Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father

ib1yysguy said:
There is no Keynsian anything these days, let alone a road to hell.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. All of them are speaking of "envigorating" the economy with debt. All of them running hand in hand down the Keynesian road to Hell all paved with even more of a debt.

It's awesome to watch. Even more stunning when people attempt to deny it.
 
ib1yysguy said:
How the hell is that Keynsian? That's Reaganism.
Click to expand...
Okay, study up. It's Keynesian. Just as Kennedy began it, every President has continued the Keynesian mess until we reach a point today that we are now at a level that is above that neat little 37% of debt to income ratio.

Anyway, creating debt to stimulate the economy is definitively Keynesian.

You can really tell during downturn times. "Lower the interest rates and 'invest in infrastructure'"

In this case they are handing money back (adding again to the debt) in order to "kickstart" the economy. It is Keynesian.

Kennedy began it and every president since has had their fair share of it. Pretending that we are in some sort of "free market" when the Federal Government attempts to fix every little belch....

*sigh*

Anyway. You clearly have no idea what Keynesian Economics is if you don't know what is Keynesian about adding to the debt to invest in the economy....
 
Did a look on Wiki and found nothing to back that up. I do remember poly sci class, and what you're talking about reflects what FDR did, not Kennedy. So at the very least you're wrong about who "started it." And it's amazing the economy's continued to do so well for 63 years even though we've been on a road to hell.

You cannot describe our economy as Kensyian. At all. Maybe the economic stimulus package, but libertarians would rather just leave it up to the market. You guys are against ANY government intervention, which by the way so was Keynes since he favored private sector intervention over gov't.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Did a look on Wiki and found nothing to back that up. I do remember poly sci class, and what you're talking about reflects what FDR did, not Kennedy. So at the very least you're wrong about who "started it." And it's amazing the economy's continued to do so well for 63 years even though we've been on a road to hell.

You cannot describe our economy as Kensyian. At all. Maybe the economic stimulus package, but libertarians would rather just leave it up to the market. You guys are against ANY government intervention, which by the way so was Keynes since he favored private sector intervention over gov't.
Click to expand...
Again, it is all relative. I think we'd be doing better without all that debt.

Anyway,

Keynes economics had a major influence in Kennedy's decision to put the government in debt to invest in the economy.

http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/keynespf.html

Start there. And read up. Keynes' theories were extremely complicated and I am not your professor.

When Americans elected John F. Kennedy President in 1960, the Keynesian economists who dominated academia entered the highest levels of the U.S. government with him. Kennedy appointed the prominent Keynesian Walter Heller to head the President’s Council of Economic advisers, and generally followed the Keynesian advice he received. In 1963 JFK proposed a massive tax cut to, in accordance with Keynesian theories, stimulate demand and push the economy back to full employment. Following Kennedy’s assassination, President Johnson pushed the plan through congress in 1964. The results seemed to vindicate Keynes, as the economy grew and unemployment fell.[ix] Accepted by the vast majority of economists, installed in the highest levels of government authority, and seemingly vindicated by the facts, Keynesian doctrines stood at the apex of their influence in the mid 1960’s.

What, exactly, did Keynesian theories teach? One should note that economists did not settle on one interpretation of Keynes. The General Theory is a dense book that can be unclear and difficult to understand.[x] Multiple economists came up with different variations and interpretations of Keynes’s work.[xi] However, an explanation of the basic features of the orthodox model illustrates the core Keynesian ideas that Friedman critiqued.
Click to expand...

Anyway according to his theory there are two ways for a government to entice the savings out into the market.

The government has two possible means of increasing aggregate demand: it can use fiscal policy or monetary policy. A fiscal policy to stimulate demand would involve massive government spending without a corresponding rise in taxes; in other words, deficit spending. By issuing bonds and then spending the proceeds, the government would access the unspent savings and put them back to work in the economy. What the government chooses to spend the money on does not matter, it could even pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again. As Keynes wrote, “Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth.[xxii]” The important point is that the government spends the money.

The second way... (Can you guess)????


