurance company with a securities business and was NEVER covered by Glass-Steagall (that would have been McCarran-Ferguson) all you've proven is that you are too imbecilic to even grasp the difference between banks and insurance companies. No wonder you are so laughable! In fact, there were few "megamergers" and nothing AIG bought was at any time covered by Glass-Steagall or prevented to banks by it.
@FletchforFreedom thats why glass stegall being gutted allowed banks and insurance companies to merge so they could pull their crud without fear of regulators finding out the crud they were doing..KEEP LYING ASSWIPE
@tbaarr1 You almost got part of that one right (a miracle). The partial repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed HOLDING COMPANIES to own both banks and insurance companies. Since, however, banks and insurance companies were NEVER permitted to merge; since the investments that could be held by banks or insurance companies were completely unaffected and, as a result, NOTHING examined by regulators changed at all, you need to look in a mirror when you say "LYING ASSWIPE" and make the obvious connection.
@tbaarr1 And, since I have the facts on my side and have never had any need to lie, you couldn’t “prove” me a liar on your best day. If it’s any consolation, I don’t believe that you’re a liar; I am perfectly willing to accept that you’re stupid enough to believe what you’re shoveling.
@FletchforFreedom state the reference of your so called facts sonny. would it be rush limpdruggies lie. YOU THE OBVIOUS STUPID ONE HERE..this is proven by your first statement that your econ plan worked after the civil war. which was over 100 years ago. and not used since.And your reagen lie is disproved by the savings in loan bailouts that fdic had to do.By real estate and forclosed prop records of the period 86-92 and by bush sr having to raise taxes in 89..and the stock market crash of oct 87
@tbaarr1 I know when the Civil War was. That the post Civil War period was one of low governmnet intervention, low taxation and incredibly high economic growth is nothing more than simple history. The S&L crisis bankrupted the state insurance agencies and the FSLIC (they were not covered by the FDIC - another stupidity on your part) and the only fix was to end the distinction. And Bush Sr. NEVER had to raise taxes - one of the reasons the economy was vulnerable.
@FletchforFreedom what a stupid liar you are. ITS A DOCUMENTED FACT that bush sr raised taxes in feb 1989.. what an absolute idiot troll you are. anyone who has the brains of a 5 year old can simply enter a google search for bush sr raises taxes. and even get the wikkipedia link as the first selection . that states read my lips no new taxes was busted when he had to raise taxes..YOU TRUELY ARE a dumbass idiot troll that thinks wearing a suit makes your lies crediable. NOT HAPPENING IDIOT
@tbaarr1 You're now a proved liar. As I NEVER argued that Bush (41) did not raise taxes in 1989, the argument that I did is an OBVIOUS lie. In fact, that tax hike was harmful to the economy and made it that much more susceptible to the economic uncertainty in te wake of the invasion of Kuwait.
@tbaarr1 Learn to read, you blithering idiot. "Bush Sr. NEVER had to raise taxes". He never HAD to. That he DID is conceded in the rest of the sentence. His raising of taxes was "one of the reasons the economy was vulnerable". There was NEVER any reason whatsoever that he HAD to raise taxes or should EVER have considered it.
All you've demonstrated is a failure to grasp English that should be embarrassing to truckers and real estate agents anywhere.
@FletchforFreedom the only IDIOT IS YOU SONNY. your games of bullshit about semantics are both stupid and ignorant. bush was forced to raise taxes to fix the recession and bubble burst you repigs caused under reagen..just like your game about fdic vs fslic. big deal about the letters. the result was the same ASSWIPE. the taxpaqyer bailed out the banks in the 80's just like they had to do under babybush.. and those KIA listed on the wall ARE TROOPS YOU stupid arrogant asswipe
@tbaarr1 Your inability to respond rationally hardly reflects well on you, particularly when you prove to be an imbecile by claiming that Bush "had to" raise taxes to fix a recession and "bubble burst" when a moment's checking shows conclusively that there was NEVER any bubble and the recession followed the invasion of Kuwait which was LONG after Bush raised taxes. And, as, again, anyone can check, those first names on the wall were advisors killed in bomb attacks. You lose ... again and again
@FletchforFreedom hmm then why did FDIC PAY ME BACK ALL THE MONEY I WAS OWED WHEN LINCOLN SAVINGS WAS BAILED OUT LOSER? KEEP LYING >>I AM TIRED OF YOUR LIES SO I HAVE BLOCKED YOUR CHEAP SUIT ASS
@tbaarr1 Since the fact that, once the distinction between commercial banks and S&Ls was dissolved, the Federal government bailed out the NEWLY DESIGNATED AS BANKS that failed via the FDIC undermines NOTHING I said nor in any way supports ANYTHING you've said, what is you're point.
That you are so afraid of getting your intellectual ass kicked so soundly any further, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've blocked me. It just shows that you're a coward as well as a complete loser.
@FletchforFreedom the mother jones timeline for bank deregulation proves you a liar..about the real estate bubble and that is all based on facts. like the fact bush sr allowed an fdic bailout of his boy jebs screwup..At leaset mike milikan was sent to jail for his toxic mortgage bull which are the exact same type of animal that aig sold in the bushboy years.. stay stupid LIAR
@tbaarr1 The Mother Jones timeline proves you are too stupid to look up a reliable source or to grasp that deregulation was never the cause of the crisis. All your ad hominem attacks are not about to undermine me as I am a respected, published economist who has been studying economics and economic history fro decades and you are an economic ignoramus who thinks screaming LIAR does anything but demonstrate your intellectual bankruptcy.
@FletchforFreedom mother jones is a realiable source idiot. all the bills are proven by research and all events listed are documented in fact.. but your the repig liar that says its wrong..Cause it destroys your lies..
@tbaarr1@tbaarr1 brave of you to block me. Thanks for demonstrating what passes for "argument" among the dimwitted. My suggested econom policy is what made the US an economic dynamo in comparison to the rest of the world particularly in the post-Civil War period and even, arguably, to the extent that, until relatively recently, the US has been less socialistic than other countries in the world. It has wored literally every time it has been tried, even when it is impaired by socialism.
@tbaarr1 Minor correction: "mother jones is [believed to be] a reliable source [by] idiot[s]. They've been debunked so frequently (the Ford Pinto "smoking gun" is a great example) that only a moron takes them seriously. Since, I never argued that the bills did not take place, but rather that they do not support your idiotic thesis that deregulation caused the problem or that a "bubble" occurred in 86 (which is "proven by research" to be bunkum), you simply prove to have no valid argument.
@keepaopenmind You were aware, of course, that Keynes himself criticized FDR's policies, right? Keynesianism didn't survive Hazlitt's analysis 60 years ago, let alone the condition of the economy (ration central) during the war years, or the Great Depression that Keynesians universally predicted upon slashing government in 1946 or the stagflation of the 1970s. My facts hold up just fine. The notion that WWII ended the Depression was economically disproved decades ago.
@FletchforFreedom Of course. FDR didn't understand Keynes. He believed in balanced budgets. Keynes wanted to balance the economy, and the budget over time. I think WW2 is the best example that gov't spending does stimulate the economy. Ask Ronald Reagan about that. But there are others, the Kennedy tax cut was another example. Even Nixon said we're all Keynesians now. It works. But the concern over the deficit, which is nothing more than concern over raising taxes, leads people to doubt Keynes.
@keepaopenmind You seem to get some thrill out being factually inaccurate. literally no economist or historian on the planet believes FDR wanted balanced budgets. Again, the example of WWII ending the Depression has been thoroughly and completely disproven. The Kennedy tax cut was obviously not an example of stimulus spending. And Nixon was one of the most economically incompetent presidents in history (before the last two). Keynes has been shredded, which is why the school is shrinking.
@FletchforFreedom You need to read a little about FDR then. You can say the idea that WW2 ended the Depression has been thoroughly disproved. But that's not proof. There were other reasons. Other nations started spending, preparing for war. That increased work in the US. But mainly, it was gov't spending, like it or not. The Kennedy tax cut was part of Keynesian economics. Cutting taxes increases the economy, according to Keynes, if the recipients will spend. Are you in favor of "austerity?"
@keepaopenmind I have read extensively about FDR including the definitive economic analyses of his actions "The Roosevelt Myth" and "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. In fact, "work" did NOT increase in the US in WWII. I am stating the widely held view among economists (having been one for decades). The US economy shrank dramatically during the war years net of (unproductive) government spending resulting in rationing, scarcity and want (basic history).
