Keynesians Are both Wrong and Dangerous
by Jason BradleyDear Mr. President,
The Keynesian school of thought on the economy is that of the potential instability of the private sector and the undependability of the market driven self-adjustment factor. Keynes during his day said that in times of depression (or deep recessions) the government should focus entirely on spending by injecting the national economy with lots of cash. So the task was simple: spend more on goods and services thereby shifting aggregate demand in the other direction and presto we are out of the recession.
However, Keynes put forth these thoughts during the Great Depression. In which inflation was not a threat, prices were falling, and unemployment was reaching 25 percent. Since the goal was to get the national economy back to full employment, the only model used for analysis was the aggregate demand curve in relation to real GDP gaps. There was no need to study aggregate supply and aggregate demand, prices and real job growth because he was only interested in what market participants would buy during the depression if the economy was producing at full capacity. So a new model called the Keynesian Cross was coined which basically focuses on the differences in total spending to the value of total output. It doesn’t account for true distinctions for price levels and real output, i.e., real job growth.
An increase in aggregate demand effects real output and prices but doesn’t always translate to a dollar-for-dollar improvement in real GDP. Again, and to his defense, Keynes’ ideas were during the Great Depression — falling prices, etc., — this is not the Great Depression, so when supply and demand increases so do prices. As a result we still stay short of full employment, consumer spending stays down, wages become relatively low, the economy fails to rebound and possibly falls back into recession.
To increase aggregate demand roughly by the amount of a GDP gap, or recessionary gap, and obtain full employment will only work if prices stay the same. But infusion of government spending makes that impossible as the markets have to now readjust between supply and demand, prices and wages, etc.
Now let me propose a historical model that may be of some use to you, Mr. President.
According to American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research President Ronald Reagan, along with historical tax cuts, and growing the economy at a phenomenal rate based off fairness and reward system did precisely that. The model known as Reaganomics gave two different tax rates, high and low, which proved the lower rate could produce the same revenues and, in time, even more. The model created immense wealth by rewarding success. This form of stimulus targeted private investment and spending to revitalize the sluggish economy instead of government spending. The result was an economic frenzy and the idea quickly spread around the world and still guides economies around the world to this day.
While doing this, Reagan simultaneously implemented more spending cuts than any other president in the modern era. Though Reagan is more criticized for his second term for major increases in defense spending which negatively offset the amount took in relative to the amount the federal government spent. This shouldn’t cause one to overlook that Reagan, like Obama, inherited a recession. The difference, however, was that within 17 months of his first term, Reagan’s policies effectively ended the recession (1981 to 1983).
Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982. But then economic growth spiked, and the unemployment rate began a long, steady decline throughout the 1980s. It was obvious the program was working when people stopped calling it “Reaganomics.”
Tax cuts were a part of Reagan’s effort to cut the size and scope of government to fight economic stagnation. “Government is not the solution,” Reagan said in his remarkably clear inaugural address. “It is the problem.”
In addition to tax cuts, Reagan reduced domestic discretionary spending and streamlined regulations to make them less of a burden on businesses seeking to create jobs. He believed that government should give individuals and businesses the proper incentives to grow and expand and not inhibit the private sector with high taxes and cumbersome regulations. (Frank J. Donatelli, Politico)
More importantly when considering Reagan’s overall record “every other president since Lyndon Johnson serving a full four-year term did not even do as well as Reagan in his less-impressive second term.”
- President Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term.
- President Clinton cut the budget of nine out of fifteen agencies during his first term but cut none during his second term.
- President George W. Bush has cut none of the agencies’ budgets during his first term.
- President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).
- President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Transportation. He cut it by 10.5 percent during his first term and by 7.5 percent during his second term.
- During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent, while President Nixon increased it (that is the education part of what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) by 19.1 percent. That budget increased by 22.2 percent under Bush 41 and by 38.5 percent under Carter. Our current president has increased it by a whooping 67.6 percent.
- Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent in constant dollars during his first term and by 3 percent during his second one. President Clinton by contrast increased the department’s budget by 24 percent in his first term and then by 96.7 percent in his second term.
- President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24 percent during his second term in office.
These isn’t merely a gash and slash approach. As also stated in the research, “President Reagan never cut the budgets of the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State.” (See: President Reagan, Champion Budget-Cutter)
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
94 Comments
It's time to stop "slashing" budgets. It's time to get rid of entire departments, altogether. We don't need a Dept. of Agriculture, Education, or Commerce. We don't need 75% if the federal bureaucracy. We don't need the federal judiciary, except for the Supreme Court.
It's time to talk business, folks …
We still need the judiciary, but we don't need it for disputes between state and the federal governments.
We certainly don't need the Ninth Circuit!
Start by cutting the 17,000 IRS agents. Then look to cut all the double and triple offices and agencies. Layoff all Federal workers who got hired this last year. It'll be cheaper to have them on unemployment than drawing federal wages. Have a total hiring freeze for all Federal workers. This is not that hard to figure out folks…
I'd say they are wrong, dangerous and stupid — but that's just me.
The problem is the regressives have integrated these wasteful agencies into every aspect of our lives and there is no doubt if you try to defund or disband this massive waste you'll no doubt be throwing grandma off the cliff or stealing from the mouths of those poor poor little children…heck..you might even be called a racist for trying to suggest such reform.
We don't need more government programs and more decisions about where to spend money made for us often times in spite of what we want. We need our own money, our own jobs making those ends and the ability to engage in contracts for profit absent government interference in those private two party contracts.
We don't need more government control over our lives, we need LESS!
My wife just read your post and said that she'd jump off the cliff, if it would saive our grandkids' future! We can't fear propaganda, because it will always exist. We've simply got to do the right thing, no matter the consequences.
We have compounded more than four and a half trillion dollars of error onto the mess that we previously had, and received nothing of value for it. Be prepared folks; the bag-of-tricks is running empty in Washington DC and esp at The Fed.
We're past the part where we can use a scalpel… we need a chainsaw at this point. The other half of keyensian theory was that after the economy started going again, gov would have to pay down the debt. And that's the part politicians always conveniently forget.
Exactly, there of dozens of agencies on the Hill that nobody even knows what they do. Let's get back to "Congress makes the laws" and eliminate every agency that has regulatory power. What these agencies do is literally against the law.
Keynsians are, as far as I can tell, mentally ill. They think that, through sufficient government spending, we can create a a sort of fiscal "perpetual motion machine." They're not concerned with the creation of wealth, they think they spend enough to generate enough tax revenues to spend more, to generate more tax revenues to ….
They're also responsible for stupid comments like "we owe the Debt to ourselves (mostly)." Apparently they're not familiar with terms like "opportunity cost."
I'll see you and add the Depts. of Environment and Energy, and DEA, and BATFE.
And Republicans currently have the Authority to eliminate most of the troublesome alphabet agencies bureaus and departments. The Peoples' House controls the money and all Republicans have to do is exact NO! by refusing to funding them – eliminating the monies sent to the Executive to operate them. Yes, each President is empowered to form his (or her) cabinet, but a President is not empowered to force the Legislature to fund them as he(or she) wants.
But as we witness with Libya, the Establishment GOP is willing to SAY no – only to send the money anyway, which is actually approving of the whole dang corrupt fiasco.
Just voting (R) is not the answer. This much should be beyond question today.
I'll vote for that!
Ain't that the truth. Your money burns a hole in the average politician's pocket.
I can't really argue with you there. Everything they rule on gets overturned at the Supremes.
You shouldn't use terms like "Keynesian" because the mainstream media doesn't understand what you're talking about, and then call you a fringe candidate
The poser is working hard on doubling down on stupid again. He wants to "invest" in education, infrastructure and government research.
WTF??
I thought we were broke.
