Americans Reject Keynesian Economics

[Canceled2]

Read entire article here.

Americans Reject Keynesian Economics

Friday, February 05, 2010

Richard Nixon once said, “We’re all Keynesians now.” But that was a long time ago, and it’s certainly not the case anymore (if it ever was).

While influential 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.

To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans, in fact, say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.

 

[Onceler]

There is a reason that advanced economic policy & other national decisions are not put forth to the American public to decide. The public's role is to pick a leader who they trust & who will surround him or herself with the best people.

Most people do not have economic degrees, economic experience on the national scale or even a general idea about economics at that level....

 

[Canceled2]

There is a reason that advanced economic policy & other national decisions are not put forth to the American public to decide. The public's role is to pick a leader who they trust & who will surround him or herself with the best people.

Most people do not have economic degrees, economic experience on the national scale or even a general idea about economics at that level....

Ahhh.... another voice claiming the American people are just too stupid to know that when your policy is: Spend more; borrow more; tax more, that you won't stimulate a sinking economy....right.

 

[Kamala Trump]

There is a reason that advanced economic policy & other national decisions are not put forth to the American public to decide. The public's role is to pick a leader who they trust & who will surround him or herself with the best people.

Most people do not have economic degrees, economic experience on the national scale or even a general idea about economics at that level....

Keynesianism = currency-based fascism.

You personify elitism.

 

[Onceler]

Ahhh.... another voice claiming the American people are just too stupid to know that when your policy is: Spend more; borrow more; tax more, that you won't stimulate a sinking economy....right.

Give me a yes or no answer on this: if we could put critical national decisions up to a true democratic vote in America - economic policy, foreign policy, the works - and decide based on popular vote, would you endorse that?

As for deficit spending this past year, there are many economists on not just the left, but on the right, who agree with that notion. It's a pretty simple concept. The economy was drying up. Wall Street was afraid, businesses were afraid, and consumers were afraid - all all 3 were reigning in spending as a result. When investors & consumers don't spend, it hurts businesses. Businesses, in turn, lay more people off, and reign in more spending. When more people are unemployed or fear for their job, consumer spending constricts even further, hurting businesses even more, who - in turn - plan even more layoffs, and less spending.

In those circumstances, absent outside stimulus, a downward cycle could theoretically continue for a long period of time.

I don't expect you to understand this. But how'd you like the report this morning showing unemployment back in the single digits? I'm sure that happened in SPITE of the admin's policies, and not because of the, correct?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Give me a yes or no answer on this: if we could put critical national decisions up to a true democratic vote in America - economic policy, foreign policy, the works - and decide based on popular vote, would you endorse that?

As for deficit spending this past year, there are many economists on not just the left, but on the right, who agree with that notion. It's a pretty simple concept. The economy was drying up. Wall Street was afraid, businesses were afraid, and consumers were afraid - all all 3 were reigning in spending as a result. When investors & consumers don't spend, it hurts businesses. Businesses, in turn, lay more people off, and reign in more spending. When more people are unemployed or fear for their job, consumer spending constricts even further, hurting businesses even more, who - in turn - plan even more layoffs, and less spending.

In those circumstances, absent outside stimulus, a downward cycle could theoretically continue for a long period of time.

I don't expect you to understand this. But how'd you like the report this morning showing unemployment back in the single digits? I'm sure that happened in SPITE of the admin's policies, and not because of the, correct?

Choke on your binary options.

Things both sides agree on are the most dangerous of all.

 

[Onceler]

Choke on your binary options.

Things both sides agree on are the most dangerous of all.

I happen to agree with Keynesian economics in a circumstance like we've had. There is a logic to it.

And I don't think it's elitist to say that most Americans don't understand economic policy at that level; they simply don't. To be honest, I don't really either - but I understand the logic of the Keynesian argument. When posters like Ice Dancer argue against it, they don't acknowledge that there is at least a logic to it - they don't indicate that they at least understand it. Their criticism is more at a base level - "well, since we have a deficit, we obviously shouldn't spend & increase it". It displays a lack of basic understanding.

 

[Onceler]

It should also be noted that Obama ran pretty openly & pretty aggressively on Keynsian economics, in an election when the economy was the #1 issue for voters.

If they wanted to reject this kind of policy, November of 2008 would have been the time to do so...

 

[Damocles]

There is a reason that advanced economic policy & other national decisions are not put forth to the American public to decide. The public's role is to pick a leader who they trust & who will surround him or herself with the best people.

Most people do not have economic degrees, economic experience on the national scale or even a general idea about economics at that level....

Nor do lawyers. The job of a leader would be to help educate people on why they are making those decisions so that they will know that they are sound and continue to put them into office. If this is indeed the best path they need to inform people as to why, and convincingly, or they will lose power. Saying, "People are too stupid to make these decisions so you have to trust us." isn't going to do that.

 

[Damocles]

It should also be noted that Obama ran pretty openly & pretty aggressively on Keynsian economics, in an election when the economy was the #1 issue for voters.