@keepaopenmind In fact, Kennedy's tax cuts were NOT consistent with Keynesian theory. Keynes proposed a balanced approach that raised taxes in boom times and lowered them (temporarily) in slcak times, but economic analysis has shown definitively that onlt permanent tax rate cuts as passed by Kennedy, by returning resources to the private sector (NOT by affecting "aggregate demand") stimulate, while tmporary measures have no economic stimulus at all.
Keynesian economics does not hold up to logical scrutiny, basing an economic system on a sample size of ONE (the new deal), plus ignoring previous history (depression of 1920, one of countless of examples) is a post hoc fallacy plain and simple. There is a reason the economists are shy to debate. Study up on your history, study up on scientific principals and logical reasoning and you will see the light. Don’t blindly follow the government's pet system, stop falling for the propaganda.
@cketterl78 You know nothing of Keynesian economics and very little of history. The "depression of 1920" (uh, those were boom times. You mean 1930's) came before Keynes figured out that classical economics is a special case. He came up with a general theory in response to the obvious failure of classical economics. He could see unemployment lines, which classical economists didn't believe could happen. I don't like much of what the federal gov't spends my money on, but it should spend.
@keepaopenmind You know nothing of economic history. The recession of 1920 (yes, he got the year completely right) was, in fact, a GREATER econimc decline than the beginning of the Great Depression but, as there was no governmental intervention, it was over in 18 MONTHS rather than more than a decade. That classical economics did not believe unemployment lines could exist is flatly wrong, particularly when the economic contraction was driven by government (which has been the case each time).
@keepaopenmind Google it you moron! I'm not here to teach you history. I've studied enough Keynesian econ to know its dogma and propaganda. Here's a little tidbit from my college econ 101 book, from the quick review section: "There is no danger of the federal government's going bankrupt bc it need only refinance (not retire) the public debt and can raise revenues, if needed, through higher taxes or printing money"
I don't know about you but I wish I could print money to pay off my debts!
@cketterl78 Call me a moron again, and don't expect a reply. Google what? You don't have to even try to teach me history or economics. I'm sure you can find plenty of books that prove to your satisfaction that Keynesian economics is wrong, or whatever else you want it to be. But you haven't studied it seriously, objectively. Have you ever read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?"
I'll ask you, is reducing gov't spending, so-called "austerity," a good idea at this time?
@keepaopenmind Of course it's not a good idea for most of us at this time, but it's going to be far worse is doing nothing. Google the depression of 1920, what you called me out on in my original post, your socalled "age of prosperity". It was in fact prosperous without excessive government intervention, but that doesn't mean there was not a major inflationary depression. Google Wiemar republic while your at it if you want to know what happens with unchecked money printing. Open yer blinders.
@cketterl78 I didn't receive your posts in my mailbox. But I discovered your reply on another website, I accidentally found a myneko site that had all these comments. It was this video. I guess it's afq2007's site. Anyway, all right. I read about the "depression" of 1920. If that's a depression, then we're in one now. Eighteen months followed by boom times. What's your point? That it somehow refutes Keynesian economics?
So, you agree austerity is no good at this time. We won't do nothing.
@keepaopenmind *that should read deflationary depression. I apologize for calling you a moron. I realize it doesn't help my case or credibility and progress the discussion. I'm just used to bantering with youtube trolls for my own ammusemnt, I should probably stop doing that and promote a more mature discussion.
@cketterl78 Accepted. Thank you for your civility. Do you also believe that the CCC was an economic disaster? Or the Tennessee Valley Authority? Can gov't spending create jobs? The nonsense that's being propagated by the right is insane. I think they want the economy to fail so that Obama looks bad. The deficit's one matter. The economy's another and far more important. We're not spending enough but we probably won't do austerity either. So, I suspect, we'll just muddle along until the SHTF.
@keepaopenmind oh and guy i owe you an apology. the posts i sent at you were supposed to go toward fletchy.. i screwed up and insulted you by mistake. my apologies..obama and all dems for 2012. lets kick the tea bags/repubs to the curb and stop the filibuster everything blockade. that they are using to slow our recovery. recall walker is in full force at this time
@tbaarr1 It seems the Repubs want the economy to suffer. I guess they figure that'll make Obama look bad. Why else call for cutting gov't spending? They must know it'll hurt the economy. Somebody needs to spend. People and corporations aren't. But they're playing with fire. They might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I think the period from WW2 to 2000 was our Great Prosperity. And it was due to increasing debt, private and public, and cheap oil. We need a new source of cheap energy.
@keepaopenmind if you take walker as an example of the alec agenda.. you will note starvation of gov funding to force privatization..and force the middle class to pay for tax breaks for the rich.The tea bags dont care if they get reelected. they just want to stall and make a side end run ploy thru the tea party that all long term congress is bad and new tea bag blood must be put into power..even though they lie outright..you notice all tea bags in 2010 ran on jobs number1.NO JOBS
The reason Keynesianism is still around is because some people have invested thousands in a fancy education just to learn something thats wrong. So instead of admitting its wrong, they just make excuses and defend something so they don't feel like they flushed that money down the toilet.
PennySnap 2 days ago
Ron Paul 2012
Zoobiesnot 4 days ago
Dude who the hell let this guy on youtube? Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation? Is this guy fucking stupid? I can write an entire essay about the mechanics of Keynesian Economics and as soon as I got to 1:39, I stopped watching because I was appalled with the amount of remarkable idiocy this guy said. As a finance and economics major, I've studied this for a while and all what he's explaining is political jargon who was probably endorsed by republicans. Everyone, stop watching this shit
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@Kim2Sung Yes, he is f*cking stupid. But he's no more stupid than all the people who believe his nonsense. It's a shame. Much of it is simply that they don't like Obama and want the economy to fail, so he won't be re-elected. If the Repubs were in there they'd be spending on the military, because a lot of military facilities are located in the nutcase Repub areas.
Maybe you'll become an economics instructor someday. Good luck! You have your work cut out, but you have truth on your side.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@keepaopenmind Well said brother!
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@Kim2Sung Maybe you should force yourself to watch the entire video, as mindless as it is, and find out exactly where his error is. I watched the whole thing, and the only harm was I started growing a tail, my teeth grew longer, and my skin turned leathery. At the end he asks why politicians still believe Keynes if his theories are wrong. I answered that in an earlier post. But I think i know his mistake. Why don't you watch, and we can compare notes and maybe explain the fallacy here?
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@keepaopenmind I lied. I did watch the video lol. The only reason I made a gross exaggeration about not watching it is because of that point he brought up at 1:39 which is by all means fundamentally wrong. There's no use in trying to explain this to economic conservatives. An ass will always be an ass. It was my mistake for even trying to make a counterargument and there's absolutely no point in investing my time in educating the parochial - especially online.
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@Kim2Sung All right. Yeah, I think that picture around 1:39 is the problem. The monetarists (good name. they think only about money) assume there's a fixed amount of money out there. For the gov't to spend, it has to take it from someone else who would have spent what the gov't takes. That ignores that people and businesses hoard, especially if they think times will get worse. It's not the amount of money that matters. It's the flow of money that matters
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
Can someone who has actually studied economics answer a question for me? If the government borrows money then they have to pay it back. And by investing in the economy they should get increased tax revenues to pay the debt off. So at the end, the government has invested in the economy with a tax cut or stimulus and also in the bank via interest payments and no money was created or lost. So isn't the govt. like a company, where borrowing and spending is good as long as they pay off the debt?
iron100159 3 weeks ago
@iron100159 inflation.
badvariance 1 week ago
@iron100159 Not at all. If you're looking at macroeconomics using an approach you normally use to regulate your business or company, that's completely wrong. Microeconomics =/= Macroeconomics. Your logic is correct however when suggesting the "multiplier effect" (look it up on wikipedia). The government should not be worrying too much about the debt - that's the long term goal they're trying to achieve. That's why Keynesian Economics is successful as an economic policy.
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@iron100159 Suppose the gov't pays people to plant trees. It pays $3 billion dollars to do so. In 70 years, the trees are worth $3 trillion. The $3B, even adjusted for inflation, is paid off with a profit. Or it pays for the college educations for a whole army of returning soldiers. As a result, the ex-soldiers make larger salaries and pay higher taxes, again resulting in a profit.
