07-11-2011, 03:44 PM | #1 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Master of Disaster and Taxes upon Taxes
Obama is easy to hate. He is the Captain of the biggest economic disaster in the history of the world and he plans more mayhem, while ill-informed Keynsians such as Cali actually believe they know what they're doing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-11-2011, 07:56 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.
Why are you advocating we extend Bush's tax cuts during this economic downturn then? That constitutes a countercyclical policy.
__________________
太初有道 |
07-11-2011, 08:59 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
I'm guessing it's because he thinks counter-cyclical policies are identical to Marxism. I'm also guessing it's because he agrees the theory of counter-cyclical spending makes sense to him at some level. If he would read more about it rather than equating it with Marxism, I think he'd be interested by the "multiplier effect" and that tax cuts have among the lowest multiplier factor.
|
07-11-2011, 09:02 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
07-11-2011, 09:39 PM | #5 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I understand the concept that you tax during good years, and spend during bad years hoping for multiplier effect without accounting for crowding. The Keynsian and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. Why do you think they are? One speaks to how to implement controls and during what cycles while the other speaks to metaphysics, who should control and other aspects on the means of control.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-11-2011, 09:53 PM | #6 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
However, I believe more in money supply rather than government spending and taxing. I advocate "tax cuts", because my primary impetus on taxation and government is minimization of government intrusion. So I advocate all tax cuts and advocate most government shutdowns, cuts and elimination of programs. I do believe more capital in the markets will allow entrepreneurs to create jobs. I understand if you want to replenish what you spent you do so in good times. But such concepts represent over-simplification and don't seem to work because of delays in government's responses and the time it takes to turn an economy around.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-12-2011, 12:54 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
As for Marxism v Keynesianism, they are totally antithetical to each other. One is designed to eliminate the capitalistic structure. The other is a mechanism to remove some inefficiencies in the market, thereby enhancing the benefits of the capitalistic structure. See? This is what happens when people start equating Marxism with socialism with any taxes with government spending with Democrats with Keynesianism economics. All of a sudden, words that have actual discrete meanings are put into a giant pot where they all mean the same thing. There are legitimate criticisms of Keynesianism, just as there are with all other economic theories. You just haven't hit on a single one of them yet. |
|
07-12-2011, 01:35 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
But you didn't like the bailout. What would be your plan to get capital markets going again?
__________________
太初有道 |
|
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM | #9 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I won't receive Medicare, so my "social" benefits will be solely roads, and military, otherwise society provides no benefit to me, so I want to participate in it as little as possible. Its policies have collapsed my local market, a market which may not recover according to some studies until 2030. And I believe Keynsian is designed to cause capitalism to fail to reduce the import of the capitalistic structure (Yes I know their theories say otherwise but I don't trust their words). Keynsians have never proven their theories can be implemented effectively. I will posit an argument that Keynsians are frustrated capitalists who are on the road to disbelieving in capitalism trending towards Marxism. Many Keynsians are Marxist at heart and wish to see capitalism fail. You actually believe their theories work in practice. The timing and the efficacy of their theories are not doubted by Keynsians but they are by me. Keynsians tout their theories as a means to eliminate inefficiencies of the capitalist structures, but that doesn't mean I believe their intentions. Their theories don't take account for real world realities such as crowding crushing the multiplier effects. A Keynsian response, we just didn't flood enough money into the system for long enough time. Ugh. Keynsians ignore other factors such as lack of confidence and real world factors.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 07-12-2011 at 02:43 PM. |
|
07-12-2011, 02:25 PM | #10 | ||
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
We didn't effectively take care of liquidity in the capital markets and provide an effective market for the toxic assets. They bailout was wrong-headed and poorly implemented. Do you really believe unemployment is caused inefficient aggregate demand that should be rectified by government spending? What about "supply shocks, or sectoral shifts"? We have excessive wage rates right now and the economy is necessarily correcting itself. The period of this correction is being exacerbated by government's actions. The instability of today's economy is the result of government's interventions. Here is why I will never believe in Keynesian economics, as the great saint, Milton Friedman wrote about lag times: Quote:
Friedman is a stud.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 07-12-2011 at 02:58 PM. |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|