Mott: as a moderate, why are you voting for Obama?

TheJanitor said:
It does not. There is no multiplier effect. Government spending is a drain on the economy, always. Keynesian theories lead people to believe that spending money on war and crony capitalism leads to economic growth. It is idiotic.
Click to expand...

This shows that you simply do not understand Keynes theory. Keynes advocated spending during recession on such thing as infrastructure. Money that had to be spent in the next ten years anyway. His theory was that you take the spending from years 5-10 and spend it during the recession in years 1-2/3. Putting people to work at a time labor was loose, when costs of construction materials tend to be lower (due to recession creating less demand). Then as the economy recovered you slow that spending down in years 3-5 and pay back the debt accrued in years 5-10 before any additional spending on infrastructure.

Obviously this is not what the so called Keynesians of today propose. But again, Keynes will work if applied correctly, as will supply side.

Explain?
Click to expand...

The difference between supply side and keynesian? or explain how they are implemented correctly? I would be happy to do either.

Then you don't understand what Keynesianism is. Keynes ideas were all based around the idea that we needed to take money away from the hoarders/savers (has nothing to do with wealth) and give it to people who would spend (again has nothing to with wealth). He claimed this would create a multiplier effect that would lead to growth. It did not work. It has not worked. All it has done is create a massive war machine and a huge debt problem.
Click to expand...

That is not true in the least. Keynes stated the solution to a recessionary environment was to have the government increase spending (on infrastructure) and reduce interest rates via a central bank (monetary policy). These two actions would stimulate growth in the economy. Infrastructure spending would obviously create jobs, which in turn would provide those employees with money that could be spent. The lower interest rates would push people out of traditional savings accounts to seek higher returns elsewhere.
 
TheJanitor said:
The southern stratgey was based on racism. Of course, it was.
Click to expand...
There is an economic component to the southern strategy. From a backward region to one with a growing upper middle class through the 70's, 80's and 90's many upper middle class southerners saw the GOP as representing their economic interest, as do members of the upper middle class through out much of the nation. But to deny that racial politics has not played a huge role in the southernization of the Republican party is putting your head in the sand. It's the southernization of the Republican party which went a long way on alienating me from the Republican party. I do not share their values on race and civil rights. I was raised to be better than that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I agree with the later statement but not the former. That's just babble. As far as debt, our debt is certainly alarming and not responsible government but as a ratio of debt to GDP is certainly sustainable. Enough hyperbole. Studie show that a nations economy only begins to suffer when the debt to GDP ratio exceeds 90% (the US is around 70%). Our current debt to GDP ratio isn't even a historical high for the US.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we shouldn't do the responsible thing and reduce our debt but at it's current ratio it's definately sustainable.
Click to expand...

Babble? It's funny that you both think it possible to agree with the last statement and not the first. It is not.

Keynesianism has nothing to do with providing for the poor. It is an economic scheme based around the idea that government spending benefits from a magic multiplier effect. There is no magic. Keynes never said it had to be spent on the poor. He famoulsy argued against Hayek that feeding the war machine was good for the economy. Bush/Cheney argued for the same nonsense. Keynes supported corporate welfare. Yes it is babble. It is Keynesian babble.

When the government taxes and spends it reduces it economic productivity. Some government spending is more efficient/effective than others. But that has nothing to do with Keynesianism.

You are not counting our entire debt in your ratio. So do you think we will/should stiff the soon to retire? Our debt is not sustainable. SS is running a deficit now and those numbers will very soon skyrocket. Medicare is another huge problem.
 
Voltaire said:
I should have known better than to try to reason with someone from Ohio.
Click to expand...


haters-gonna-hate-2.jpg
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, you're more likely to get your clock rung........
Click to expand...

Pmp misses wildly.

Get your clock rung???? I would have went with something like.

How to build one that's right twice a day.

or if this were a Republican dominated board, i.e., lots of old people that have not laughed since Carson.

How to build a cuckoo clock.
 
TheJanitor said:
Pmp misses wildly.

Get your clock rung???? I would have went with something like.

How to build one that's right twice a day.

or if this were a Republican dominated board, i.e., lots of old people that have not laughed since Carson.

How to build a cuckoo clock.
Click to expand...
Awwww....I miss Johnny. Haven't really watched late night since he retired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top