You're referring to the CIA coups in central and south america? Who says a libertarian necessarily supports that?
We have NOT had free market capitalism the past 30 years. You can make the case that pure market capitalism isn't possible if you like or that the pursuit of that asymptote a farce, but don't say FREE MARKET capitalism caused all these problems when it was gov't meddling that distorted the market and caused individuals to act irrationally.
What people want is freedom from persecution. They may not call it capitalism simply because they don't know what that is. But, they don't say, hey, let's have a collective ownership movement. They just don't want oppression; they want better times. Better times that can, I believe, be realized through more free trade and private property rights.
I think you're looking at the "wealth" from FDR while missing the industrial revolution undernearth him. It's the same thing people do with Clinton and the tech revolution.
How are you meaning "recessions" and "busts" prior to a central bank? Ofc, markets can still experience similar things, especially by natural disaster. But, it's not as often, dramatic, or abitrary.
And I do think there's empirical evidence for the austrian case.
I, naturally, disagree about FDR. Policies that create distortions in the market like the FDIC, ICC, HUD, and on and on distort the market. It's how we get such undesireable things as we have now. The gov't straps us to the private failures. It makes us suffer alongside them when we didn't cause their business to fail -- they, themselves, did.
I don't know how a man could potentially be well-educated and then put faith in the socialistic movement. It's not the underlying reality. It does not excel on the underlying reality, but rather gets held back, attempts to make due in spite of the underlying reality. And this is the real way to economic growth?
Ofc I think Obama's a figurehead and a farce.
A priori isn't so bad. Interpretation from empirical evidence suffers from the same truth of knowledge problems.
You actually have the nerve to say proper fundamental economics like the Austrian school is unsustainable and then tout gov't intervention as sustainable? Are you kidding me?
1)OK Suave perhaps my language was imprecise, a better word than 'unsustainable' would have been 'untenable'. My target was Freidman's, & most of neoclassical economic's theoretical reliance on such utter fictions as 'homo-economicus'. It's pure fantasy, theoretically bankrupt.
As for govt intervention, its what raised living standards the world over......
Suave, look Austrian economics is nonsense. It's based solely on a priori reasoning, a method of enquiry into material reality that...
2)Immanuel Kant tore to shreds in the 17thC. & the Austrian theory of the business cycle is utter decrepit hokum. I'll critique it fully if you want. I can use Friedman's critiques of Austrian economics if you want.
Look Suave the era of Keynesianism New Deal to the 70s was ever so much more stable than what we've had since. It was the most economically stable & successful period capitalism has ever had. Since it was discarded by Reagan we've seen slumps of increasing intensity...
& look you must be intimating about central banks. Well, look, & this point basically discredits Austrian economics to the full- there were recessions & depressions, & hence business cycles, while there was no US central bank, thus the Austrian theory of the business cycle, its central component, is utter & complete nonsense & business cycles have deeper causes.
I'll repeat too that there was central banks long before there was Keynesianism & moreover central banks....
4)are a linchpin of Friedman's monetarist theory, ie govt intrusion into the market should only be so far as to control the money supply, ie central banks. Of course the central problem with the Fed is that it is not a govt but rather a private institution, a private central bank. On its private nature all today's Austrians agree-Ron Paul, Peter Schiff etc etc.
Do you live in these third world countries? Do you know if most of them really wanted capitalism? Well they didn't have the choice...
5)really what with all those CIA inspired coups etc.
I'm from Europe a place where you can't say Socialism=Fascism without being laughed at & for good reason. All those European resistance movements, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Belgium, Norway, Italy etc etc were dominated by Communists & Socialists while their conservatives,like with the US & Britain, especially among the business community & despite the fact that war is a profitable business, were too busy appeasing & malignantly.....
6)procrastinating, when not outright collaborating, with few exceptions. The reason was that conservatives are not all that ideologically indisposed to fascism. Fascism is capitalism under stress with its claws out. Classical liberalism was basically fascism.
If you think Obama is a socialist you are extremely deluded my friend, he's a corporate whore.
European elections? What do they mean? The national elections are what count. & yes I agree the nominal left has been far too
7)capitalist over the last 30yrs & have disgraced themsleves in the eyes of the public. Blair, Schroeder you name them, corporate whores. We're in for a tough ride as Right Wingers exacerbate the situation. However, on promising development is the rise of real left wing parties the NPA in France, Die Linke in Germany, the Socialist party in Ireland & others. That's the future I think.
