Upload

100% PROOF! Obama is a KEYNESIAN!

by Julie Borowski • 32,945 views

Irrefutable proof. I cannot believe there are some Americans who still don't believe that he is a Keynesian. Just because the mainstream media never calls him a Keynesian. Time to wake up and look...

+Julie Borowski  When Keynes said "in the long run, we're all dead" he didn't mean it as shrugging massive debt onto future generations for short term gratification. No, what he was referring to by that quote was his frustration with the mainstream economists' stance of that time (which were all Classical/ Austrian School Economists) to just let the economy return to equilibrium by itself (by letting the supply curve shift over time) as it eventually does. His quote means just that, eventually, the economy will get better, but in the meantime, an entire generation will be lost to a Depression that will last decades (as it was calculated the supply curve would fully adjust by the 60's to 70's, that's how deep of a hole the Roaring Twenties had dug the world into). If anything, Keynes' words were a statement against the Classical Economists, accusing them of not caring for the fate of an entire generation lost to a depression. One must also remember that the Sock Market Crash of 1929 isn't all that was influencing the Depression, the natural disaster known as the "Dust Bowl" had ruined the Great Plains region. For Keynes, waiting for the Great Depression to end via the supply curve would be useless, as "in the long run we're all dead"; it's not that he didn't believe that supply side economics works (Classical/Austrian), it's that he saw it as taking way too long. So, he decided to formulate an economic theory to have the government fix the economy by artificially moving the demand curve (and technically this does work if the demand curve is moved is shifted just right, as it would have the same effect as the supply curve shifting in a beneficial direction). The reason governments have been failing lately in Keynesian Economics is because they do specific things it says not to do, solely for political brownie points with political supporters. For example Keynesian Economics demands that in a Recession, the government should cut taxes & increase spending (Keynes also came up with Tax Breaks, but scraped the idea as it was less efficient at moving the demand curve because for every dollar returned to the taxpayer, they saved a portion of it thus watering down the benefit to the economy, as the government would spend the entire dollar). In a Boom period, Keynesian Economics demands that the government reign in growth to a sustainable rate, and pay down it's debt; it does this by increasing taxes and cutting back on spending during a boom period. So overall, if followed correctly, this policy would result in a balanced budget over the course of the entirety of a business cycle. The whole premise behind Keynesian Economics is that we don't want Great Depressions, and we don't want Roaring Twenties (as the boom period in an economic cycle is tied to the subsequent bust period, you can even look at a graph of the business cycle for the past 150 years and see this). I learned this in an Macroeconomics Class where the 3 main economic schools, the Classical, Keynes' Keynesian School, & Milton Friedman's Monetarism were presented as they described their precepts. Keynesian Economics worked well throughout the Depression and the decades following. Now, before a rebuttal is put forth that Keynesian Economics "made the Depression last longer", know that the astronomical military spending of WWII (and all military spending is government spending) got us out of the Depression. Just in case the UK is used as an example of a country that got out of the Depression "early", (as I've seen that argument used before) it's not usually mentioned that the Depression never hit the UK as bad as many other countries (because the UK never felt the Roaring Twenties), so their Depression wouldn't last long. The New Deal also set up the FDIC by the way, which ensures that even if a bank is robbed or collapses, the public's money is still insured, and the consumer won't lose their life savings as a result. It also brought electricity to 25% of the country, and made it possible so that after it's end it would be possible for Jonas Salk to create the Polio Vaccine (with gov't funding) and for NASA to be established and have the Apollo Program. So spending isn't always bad Public works also don't have to yield cash profit, as that's not the point of a public work (as if it did yield cash profit, companies would build them). No, instead, you have positive externalities (an example of which would be no dumped toxins in the water supply) as the profit generated by many public works (as I'm sure many New Deal Works kept less people from becoming bank robbers, or starving out on the street after losing their urban home because of the crash, or farm because of the Dust Bowl disaster). Though don't assume that I'm advocating for New Deal programs as a norm whenever any economic downturns happens (believe me, I'm from Miami, where the county gov't has a long history of funding the wackiest projects that never result in anything other than it getting canceled midway through and money being lost, all the while, the public transportation system is terrible), only that for the unique circumstances of the situation, it was pretty successful in keeping society from melting down.