Quit spending. Not a nickel on anything not already mandated.
Don't raise the debt limit. Cut everythingyou have to and don't institute or raise another tax.
Consider also that George Soros' Open Society Foundation (a misnomer, if ever there was one) is trying to get all the states to adopt the "merit selection" of federal judges, rather than allowing the people to vote on them. This means that a panel of lawyers would select the judges, which … according to Soros … would save judges from having to raise money for elections.
One loss of a conservative, or Justice Kennedy, and we don't even have SCOTUS to depend on.
Yes…you and I and %99.9 of the people that post on AB don't fear it….but have you listened to what the youth is being taught these days? Not only what they are taught but what they actually believe and how angry they get if you dare offer another view? Remember their great leader says to push back twice as hard. I am not sure we can fix this amount of stupid….might make more sense to relocate.
Oh, I know what you mean about the thin balance that hangs by a thread in the SCOTUS.
That's why any possible future nominations by Obama should be denied outright. They should simply be denied a hearing. In essence, they should be 'borked'.
Perfect place to remind everyone of the Hayek vs. Keynes "rap" video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
And Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
Simply cut funding for the Justice Dept. Defund them all.
but obama was born here, he is not a keynesian. i noticed no democrat cut anything on that chart, except clinton, and he only cut defense. where were all those budget cuts clinton made, huh?
LIBERALS THEMSELVES ARE DANGEROUSLY STUPID and SHOULD NEVER be allowed to roam about unsupervised.
http://theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com/2011/06/cr...
THE ANTI LIBERAL ZONE
The left simply do not want economic growth past 2-4%. They will siphon off 1-2% and buy the best properties on the earth for themselves and do the least heavy lifting as they can to obtain the wealth from others.
They feel more people consuming energy and utilizing land will ruin THEIR globe. Eugenics, family planning, DDT bans the UN’s W.H.O. and World Bank all figure in to the same thing. The more they take (we give) the more poverty and illiteracy skyrocket. Globally, 5-10 trillion dollars stolen here, 10-20 trillion there, 150 million murdered here, 20 million starved there, and the left don’t blink an eye while the right sits idly by.
So let us debate the already debunked Keynes and chase that red herring while they mass murder, engage in human trafficking and steal wealth in the manner the world has never seen.
"Keynes during his day said that in times of depression (or deep recessions) the government should focus entirely on spending by injecting the national economy with lots of cash. So the task was simple: spend more on goods and services thereby shifting aggregate demand in the other direction and presto we are out of the recession."
Keynes was WRONG; it's not for nothing the current version version is know as 'Keynesian Astrology'. It doesn't work now and it didn't work for FDR, despite leftist claims to the contrary.
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”- Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., May 9, 1939
What does work? Look back to the now mostly forgotten Depression of 1920. At its onset it was in many respects more severe than the Great Depression or what we've faced today- "By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent."
What did gov't do? President Warren G. Harding "…cut the government's budget nearly in half …… Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."
The results? "By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923." http://mises.org/daily/3788
In other words market corrections were allowed and and actually encouraged to happen. Our current policies do exactly the opposite and worse yet, bankrupt the nation in the process. Corrections are not pleasant especially if you are on the receiving end (don't I know!) but are necessary and vital to a free market economy. Delaying and obstructing them only increases their severity or as someone else so aptly put it—-
“When there is hell to pay, it is usually cheaper to pay it than to finance an endless purgatory.” – Robert Brault
Yeah, but seeing as though they win just about every marathon they enter it cannot be debated that they are fast!
Kidding. Great read Jason.
Keynes was an economist !!!!!
Name ONE TIME an economist was ever right about anything.
For those that don't know better: economics is NOT a real science, like physics or chemistry. Economics is basically the same as Weather Forecasting (not to be confused with the Climategate Left-wing Eco-nut Global Warming conspiracy/hoax – I mean people who actually TRY to accurately forecast something about the real weather), except economists guess (that's the KEY word) at things that are different from temperature or rainfall. Once you understand that fact, you can ALWAYS and COMPLETELY safely ignore any statement made by any economist.