Alternatively, the government could utilize monetary policy to stimulate the economy, basically printing money to generate more demand. Keynes, however, did not believe that monetary policy would be as effective as fiscal policy. With fiscal policy the government knows the money gets spent. Printing new money would not provide the same benefit, since individuals would still hoard the new cash and banks would keep the excess reserves. In other words the new money would also get stuck in the liquidity trap.[xxiii]

(Yeah, using your Fed to 'print' money and by lowering the interest rates. Keynes didn't believe that this would be as effective as that massive deficit spending).
Click to expand...

Got it?

It is part and parcel to Keynesian economics to DEFICIT SPEND in order to invest in the market.

One place our government loves to spend this cash is in the Military. Ike warned us against this, literally informing of the danger of the military industrial complex.

Now, either go take a class or get out of the conversation because your questions and your Wiki searches notwithstanding you are out of your league and don't even have a basic understanding of the terminology or why Roosevelt's non-deficit spending wasn't Keynesian, while Kennedy's deficit spending was and are incapable of understanding how massive debt might not be good for our future.
 
Damocles said:
Again, it is all relative. I think we'd be doing better without all that debt.

Anyway,

Keynes economics had a major influence in Kennedy's decision to put the government in debt to invest in the economy.

http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/keynespf.html

Start there. And read up. Keynes' theories were extremely complicated and I am not your professor.



Anyway according to his theory there are two ways for a government to entice the savings out into the market.



Got it?

It is part and parcel to Keynesian economics to DEFICIT SPEND in order to invest in the market.

One place our government loves to spend this cash is in the Military. Ike warned us against this, literally informing of the danger of the military industrial complex.

Now, either go take a class or get out of the conversation because your questions and your Wiki searches notwithstanding you are out of your league.
Click to expand...

Been a while since I ready Keynes (college), but his economics were much more sophisticated than one can characterize as "deficit spending to bolster the economy." I imagine we were deficit spending as a country before Keynes was born.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Don't be a little bitch about correcting someone having a civil debate with you. It's considered poor form.
Click to expand...
I thought you were still in college. And I will be a bit on edge.... after stupidly restarting the cigarettes I am again going through that nasty withdrawal....

:doh:
 
Damocles said:
I thought you were still in college. And I will be a bit on edge.... after stupidly restarting the cigarettes I am again going through that nasty withdrawal....

:doh:
Click to expand...

This was in a different college years and years ago while I was taking classes part time and working full time at a paper. I since have changed colleges and it's been about 5 years since that class. I knew Keynes like the back of my hand, and I know enough to know that his philosophy (largely) was annihilated nationally between Nixon and Reagan. Deficit spending, issuing bonds (great investments if you don't mind lower yields), etc., are sound economics now - or considered to be by anyone who doesn't believe government has no place in correcting the markets. It'll be around a very, very long time.

The markets, by the way, were not corrected with Keynsian economics prior to the 1929 crash. During a recession, when Keynsian economics is designed to correct, investing in the infrastructure by creating jobs "on the margins" and winding up with positive benefits like hydroelectric plants and a highway system as well as correcting the market reversal. And the most hurtful part? It works. As soon as FDR was elected the downward slope of the market started going up.

The media plays a roll in this as well. I've written a research paper on the influence of the media and how coverage of market reversals has changed since '29. But thats just a side note.

I'm not out of my league, just dusty.
 
Last edited:
Should the only goal be figuring out how to get people's savings out into the market? Or to get them to run up their credit cards so corporate numbers look good? Perhaps our metrics only reflect what corporations find meaningful.
 
Damocles said:
I thought you were still in college. And I will be a bit on edge.... after stupidly restarting the cigarettes I am again going through that nasty withdrawal....

:doh:
Click to expand...

I went through that more times than I can count, until I finally kicked them all together. Don't ever give up, and you'll make it.
 
Darla said:
I went through that more times than I can count, until I finally kicked them all together. Don't ever give up, and you'll make it.
Click to expand...
I can't keep surviving withdrawal with my family intact. Therefore this will be the last time, I won't smoke again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top