Report spam or abuse
Cheap one-dimensional framing... It's not just about spending in a depression, it's also about taxing in high-conjucture to avoid bubbles(like the housing bubble). Kinda like the 7 fat years and the 7 meager years from Josef and the Paraoh's dreams.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
And the bail of the banks was not a keynesian move?
Report spam or abuse
"Keynesian economics don't work and have never worked" Damn straight - we just became the richest country in the history of the fucking planet, and the #1 world superpower, under it. Libertardianism would be much better, we know that for a fact because of how many countries have become successful with it... (zero.)
Report spam or abuse
Now, let me enlighten you about how the 3rd & youngest Economics school operates, the Monetarist School of Economics (which by the way, was founded by Milton Friedman, as he was a Monetarist, not a exactly a Classical Economist): it's basically the Federal Reserve, a decentralized central bank, and it's run by the banks it regulates, with the addition of person nominated as Chairperson by the President. Just to show you the idea of a Central Bank isn't bad, just look at what happened when that blockhead Andrew Jackson let his personal negative feelings for Henry Clay influence him to cause the collapse of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. Jackson caused the depression that cost Martin Van Buren reelection to William Henry Harrison. Now, the Federal Reserve is supposed to function as a decentralized central bank (it's broken up into regions in the U.S. so that it's more localized to the needs of the area), serves as a bank of last resort (if no other bank will loan the needy bank some cash, the Fed will always loan it the sum, but at a higher rate than the other banks would have offered), and it's responsible for setting Monetarist Policy. You can see the money supply on a S&D graph as a vertical line, as the supply of money is whatever the Fed says it is (which isn't in and of itself a bad thing). Monetarist Policy is different than either Classical/Austrian Economics, which relies upon the supply curve moving on it's own, and Keynesian Economics, which relies upon the government moving the demand curve to it's optimal place. The Monetarist School relies instead, upon the supply of money in the economy. Keep in mind, if you don't pay attention, you may get lost if you don't pay attention, as this incorporates the multiplication & sucking up of available funds that banks use. In a boom cycle, the Fed would seek to reign growth to sustainable levels, and thus would seek to suck up available funds from the money supply. It may accomplish this in three ways, the first entails the selling of bonds to banks (as money would flow into the Fed's vaults), the second would be raising nominal interest rates, and the third would entail the lowering of the fractional reserve rate (which is a control on banking risk as well, I'll explain this later). In the case of a bust, the Fed would simply do the above, but reverse the policies in the other direction to encourage growth (by introducing more funds). The Fractional Reserve Rate serves as a means to ensure that banks have a minimum amount of money on hand to service a customer seeking to take out funds, but it's also in place as a precaution against a run on a bank. The Fractional Reserve Rate (percentage of funds from each deposit that a bank must legally keep on hand) controls the amount of available funds for every physical dollar in the economy. By this, I mean that that the higher the rate, the less money available to be multiplied, and the lower the rate, the higher amount of money available to be multiplied. The exact formula to calculate the impact of the Fractional Reserve Rate escapes me at the moment, but when someone borrows money from the bank, they deposit it in another, now that other bank will then loan out the max amount from that deposit that they can, thus increasing the funds available for loan. Now, with Monetarist Economics, something quite unique (though not exactly good) can come about when it's economic policy comes into conflict with the government's Keynesian policy. If the Fed tailors it's policy to reign in growth (by sucking up funds), and the government tailors it's Keynesian Policy to drive growth (by increasing government spending, decreasing taxes, or giving tax breaks), then contradictory & mixed economic conditions arise, though it isn't really isn't that bad when compared to egging on faster & larger growth during a boom, or slowing it down during a recession. This actually ended up happening back in the early 2000's when the Fed Chairman and the President disagreed during a boom period (the Fed wanted, and began to suck up available funds, while the President had tax breaks passed).