Just some facts that are relevant to the discussion:
According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/...
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." George Washington
"Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency."
;-D
"I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse." – Milton Friedman
There's nothing "liberal civility" about my statement at all. Just agreeing with Ashrak about the GOP. In case you are wondering I consider the (D) and the (R) Team one and the same today. The majority of them are traitors, liars, tax cheats, thieves, and sexual perverts.
The simple reality that needs to be shouted from the mountaintops is that Keynes was a Fabian Socialist, who intended his economics as a method of political subversion, and not as a viable solution to economic problems. Keynes admired both Mussolini's and Lenin's Fascist states. He was allowed to travel freely throughout the Soviet Union. For his part, Mussolini called Keynesian economics, and I quote, "pure fascism". This from the guy who started the movement.
You know who doesn't grasp this? The Chinese. They are engaging in massive make-work projects at the cost of impoverishing in the long run most of China. They can't keep up such unproductive use of Capital forever.
Read my piece on Keynes here: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/ke...
The series on economics as a whole is here: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/Page14.html
None of this is complicated, or beyond the reach of most minds of average intelligence. It is the constant drum beats of determined liars that keeps weak people from reaching the only rational conclusions.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." – Thomas Sowell
Mr. Bradley is correct in describing Keynesianism as yesterday's solution to what ails our economy today, but it's only half the problem. Keynes prescribed fiscal solutions to counteract slowdowns, but we've also implemented monetary policies – i.e., Helicopter Ben's printing presses running at top speed – at the same time. By now, it's plain to everyone that current fiscal policy has not stimulated aggregate demand (Scamulus is such a cosmic fail that even regressives don't dare whisper its name), and current monetary policy has not grown the economy (Benny implemented $2.1 trillion of "quantitative easing" and got $541 billion of money-supply growth in return).
We've been down this road once before, during the 1970s. What in hell made today's brightest minds think that the outcomes would be different this time around?
You mean like the way the Republican Ron Paul just hooked up with the "sexual pervert" Barney Frank to legalize dope!? It looks to me like they are on the same team alright!
Nice jpb Mr.Bradley, one need only look back at history to see that Keynes had it wrong, here is a repost from over a year ago…..
This is a repost to a ‘contributer’ on the Bigs… Andrew Mellon appointed Secretary of the Treasury by President Warren G. Harding in 1921, and he continued to serve under Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.
Mr. Mellon this is an excellent piece, it does a good job of pointing out the Problem.
The 'progressive' element in this country's government has been at the root of ALL OF THE CHRONIC FINANCIAL TROUBLE, that has plagued this country since 1913.
We need to taper down and eventually end the FED, and Government…Get the HELL out of the Country's Markets and Business. The last depression we had that ended quickly and fairly well was in 1920, the one you don't hear much about.
The 1921 loss of half the value and price of all goods was horrendous. For comparison the loss of housing value in the last year is around 18%, lower in many areas and a bit higher in others. 'Even though it was worse than 1930 we don’t remember the 1920 depression because the President didn’t tinker with the economy and built the groundwork to allow quick recovery without wide spread damage.
That President? That was Warren G Harding who died and was succeeded by Calvin Coolidge,. Coolidge "embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary ADREW MELLON and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.
Under Coolidge GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million, s reported 6.7 percent in 1922. Then fell again in 1923.
In 1923 the great depression ended when unemployment fell from the 1921 high of 11.9% to the pre 1920 levels of 3.2%. About now you are thinking I don’t remember the depression of 1920. Well neither did I, and now I know why. So, just a year and a half after Coolidge became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway.
Andrew you modest guy you, not listing your bona fides like that.
LOL
Thank you.
"today's brightest minds" . . . WTF.