And you think when they collect taxes for that stimulus' cost that that won't burden the economy necessarily by removing capital out of the market?*
Modern day Liberals are so short-sighted when it comes to economics tragically. I like you guys better when you're defending my civil liberties, not denying them via meddling in the market.
Bernanke is about as smart a man as you can measure. He got a near perfect score on his SAT and graduated summa cum laude from MIT. But, he still won't be able to comprehend the full market. Einstein couldn't full comprehend the universe. Milton Friedman and Adam Smith certainly couldn't command an economy despite their enthusiasm for economics. This is the inherent flaw in Keynesian econ and other liberal policies.
You think, for example, an economist can already declare the stimulus as a net positive effect on the economy? You think the parameters are Fall of 2008 to now? You think taxes don't have to be collected for that money spent? Have you even questioned what a "boom" really is and why it is actually the thing that causes a "bust"? You honestly think even the smartest of men can command a market as efficiently as millions of people acting out of self-interest?
If a big gov't was this incredibly positive force and you made so much long-term return off it, why wouldn't private industries being investing heavily in them? You'd actually have such a thing as a voluntary tax (and it'd be actually sane, lol). And what of history and the demise of countries who experiment with heavily socialistic policies? Why is it only when a group of people have built up a hefty savings that they can afford to experiment with socialism? Whyisn'titthe underlying reality?
Why do most Socialist revolutions occur in the 3rd world? I think that throws your whole post out the window. & truth be told man was communist for 99% of his existence.......please don't say anything silly & reliant on the conceptual 'learnt helplessness' of conservative political discourse.
Oh I don't know what of the history of free market fantasies, they last maybe 20yrs before they crash don't they! Oh come on, stp the grade school debate. Uncle Ronnie said Socialism was bad.....
Did you live in these 3rd world countries? Do you know if most of them really wanted it after a while or were rather oppressed into having it? Socialism ends up being fascism. Why did these same countries end up overthrowing it?
We had a tiny socialistic revolution just this last election with Obama; the country, however, is quickly seeing it as absurd. Europe went through a very socialistic phase and just recently embraced more capitalistic views as evidenced by their own last election.
What we've had the past century starting with FDR is keynesian economics that is the genesis for such dramatic booms and busts. It meddles in the market, delaying recessions they cause themselves until they're depressions and finance fake surpluses with cheap money.
And I'm the one having a grade school debate? lol, you're using the straw man of "Uncle Ronnie" to describe the justification for my argument when there has been no evidence of any of that.
hey gls009, pull your head out of your anal orifice. The lowest costs comes when the market dictates the prices. Labor unions inflate th cost of labor (variable cost) and as a result the total cost. that is why American companies are unable to compete with foreign companies who do not have unions artificially driving the price up. no one is suggesting that we all work for free. One more thing to think about; would you rather work for a lower wage in a recession or be laid off completely?
Right. Also, in a productive and growing economy, wages have a tendency to rise naturally as demand for labor becomes greater and greater relative to the supply.
Trying to simply mandate higher wages in the absence of productivity is to put the cart before the horse.
Look at GM and Chrysler now. Government CAFE standards, and the unions literally dragged them down into destruction... Why is Friedman so poignant in today's world? Because he is right.
Nope, it would be a wage that is demanded by the skill employed by that job. It's not about having wages super high and it's not about having them super low. It's about having them determined by the market.
am60mo)What's to understand? Friedman's monetarism just happens to be probably the most consistently reality trounced theoretical frameworks in the whole of social science.....his drivel was only policy enacted for a couple of years in the early 80s until it was apparent it was a load of horseshit & thrown out in US/UK/Chile & elsewhere to be replaced by supply side/voodoo economics which has led us to our current predicament....
If Friedman is right why is the era of strongest unions also
am60mo)better known as the 'Golden Age', of high profits, high wages & growth levels unattained since Friedman's drivel was implemented? To use Friedman's logic, Unions push up wages, bringing other wages up with them as employers have to compete for workers. In the process purchasing power goes up, sales go up, capitalists may make less profit per sales unit but they sell much so much more & profits go up......
am60mo)broke the link between wage increases & productivity growth & in general went a hell of a lot more 'free market' for workers (but not for business, well you know it is upply side gibberish)since Friedman & have relied on the increased forwarding of credit to keep our economies ticking.......& here we are
Thank you Friedman, thank you abstract free market theology
Your a moron living in such abstractly communicated, and fatalisticly stupid denial that even a acid dropping liberal couldn't connect the dots and make sense of the drival you just spewed out....... LOL Enjoy your blissful exsistance in Ignorantville...