Report spam or abuse
By the way, not all Classical/Austrian Economist agree on government involvement, and while Tax Breaks may sound like a Classical policy in theory, it actually comes from Keynesian theory, though in that school, it's less efficient than direct government spending (as the government would spend all the entirety of the dollar, whereas the recipient of the tax break would only spend part of it). The Classical/ Austrian School just had to try to incorporate it as a way they would tolerate the government trying to influence the demand curve, as their premier place in government economic policy had been taken during the Keynesian Ascendancy in the decades after WWII when Keynesian Economics became dominant worldwide (especially in the U.S. throughout the 50's,60's, and beyond). Now to anyone who may use the UK as an example of a government that didn't hit overdrive on government spending during the depression, they need to acknowledge that they also never experienced the boom of the Roaring Twenties, so that wouldn't have put them in as much of a hole for those countries that did experience the boom times of the 20's to their full extent.  Public Works have also never been meant to offer the government a direct monetary profit, they're there for the purpose of creating positive externalities for society (an example of which would be regulations on the dumping of toxic chemicals in the water supply) which are basically profit in a non-monetary form, as not all benefit must come in cash. I'll cite the Apollo Program's Moon Landings as an example, it didn't lead in a cash profit (indeed, the only reason JFK's program was kept after his presidency was because he was killed, so anyone trying to cancel it would look like a jerk, as Bill Nye said, once JFK was shot, "we couldn't not, not go") but inspired a nation. Those public works also provided electricity for over 25% of the country and tamed the Tenn. Valley, and would create the precedent of the public works in the following decades, and lead to the creation of NASA (which technically is a public work), which gave the world an unbelievable amount of practical everyday and medical innovations, both directly, and indirectly (such as the MRI machine) and inspired an entire nation with the moon landing. Jonas Salk also developed the Polio Vaccine because of government funding.
Report spam or abuse
Joe Acker Shared on Google+ · 7 months ago
Report spam or abuse
Love your stuff Julie. Keep on keepin' on!
Report spam or abuse
Eh, Keynes was pretty good.
Report spam or abuse
I'm in love with your mind Julie!
Report spam or abuse
Isn't unemployment down to 6% now?  Romney said he could bring unemployment down to 6% by 2016 if he were elected.  It's already at 6%, 2 years earlier than Romney's goal. 
Report spam or abuse
WAR .. what is it good for ?
Report spam or abuse
Politicians mostly only have the incentive structure to make their election cycle go well. I figured Keynesianism, or at least the reason it got so popular, is that.
Report spam or abuse
NOT THAT I WANNA BE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE BUT UNTIL FUCKIN GEORGE W. BUSH ASSHOLE JUNIOR THE KEYNESIAN SYSTEM DID WORK. THINK ABOUT THE COLD WAR AND THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENDED ON NUCS AND WEAPONS OF ALL KINDS. DID THE ECONOMY IN US GROW?? FUCK YEAH! AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICAN TAX PAYER AND OF COURSE THE REST OF THE WORLD BUT ANYHOW IT DID WORK!
Report spam or abuse
I'd rather read Mein Kampf than Ludwig Van Bollocks
Report spam or abuse
+Michael Dennis There is only 2 ways to exchange Goods and services 1 is by mutual consent the other is by force. Capitalist is mutual consent Socialism is by Force. It is a rare case for those with that kind of power to to keep focused and doing what's best for others. You mentioned 1 country that does Socialism well but do you understand that their are many that fail? It's not capitalist that fails it's humans that fail. I've tried to explain how this country is failing at socialism and how to fix it so you can have your state a Socialist utopia if the right people are in charge of it.  The reason Socialism is spreading mainly the failed verson is that it benefit evil leaders. Please consider that if the US has bad polices all that states are subject to them. Again, it is our job to keep our government from taking to much power and using it to harm us and benefit them.