Debating the issue of Keynesian economics vs a basket full of other economies makes for interesting academic discussions, but does little to remedy the real-life issues that plague this nation today. All governments control the economies of their respective nations. The average citizen of this country is really only concerned with the politics of employment in order to provide for themselves and their families.
The manufacturing sector of the economy has been shipped overseas and people are wondering why manufacturing output has fallen in this country? Are people so unplugged from events that they don't see the connection? Capital from this country is fueling the economies of former Third World countries, at the expense of this country! THIS is the problem that many have always had with the globalism of so called 'free trade' agreements! We have been chosen as the consumers of the worlds' manufacturing output and our citizens no longer have the ability to purchase the everyday items due to declining income from the higher paying jobs that have been shipped from this country. A conspiracy minded person would be led to believe that a plan has been made to 'share' this nation's hard won economic victories in order to elevate the well-being of other nations and to bring our citizens lifestyle down to the level of those countries, as they raise on the backs of the early entrepreneurs of this country. Through government regulation, capital has migrated to regions of the world where it can grow. It is up to others to determine if this is normal economic flow of the times, or if is due to world governmental planning.
In order to fund our ever-increasing debt load as a nation, we are just simply printing more money that is backed by nothing! In effect, a fiat currency! Germany tried the same thing in the late 1930's. They printed so much money in order to monetize their debt, that it took a basketful of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread! And that was at a time when it was primarily only connected to the economics of their own country. Today, with this country so connected to the world economy, the problems of monetizing our own debt are far more complicated when we owe many countries of the world a lot of money that we will never be able to repay, even on paper! The normal result is rapid and widespread inflation as too much money in circulation is chasing the too few goods that are imported. At that point, the Federal reserve will attempt to 'pull back' the offending money that is circulating, which will cause a widespread recession as too few dollars are chasing the goods that are imported. As the amount of money and exchange thereof, diminishes over a continued period, then comes the depression, just as it occurred in the 1930's. What prolonged the depression in this country, was the continued influence and regulation coming from Washington during that time! A reasonable person would be figuring that Washington will continue its’ meddling this time around as well. The price of the suffering of this country in the 30's will be lost in a time when more and more people look to the government for their welfare, instead of looking to themselves as the way to crawl out of this nightmare!
And when has it ever been different?
So why did he vote for Obama then?
He died in 2006. Then again, there is that Chicago tradition of dead people voting.
"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans– anything except reason." – Thomas Sowell
I take it you have no argument with the facts that were presented, so you've resorted to attacking the method of presentation instead. That's lazy, too. It also means you can't make a case for your side. Try having an actual thought sometime.
And since you're so concerned with cutting and pasting, why not address the fact that we've essentially cut and pasted vast swaths of 1930s-era ideology without changing a single thing — and we've witnessed the failure of that ideology yet again?
Always loved that saying. Or sometimes it's referred to as a "party" not a governmental agency".
RIGHT!! The fix is in, and now they see they only have a limited amount of time.
GRIZZ, I wish I could give you a million thumbs up. I've been trying to beat this into my mother's head for a long time. She's not really what you would call a rabid leftist, but she is a rabid populist that really seems to think that capitalism is the problem. I keep telling her it's crony capitalism and it's not the same thing. She keeps asking me how do I know that I'm right about what the government should be doing. I tell her HISTORY. I point to the 1920s and the 1980s and the difference they had with the 1930s. I don't think she's still convinced. She still thinks that the "rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". I try to explain to her that (and I think I was correct on these numbers) the top 10% pay 60% of the taxes and the bottom 47% pay nothing. So she said if that's the case if they are so burdened by taxes – how come they are still making huge profits and getting richer. Apparently, then they are not getting taxed enough – as if taking most of their profits is the way to make it work.
I don't know what else to do to get her to understand.
That man is a national treasure.