It depends on what the gov't invests in. Long range verses short range. In wealth-creating or destroying projects.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@keepaopenmind thank you!!! I get it now!
iron100159 1 week ago
@iron100159 You're welcome. Remember, the people who plant the trees don't get the benefits. They just get payment for a job. Their great grandchildren, and the gov't because it's still around, receive the benefits when they harvest the trees. Same with the GI bill. The problem is so many corporations only want short term profits, regardless of the long range effects. The gov't gets to invest in long range stuff that doesn't immediately show a profit. Businesses get the profitable stuff.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@iron100159 Sorry, I said something wrong. Unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps example I gave, where the benefits went to later generations, the GI Bill benefits did go to the returning soldiers. They received higher incomes as a result of their college educations. That was a direct investment in people that paid off to the veterans and the gov't as well.
People who don't like gov't, or who don't like Obama, think the gov't can do nothing right. They are foolish, to put it politely.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
Ha of course keynes is wrong, it's been proven time and time again. Bernanke (the biggest Keynesian of them all) has never had 1 prediction/forecast right. The economy is more a social science with some math involved, but ANY government spending slows down your economy in the long-run. The bubbles exist only when governments monetize the debt with fiat currency (printing money, bailouts, government spending on jobs that do nothing to help the economy be regular. Anytime there is a subsidy f
bradleylax22 3 weeks ago
@bradleylax22 You don't know what Keynes said. You just think, or have heard, it just means running a deficit. You need to read what Keynes said before commenting. "ANY gov't spending slows down" the economy? That's insane. The gov't can pay a salary as well as any corporation. Don't believe this propaganda designed to prevent raising taxes on the rich. We're walking into a depression. Unless spending picks up, we'll remain that way. That may be fine for rich folks, but not everyone else.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
funny how many left-wing big government loonies are on here dissing this guy because they know if Keynes is wrong then Obama is fucked.
baller84milw 3 weeks ago
@baller84milw Keynes isn't wrong. It's just too bad you don't understand economics. And I'm not left wing or for big government. I just don't like recessions or depressions. And I wouldn't count on Obama losing. Why don't you keep your economics separate from your politics?
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
When they show unemployment at 17.2% during the 30s at 4 47 they fail to mention that it fell from 25% when Roosevelt took office to 2% when he left, and for those who say it was all word war 2, it had already fallen significantly by that time. By taxing the upper class higher than than the rest of the country and spending that money on public works projects, jobs are created and the middle class grows. Also, remember that every time government deregulates the banks, they collapse the economy.
metsfanshea07 1 month ago 15
@metsfanshea07 You fail to look at the economic opportunity cost. What if that money was not spent on public sector jobs? You fail to see that that money would stay in the hands of people and businesses, that would in turn create more jobs and wealth. Public sector = inefficiency, private sector free market = true efficiency and economic growth.
badvariance 1 week ago
@badvariance To some extent you're right. But when the private sector isn't spending, then the gov't had better spend. Otherwise, the economy does exactly what it's doing, and will continue to do.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@metsfanshea07 The man actually said that unemployment remained high when the 17.2% was on the screen. I would assume we al agree that is high. Also, taxing the upper class and corporations more only eliminates jobs. The people who work for them are middle class and their jobs get cut when taxes sky rocket.
nofear54321 1 week ago
@nofear54321 That's silly. You can raise taxes on the very wealthy with no loss in employment. In fact, the best times have been when taxes on the rich were highest. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate on those making more than $1M was 91%. And those were the golden years of the USA. Don't be suckered by the Don't-tax-the-rich crowd. Because of the Bush tax cuts, they have lots of money to propagandize with, like giving money to this Cato Institute no-nothing.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@keepaopenmind What does our economy consist of? Businesses. Do you really think raising the highest tax rates, which affect Corporations because they make millions and billions of dollars, will not induce higher unemployment? Who do you think employs people especially the middle class? When taxes are raised on Corporations, they either cut wages, fire workers, or pass that extra fee onto consumers. Nobody with lower income benefits.
nofear54321 1 week ago
@nofear54321 The economy consists of more than just business. Don't forget the people who buy the stuff businesses sell? You're looking at only part of the economy. Sure higher taxes on individuals and businesses hurts the economy. That's why it's better to tax the rich, especially unproductive wealth or luxury.
The economy is really aggregate spending, all the spending by individuals, business, and gov't. Right now, people and corps aren't spending. So the gov't has to pick up the slack.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@metsfanshea07 Also, if you really think it is the deregulation of banks that causes bubbles and the collapses, you aren't paying attention. The subprime loan crisis we have is due to legislation that the Clinton administration passed in the mid 90's that required banks to lower the requirements for loans. This created the bubble and the increase in subprime loans until the collapse in 2008.
nofear54321 1 week ago
@nofear54321 The exact quote is "Unemployment remained very high throughout the 1930s" while 17.2% is on the screen. This is a clear distortion of facts, as it fell from 25% when FDR took office to 2% when he left. Does this guy mention anything about how the largest drop in unemployment in American history came from government spending on public works projects? No, so I fail to understand the argument.
metsfanshea07 1 week ago
@nofear54321 It was the banks who issued lines on homes that they new people wouldn't be able to pay back, as they had no interest in them; they were selling them away. The rating agencies were in cahoots with them, as they gave them solid ratings. If the Federal Reserve had more power to oversee these lines, they would have immediately realized what was happening. The deregulated market will screw over the entire economy for profit. We need government to make sure they don't.
metsfanshea07 1 week ago
@metsfanshea07 Do you not understand that these private sector banks had to make the loans because of the government legislation requiring banks to lower the requirements that people had to make to get the loans. It was part of the Clinton administrations attempt to buy votes from people who couldn't afford the house they want.
nofear54321 1 week ago
@metsfanshea07 The Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt, unconstitutional, and destructive institutions that exists. They even have directors on the board that have been presidents of the banks. They print money so that the government can spend money it doesn't have and cause massive inflation of the American people. It is a hidden tax. You can literally trace all bubbles to government involvement into the private sector.
nofear54321 1 week ago
LOL What a Moron! We Printed 29 Trillion where is Hyper Inflation? I Love Idiots like this guy!
Minethis1 1 month ago
In response to Keynesian Economic theories: What the fuck?
lbaumy 1 month ago
Why do politicians keep using it? Because they know it works. However, what they don't do is run surpluses when the economy's booming. Who wants to dampen a boom? So they really have only been half-following Keynes. This man assumes that all money is being spent or invested, that the gov't can only get money by taking money from someone who otherwise would have spent it. But people and corporations can and do hoard, or reduce their debt. Not spend. That's when the gov't should spend, like now.
keepaopenmind 1 month ago 6
@keepaopenmind - They only know it works "politicaly"... it is like trying to avoid the hangover by remaining drunk... They push the problems ahead, make it better in the very short term and then when it explodes a few years laters, someone else takes teh blame, specialy capitalism takes the blame, which then calls for more intervention... This world is simply doomed.
dtmoura 1 month ago
@dtmoura You should read Keynes, not his critics, such as this Cato Institute propagandist. IMO Keynes was a true economic genius. So, I take it you think "austerity," reducing gov't spending, is the proper course at this time?
keepaopenmind 1 month ago
@keepaopenmind - Sure we need less gov spending. There is no gov's money, it is only taxpayears or printed money. The gov cannot give without having taken in the first place. But my criticism go to govts and not to Keynes. He unintendedly created a weapon that politicians love, which enables them to create short term benefits (for an election), pushing its cost to the next gov. Keynes even wrote in his last article about his work being distorted. If he had lived just +10 yrs...
dtmoura 1 month ago
@dtmoura All right. I just want to go on record, based on my limited knowledge of economics, that if we reduce gov't spending, the economy will get worse.
I dislike much of what the federal gov't does and would like to see a return to federalism and State power or control. The federal gov't is way too powerful. But what gov't spending would you cut? Across the board? The military? That's a big chunk. Reduced salaries or pensions for gov't employees? Any departments you'd cut?
keepaopenmind 1 month ago
@keepaopenmind - I needs to happen gradually, over the years, not overnight. Check Ron Paul's plan in his website. Military? Sure, but it is much broader topic. You can also cut all the federal dpts that are doing State work, like the Department of Education. But mainly, the Fed govmt should not bail out broken companies or banks. And of course, the lower gov spend should come with tax cuts so you unleash the free enterprise to generate the jobs the country needs.
dtmoura 1 month ago
@dtmoura If you're a Ron Paul supporter, then no wonder you think "the world is simply doomed." He has some good ideas, like Ralph Nader, but he has no chance.
Schools and Police are traditionally the province of the States. But the federal gov't just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It grows from war to war and crisis to crisis. And within the fed gov't, the president keeps growing in power. We're heading for an elected dictator.