Report spam or abuse
Oh yes force we  are all very well acquainted with that one way or another .Even social conventions are a form of mild force  as it involves a certain compulsion to conform .Industrial tyrants administer their own kind of force as well on their employees, compelling them to do  exactly as they wish in exchange for the very meagre wages they  offer. As many of those employees have little or no choice in accepting the draconian demands of their employers , it kind of takes the shape of force.  If the state pulls out altogether the industrial tyrant would have even more power toe exert whatever force he wishes knowing full well the hapless employee has little choice but to accept his terms  because whatever alternative might be out there for him would pretty much offer similar draconian terms. The irony is that many years ago during the industrial revolution industrial tyrants had hop problems at all with the state , in fact it was their friend because it let them pretty much what they wanted to do and in  fact when employees revolted as they often did , they were simply brutally repressed , in others force to satisfy the desires of the industrial tyrants Eventually the state saw the light and realised regulations were highly necessary to prevent firth social disorder .It also realised it had to accept the presence of organised labor in the shape of unions who demanded better pay and conditions which included state pension provision education and welfare .These had to be met in order to maintain order and prevent the kind of poverty that was appallingly prevalent.Of course much of that was pushed by the ghastly neo conservatives ,so now we have 46 million American living in poverty in what is still the richest nation on earth. I mentioned Norway but its not a true socialist nation , more a welfare capitalist or social democratic nation .In fact a;ll the nordic countries practice that kind of capitalism as does  Germany  with its worker involvement at boardroom level,None of these countries are anywhere near as rich as the USA and yet they have a veryt lower rate of peovert and everyone has access to, welfare , healthcare and education
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
The original intent of the founders was to have a Federalist system which consisted of individual states and a small central government with very limited powers. The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled. What happens today when a senator violates his oath of office and votes for unconstitutional bills? Nothing. Senators are elected for six years and even when those six years are up, it is almost impossible to take them out. In 2010 84% of incumbent senators were re-elected. In some years that number has been as high as 96%.  It was changed in 1914 and it needs to be changed now more than ever, why because city planners are getting funds from left leaning people and groups that want project housing to be built in the suburbs, solidifying the democrats in politics for sure.
Report spam or abuse
+Utopian Lobotomy You are right. What I tell people is that the states are to be considered countries and the US is just the organization meant to inact the tready between the nation states. The Federation is only suppose to Protect vs foreign threats, establish a common currency and ensure free trade between the states to keep the coastal states from starving out the land lock states. Keep up the good work and keep calm.
Report spam or abuse
During American's economic boom time after WWII (1947-1971) the richest one percent paid 70 to 91 percent federal income tax. That is too high ,but this video is BULLSHIT!
Report spam or abuse
Ok I like cherry pickers. What works and does not is what she's talking about ;lackey .and yes she is just as deceived as the rest of us...CAN U UNDERSTAND FAIL ?? She hits good conservative points " AND " economics.
Report spam or abuse
I've watched several videos now, and here is my conclusion.... this girl is cute... but she is an idiot. Do yourself a favor, stop cherry picking facts, and take several huge steps back to look at the BIG picture.
Report spam or abuse
bang on mate .. most of the time she is perty (when she is not being ugly like in the patriarchy vid) and she does seem to be a little misguided.  
Report spam or abuse
So what you are saying is that if out of the trillions of dollars the US Federal government spends if 10 of them have a positive result that makes the other 17+ trillions wasted acceptable. The Federal spending on education has reduced the quality of education. Yes, if a government acts with knowledge and good intentions they can get good results but as soon the government changes hands, you have no idea whether or not the next group will keep up the good work. Also it is almost imposable to cancel a program after it starts. It's much better to have most if not all done by privet businesses so if they fail to do the job right you can just stop using them. 
Report spam or abuse
You're cute, AND I agree with everything you've said.  This is unheard of.  Will you marry me?
Report spam or abuse
i think most politicians fear a cute libertarian girl publicly explaining in detail why the current system is not working for us.@Julie Borowski, the only problem i have with your arguments is that they mostly assume that our economic failure is a result of political incompetence. You clearly know far more than me or any average about economics. so with that you must realize that the government is probably well aware of every solution there is to think of. after all, simply lifting regulations and allowing a free market to behave(literally just behave period.) is not rocket science. Yes, they like to make it seem like rocket science to dissuade any real privately conducted analysis, but it's not, and we thankfully have people like you that put it into terms that are understandable to most, and not purposely convoluted beyond comprehensibility. Bottom line, Julie, these people are corrupt beyond what you'd initially believe, they're not stupid.
Report spam or abuse
Yeah, let's go for the stupidity of the austrian school, cuz we loved 1929!!!
Report spam or abuse
Its not the economics of 1929 and you obviously don't read !
Report spam or abuse
You're wrong, I read, and I think the great depression is enough proof of the ineffectiveness of laissez faire, give me a break.
Report spam or abuse
Bonkers. What libertarian web site did you read all that from, Julie?
