"A Failure of Keynesian Proportions"
The idea that Government spending on non-productive ventures combined with a failure to cut Taxes will "stimulate" the Economy is absolute rubbish. We all know it. We should all fight it. This approach fails every time it is tried, and is only ONE of the misleadings being perpetrated on the American People by the new "leadership."
During the "Great Depression," this approach, combined with the "Wagner Act" signed in 1935, was the cause of the "recession within a Depression" in 1937-1938, and sealed the fate of the Doomed "New Deal." To believe that wasteful Government overspending, in combination with a rise in wages, would create anything but unemployment was an obvious and foolish oversight of monumental proportions. Only the outbreak of World War ll saved face for Roosevelt and his Socialist Administration.
This is as rotten and putrid a Barrel of Pork as we're likely to see and smell, purely a Liberal/Socialist Democrat spending spree; and there is nothing but disaster, unemployment, and suffering in its outcome. Government spending does NOT produce permanent jobs; and, when the Bridges are finished, the fences are painted, and they've purchased their new fleet of vehicles, I suppose all those Condoms will come in quite handy. Perhaps they'll even throw in the odd bit of free Porn, just to keep the unemployed masses, well..."employed."
Unless We couple massive spending cuts with aggressive Tax cuts, and therefore, cuts in wasteful Social Programs, the Economy of this Country, guaranteed, will continue to head downhill, and at a mind-numbing pace.
Amazing, isn't it? The "Smartest Man in the World" still hasn't reasoned that, yet...
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 58 ( 1 removed by Mark-John K. )
"Smart," isn't he?
Reality sucks to the left.... Fantasy is much better for them....
As I've said, we're on the eve of a depression, but Donald Trump said on Larry King, last week, that we are in one now. He's probably right. I'm definitely not a fan of Donald Trump, but he certainly knows more how money works in micro and macro environments than any dozen politicians you can string together at any given time. Maybe it's just because a lot of what he said goes right along with my ideas about this. I've always contended that neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism can ever work because of the human factor. Donald Trump said, "There's been a lot of greed and stupidity." No matter the natural cycles in a capitalist economy, when you couple a downward trend with the vast amount of those human frailties, this is the result. It doesn't matter whose name you put in there because they've all had a hand in it, and now the same people are putting together an instant pudding remedy? Give me a break!
Getting back to Trump, he also made a very poignant half joke. He said, "Today the banks don't have money, they don't loan money. But if you went to a bank two years ago and you wanted a $300 million loan, they'd say 'No, we don't want to do that, but we'll give you $400 million...'" There's a lot of truth in that. Now we're bailing them out and they're using the money for themselves totally. They do need to make responsible loans again to stimulate the economy, and they're not doing it. That's why I do agree with Trump on Obama's caps on executive income for the banks receiving this government bail out. That's one part of this that I think is necessary.
But, the point of the article is that Keynesian Economics fail every time they are tried; one CANNOT SPEND their way out of debt...especially with "printed" money; and particularly, one that produces nothing in the first place.
That would be Government.
You are stating conclusions in your post above but I don't see any explanation for anything. Please show me the logic, the reasoning, the factors and circumstances behind your conclusions.
I am having a similar discussion by message with Steve Bachman who is giving me the Austrian school of economics viewpoint. If that is yours as well you can just tell me that. If you have some other basis in economics or anthropology for your position I would like to hear what it is.
Thanks.
Please respond, and I will be back to reply.
"Government spending on non-productive ventures combined with a failure to cut Taxes will "stimulate" the Economy is absolute rubbish."
From what I read in the papers and hear on TV this does not describe the bill(s) now before Congress in that these bills do offer major tax cuts and spend on things whose labels (I have not read the actual bills) sound nice. But that isn't the point that I would like addressed. I will happily assume that your statements are correct. In fact we can make the assumption that the government simply pays 10,000,000 poor families $1000 each month for nothing. (That's $10 Billion a month unless I slipped a decimal somewhere.) That should be about as non-productive a venture as we can get.
Now with that assumption, I'm thinking that these poor families would rush out and spend that money on all sorts of things. When I was poor (and I grew up poor and have been poor several times since then) that is what I would have done. I would have bought furniture, moved into a better apartment, perhaps traded up to a less old used car and so forth. It seems to me that an extra $10 billion dollars of spending on consumer goods would generate a noticeable amount of demand for consumer goods. Also, unless the economists have been lying to me, when money is spent in my town it circulates here for a while being spent by others several times before it leaves town. So that $10 billion would produce perhaps $50 billion in spending before it finished in those poor families communities. That's $50 billion per month of spending and a slice of that would go to local taxes and pay on local mortgages and be deposited in local banks. It seems to me that $50 more spending per month would be a great economic stimulus.