We also DO NOT NEED Heath and Human Services (actually only the Center for Disease Control is worth keeping), EPA, NEA, NEH, and a load of other departments, agencies, programs and the federal government should turn over museums, national parks, etc. – immediately if it is within the jurisdiction of a given state, and as soon as possible if it crosses state lines. Then the states should try to hand over to the counties those entities which are within a single county.
As to the Federal Judiciary – I'm not up on it except that we should do what Lincoln did and get rid of a troublesome circuit court. I have in mind the 9th Circult Court. Just eliminate it.
You have to Balance your Budget, Why Doesn't Washington?
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/062711-you-...
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." George Washington
Politicians (regardless of party) always support Keynesian economics because they believe it will grant them power over the free market. In reality, no one can achieve this and it's why it always fails. They should read Hayek instead.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/full-e...
Oman has a plan to destroy America or save it.
So they have done everything they could think of to impeed America's recovery and bent over backwards to ruin our foreign relations everywhere. Offend our allies, weaken America and kiss up to our enimies that only encourages them to be more aggressive.
So far the plan to save America is the same old Keynesian govt spending can fix everything and we dig a bigger hole everyday. We dont even speak in Billions we speak Trillions (thats twelve ZEROS 1,000,000,000,000 ).
So far the plan to hurt America is winning and Obama is weakening the nation. The uniter has turned out to be the great divider in chief. God help the USA, we need it.
Regressives and Conservatives in Name Only.
<Heironymous Gherkin>
Winner! I haven't stopped roflmao @ your new name yet Kevin.
Exactly and very well put.
A black man the right likes… my mind is blown. Oh wait, he's actually had most of his findings proven inconclusive. I thought you guys didn't like wrong black men…
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies" – Groucho Marx
LIberals…always claiming they know what the other guy is thinking.
I'll vote for that, too!
And you have a link to a credible source for that claim?
Reaganomics is Keynesian – on the Supply Side.
Many politicians prefer to only talk about the Demand Side of the Keynesian Model as it allows for deficits, increased government spending and credit expansions, which are policies they prefer. However, considering the current US economy, the TRADE DEFICIT proves that there is ample Domestic Demand that is not being met by Domestic Producers, thus goods are being imported to meet that Demand. With removal of the artificial constraints on Domestic Production we would see increased job creation and an increase in Domestic Production with increased Supply leading to lower prices.
Other than that, an excellent exposition on Keynesian Supply Side Economics!
Sincerely,
John Lepant Brighton CO
I'm not sure that the author was asserting that, but I am sure that Keynsianism wasn't yesterday's solution OR todays. To assert such a thing is to buy into the historicism of the Marxist school of thought which says our era's values or logic is different from those of another era.
Economics properly understood, encompasses all human action as it relates to the individuals pursuit of specific ends within a world of limited means.It is the timeless logic of human action.
Nonetheless, I agree witht he rest of your assertions about monetary policy..
"We've simply got to do the right thing, no matter the consequences."
You are right. And I'm with your wife (no… I mean I agree with her). I've been paying into Social Security for 42 years. I don't have nearly enough money to retire. But if we keep the scam going, life is going to be a lot harder and poorer for our kids and grandkids. I'd be willing to give up all that I've paid in, and all future benefits, if we could end the whole scam now.
"… the Establishment GOP is willing to SAY no – only to send the money anyway…"
Exactly. Actions speak louder than words. People will often say things that conflict with their beliefs, interests or intentions; but they rarely act in ways that conflict with their beliefs, interests or intentions.
Sauce: http://books.google.com/books/about/Poverty_and_f...
And you have a link to a credible source for that claim?
So I get a link to a book by some guy who happened to win a Nobel prize in economics. How nice for him. So did Paul Krugman and he's an idiot. The Nobel people also gave a Peace prize to Arafat and Gore and Obama (and he hadn't even taken office yet or done anything of note in any position he held). You know who they didn't give the Nobel Peace Prize to? A Polish woman who risked her life to hide Jews and got interned and tortured for her bravery. Later she was persecuted by the Polish Communist government. That nomination was in 2007. Instead they gave it to Gore for his AGW nonsense.