Well, Bush's lower taxes aren't exactly creating new jobs now.
keepaopenmind 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keepaopenmind "This man assumes that all money is being $pent or Invested... But people and corporations can and do hoard, or reduce their debt. Not $pend."
"hoard" = to $ave (in a bank) = more money availible for lending = Investment$ increase.
"reduce their debt" = $pending.
Your argument is absurd, see how you've contradicted yourself by imagining 'hoarding' as a phenomena. But it's not a real phenomena, you're actually making it up so as to deny simple truths of reality.
DOHC2L 1 month ago
@keepaopenmind It's amazing how after 4 recessions in the past 2 decades, one of which the 2007 subprime crisis crippled the economy, people still are turning a blind eye to Keynesian Economics when we've been following an economic policy that resembles the Austrian model. It makes me wonder if people are fucking stupid or if Republican rhetoric and corporate bribes are really getting a hold of this nation.
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@Kim2Sung I think it's a little bit of both. I expect ten years from now, when things still haven't picked up, somebody will come up with the bright idea of trying Keynes' ideas again.
People tend to think of the gov't in the same way they think of themselves. They can't run in the red for very long, and they assume the gov't can't either. Plus, they confuse the deficit with the economy. The right, especially, thinks the deficit is more important than the economy. The economy is more important.
keepaopenmind 1 week ago
@Kim2Sung We have not been following the Austrian model. Most of George W. Bush's policies were very liberal, and leaned to the side of Keynesian economics. He was almost as spendthrift as Obama. It is essential to understand America does not have a free market economy. It is a mixed economy. The government has been increasing its involvement in the economy for decades now and only damages and convolutes everything.
nofear54321 1 week ago
@nofear54321 Is that true ehhh? That makes a lot of sense considering the fact the gov't has been spending during a boom period (aka post-9/11) when Keynesian economics said not to. How about when Bush tried taking down the crown jewel of public welfare, Social Security in 2004? And how do you define involving itself in the economy? - you make it sound like in the past 2 decades the gov't has controlled a large chunk of many of our industry's means of productions.
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@nofear54321 America may not have explicitly said its following the Austrian model but it certainly is not a mixed economy. One indication where we have not been following keynesian economics is the growing rift between the income gap of the rich and poor - something keynes himself explicitly designed his economic model to alleviate. A declining middle class is not the indication of a strong policy in keynesian economics. I like how you spoke up bro but you need to dig deeper
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@Kim2Sung America certainly has a variation of a mixed economy. A market economy is a true Laissez-faire form of operation. However, in the U.S. the government stimulates sectors of the economy with funds, heavily regulates and taxes our corporations and industries, and in a way picks winners and losers. One of the main misconceptions that people have is that America is still a market economy. They see the economic problems as causes of capitalism. However, it is the government involvement.
nofear54321 1 week ago
@nofear54321 You still dont get it do you. Just because a nation adopts a mixed economy system doesnt mean anything. A mixed economy is not synonymous with Keynesians economics whatsoever - Keynesian economics focuses on governmental fiscal policy, a basic function of government that controls spending curves irregardless of total revenue collected. Fine, America doesnt completely adhere to true capitalism but its economic system has been economically conservative in the past 30 yrs
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@nofear54321 Spewing gross generalizations that the government is bringing down American business in this "mixed economy" you keep justifying is a complete lie I'd only expect an anti-government militant or more namely a libertarian would say. Government regulation doesnt pick winners and losers, that's capitalism - the ultimate proof of Darwin's natural selection theory on a socioeconomic scale.
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
@nofear54321 Economic problems are caused by capitalism itself - do more research and look back on history and then come back and argue with me. Your understanding of economics is parochial and stubborn as an ass. I'm not going to argue with some renegade who jumped on the libertarian band wagon just because he's averted by the government some way or another. People with staunch political beliefs and want to mix it in business have no place in Economics.
Kim2Sung 1 week ago
haha who would dislike this? a bunch of egotistical people who think they are rational...im pumped up for the new world that the free market can bring us. Ron Paul 2012
ImOneBadMuthaFucka 1 month ago
govt borrows from its federal reserve (not part of govt and legal has no right to print money) they just print it and give it to govt which in creases nation debt which is good if an increasing amount of people. its like having 20 peas for 3 people peas are not that valuable add another 10 people and peas are worth more. last thing you have to spend all money that is given out by govt thats why bail outs failed
DeathKnightsCow 1 month ago
Note to any bystanders. For once I recommend paying attention to tbarr. Undertake the Google searches that he recommends and, when you realize just how divorced from reality he is, do another Google search for mental health professionals in Minnesota and forward their contact information to tbarr so that he can get the help he obviously needs.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom A note to all who read this liars posts. first he has not given one example in the last 100 years that supports his econ theory .. and yet he claims its works. he cited reagen. whoops that boy tripled the national debt and gave us a bubble burst housing problem. JUST LIKE BUSHPUNK DID.. YET THIS fletch ignoramous ignores these facts. and calls me mentally unstable cause I point them out.. he is a typical repig liar and pious punk. the brain dead 1 is FLETCHY
tbaarr1 1 month ago
Comment removed
cketterl78 2 months ago
@cketterl78 *It will be far worse if we do NOTHING. So sorry, youtube needs an edit button.
cketterl78 2 months ago
This guy does not understand Keynesian economics, at all. Hoover was for "big government?" Sorry, Charlie. And neither was FDR. FDR believed in balancing the budget, which is no way to get out of a depression. That's why it wasn't until the US ran HUGE (check it out) deficits when WW2 came along, that the US got out of the Depression. Nothing magic about war. It was gov't spending. That's what it's going to take now because people aren't spending. Austerity is the exact wrong thing to do now.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago 6
@keepaopenmind you repub idiots put us into a double dip in 36 because you kept harping about spending.. you can rewrite history all you want for yourself. the truth is out there for those of us who aiunt HOME SCHOOLED and learned real history
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Don't call me a repub idiot. Yes, the deficit hawks reduced spending in 1936 and another recession happened. It's still happening in Japan. The gov't needs to spend because people and corporations aren't. It's real simple. But if you're concerned about deficits, which the idiot repubs are, then raise taxes. But get the economy going. Tax cuts, which normally would help, won't help now because people still won't spend. They're reducing their debt and, so, not spending.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind The old canard about the Roosevelt Recession of 1936-1937 being the result of deficit hawks has also resulted in economists laughing any who bring it up off the stage for several decades. Since no such deficit cutting actually happened and the downturn began long before any such discussions took place, it is absurd. What immediately preceded the downturn was passage of the Wagner Act - a key example of regime uncertainty (see Higgs seminal work).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind Lets see.I called you a repub because why..Oh ya. you support the libertarian view of big gov is bad.. HMM lets see who is a repub in office who is saying that same thing.. oh ya. That would be the libertarian KOCH WHORE scotty walker of wisconsin.. the little libertarian thats about to be recalled.. and yet you say your not a repub but you support the repub/libertarian direction of your KOCH HANDLERS..Just like johnboy bonehead does and mich mc doodle..thus U R repub BY default
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Well, you're wrong about me being a repub idiot. I'm a registered Democrat. I don't like Koch at all. He's paying, with his tax reductions, for much of the propaganda that's out there. It boils down to "don't raise taxes, to heck with everybody else." Walker is a Republican. I don't like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the "war on terror." I really don't like how the First Amendment has been twisted. I don't like austerity or anybody who ignorantly criticizes Keynesian economics.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind Nice try. In fact, FDR ran against Hoover's massive increase in government and then openned the spending floodgates (which prolonged the Depression for years). In fact, the economy didn't improve until 1946 when governmnet was massively cut (there's a reson why the man who developed the GDP calculation specifically argued against including wartime governmnet spending). The notion that spending has EVER resulted in recovery has been comletely disproved.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Nice try, nothing. Let me ask you a question, since you presume to know some economics. When, according to Keynes, should the government run a surplus. When should the government reduce spending? When you can answer that, I'll continue. Otherwise, you simply need to check your facts..