If they wanted to reject this kind of policy, November of 2008 would have been the time to do so...

The problem was we had the "not-bush" wave and a choice between McFogey (sold as McSame) and "not-bush", when they were swept into office because they were "not-bush" they then thought it meant everybody agreed with them.

 

[Onceler]

Nor do lawyers. The job of a leader would be to help educate people on why they are making those decisions so that they will know that they are sound and continue to put them into office.

I think they admin has done a pretty decent job of laying out the reasons for their policies. I also think fear is a bigger motivator for people; clearly, the propoganda of TEA and Fox has had an effect.

It's easy to dismiss polls like this, as well. When most people think economics, they think on their level. "If I'm in debt, I stop spending," so, when a poll asks "should we spend with such a big deficit?", the logical answer seems to be 'no'.

That's not the way Keynesian theory works.

 

[Onceler]

The problem was we had the "not-bush" wave and a choice between McFogey (sold as McSame) and "not-bush", when they were swept into office because they were "not-bush" they then thought it meant everybody agreed with them.

Keep telling yourself that. By continuing to argue this, you're insulting the American voter even more than Ice Dancer suggested I was.

In a time of absolute economic crisis, and when most political analysts agree that Americans, by & large, vote their wallet every 4 years, it's just inane to endorse the idea that people would vote for an economic policy that they so vehemently rejected, simply because Obama was "notBush."

 

[Damocles]

I think they admin has done a pretty decent job of laying out the reasons for their policies. I also think fear is a bigger motivator for people; clearly, the propoganda of TEA and Fox has had an effect.

It's easy to dismiss polls like this, as well. When most people think economics, they think on their level. "If I'm in debt, I stop spending," so, when a poll asks "should we spend with such a big deficit?", the logical answer seems to be 'no'.

That's not the way Keynesian theory works.

Again. Saying, "People are too stupid to understand" will not get the result you want.

When people see the President talking about "belt-tightening" in the right hand and sending a record deficit budget on the left they need a bit more explanation than has been happening.

It might behoove him to lay off personal finances and speak only to policy from now on so that he won't seem to be hypocritically outspending as he tells others not to.

And pretending that it's all Fox's fault is just inane.

 

[Damocles]

Keep telling yourself that. By continuing to argue this, you're insulting the American voter even more than Ice Dancer suggested I was.

In a time of absolute economic crisis, and when most political analysts agree that Americans, by & large, vote their wallet every 4 years, it's just inane to endorse the idea that people would vote for an economic policy that they so vehemently rejected, simply because Obama was "notBush."

Both of the people running espoused Keynesian ideation. It is foolish to pretend otherwise and then think they voted him in because of that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is a reason that advanced economic policy & other national decisions are not put forth to the American public to decide. The public's role is to pick a leader who they trust & who will surround him or herself with the best people.

Most people do not have economic degrees, economic experience on the national scale or even a general idea about economics at that level....

most people also know that you don't do the exact opposite in economics that you would do with your own personal finances.

this is yet one more attempt to wrest control of a country from it's rightful owners and place it in the hands of a few 'elitists'.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, then, Americans are wrong. I don't see how this proves anything.

 

[Onceler]

Again. Saying, "People are too stupid to understand" will not get the result you want.

When people see the President talking about "belt-tightening" in the right hand and sending a record deficit budget on the left they need a bit more explanation than has been happening.

It might behoove him to lay off personal finances and speak only to policy from now on so that he won't seem to be hypocritically outspending as he tells others not to.

And pretending that it's all Fox's fault is just inane.

Yeah - because that's exactly what I said. I said "it's all Fox's fault."

Good call. Man, are you smart.

 

[Onceler]

most people also know that you don't do the exact opposite in economics that you would do with your own personal finances.

this is yet one more attempt to wrest control of a country from it's rightful owners and place it in the hands of a few 'elitists'.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

You wouldn't even run a business like you run your personal finances. Why would you run a nation that way?

They are 2 completely different economic levels....

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

You wouldn't even run a business like you run your personal finances. Why would you run a nation that way?

They are 2 completely different economic levels....

no it's not. it all comes down to one simple little theory. don't spend money you don't have. It doesn't matter if you think it's coming or you can get a loan for it, that just deepens your debt. A hole you make more difficult to climb out of. It's poor economic policy to print money to spend and THEN figure out how you're going to pay for it.

 

[Onceler]

no it's not. it all comes down to one simple little theory. don't spend money you don't have. It doesn't matter if you think it's coming or you can get a loan for it, that just deepens your debt. A hole you make more difficult to climb out of. It's poor economic policy to print money to spend and THEN figure out how you're going to pay for it.

Most businesses would fail if they did not engage in deficit-spending at certain points of their existence.

Beyond that, the idea is that the hole could be a lot bigger if spending didn't turn around on a mass scale. When people lose jobs and businesses continue to fail & cut back, revenues also go down accordingly...