But you say that is "rubbish." Since I don't understand your reasoning here, (I don't see any explanation in the post above) I ask that you explain, at a very simple level so I can understand it easily, the basis for considering such spending having a stimulating effect as being "rubbish."
Thanks. I will try to understand your explanation.
I cannot in any way claim to understand the Austrian school of economics viewpoint. I can tell the little that I believe I have learned about it but I would love to have a real expert (like Steve) do the explaining.
However, it basically says that we have to let the excess production (housing for example) be "purged" or "flushed" (my words, not theirs) from the market before a true recovery is possible. The government providing large amounts of money to anyone simply further aggravates the already imbalanced economic situation that was brought on by government interference in the market. We should return to a metal based money whose supply is not modified by fractional reserve banking. That is, the only money that a bank can loan out is time deposits. Ordinary demand deposits cannot be loaned.
The Austrian school is a strong advocate for free market economic policies and for a lack of government in the market.
So far I am still learning the basic jargon or terminology of this economic point of view. I hope to understand how they see things working. Of course, my progress is slow because I have all these other meanings of many of their terms and I have to discipline my mind to ignore them when I read about their thoughts on these matters.
Have you thought of posting it to Humor Writers?
A very Wise Girl ;) very recently said:
"When the very premise of the two conversing, by ulterior motive, is in direct opposition, or when you do not even agree ON that premise, there is little point in having the discussion."
Now, this Woman is so talented and intelligent, (in my opinion) that MY warning of a "loose translation" should be taken quite literally. I've done my best with Her sentiment; it is Her quote that might not be EXACT. I happen to agree with Her.
Larry, I am not interested in a discussion on Austrian Economics; This is the beloved United States. We are the Leader, not the follower.
Given the fact that I've already described the PROBLEM with the Keynesian approach to the current Fiscal condition of this Country, ( this "Spendulus" Pork Package) I see no reason to go into further detail. You aren't interested in learning, because I've already explained.
However, since you've returned, I will put, in "street parlance," what I've already stated:
J. Maynard Keynes was a fool, and an anti-Capitalist. The Keynesian approach, which is to print and throw money at a "financial problem," thus turning control of the markets to Government, is foolhardy, and outrageous. You CANNOT SPEND your way OUT OF DEBT! In this case, it is merely a Pawn-move in the quest for more permanent power and control by Leftists. EVEN Harvard Economists, Leftists that they are, concur. Meaningless to me, of course; but, nonethelss, they concur.
To print and throw money at debt that produces nothing is IDIOTIC, not "stimulating." Millions for a "Frisbee Golf Course," is not stimulus. Paying Millions for $4,000 worth of Trees is NOT stimulus. Funding overseas abortions IS NOT stimulus. He promises jobs with this Pork Package. He claims that JOBS will be the "stimulus." He'd be correct, if he were telling the Truth. He is not. He lies.
Bottom line:
THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. Infrastructure, which has the LEAST "appropriation," is merely TEMPORARY. Government DOES NOT PRODUCE GOODS. Nor do they produce jobs. They hand out work. The Bridgebuilder is ALREADY EMPLOYED...by the Construction Company. This is NOT a "new" job. When the "Bridge" is complete, the "job" disappears.
Since your posts of 2:10 and 2:19 have so missed the mark that I've made as to appear almost incoherent, I will not address those. You've either not read my post, or My Wise Friends Law is at play.
So, I repeat:
The idea that Government spending on non-productive ventures combined with a failure to cut Taxes will "stimulate" the Economy is absolute rubbish.
"THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING."
The government pays others to produce things. (Like weapons of war.) Somehow all those highways and dams and such got built. Something produced them. I suggest that they would not have been built if the government had not paid for them. Even the railroads were built on government handouts, socialism if you like, in the 19th century. The "Homestead Act" gave handouts to the middle class. More socialism. Without that land the farmers of the midwest would not have been able to produce.
But I guess you don't think those handouts led to production.
Read, and then THINK, Larry, THINK. The Government STEALS money from the People, and then "pays" workers who are ALREADY EMPLOYED! Wake UP. They "produce" NOTHING.