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind Keynes argued spending should be reduced upon acheivement of full employment. The problems are legion: a) government spending has never stimulated anything, b) there is no point at which full employment can be acheived in that manner, c) no example exists of governments following that part of Keynes' advice - having used Keynes as an excuse to spend earlier and d) Keynes advocated holding down interest rates - inevitably inflationary and further undermining the economy.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Right. Good. I'll accept 4% unemployment. When we reach "full employment," I'll agree that we should then cut spending and run a surplus. No booms and no busts. Gradual growth. But full employment, above all else. I'm no fan of big federal government. It does a lot of things I don't like. But this is serious. We could be in this for years. We need full employment, so everybody will feel comfortable spending again.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind The problem is that governmnet spending NEVER reduces unemployment. It is a logical (and practical) impossibility. It is a complete myth. By definition, every dollar spent by government must be taken from the productive private sector where it otherwise CAN create jobs; it is then filtered through 30% to 60% loss through waste before being misallocated to "green jobs" or other idiocy that the market cannot sustain. Stimulus spending has destroyed millions of jobs.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom "government spending NEVER reduces unemployment." Really? You believe that? What's the matter with government spending as opposed to, say, corporate spending? Only the private sector can create jobs? That's absurd. Can't you see that? Or do you just not want to believe it? I'm as libertarian as you. There's a lot the feds do that I don't like. And economics is not a science. But we need full employment.
So, I guess you're in favor of "austerity," reducing government spending?
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind What's wrong with gov't spending is that gov't a) cannot magically create wealth and b) is grossly inefficient. Every dollar it spends must first be taken from the private sector where it CAN create jobs. It is then filtered through gov't, which wastes between 30% and 60% of it aznd then is misallocated to things like "green jobs" that vanish becasue the market cannot sustain them. It is logically, economically and empirically impossible for gov't to create jobs on a net basis.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Suppose a corporation, with plenty of cash, doesn't hire Americans and instead builds factories overseas. Then the gov't taxes that corporation and hires Americans to do whatever, "green jobs," "war jobs," whatever. The person now has a job. You may not like the work the Civilian Conservation Corps did, "green" planting trees, fixing up parks, but those were jobs to the people who got them. It may happen again, too.
But, you're avoiding my question. Austerity? Yes, or no.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind If by "austerity" you mean massive decreases in governmnet spending - economics indicates it is a universal benefit. If a business builds a factory overseas, it is because it is economically sound to do so. Empirically, this creates even more jobs HERE (the fact is that MORE and HIGHER PAYING jobs are INsourced than outsourced) and ultimately more Americans are put to work, not to mention the fact that consumers benefit from the efficiencies...
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind ... making still more resources available in the private sector to create still more jobs. That the governmnet takes money to create jobs certainly creates THOSE jobs but it can ONLY do so at the cost of GREATER resources available to create jobs had they not been taken from the private sector in the first. And the CCC put people (out of work due to government wage manipulations) to unproductive work for LESS than the new legal minimu, It was an economic disaster!
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom In a way, I hope we do austerity, just to shut the morons up. You'll see how stupid it is. Let's leave it at that.
You're full of it if you think the Civilian Conservation Corps was an economic disaster. The value of the trees they planted, alone, more than paid for it. It created true wealth, but you probably ignore stuff like that. And it gave jobs to people. Maybe you don't worry about that. "Let the poor starve. That'll reduce unemployment." Is that how you see things?
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind There isn't a competent economist ANYWHERE arguing that the CCC was anything BUT an economic disaster. If the value of those trees created "true wealth", then BY DEFINITION, the MARKET would have seen them planted. And the ONLY reason that the CCC "gave jobs to people" is because governmnet policies destroyed MORE jobs. The FACT is that the programs you are pushing create MORE unemployment, so, if anything, YOU are pushing to "let the poor starve" - not me.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You're just plain crazy or so blinded by your economic fundamentalism,that the markets know better, and governments can do no right, that there's no point talking with you. You need to leave your ivory tower and get out in the world. Experience reality. Find someone who was actually in the Civilian Conservation Corps and ask them if it was an economic disaster. There aren't too many left. Hope you come to your senses someday. Happy Holidays.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind I never said markets could do no wrong. But that the Cililian Conservation Corps was an economic disaster is neither speculation, nor opinion; it's indisputable history. I am not saying that you are wrong in your opinions; you are unequivocally wrong in your facts. The position I am taking is consistent with the well documented reality (not to mention the experiences of my great grandfather (now long passed). If you have a credible example of gov't doing "right", feel free...
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind The issue is not libertarianism, albeit the Keynesian libertarian is the equivalent of mermaids, unicorns and centaurs. I can see that your position is absurd being completely contrary to literally ALL of the empirical evidence. Full employment in an economic sense can only be acheived with maximum economic efficiency. EVERY interference or expenditure by government undermines that.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Ridiculous. Austerity is what we need? Yes, or no?
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom SO tell when your non kaynes , tax break small gov theory worked long term sonny. IT was not when coolidge tried a trickle down in the 20's because we had the great depression 8 years later. it was not when reagen tried it again because his bubble burst in 86 and the only reason the recession was mild was because THE FDR program called FDIC bailed out the S/L at taxpayer expense. it was not during clinton. because he used big gov and raising taxes.SURE WASNT BUSHPUNK.. SO WHEN
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 It worked after the Civil War. It worked under Coolidge til the Fed expanded credit causing the Great Depression. No "bubble burst" occurred in 86 and it worked like a charm, interrupted only by the Kuwait invasion (mildest recession ever) until Clinton's tax hikes (resulting in the slowest post recession growth ever) killed it. And the S&L crisis was CAUSED by FDR policies (specifically the separation that created them) nor did the FDIC fix it. Your history ... isn't.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
Comment removed
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES. I worked in real estate .I SAW THE failures first hand..and FDIC BAILED OUT EVERY FAILED SAVINGS IN LOAN. that was not a fix. the fix came in feb 1989 when BUSH SR raised taxes on everyone..I STATE fdic kept the recession from happening big time cause taxpayers bailed out the failed banking industry from 86 till 92. and the S?L crises was caused by JAKE GARN gutting glass Stegall in 1982. glass stegall kept the no down loans from happening under clinton
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 All you’ve “proved” is that you are an economic incompetent (as if referencing Mother Jones didn’t demonstrate that already), having achieved what I would have thought impossible – putting forth an asinine Republicans-are-the-root-of-all-evil “theory” of economics and history so divorced from reality that not a single economist or historian on the entire planet agrees with it. That’s impressive.
Let’s deal with your idiocy in historical order.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Virtually NO economist or historian blames either Coolidge or “trickle down economics” (a slur also used only by economic dimwits as we shall see), a concept unknown at the time, for the Great Depression. Most economists agree that it was caused by the FEDERAL RESERVE actions in the late 1920s. The vast majority of economists (and most historians) agree that FDR then prolonged it for several years.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 FDR, who had run against Hoover’s massive increase in government (which demonstrably made things worse), massively increased government and created regime uncertainty that extended the recession until 1946 (as economic analysis shows). One thing done was to create an artificial distinction between commercial banks and savings and loans. S&Ls covered long term mortgage assets with low return demand deposits – a disaster waiting to happen.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FletchforFreedom You are truely deluded if you believe what you say. the great depression was caused by an application of what is now know as trickle down.. and I WILL CALL YOU AN OUT AN OUT LIAR when you say there was no bubble burst in 86..ITS what brought down lincoln savings and exposed the mikey milican junk bond bull. which if you had half a brain you would research and see they are a very close animal to the aig bull..houses lost 50% value in cali from 86-89. townhomes lost 75%. LIAR
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom be sure to tell us more of your lies sonny. a google search for the words bank deregulation timeline shows a very easy to follow page done by mother jones. its the second choice of the search..1982: Sen. Garn coauthors Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which deregulates savings and loan industry... thats a quote from it that caused the 86 bubble burst.."junk-bond king" Michael Milken,collateralized debt obligations" (CDOS)Securities made up of myriad loans and bonds
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 I am quite familiar with the deregulation timeline, but only uniformed imbeciles still blame that for the S&L crisis. When stagflation hit in the late 1970s and interest rates spiked, depositors pulled most of their deposits out of low-paying S&Ls and well over half the industry’s wealth was GONE before deregulation was even discussed. THAT was the cause of the crisis. Deregulation came to late so that, in order to stay afloat, some engaged in absurdly risky practices.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Deregulation, composed by St. Germain of Florida (A Dem which would blow your position out of the water even if it weren’t already moronic) didn’t defund the industry; Depression era regulations did. And as any idiot (except apparently YOU) can check, there was no “bubble” that burst in 1986 (or thereafter), Look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the National Bureau of Economic Research and see how imbecilic your claim is.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 BTW, the Reagan economic program, which bears no resemblance to the “trickle down” mischaracterization, was such a disaster that, even within the constraints of economic statistical gathering, the 1980s was a period (better than nearly every other decade) was one that was so disastrous that, even including the double-dip recession Reagan inherited, the rich got richer and the poor got … RICHER (see the Census Bureau and IRS figures).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom hey liar reagen called his program trickle down. and bush sr called it voodoo econ in the 3rd debate in 1979. so you are just proved as a liar. and that recession that reagen inherited began after nam ended. that was repub nixon and fords mess. left over from the 20 year Nam war that repub ike stuck our nose into in 1955-56 and we finally left 30 april 1975. so be sure to put the blame where it belongs. on the repubs that caused it. trickle down serves the rich only. LIAR
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Okay, now you ARE lying as Reagan NEVER called it "trickle down" and, apparently, the only thing Bush ever said that you agree with was proven empirically false. Well, done, imbecile! Now, the only proven liar is yourself. And you remain historically moronic. Vietnam ended long befire the recession began and while Nixon (one of the most liberal presidents in history) was in large part responsible, it should be remembered that Kennedy and Johnson got us into Nam, not Ike.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Eisenhower sent no troops. Kennedy sent the first advisory troops and Johnson sent the first combat troops (on the Gulf of Tonkin lie). And that you are too lazy and stupid to look up the facts from the IRS and Census Bureau blowing your "serves the rich only" delusion hardly makes ME look bad.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom hey dumbass the vietnam wall in washington has troop deaths listed in 1958 and 59. we had advisors and troops in nam during ike. you idiot. and bullshit the term trickle down was a primary election tagline
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 hey dumbass, we had advisors under Ike, yes; troops, no (as any idiot - apparently except you - can look up in about 3 seconds). And the term "trickle down" was a slur used to make fun of Reagan's economic policies. It was NOT anything that Reagan - or his campaign - ever said. That's may take a tad longer to look up, but you still come out factually wrong (as if that might be a surprise to ANYONE at this juncture).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom 1959
Weapons Moving Along Ho Chi Minh Trail
Map showing Ho Chi Minh Trail North Vietnam forms Group 559 to begin infiltrating cadres and weapons into South Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The Trail will become a strategic target for future military attacks.