I believe I asked for a credible source.
This is proof? You're in the deep end of the pool. Go back to 4chan, derp.
herp derp?
So did you read this or shrug it off like everything that doesn't share the same opinion as you? Also, at what point did I cite it simply because hes a Nobel prize winner? As you said, even Arafat and Obama won Nobel awards so it means nothing…
u mad? moar?
Read what? It's a book I have to purchase and then wait for delivery. So no, I didn't read the book. Since I have no context as to what the person is talking about, and nor do I have proof that Thomas Sowell has been proven wrong by the author, your link is meaningless.
I asked for a credible source. I haven't gotten one yet.
"economics is NOT a real science"
I can see how you might come to that conclusion given the sorry state of economics today. The conceit of the modern economist is that he's measuring something with his differential equations and complex "models" the way a physicist or a chemist does. But a wise man once said that every science must be fitted to the object of its study, and that is where modern mathematical economists have failed us. They have adopted the techniques of the physical sciences in an effort to predict what is inherently unpredictable: the free will of individual persons pursuing their own aims withing the constraints of the world they face and to the imperfect degree to which they understand it.
Economics IS a science, but it is a science of human action that requires an investigation suited to its object. It cannot measure utility or wellbeing against some unit of measure the way time and space are measured by the physicist. It can only categorize the qualitative features of human action and deduce the tendencies that must arise when humans cooperate to solve the problems that life presents to them.
You purchase books? lol…
More sauce: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/sf1999%28povert...
Reagan years = Keynesian boom
The big cut in taxes gave people more money to spend. Since government spending was not adequately cut, the result was more net spending in the economy. This was equivalent to an increase in the money supply – or an increase in demand. Consumers began a buying spree, while government borrowed the money to fund the deficit. Looked at from a macro-economic perspective, Americans had no more money to spend after Reagan took office than they had when he was in California. But they thought they had more. As a country we were merely going into debt to finance an increase in the current standards of living. The Reagan years saw a 300% increase in our national debt.
Real booms need real money. Otherwise it's just something for nothing. A fraud.
I'll give it read, but I'll leave you with this for now:
The War on Poverty has been going on since at least the 1960s (when the term was coined). A lot of it was to help the black community. Well, it didn't. During segregation more than half of black families included a mother and a father and more than half of blacks graduated from high school and went to college.
After the War on Poverty, 70% of blacks grow up in broken homes, and less than half graduate from high school and go to college. Evidence abounded about generational welfare.
It's common sense (something you apparently don't possess) – you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior.
When the federal government reformed welfare in the 1990s, people didn't starve and the world didn't end. More people went out and found work and they were just fine.
..I thought you guys didn't like…
Your own words, jackass. Not only don't you know what some else likes or dislikes, but it's none of your goddamn business what other people like or dislike. Worry about your own self you effin' fascist.
"Keynes had relations with Strachey; Strachey had affairs with Duncan Grant; Keynes stole Grant from Strachey; Lytton’s brother James Strachey adored Rupert Brooks but so did Keynes; Strachey reports to G.E. Moore on seduction of new boys; Keynes steals Edgar Duckworth from Lytton; Keynes and Lytton agree that homosexuality is, “that love which passes all Christian understanding”; Strachey emulates Oscar Wilde with absinthe and drugs; He also declares that, “the whole truth is the Devil”; He predicts that in one hundred years, “everyone will be converted,” to homosexuality; Strachey and Keynes promote obscenitarian talk in colleges; Lytton lives with Dora Carrington, a Lesbian; Carrington solicits homosexual partners for Lytton; Keynes, Lytton and Carrington have orgies involving Lesbian and sodomistic interchanges;
Continued… Keynes and Strachey dress in women’s clothes and dance; Keynes and Strachey give a sanctuary to homosexual objectors to military service thus frustrating the authorities; Keynes defends the use of drugs and Strachey smokes hashish; Carrington married several men so they could be Strachey’s boy-friends; Lytton stole Sebastian Sprott from Keynes (the tables were turned); Lytton excuses his drug taking as a liberation from, “this wrong world.” Finally, there are engrossments by Keynes and Strachey with sadistic beating of young boys, “compulsive pre-occupation with male reproductive and excretory organs” and voyages to the most depraved dens of perversion throughout Europe, North Africa and Asia."