You can't even spell your own nic name correctly. Bigmoranno...move somewhere where you can be taken care of from the cradle to the grave and leave America to those of us who believe in freedom and the right to choose. You and yours better get skills that will allow you to provide for yourselves, cause when Barry gets through wrecking our economy, and the country goes back, yet again, to the system that has proven to work time and again, there won't be any government tits to suck on anymore.
Is it not better to suck tit than to be fucked in the ass & milked by capitalists?
Wait a minute! The most successful period in US economic history was marked by the highest degree of government intervention! WOW! Imagine! Simply a more successful capitalism......
Excuse me pal :)!!You know i am a plain swedish farmer not very good a english,but i don´t understand what our American friend am60mo..etc.writes?Is he suppose that Communist planning should be implemented in Texas of all states!!How could come to h conclusian? He must haved played t much American Football i think :)!
This was after WW2 by which time the New Deal, which had built most of the infrastructure, & the huge big stimulus of the US semi-command, war effort, economy had built up US industry & purchasing power within the economy to allow for massive capital accumulation & economic expansion, vastly increasing living standards etc etc through Keynesian means with the help of Unions who kept the business community from their usual self-destructive tendencies.
Post war until the more State-bound economies of Japan, Germany, to a lesser degree France, & later others simply outcompeted US industry. A process that had been completed by the late 1970s.
And what has the Keynesian paradigm wrought today but the looming collapse of the dollar and possibly the United States' solvency? You guys love to so arbitrarily decide the parameters of your analysis. As if the ramifications of FDR's policies aren't still being felt today negatively. As if it was all self-contained within 1920-1970.
See the progression here, --- before there was a federal reserve depressions in thw 19thC. How can u blame the later Wall Street crash on Keynesian economics? When did Keynes write?! Laughable. Keynesian eocnomics did very well up until the 1970s when it was undermined by increasingly free trade (you also had the conjuntural crises stemming from oil shocks) in which more state bound Europe & Japan wupped ass. Thus this brought on Friedman's monetarism. Which was a huge failure causing the
greatest econ slump since the G depression. Raygun had to backtrack & set about supply side/voodoo/trickle down horseshit that never attained the same growth levels of 'stodgy' old Keynesianism. Abject failure requiring increasing levels of debt (particularly personal) & asset price rises, rather than any advances in the real economy whatsoever, 2 garner any kind of stability. & it was a 'stability' marked by hugely more regular financial crises culminating here. got loads more if u want it...
Yes, you're correct. today's monetary problems are due to Keynesianism. Moreover, today's economy is an outgrowth of Roosevelt's policy. In WW2, FDR sided with the Marxists and their bankster-supporters, so it should be no surprise.
I wonder if our Commie friend, Bigmartinno1, would be so supportive of Marxism if he knew how many ethnic Russians and Ukrainians were murdered by the Bolsheviks. Historians tell us that 10s-of-millions perished at their bloody hands.
Our Nation not perfect, however we are the most innovative with Checks and balances and Rule of Law, with a government that allows us to criticize and even post our opinions on you-tube. America you are Great! Keep it up! The price for Liberty is Eternal vigilance so we do not lose it.
Nice of Mr. Friedman to show the last paper processing plant in America, but hang on, I hear it is moving to China soon.
louiethegreater 2 years ago
You're referring to the CIA coups in central and south america? Who says a libertarian necessarily supports that?
We have NOT had free market capitalism the past 30 years. You can make the case that pure market capitalism isn't possible if you like or that the pursuit of that asymptote a farce, but don't say FREE MARKET capitalism caused all these problems when it was gov't meddling that distorted the market and caused individuals to act irrationally.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
What people want is freedom from persecution. They may not call it capitalism simply because they don't know what that is. But, they don't say, hey, let's have a collective ownership movement. They just don't want oppression; they want better times. Better times that can, I believe, be realized through more free trade and private property rights.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
I think you're looking at the "wealth" from FDR while missing the industrial revolution undernearth him. It's the same thing people do with Clinton and the tech revolution.
How are you meaning "recessions" and "busts" prior to a central bank? Ofc, markets can still experience similar things, especially by natural disaster. But, it's not as often, dramatic, or abitrary.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
And I do think there's empirical evidence for the austrian case.