Report spam or abuse
+wwhit2001 Reality has a well known liberal bias. Sorry to inform you. You don't need an apostrophe on news, by the way.
Report spam or abuse
+AcceptSolitude Wow, do you really believe that!?! Yet another case vs public schools. History shows over and over again a planned economy is a failed one. Do some research, just check some countries that are booming and some that or wallowing in disarray and you will see what I mean.
Report spam or abuse
Kevin Doran Shared on Google+ · 1 year ago
Report spam or abuse
You're as dumb as dogshit Julie ...
Report spam or abuse
funny that Australia avoided the worst part of the GFC due to spending on school halls and house insulation subsidies.....good results that helped the private sector.....should they have just sat on their hands and got belted by 'free market and it's GFC'. love the videos and so would Goebbels..:)
Report spam or abuse
So the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and all the other alphabets have no idea or proof he's Kenyan???? I guess these conservative organizations just decided to bite their tongues. Next it will be we never walked on the moon.
Report spam or abuse
David Kokua Shared on Google+ · 1 year ago
Report spam or abuse
so so wrong keynsianism saved the US economy during the 30s
Report spam or abuse
+wwhit2001 "When you allow the government to take over your responsibilities you give them your rights with them.".....Exactly....
Report spam or abuse
what the state does is to help [people help themselves in as much as we all sign an unwritten contract with it that says as long as we all play our part by following the laws of the land, contributing through work, sending our children to school, raising them the best we can and generally being good citizens , then it will be provide the infrastructure, education ,welfare  and health  care when we need.Its about mutual responsibility and not just individual Seems fair enough to me
Report spam or abuse
I haven't checked but I bet you love Ayn Rand too....
Report spam or abuse
This video is stupid. Example of how government spending can boost the economy: Subsidising education to get a more qualified workforce that can inturn put more money back into the system. There's also the fact that the 'job creators' you talk about havnt been doing much job creating. They like to hold onto their money.
Report spam or abuse
Yeah.  I thought that too.  Then I studied economics.
Report spam or abuse
+spanieaj Can you go back and see if he made any point that I haven't already answered? Am I right, that he is a mindless drone?
Report spam or abuse
This woman is so fucking ignorant, blabbering about subjects she has only a cursory understanding of.   When a free market private business puts money into improving their productions and doing R and D it's called an INVESTMENT...you know, spend money to make money. When when the government does it it's EEEEEEVIIIIIIILLLLL SOCIALISM!1!!!11....the'res a lot of people that are actually economist that say the multiplier effect DOES in fact hold true in job growth stimulation...You know what DOESN"T help the economy? austerity measures and slashing public assistance and government jobs, Because if everyone is out of work, there's no money to spend at stores, it's a downward death spiral...you know economics 101, the same horseshit that libertarians like to say when they smugly spout out their  drivel about "if you raise the minimum wage, it only takes away opportunities for poor people, it's econimics 101!! lulz! back to my aynn rand blog!!!"  I don't try to pretend I have a bigger understanding of economics and the political system beyond a highschool level but I don't make stupid fucking youtube videos flapping my big fat fucking mouth either.
Report spam or abuse
202 people misread Keynesian as Kenyan.
Report spam or abuse
They didn't misread it, they are just too 'uninformed' to know the difference...  lol.  Wonder who they voted for?
Report spam or abuse
All the bail outs and "stimulus packages"were an excuse to wreck the American economy to the point of collapse. Doomsville, USA.
Report spam or abuse
Yeah because this past century has just been perfect economically with all those wars, boom and bust cycles, inflation, etc. What a load of crap
Report spam or abuse
Also, you have no understanding of why the 1970's failed for the US. It wasn't our economic policy, it was OPEC's embargo. More reason to work on green energy and provide stimulus to companies that make America energy independent- wait! That's what Obama did. Now, before you scream SOLYNDRA, I'll say TESLA. Nice try though.
Report spam or abuse
correct the address was simply to weather higher taxes slowed economic growth or not which it does. I am actually on my way to starting a business
Report spam or abuse
Yea, thats just what happens though. Giving people money isn't the same as a successful buisness. It might help get the buisness out of a rut they're in but you just can't expect them to hire all kinds of people. Thats like assuming that a lower class person making minimum wage will put a down payment on a brand new car when given 10,000 dollars. At best they're going to pay off some debt but they're not going to buy a new car until they have better pay and a more secure job and future.