The obama LIE is that the "SPENDULUS" will produce JOBS. RUBBISH! It will hand out WORK, to Government Contractors who are ALREADY EMPLOYED. With STOLEN, PRINTED, AND BORROWED MONEY that will leverage our Childrens Children. ONLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR PROVIDES NEW JOBS THAT PRODUCE! If the money is CONFISCATED, AT THE POINT OF A GUN, this is NON-PRODUCTIVE "economics."
Get it? Keynesian Economics...and CERTAIN FAILURE.
I admit failure. I regret that you condemn my ideas without even reading about them. Doing so makes no sense to me. I did attempt to understand your point of view and requested that you enlighten / teach me.
What you provided was words like "care to join the 20tgh century?", "Wake up", "I wish you were a 'genuine' inquisitor", "you are not interested in learning", "Keynes was a fool", "IDIOTIC", "... your posts ... appear almost incoherent...". From which messages I failed to gain much enlightenment.
Therefore I can do little but wish you the best of good lives and better luck with the intelligence level of those who ask you questions in the future.
"... your posts ... appear almost incoherent...".--Larry
Actually, it is your twisting response that is. While your "intelligence level" has proven not up to the task here, I know that you could understand it if you tried, and took the blinders off.
Aú revoír.
And it's infuriating how millions of people say Obama is 'the smartest guy ever' yet no one has been able to produce any facts supporting this 'fantastical, out-of-this-realm, fantasy-book-material theory.
I don't really understand a lot about economics the way Obama does ... (um...thank heaven).
But what I think makes sense is if yer broke, and can't earn or get any money, get or give credit ... ya don't keep spending money and you certainly don't spend more and more and more of what you don't have and can't get more of on things you don't need. +shrug+
The way it seems Obama/libs see it:
If you don't have any money of your own, and can't earn any of your own; start spending other people's money until they don't have any and can't get any then borrow from other people who don't have any money and can't get any...
Unless We couple massive spending cuts with aggressive Tax cuts, and therefore, cuts in wasteful Social Programs, the Economy of this Country, guaranteed, will continue to head downhill, and at a mind-numbing pace.
Mark-John K.
I've stated many many times, and a lot less tactful than your words, that we shouldn't be spending like this, as one said Obama plans on spending good money after bad money with no thoughts to what he's doing.
Obama's theory spend until the economy is better isn't going to work, if anything its going to make it worse.
I for one am very glad that I didn't vote for Obama, and I stand strong that, even though he was elected, he should not have been. He lacks a lot of political experience at many levels and by looking at the people he surrounded himself with and nominated in his cabinet, its obvious what he's trying to do, bring the democratic party together, but in the end, I fear that it will fall apart.
Mooch
Don't be fooled; he knows PRECISELY what he is doing. He intends to bring Marxism and "equality," by destroying the Freedoms that are the very definition of this once-Great Country. He has indebted the People of this Great Country in order to CONTROL them with Government.
He is a Marxist, and a danger.
So the Governments are giving workers some (A very small amount) of money (which ?was the amount they paid in taxes) to spend in shops, so the profits fuel the hand rubbing ?of the very rich, and at the same time they are giving the very rich money with which to ?loan the very poor, so that they can pay it back to the very rich, who didn't pay into any ?of the money from which the government will get the money from in the first place.?
And you are also 100% correct, none of the money is going into worthwhile projects ?which will raise the education and skill level within the community, For instance, a major ?proportion of the Australian stimulus package will be spent on building bike ways, a job ?which requires very little skill, has high administration costs and was usually done by ?work release prisoners, The amazing thing is that these bike ways will be built in ?marginal areas to increase the government vote in the electorate. Stimulus of votes it ?should be called, as it is all cloak and daggers and a major pork barreling exercise, not ?one of the executives who caused this mess will retire with less than $3ml a year…. A far ?cry from you and I (Well I don’t know about you)?
I gave you a 10?
You are speaking my language. I've NOTHING against the Rich; tell me of a poor man who's ever given out a job.
However, you have exposed quite clearly how this entire Ponzi Scheme works. Well done! By God, CD; did you know that, in this "porkulus" bill, each $60,000/yr job that they "create" will cost approximately $3 million?
This business with the Biking trails is absolute RUBBISH! You've also gotten THAT one figured out; "job creation," indeed...you should run for Office there. You'd have my vote.
I was unaware of a Pork Package in Australia; would you endeavour to enlighten me when you have the time?
Thank you for the wise words.
Thanks for commenting.
Now Barry has this problem after the Democrats did everything they could to make it worse, and the Democrats have no idea how to deal with this situation, so what do they do? The same thing they do when there is already a good economy, or at least a fare one... Spend!