I, naturally, disagree about FDR. Policies that create distortions in the market like the FDIC, ICC, HUD, and on and on distort the market. It's how we get such undesireable things as we have now. The gov't straps us to the private failures. It makes us suffer alongside them when we didn't cause their business to fail -- they, themselves, did.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
I don't know how a man could potentially be well-educated and then put faith in the socialistic movement. It's not the underlying reality. It does not excel on the underlying reality, but rather gets held back, attempts to make due in spite of the underlying reality. And this is the real way to economic growth?
Ofc I think Obama's a figurehead and a farce.
A priori isn't so bad. Interpretation from empirical evidence suffers from the same truth of knowledge problems.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Seriously you conservatives need to forget your fetishes for ontologically unsustainable microeconomics & methodological individualism......
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
You actually have the nerve to say proper fundamental economics like the Austrian school is unsustainable and then tout gov't intervention as sustainable? Are you kidding me?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
1)OK Suave perhaps my language was imprecise, a better word than 'unsustainable' would have been 'untenable'. My target was Freidman's, & most of neoclassical economic's theoretical reliance on such utter fictions as 'homo-economicus'. It's pure fantasy, theoretically bankrupt.
As for govt intervention, its what raised living standards the world over......
Suave, look Austrian economics is nonsense. It's based solely on a priori reasoning, a method of enquiry into material reality that...
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
2)Immanuel Kant tore to shreds in the 17thC. & the Austrian theory of the business cycle is utter decrepit hokum. I'll critique it fully if you want. I can use Friedman's critiques of Austrian economics if you want.
Look Suave the era of Keynesianism New Deal to the 70s was ever so much more stable than what we've had since. It was the most economically stable & successful period capitalism has ever had. Since it was discarded by Reagan we've seen slumps of increasing intensity...
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
3)culminating today.
& look you must be intimating about central banks. Well, look, & this point basically discredits Austrian economics to the full- there were recessions & depressions, & hence business cycles, while there was no US central bank, thus the Austrian theory of the business cycle, its central component, is utter & complete nonsense & business cycles have deeper causes.
I'll repeat too that there was central banks long before there was Keynesianism & moreover central banks....
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
4)are a linchpin of Friedman's monetarist theory, ie govt intrusion into the market should only be so far as to control the money supply, ie central banks. Of course the central problem with the Fed is that it is not a govt but rather a private institution, a private central bank. On its private nature all today's Austrians agree-Ron Paul, Peter Schiff etc etc.
Do you live in these third world countries? Do you know if most of them really wanted capitalism? Well they didn't have the choice...
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
5)really what with all those CIA inspired coups etc.
I'm from Europe a place where you can't say Socialism=Fascism without being laughed at & for good reason. All those European resistance movements, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Belgium, Norway, Italy etc etc were dominated by Communists & Socialists while their conservatives,like with the US & Britain, especially among the business community & despite the fact that war is a profitable business, were too busy appeasing & malignantly.....
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
6)procrastinating, when not outright collaborating, with few exceptions. The reason was that conservatives are not all that ideologically indisposed to fascism. Fascism is capitalism under stress with its claws out. Classical liberalism was basically fascism.
If you think Obama is a socialist you are extremely deluded my friend, he's a corporate whore.
European elections? What do they mean? The national elections are what count. & yes I agree the nominal left has been far too
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
7)capitalist over the last 30yrs & have disgraced themsleves in the eyes of the public. Blair, Schroeder you name them, corporate whores. We're in for a tough ride as Right Wingers exacerbate the situation. However, on promising development is the rise of real left wing parties the NPA in France, Die Linke in Germany, the Socialist party in Ireland & others. That's the future I think.
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
And you think when they collect taxes for that stimulus' cost that that won't burden the economy necessarily by removing capital out of the market?*
Modern day Liberals are so short-sighted when it comes to economics tragically. I like you guys better when you're defending my civil liberties, not denying them via meddling in the market.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Conservative economic illiteracy is rife here, tragic. Whatever Sir would you like me to to give you a huge big lowdown on Friedman & Smith? Really?
On Friedman, his greatest success was the payroll withholding tax he fomented! Most everything else he did was abject failure.....
Hey there's some interesting Smith quotes on my page.