Report spam or abuse
bitch needs to read a fucking economic textbook
Report spam or abuse
You gotta understand the format for her videos. It took me awhile, too.
Report spam or abuse
Taxes do not discourage production you stupid bitch. Taxes, if anything, encourage production.
Report spam or abuse
It's right and it works extremely well. We demand that exchanges are VOLUNTARY, then these necessarily increase the expected value of both parties. Bill Gates and BP may be greedy, but they can't make a nickel unless they vend a product that has value to others exceeding price. Free markets transforms greed into increase value,and with competition optimizes resource allocation. This is provable in econ theory.
Report spam or abuse
No. Tax relief(37%) IS stimulus often used in recession, but Keynes suggested spending(63%). Problem, all spending should be subject to cost:benefit analysis, and there is no NEW need for infrastructure in recession. So we get low-multiplier spending (few jobs per dollar) and crony-capitalism (Solyndra), and suck money out of credit markets so biz can't grow. Obama suppresses enterprise with uncertain taxes, policy & agency & verbal attacks. Wants jobs, hates biz - duh !
Report spam or abuse
oh man and i didn't think i could love keynes any more than i already do
Report spam or abuse
Look up how many Green tech companies have benefited from the stimulus. Remember Romney's points he made against it, stating that it failed. Well guess what, he lied. It worked wonderfully. I don't see how you think government is a unified entity. The GOP is cock blocking all democrat bills (like the healthcare one) that would create a healthcare market with competitive prices, therefore lowering the present costs. Keynes does Austrian better than Austrian.
Report spam or abuse
Infrastructure spending and tax breaks in Canada. It clearly eased the economic situation here, without compromising our credit. I have nothing against cutting in gov't spending, but don't make it happen too abrutly, especially during a recession.The U.S. is not facing the same wall the greeks are facing ; likewise, it shouldn't take it's budgetting too lightly either.
Report spam or abuse
You obviously don't know how any of that relates to Keynesian economics, the stimulus, or Austrian economics. If you can't connect the dots then you can't debate the topic. Really? Nice claim, too bad it is utterly false. Ever heard of bitcoin? Yeah, that's a market run currency. Know how reliable it is? Not at all is the answer. That basically sums up Austrian economics as a general model. Btw, liberals, not libertarians, are against corporate welfare.
Report spam or abuse
This lady goes completely wrong at 1:33, and at that point shows how little she understands, and that she's just spouting the classic NeoCon rhetoric. The stimulus failed, yes, but it's not because it "took billions out of the hands of entrepreneurs". Rather, it failed because it failed to get those controlling the most money (i.e. very rich & corporations) to SPEND their money and INVEST in the country. There were too many loopholes in the stim which let these fatasses just sit on their $
Report spam or abuse
I notice that one of you actually has the courage of his convictions to speak here under his real name.
Report spam or abuse
I agree with your comment in that just giving the money out was a BAD idea. It's along the lines the GOP is always touting, which amounts to "lower taxes for the rich, if they have even more money, they'll SPEND it on YOU!" Much of the problem leading up to 2008 was mismanagement of money by the very people we threw money at to solve the problem. Some of the money even went to paying BONUSES to the CEOs who tanked their companies. There should have only been INCENTIVES to INVEST in PEOPLE.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
yes I know %50 is high but its jusxt a round number for the example some people what a tax that high or higher. exactly he is a self reliant man. in a fee market people have to be reliant on themselves instead of the government. The people should self reliant and government welfare replaced with private charities. You may not agree but the post i addressed talks about high taxes and grows and my point was simply to show how high taxes slows growth nothing else.
Report spam or abuse
My god, obscure the facts much? While I agree that government spending is not the answer in most cases, the government spending decrease from 44-48 was due to WWII ending, not because of new policies. And the unemployment rate was so low because during the war, cars were not produced, rations were strict, and when 'our boys' came home, they wanted to start a new family, or buy a home. Construction and manufacturing were big bucks in the baby boomer days.
Report spam or abuse
There must be something seriously wrong with you.
Report spam or abuse
Go back 4 comments. Singapore/HK prove austrian economics and its superiority to keynesian economics, greece, spain and nazi.