keynesatharvard.org
Keynes – >"By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920
They were a bunch of drug-taking – sexual perverts. Look up the Fabian Society members. Aleister Crowley started there, Margaret Sanger had relations with Wilde, Blatvatsky visited, Bailey's, Pesant, John Rushkin and his mentors also the pre-raphaels who brought in nudity and the greek mythology they want us to swallow…etc.
Yes bad Reagan. Borrowing off the future is never a good practice. I'm not convinced the republicans are any more fiscally conservative than the democrats.
But we do know one thing and that is the democrats WILL SPEND.
"I don't know what else to do to get her to understand."
Reminds me of my Mom who was a life long Democrat- you may not be able to change her ways but you might be able to at least open her eyes. I'd tell her even if you made the top tax bracket 100% it still would not begin to cover the deficit. I'd emphasize the problem IS spending; about 40 cents of every dollar in the 2011 budget is borrowed money. The budget deficit alone this year is estimated at $1.5 TRILLION; by contrast Clinton's 2000 budget- the entire budget, was $1.78 trillion. As for taxes, I'd tell her to be careful what she wished for. As P.J. O'Rourke noted,
"The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you're rich."
With deficits the size of which have never been seen before in our history, EVERYONE will be hit with new or increased taxes if serious spending cuts are not made. And I would ask her where the $2.5 trillion in the so called Social Security "Trust" Fund went to and considering what our politicians did with that why should we trust them with our healthcare or anything else.
I'd emphasize again to her that what we have now is NOT capitalism but has far more in common with Benito Mussolini. In capitalism GM, AIG, etc, etc would have had to take their medicine and the chips would fall where they may. Instead we have a gov't picking winners (electric cars, GM, "green energy", etc and losers (coal, oil)……… that's about as far away from capitalism as you can get. She, you, or I may not like a CEO's salary or a baseball player's for that matter but it really isn't any our business unless we are the owners or shareholders. It may not seem "fair" but the truth is and history proves that the left's answer on who gets to decide what is "fair" has been proven wrong time and time again and is far, far more unfair than some CEO or ballplayer's salary.
"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."- Thomas Sowell
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor of Stanford and the Hoover Institution says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
Thank you, I am aware of both, and the reality with results of each. I have studied both. Keynes is wrong! It has been proven by the left over and over. This time it should, and will be the last time! We will never forget what these people have done to US, and future generations.
Excellent post with great wisdom!
My comment was concerning how Ron Paul will constantly get critizied for using terms that people don't understand. Bill O'Reilly was hounding him after the NH debate and John Stossel was defending Ron Paul. I'm glad that more and more people are being educated on it, because how can you fight evil if you don't know its name?
Thank you, Nicholas. I'll take a look at the extract, and I appreciate your making me aware of it.
We don't need more government programs and more decisions about where to spend money made for us often times in spite of what we want. We need our own money, our own jobs making those ends and the ability to engage in contracts for profit absent government interference in those private two party contracts. http://www.watchesn.com/products/big_Tissot_1.htm...
I think you mean State Judges, not Federal. Federal Judges are appointed by the President and voted on by the Senate.
And what, or who, would you have resolve disputes between the States and the Federal governments? Would you rather the Federal government just be able to dictate to the States? We certainly are not likely to see the several states able to tell the Federal government to take a flying leap, not in my remaining lifetime and probably not in my grandsons either.
You're quite right, Ed. I stand corrected.
Just reminded.
You must be logged in to post a comment.