Last but not least liberals annoy me at the best of times. Here's my favourite song about them watch?v=tGDT7wKvdRk
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
Bernanke is about as smart a man as you can measure. He got a near perfect score on his SAT and graduated summa cum laude from MIT. But, he still won't be able to comprehend the full market. Einstein couldn't full comprehend the universe. Milton Friedman and Adam Smith certainly couldn't command an economy despite their enthusiasm for economics. This is the inherent flaw in Keynesian econ and other liberal policies.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
You think, for example, an economist can already declare the stimulus as a net positive effect on the economy? You think the parameters are Fall of 2008 to now? You think taxes don't have to be collected for that money spent? Have you even questioned what a "boom" really is and why it is actually the thing that causes a "bust"? You honestly think even the smartest of men can command a market as efficiently as millions of people acting out of self-interest?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
If a big gov't was this incredibly positive force and you made so much long-term return off it, why wouldn't private industries being investing heavily in them? You'd actually have such a thing as a voluntary tax (and it'd be actually sane, lol). And what of history and the demise of countries who experiment with heavily socialistic policies? Why is it only when a group of people have built up a hefty savings that they can afford to experiment with socialism? Whyisn'titthe underlying reality?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Why do most Socialist revolutions occur in the 3rd world? I think that throws your whole post out the window. & truth be told man was communist for 99% of his existence.......please don't say anything silly & reliant on the conceptual 'learnt helplessness' of conservative political discourse.
Oh I don't know what of the history of free market fantasies, they last maybe 20yrs before they crash don't they! Oh come on, stp the grade school debate. Uncle Ronnie said Socialism was bad.....
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
Did you live in these 3rd world countries? Do you know if most of them really wanted it after a while or were rather oppressed into having it? Socialism ends up being fascism. Why did these same countries end up overthrowing it?
We had a tiny socialistic revolution just this last election with Obama; the country, however, is quickly seeing it as absurd. Europe went through a very socialistic phase and just recently embraced more capitalistic views as evidenced by their own last election.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
What we've had the past century starting with FDR is keynesian economics that is the genesis for such dramatic booms and busts. It meddles in the market, delaying recessions they cause themselves until they're depressions and finance fake surpluses with cheap money.
And I'm the one having a grade school debate? lol, you're using the straw man of "Uncle Ronnie" to describe the justification for my argument when there has been no evidence of any of that.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
hey gls009, pull your head out of your anal orifice. The lowest costs comes when the market dictates the prices. Labor unions inflate th cost of labor (variable cost) and as a result the total cost. that is why American companies are unable to compete with foreign companies who do not have unions artificially driving the price up. no one is suggesting that we all work for free. One more thing to think about; would you rather work for a lower wage in a recession or be laid off completely?
BrianLudwig53 2 years ago 3
Right. Also, in a productive and growing economy, wages have a tendency to rise naturally as demand for labor becomes greater and greater relative to the supply.
Trying to simply mandate higher wages in the absence of productivity is to put the cart before the horse.
iamacyborg 2 years ago 2
Look at GM and Chrysler now. Government CAFE standards, and the unions literally dragged them down into destruction... Why is Friedman so poignant in today's world? Because he is right.
hertenstein 2 years ago
Oh you've got to be kidding me
Lower wages mean cheaper cost, we get it! We should convince everyone to work for free!
GLS009 3 years ago
Nope, it would be a wage that is demanded by the skill employed by that job. It's not about having wages super high and it's not about having them super low. It's about having them determined by the market.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago 4
Exactly. It's about having the freedom to get what we can with what we can give.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This would almost be funny if so many people didn't believe this contrived BS
Bigmartinno1 3 years ago
Don't be hatin just cause you can't understand it...
am60mo 2 years ago
am60mo)What's to understand? Friedman's monetarism just happens to be probably the most consistently reality trounced theoretical frameworks in the whole of social science.....his drivel was only policy enacted for a couple of years in the early 80s until it was apparent it was a load of horseshit & thrown out in US/UK/Chile & elsewhere to be replaced by supply side/voodoo economics which has led us to our current predicament....
If Friedman is right why is the era of strongest unions also
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
am60mo)better known as the 'Golden Age', of high profits, high wages & growth levels unattained since Friedman's drivel was implemented? To use Friedman's logic, Unions push up wages, bringing other wages up with them as employers have to compete for workers. In the process purchasing power goes up, sales go up, capitalists may make less profit per sales unit but they sell much so much more & profits go up......