Report spam or abuse
How's trickle down economics working out, fucktard?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
This is what happens when companies don't have to pay for the mistakes they made. These companies messed up big time and the government patted them on the back and gave them money and said try again. Unfortunately the companies took the money and kept it for themselves because they have no incentive to progress if the government is going to bail them out.
Report spam or abuse
Wow, that was just pure idiocy right there. The "stagnant entitlement stimulus that makes them complacent and not innovative" was successful because it did made green companies innovative and able to produce green tech, making us more able to be energy independent. This "mindless stimulus" was paid back in full. and it got the economy back on its feet. What are you even talking about?
Report spam or abuse
The CIA's own world website admits that lower taxes= economic prosperity. Take away the usurous central bank pyramid scheme and you have even more rapid prosperity.
Report spam or abuse
... Judges, etc. So, what then is the point of spending public funds on these projects, is it simply to fund these projects as (and ONLY as) truly needed? or is it to "'stimulate' the economy"? Also, you said that the purpose of increasing government spending was to 'fuel demand', but why not just do this through lower taxes? After all, demand is expressed through consumption, which is increased through lower taxes, so, why have money coming out of one pocket while putting more into (cont...
Report spam or abuse
Saw a hilarious clip of Obama supporters being asked if they thought he was a Keynesian their responses were "nope...we think he's an American" and "where is this Keynesia anyway?"...so those boastful Dems as "Party of the Intellectuals" nuh uh....
Report spam or abuse
You seem to be under the assumption that spending money helps the economy more than saving money and investing it in capital that can lower costs or provide new services.
Report spam or abuse
The reason that Keynesian theory never works is because of the idiocy of the balanced budget approach, you cannot stimulate the economy with infrastructure spending by taking it out of the hands of consumers and investors. Maybe the correct approach is to give out interest free small business loans, or even grants, along with building new roads and sewerage plants; having created all this employment and economic activity enjoy the benefits of increased income and accelerated cash flow.
Report spam or abuse
How about no tax payer fueled stim pack? Prosperity does not trickle down when you hand rich corporations a pay check. Let the companies grow on their own and let them hire who they need. Government doesn't need to inject their forced economic opinions on every street corner buisness. People don't grow up until they have responsibilities and risks of their own. Treat an adult like a child and they will act like a child. People need to make decisions for themselves, its how we grow and learn.
Report spam or abuse
You made absolutely no sense at all. How do you feel? Learn to read before attempting to make a comment. I was simply playing into your pathetic ego, and it worked surprisingly too well. Now I feel forced to respond to this idiocy. But that's okay. I was hoping you'd be able to tell me why the Austrian school of economics is laughably crude, but you can't, because as I see from your responses to others you barely know what an economy is.
Report spam or abuse
Gee, if the rich and corporations "HAVE to" sit on their money because of regulations and taxation, as you claim, then, gee, I wonder how they managed to make ANY money at all, in the past, back when they had much MORE regulation and MORE taxation. You need to come up with a different excuse for coddling businesses than the old tired line which doesn't apply.
Report spam or abuse
She is such an adorable nerd. :)
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
No sir, YOU have it all wrong. The rich and corporations sit on their money, don't hire American workers, and actually invest overseas because they HAVE to. With all the regulations and taxation, corporations can't be competitive investing and hiring in the US. Our government is forcing the rich and corporations to do this. ALL fault lays on the government. ALL of it!
Report spam or abuse
Total laissez-faire capitalism does not work. It never has and never will . Supply side economics does not work. Prosperity does not "trickle down". It never has and never will . The private sector is all well and good, but the economy cnnot rely on it totally .
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Mtstatehl is right! reagon more than doubled the debt,For his buy now and Pay later crap!
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
John Maynard Keynes, aside from being a liberal (as if that isn't bad enough) and an atheist (no offense to those of you who are) WAS A HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILE!!!! NO BS! IT'S TRUE!!!
Report spam or abuse
Just because the govt. plays a role in the economy doesn't mean that they should, any more than is absolutely necessary, and certainly doesn't mean that they should attempt to control it, as if this is even within their power (they THINK it is, which is the problem). Well, the have a lot more power to muck it up than they do to actually manipulate it in any positive way. But anyhoo,... Even conservatives don't argue that the govt. shouldn't play a role in funding certain pubic (cont...