U.S. Servicemen Killed in Guerrilla Attack
Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sergeant Chester M. Ovnand become the first Americans to die in the Vietnam War when guerillas strike at Bienhoa.
regular troops asshole. keep lying
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Neither Buis nor Ovnand were combat troops as, again, ANYONE can research in about 30 seconds. They were advisors you ignorant lying asshole. See, I can use the same language you do - except I don't need to spout easily dismissed falsehoods while doing so. Put simply, unlike when you use the terms, when I call you "ignorant" and "lying", that's not an attack - it's demonstrable fact. And, at this point, a fair argument can be made that the same is true for "asshole".
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Even Wikipedia gets this one right you moron! "[Chester M. Ovnand] and Dale R. Buis were killed at Bien Hoa, 20 miles northeast of Saigon. He was part of the MILITARY ASSISTANCE ADVISORY GROUP sent to TRAIN the South Vietnam army. The Vietcong attacked while the two were in a mess hall watching a movie. (caps added)" That you are too stupid or too dishonest to state the actual facts hardly makes ME look bad.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom the fact that they were advisors does not meaan they were not combat troops. advisors are better trained then the average troop. but your pun k ass cant comnprehend a big picture just your little tidbit that supports your lies.. just like you talk against keynes even though your kideas only have worked after the civil war. they sure didnt work with the reagen bubble burst
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 That's PRECISELY what it means. As Truman's position makes clear, advisors are sent to advise and combat troops are sent to engage in combat. And, again, just because you keep distorting my position does not change the FACT that Keynesianism has failed every time and the free market has worked every time (not just after the Civil War). You couldn't do a better job proving yourself an idiot if you tried. Not having won a single point, do you still wish to be proved a fool?
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom again dufus. the french were in control until 54 so IKE could have pulled our guys out when the french left. BUT NO,he sent in more troops.. stay stupid. your econ theory is a loser and has not worked since maybe the civil war. and thats why its not used since. and when it was applied as you say under reagen. IT FAILED. 81 reagen in 86 S/L failures 87 crash of the stock market.. 2001 bush in 2007 banks failing and stock market crash in feb.. 2008 major failures . mirror images
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Your lies are simply getting more transparent. The French departure was a transfer of functions to the US not a sign for US withdrawal and, Ike raised the number of advisors from 327 to a whopping 685 (at the request of the South Vietnamese government). It wasn't til Kennedy that significant troop deployment began. Are you too stupid or too lazy (probably both) to check your facts before making such brainless assertions?!?!
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Fortunately, there is not an economist on the planet stupid enough to adhere to your comical analysis. Applying the market worked post Civil War, the shrinkage of gobvernment post WWII, when Kennedy cut taxes (much as Reagan did later) and when Reagan did so (and cut regulations) as well (resulting in almost TWO DECADES of nearly uninterrupted prosperity). Even Bush's tax cuts were successful at improving the economy. YOUR economic suggestions have never worked ONCE.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom oh and be sure to sing the praises of reagen again. he tripled the national debt. and then your bushpunk doubled it again. and only now do you repigs whine about the debt. YOU NEVER DID WHEN BUSHPUNK WAS SPENDING LIKE A SAILOR AND PAYING FOR IRAQNAM WITH EARMARKS..STAY STUPID
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Rant back all you want. I'm done with you. Having shown your "facts" to be utter BS, your history to comically inaccurate and your knowledge of economics to be non-existent, I need do no more. Literally, NO ONE will ever take you seriously on this board - ever.
While I very much appreciate you making me look like a verutable Einstein by comparison, I have better things to do.
Goodbye.
And seek professional help ... seriously.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom yes you do ook like an asshole. you clearly stated the only time your theory worked was at the civil war. as your reagen example failed. proven by the bubble burst of the 80's.. You defend a loser econ strategy and then have the gall to call me a fool.. you look like einstiens turd. thats for sure loser.and what history is inaccurate. a google search reveals everything i pointed out. so that makes you the fool /idiot. now be sure to put on your tin foil hat
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 In fact, I accidently let you get away with another stupid factual inaccuracy in your attempt to blame all the world's ills on Republicans instead of dealing with reality. The Military Assistance Advisory Group - the advisors sent in prior to the deployment of any combat troops under Kennedy - was actually sent in 1950 by order of President Harry Truman - NOT Eisenhower. So advisors, initial combat troops and massive escalation were ALL, in fact, done by Dems. You lose.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom try again idiot. the french had control till 54. they left and thats when ike stuck our nose in it. LIAR.. i bet you blame kennedy for bay of pigs too. even though it was concieved and trained and the attack date set by vice pres nixon.. stay stupid asswipe
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Another one even Wikipedia gets right: "In September 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam to assist the French in the First Indochina war. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces." You should just crawl back into your hole - you're just embarrassing yourself.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Then you prove how stupid and desperate you can be. Only a blithering idiot could argue that a president is not responsible for something done by his administration because the least powerful elected offical (the VP) had input. Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy (his economic policy most resembled Reagan's) and dislike Nixon (one of the most liberal presidents in history), but anyone still pretending, contrary to reality, that there was ever a Reagan bubble is an obvious fool.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom hey jackass. i knew you would say that.. now do some history research. hey look. NIXON was IKES VP. and the overseer of the cia.which funded the training..the training was done under ike's term.you blithering IDIOT. THe attack plan was created under IKE and the attack date was preset while IKE was still in office.So the repubs set up kennedy with a no win. either have the issue come out as an embarrassing example of repig aggression by stopping the attack from occuring.or go on
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 hey jackass, I set you up to further prove your own stupidity. Your "facts" are, again, entirely wrong. While Ike approved the original operating plans, they called for infiltration rather than invasion. Those plans failed. A new plan (having nothing to with the Bay of Pigs) was proposed and tghe president elect was briefed. When that plan was rejected AFTER Kennedy was president, the Bay of Pigs was a NEW scenario approved by Kennedy. No "pre-set" date existed.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom bullshit. it s was an invasion that the cia was training those boys for. but your a history rewriter . you just keep repeating lies till someone believes your lies.. You learned that from karl rove or rush limpdruggie.. your obviously not a student of war history. so just keep lying
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 The notion that Kennedy was handcuffed with a no-win situation requiring invasion is obvious bullshit only believed by the unbelievably incompetent. You are simply a buffoon that (THANK GOD!) no one with an actual functioning brain will ever take seriously.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom the handcuff was either let the invasion happen or suffer the exposure when the cia trained cubans started exposing the last 2 years of the mission that nixon planned. there is also some proof that the repub handlers leaked the invasion info to castro so there was no possible way kennedy could claim a victory if the cuban expats succeeded. keep lying loser
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom yes you are a true example of the repig thinking that made the mess this country is in. you repigs make the problem and then you let others take the blame. just like you try to blame clinton for the bushpunk bubbleburst. .STAY STPUID LIAR