Unfortunately we forgot this, attacked unions,
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
am60mo)broke the link between wage increases & productivity growth & in general went a hell of a lot more 'free market' for workers (but not for business, well you know it is upply side gibberish)since Friedman & have relied on the increased forwarding of credit to keep our economies ticking.......& here we are
Thank you Friedman, thank you abstract free market theology
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
Your a moron living in such abstractly communicated, and fatalisticly stupid denial that even a acid dropping liberal couldn't connect the dots and make sense of the drival you just spewed out....... LOL Enjoy your blissful exsistance in Ignorantville...
am60mo 2 years ago
Well, at least I can spell & am not grammar challenged.....
Don't be hatin just cause you can't understand it......
Liberals annoy me most of the time....
Say hi to the folks in ignorantville for me will ya, bye
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
Just what the world needs, another grammatically correct moron. Forget that he is a financial parasite on the butt of humanity.
am60mo 2 years ago
@am60mo the parasitism is called capitalism
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
You can't even spell your own nic name correctly. Bigmoranno...move somewhere where you can be taken care of from the cradle to the grave and leave America to those of us who believe in freedom and the right to choose. You and yours better get skills that will allow you to provide for yourselves, cause when Barry gets through wrecking our economy, and the country goes back, yet again, to the system that has proven to work time and again, there won't be any government tits to suck on anymore.
am60mo 2 years ago
U can't even spell nickname correctly.....
Is it not better to suck tit than to be fucked in the ass & milked by capitalists?
Wait a minute! The most successful period in US economic history was marked by the highest degree of government intervention! WOW! Imagine! Simply a more successful capitalism......
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
Excuse me pal :)!!You know i am a plain swedish farmer not very good a english,but i don´t understand what our American friend am60mo..etc.writes?Is he suppose that Communist planning should be implemented in Texas of all states!!How could come to h conclusian? He must haved played t much American Football i think :)!
cjanne9 2 years ago
I can spell "you" are a terminally stupid jackass!
am60mo 2 years ago
And what period was that?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
This was after WW2 by which time the New Deal, which had built most of the infrastructure, & the huge big stimulus of the US semi-command, war effort, economy had built up US industry & purchasing power within the economy to allow for massive capital accumulation & economic expansion, vastly increasing living standards etc etc through Keynesian means with the help of Unions who kept the business community from their usual self-destructive tendencies.
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
Post war until the more State-bound economies of Japan, Germany, to a lesser degree France, & later others simply outcompeted US industry. A process that had been completed by the late 1970s.
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
And what has the Keynesian paradigm wrought today but the looming collapse of the dollar and possibly the United States' solvency? You guys love to so arbitrarily decide the parameters of your analysis. As if the ramifications of FDR's policies aren't still being felt today negatively. As if it was all self-contained within 1920-1970.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
See the progression here, --- before there was a federal reserve depressions in thw 19thC. How can u blame the later Wall Street crash on Keynesian economics? When did Keynes write?! Laughable. Keynesian eocnomics did very well up until the 1970s when it was undermined by increasingly free trade (you also had the conjuntural crises stemming from oil shocks) in which more state bound Europe & Japan wupped ass. Thus this brought on Friedman's monetarism. Which was a huge failure causing the
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
greatest econ slump since the G depression. Raygun had to backtrack & set about supply side/voodoo/trickle down horseshit that never attained the same growth levels of 'stodgy' old Keynesianism. Abject failure requiring increasing levels of debt (particularly personal) & asset price rises, rather than any advances in the real economy whatsoever, 2 garner any kind of stability. & it was a 'stability' marked by hugely more regular financial crises culminating here. got loads more if u want it...
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
@SuaveSavant
Yes, you're correct. today's monetary problems are due to Keynesianism. Moreover, today's economy is an outgrowth of Roosevelt's policy. In WW2, FDR sided with the Marxists and their bankster-supporters, so it should be no surprise.
I wonder if our Commie friend, Bigmartinno1, would be so supportive of Marxism if he knew how many ethnic Russians and Ukrainians were murdered by the Bolsheviks. Historians tell us that 10s-of-millions perished at their bloody hands.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
Our Nation not perfect, however we are the most innovative with Checks and balances and Rule of Law, with a government that allows us to criticize and even post our opinions on you-tube. America you are Great! Keep it up! The price for Liberty is Eternal vigilance so we do not lose it.
Nchoice 3 years ago 2
Interesting concept.
Nchoice 3 years ago 2
If that's what you call the truth, yeah.
Steadley 3 years ago