Report spam or abuse
And it looks like you're a Keynesian too!! Keynes's model supports cuts after the stimulus! And you just said exactly that, except you lied about the New Deal not working. Stimulus then cuts, Krugman killed Ron Paul with that one! Ron didn't even get it, and it seems you don't either.
Report spam or abuse
Misread the title as in, saw the words, Keynesian, then clicked on it?
Report spam or abuse
Wasn't WW2 basically massive investment in the economy too? According to Wikipedia, many economists think it at least helped to end the depression.
Report spam or abuse
... functions, or even that they don't have an obligatory duty to do this to a certain extent. Only complete anarchists would argue otherwise. However, although we may not all agree on just what the exact amount to each purpose (or govt. employee) should be, or even on how many people REALLY NEED to be employed by the govt. to fulfill these purposes), it can only be a finite number. Obviously, we only need so many roads, schools, public workers, soldiers and tanks, public defenders and (cont
Report spam or abuse
I agree with this video its just..i don't know anyone who doesn't think Obama believes in keynesian economics
Report spam or abuse
Keynesian economics has worked in the past. Liar or ignorant, tell us which one you are?
Report spam or abuse
Keynesian economics: Spend money now, worry about problems later. Keynesian economics: Not even once.
Report spam or abuse
Frenetic, loony, and out of her fucken mind!
Report spam or abuse
*yawn*..when in doubt blame Obama smh
Report spam or abuse
WHAT THE FUCK IS A KEYNESIAN? YOU MEAN A KENYAN YOU DUMB BITCH
Report spam or abuse
Because according to polls 37 percent of our population believes it is the responsibility of the government to provide for us. Its insane. Personal accountability is a thing of the past.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
That's up for grabs, but essentially the government - whether you like it or not - is a major factor in the economy - to call government purchases of military equipment not "real" demand for military equipment is a fallacy. The money from a Government can serve to create work programs (infrastructure, public works, etc.) it could serve as investment, etc. You have to think of the government as an economic agent equal to a business or a household or an individual.
Report spam or abuse
Keynesian economics in a nutshell: You have a cake. Someone cuts your cake in half. They then take that cake and hand it around to several people who each take a bite. They hand what's left of it back to you and say, "Why aren't you happy? You now have a cake and a half!"
Report spam or abuse
Keynesianism should be regarded as a bad thing ALWAYS, look what Paul Krugman have to say to solve the crisis, he say we should prepare for an alien invasion! Keynesianism is based almost all the times on the broken window fallacy, it is really sad that people still buy this delusion...
Report spam or abuse
I appreciate your rapid reply. Canada. No mortgage crisis, strict banking rules ( CA: 0 bank failures, US: 100's), booming oil sector in an opportune global period... What I'm saying is that the Canadian economy was constrained ('96 debt-to-gdp, "northern peso", etc). The examples you give were responses to demand, not efforts to trigger deman. That isn't Keynesian, is it? Correct me on the Canadian economy if needed. I'm from the US, so my perspective is no doubt naive. Thanks.
Report spam or abuse
??... you say she's wrong and then support her point... which you say is wrong. ??
Report spam or abuse
Because Draconian Austerity is working so well for any country. In fact, it has never worked. The only thing that HAS HAS been stimulus. Actual stimulus. Yeesh.
Report spam or abuse
CUT $2trillion in spending or simply slowed the ADDITONAL increase in spending? Not REALLY a CUT (gov/dem logic) is it when you don't INCREASE spending by as much as you wanted too. You also try to make the pathetic reduction in taxes try to look good BEFORE Obamacare (A tax according the Supreme Court) kicks in. BUT what about the more the $7trillion ($7,000,000,000,000.00) in government spending already wasted with nothing to show for it? Forgot that bit of info did you?
Report spam or abuse
As if there was ever a question....
Report spam or abuse
a new latex videlo will come?
Report spam or abuse
Yes.. never worked... like Roosevelt. You know why Obama's stimulus didn't work. It was because it was mostly didn't go to stimulus but mostly to tax relief. So you think you infrastructure is destructive to society? Nuts. Absolutely nuts.
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to