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Please explain, moron, how Bush could have caused a recession that began BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE. You can't because it is obviously impossible. The NBER considered dating the recession in the third quarter of 2000 (the first massive plunge in GDP) and the traditional definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage (which would begin 1/1/2000 - before inauguration). Still the leading economic indicators were in freefall for a full year before Bush took office.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom another repig karl rove lie. the market tumbled becasue of the bullshit in fla. then it really tanked when bushpunk allowed silicon valley wholsale outsourcing..your bushpunk said in 2003 the economy was going so great that they would have to raise interest rates to stall possible inflation.And that started the foreclosures of the greater fools..which lead to the exact same bubble burst as in 86..KEEP lying loser. a simple google search proves you to be a liar
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom keep lying, the truth is out there to easily find for those of us who grew a brain and stopped listening to your libertarian lies and the repub lies.. that timeline clearly shows how phil gramm in 1999, when repubs controlled congress, regutted glass stegall and allowed the same crap of the 80's to happen again in a mirror image of the 80's. and both were a mirror image of the 20's.Keep lying sonny. I JUST PROVED YOU A LIAR.A sub prime is an adj rate loan of the 80's renamed
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 I don’t care if you lived in a sewer and stewed sewer rats for a living. The (easily checked) facts are entirely against you. In the 1990s, the economy was already in a downward spiral (following the Clinton tax hikes) by 1997 (see the leading economic indicators) and likely would have collapsed sooner had capital gains tax cuts not been passed. The “gutting” of Glass-Steagall demonstrably had NOTHING to do with either the recession of 2001 or the current economic crisis.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You can use all the fuzzy math you want LIAR .there was a housing bubble in 86 under reagen. there were massive savings in loan bailouts. and bush sr had not fixed the problem by 92. thats why he got booted. and clinton inherited that 12 year repub mess BUT you havve your home schooled lies to support you..I lived thru it. and will CALL YOU A LIAR CAUSE YOU ARE SONNY. and gutting glass stegall allowed the toxic AIG bundles to be made. just like the milikan crud, GOD YOUR A LIAR
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 There's no "fuzzy math" involved. It is called universally accepted fact. It is easily looked up when booms or busts have occurred and NONE EVER took place in the late 1980s. That the S&L crisis took place (beginning long before then and as a direct result of poor governmnet regulation) is simple reality. Likewise that the economic downturn in 1992 corresponds to the invasion of Kuwait is acknowledged by everyone (and the economy was growing strong before Bush left office).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Since, of course, in the real worls, nothing in Glass-Steagall (let alone anything repealed) ever had ANYTHING to do with the types of investments AIG (or anyone else) engaged in, which had all been perfectly legal for decades and were not even remotely problematic til the Fed manipulated the money supply and created the crisis, all you've done is prove once again that you are economically, historically and legally clueless.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Now your lying about glass stegall..Nov 1999: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act guts Glass-Steagall, setting off wave of megamergers among banks and insurance and securities companies.. this is exactly what allowed aig to get into the securities business with thos toxic assests it insured. LIAR
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 As, of course, AIG has ALWAYS been an insurance company with a securities business and was NEVER covered by Glass-Steagall (that would have been McCarran-Ferguson) all you've proven is that you are too imbecilic to even grasp the difference between banks and insurance companies. No wonder you are so laughable! In fact, there were few "megamergers" and nothing AIG bought was at any time covered by Glass-Steagall or prevented to banks by it.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom thats why glass stegall being gutted allowed banks and insurance companies to merge so they could pull their crud without fear of regulators finding out the crud they were doing..KEEP LYING ASSWIPE
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 You almost got part of that one right (a miracle). The partial repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed HOLDING COMPANIES to own both banks and insurance companies. Since, however, banks and insurance companies were NEVER permitted to merge; since the investments that could be held by banks or insurance companies were completely unaffected and, as a result, NOTHING examined by regulators changed at all, you need to look in a mirror when you say "LYING ASSWIPE" and make the obvious connection.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 And, since I have the facts on my side and have never had any need to lie, you couldn’t “prove” me a liar on your best day. If it’s any consolation, I don’t believe that you’re a liar; I am perfectly willing to accept that you’re stupid enough to believe what you’re shoveling.
Okay, maybe that isn’t much of a consolation.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom state the reference of your so called facts sonny. would it be rush limpdruggies lie. YOU THE OBVIOUS STUPID ONE HERE..this is proven by your first statement that your econ plan worked after the civil war. which was over 100 years ago. and not used since.And your reagen lie is disproved by the savings in loan bailouts that fdic had to do.By real estate and forclosed prop records of the period 86-92 and by bush sr having to raise taxes in 89..and the stock market crash of oct 87
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 I know when the Civil War was. That the post Civil War period was one of low governmnet intervention, low taxation and incredibly high economic growth is nothing more than simple history. The S&L crisis bankrupted the state insurance agencies and the FSLIC (they were not covered by the FDIC - another stupidity on your part) and the only fix was to end the distinction. And Bush Sr. NEVER had to raise taxes - one of the reasons the economy was vulnerable.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom what a stupid liar you are. ITS A DOCUMENTED FACT that bush sr raised taxes in feb 1989.. what an absolute idiot troll you are. anyone who has the brains of a 5 year old can simply enter a google search for bush sr raises taxes. and even get the wikkipedia link as the first selection . that states read my lips no new taxes was busted when he had to raise taxes..YOU TRUELY ARE a dumbass idiot troll that thinks wearing a suit makes your lies crediable. NOT HAPPENING IDIOT
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 You're now a proved liar. As I NEVER argued that Bush (41) did not raise taxes in 1989, the argument that I did is an OBVIOUS lie. In fact, that tax hike was harmful to the economy and made it that much more susceptible to the economic uncertainty in te wake of the invasion of Kuwait.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom hey liar here is your words saying that bush sr never had to raise taxes
..And Bush Sr. NEVER had to raise taxes - one of the reasons the economy was vulnerable.
FletchforFreedom ...1 day ago KEEP LYING SONNY. you prove how much of an IDIOT you really are
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Learn to read, you blithering idiot. "Bush Sr. NEVER had to raise taxes". He never HAD to. That he DID is conceded in the rest of the sentence. His raising of taxes was "one of the reasons the economy was vulnerable". There was NEVER any reason whatsoever that he HAD to raise taxes or should EVER have considered it.
All you've demonstrated is a failure to grasp English that should be embarrassing to truckers and real estate agents anywhere.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom the only IDIOT IS YOU SONNY. your games of bullshit about semantics are both stupid and ignorant. bush was forced to raise taxes to fix the recession and bubble burst you repigs caused under reagen..just like your game about fdic vs fslic. big deal about the letters. the result was the same ASSWIPE. the taxpaqyer bailed out the banks in the 80's just like they had to do under babybush.. and those KIA listed on the wall ARE TROOPS YOU stupid arrogant asswipe
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Your inability to respond rationally hardly reflects well on you, particularly when you prove to be an imbecile by claiming that Bush "had to" raise taxes to fix a recession and "bubble burst" when a moment's checking shows conclusively that there was NEVER any bubble and the recession followed the invasion of Kuwait which was LONG after Bush raised taxes. And, as, again, anyone can check, those first names on the wall were advisors killed in bomb attacks. You lose ... again and again
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom hmm then why did FDIC PAY ME BACK ALL THE MONEY I WAS OWED WHEN LINCOLN SAVINGS WAS BAILED OUT LOSER? KEEP LYING >>I AM TIRED OF YOUR LIES SO I HAVE BLOCKED YOUR CHEAP SUIT ASS
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Since the fact that, once the distinction between commercial banks and S&Ls was dissolved, the Federal government bailed out the NEWLY DESIGNATED AS BANKS that failed via the FDIC undermines NOTHING I said nor in any way supports ANYTHING you've said, what is you're point.
That you are so afraid of getting your intellectual ass kicked so soundly any further, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've blocked me. It just shows that you're a coward as well as a complete loser.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom the mother jones timeline for bank deregulation proves you a liar..about the real estate bubble and that is all based on facts. like the fact bush sr allowed an fdic bailout of his boy jebs screwup..At leaset mike milikan was sent to jail for his toxic mortgage bull which are the exact same type of animal that aig sold in the bushboy years.. stay stupid LIAR
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 The Mother Jones timeline proves you are too stupid to look up a reliable source or to grasp that deregulation was never the cause of the crisis. All your ad hominem attacks are not about to undermine me as I am a respected, published economist who has been studying economics and economic history fro decades and you are an economic ignoramus who thinks screaming LIAR does anything but demonstrate your intellectual bankruptcy.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom mother jones is a realiable source idiot. all the bills are proven by research and all events listed are documented in fact.. but your the repig liar that says its wrong..Cause it destroys your lies..
tbaarr1 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 @tbaarr1 brave of you to block me. Thanks for demonstrating what passes for "argument" among the dimwitted. My suggested econom policy is what made the US an economic dynamo in comparison to the rest of the world particularly in the post-Civil War period and even, arguably, to the extent that, until relatively recently, the US has been less socialistic than other countries in the world. It has wored literally every time it has been tried, even when it is impaired by socialism.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@tbaarr1 Minor correction: "mother jones is [believed to be] a reliable source [by] idiot[s]. They've been debunked so frequently (the Ford Pinto "smoking gun" is a great example) that only a moron takes them seriously. Since, I never argued that the bills did not take place, but rather that they do not support your idiotic thesis that deregulation caused the problem or that a "bubble" occurred in 86 (which is "proven by research" to be bunkum), you simply prove to have no valid argument.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind You were aware, of course, that Keynes himself criticized FDR's policies, right? Keynesianism didn't survive Hazlitt's analysis 60 years ago, let alone the condition of the economy (ration central) during the war years, or the Great Depression that Keynesians universally predicted upon slashing government in 1946 or the stagflation of the 1970s. My facts hold up just fine. The notion that WWII ended the Depression was economically disproved decades ago.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Of course. FDR didn't understand Keynes. He believed in balanced budgets. Keynes wanted to balance the economy, and the budget over time. I think WW2 is the best example that gov't spending does stimulate the economy. Ask Ronald Reagan about that. But there are others, the Kennedy tax cut was another example. Even Nixon said we're all Keynesians now. It works. But the concern over the deficit, which is nothing more than concern over raising taxes, leads people to doubt Keynes.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind You seem to get some thrill out being factually inaccurate. literally no economist or historian on the planet believes FDR wanted balanced budgets. Again, the example of WWII ending the Depression has been thoroughly and completely disproven. The Kennedy tax cut was obviously not an example of stimulus spending. And Nixon was one of the most economically incompetent presidents in history (before the last two). Keynes has been shredded, which is why the school is shrinking.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You need to read a little about FDR then. You can say the idea that WW2 ended the Depression has been thoroughly disproved. But that's not proof. There were other reasons. Other nations started spending, preparing for war. That increased work in the US. But mainly, it was gov't spending, like it or not. The Kennedy tax cut was part of Keynesian economics. Cutting taxes increases the economy, according to Keynes, if the recipients will spend. Are you in favor of "austerity?"
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind I have read extensively about FDR including the definitive economic analyses of his actions "The Roosevelt Myth" and "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. In fact, "work" did NOT increase in the US in WWII. I am stating the widely held view among economists (having been one for decades). The US economy shrank dramatically during the war years net of (unproductive) government spending resulting in rationing, scarcity and want (basic history).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind In fact, Kennedy's tax cuts were NOT consistent with Keynesian theory. Keynes proposed a balanced approach that raised taxes in boom times and lowered them (temporarily) in slcak times, but economic analysis has shown definitively that onlt permanent tax rate cuts as passed by Kennedy, by returning resources to the private sector (NOT by affecting "aggregate demand") stimulate, while tmporary measures have no economic stimulus at all.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
Keynesian economics does not hold up to logical scrutiny, basing an economic system on a sample size of ONE (the new deal), plus ignoring previous history (depression of 1920, one of countless of examples) is a post hoc fallacy plain and simple. There is a reason the economists are shy to debate. Study up on your history, study up on scientific principals and logical reasoning and you will see the light. Don’t blindly follow the government's pet system, stop falling for the propaganda.
cketterl78 2 months ago
@cketterl78 You know nothing of Keynesian economics and very little of history. The "depression of 1920" (uh, those were boom times. You mean 1930's) came before Keynes figured out that classical economics is a special case. He came up with a general theory in response to the obvious failure of classical economics. He could see unemployment lines, which classical economists didn't believe could happen. I don't like much of what the federal gov't spends my money on, but it should spend.
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind You know nothing of economic history. The recession of 1920 (yes, he got the year completely right) was, in fact, a GREATER econimc decline than the beginning of the Great Depression but, as there was no governmental intervention, it was over in 18 MONTHS rather than more than a decade. That classical economics did not believe unemployment lines could exist is flatly wrong, particularly when the economic contraction was driven by government (which has been the case each time).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind Google it you moron! I'm not here to teach you history. I've studied enough Keynesian econ to know its dogma and propaganda. Here's a little tidbit from my college econ 101 book, from the quick review section: "There is no danger of the federal government's going bankrupt bc it need only refinance (not retire) the public debt and can raise revenues, if needed, through higher taxes or printing money"
I don't know about you but I wish I could print money to pay off my debts!
cketterl78 2 months ago
@cketterl78 Call me a moron again, and don't expect a reply. Google what? You don't have to even try to teach me history or economics. I'm sure you can find plenty of books that prove to your satisfaction that Keynesian economics is wrong, or whatever else you want it to be. But you haven't studied it seriously, objectively. Have you ever read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?"
I'll ask you, is reducing gov't spending, so-called "austerity," a good idea at this time?
keepaopenmind 2 months ago
@keepaopenmind Of course it's not a good idea for most of us at this time, but it's going to be far worse is doing nothing. Google the depression of 1920, what you called me out on in my original post, your socalled "age of prosperity". It was in fact prosperous without excessive government intervention, but that doesn't mean there was not a major inflationary depression. Google Wiemar republic while your at it if you want to know what happens with unchecked money printing. Open yer blinders.
cketterl78 2 months ago
@cketterl78 I didn't receive your posts in my mailbox. But I discovered your reply on another website, I accidentally found a myneko site that had all these comments. It was this video. I guess it's afq2007's site. Anyway, all right. I read about the "depression" of 1920. If that's a depression, then we're in one now. Eighteen months followed by boom times. What's your point? That it somehow refutes Keynesian economics?
So, you agree austerity is no good at this time. We won't do nothing.
keepaopenmind 1 month ago
@keepaopenmind *that should read deflationary depression. I apologize for calling you a moron. I realize it doesn't help my case or credibility and progress the discussion. I'm just used to bantering with youtube trolls for my own ammusemnt, I should probably stop doing that and promote a more mature discussion.
cketterl78 2 months ago
@cketterl78 Accepted. Thank you for your civility. Do you also believe that the CCC was an economic disaster? Or the Tennessee Valley Authority? Can gov't spending create jobs? The nonsense that's being propagated by the right is insane. I think they want the economy to fail so that Obama looks bad. The deficit's one matter. The economy's another and far more important. We're not spending enough but we probably won't do austerity either. So, I suspect, we'll just muddle along until the SHTF.
keepaopenmind 1 month ago
@keepaopenmind oh and guy i owe you an apology. the posts i sent at you were supposed to go toward fletchy.. i screwed up and insulted you by mistake. my apologies..obama and all dems for 2012. lets kick the tea bags/repubs to the curb and stop the filibuster everything blockade. that they are using to slow our recovery. recall walker is in full force at this time
tbaarr1 1 month ago
@tbaarr1 It seems the Repubs want the economy to suffer. I guess they figure that'll make Obama look bad. Why else call for cutting gov't spending? They must know it'll hurt the economy. Somebody needs to spend. People and corporations aren't. But they're playing with fire. They might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I think the period from WW2 to 2000 was our Great Prosperity. And it was due to increasing debt, private and public, and cheap oil. We need a new source of cheap energy.
keepaopenmind 1 month ago
@keepaopenmind if you take walker as an example of the alec agenda.. you will note starvation of gov funding to force privatization..and force the middle class to pay for tax breaks for the rich.The tea bags dont care if they get reelected. they just want to stall and make a side end run ploy thru the tea party that all long term congress is bad and new tea bag blood must be put into power..even though they lie outright..you notice all tea bags in 2010 ran on jobs number1.NO JOBS
tbaarr1 1 month ago