Keyensian Economic Theory

[angus]

which is hardly "akin to socialism" unless you buy into the notion that socialists are power-hungry plutocrats.  doubtful.

[TeePee4Prez]

I think the point was always to collect revenue from the rich and give it to the poorest people you could find

 

I'm not sure who should be laughing at whom.  you're right about Keynesianism representing redistribution of wealth from the few to the many, but I also think Keynes was probably smart enough to know that if you take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor, that in a few years the former rich would become rich again and the former poor would figure out a way to lose it.  That's just the social reality, and I don't think Keynes had any misgivings about it.

No, no, that was Keynes' intention - he did not think that high tax rates or redistributive programs would upend society, but precisely the opposite.  His intention was to make capitalism work better in general and particularly for those who had previously suffered from it, to make it more popular and stable in order to preserve the position of the upper or owning class.

If anything we need to go back to more Keynesian economic policies.  Our current policies are outright plutocratic and slowly inching toward that as we speak.  Karl ROve has been selling these as "pro-family" where in esscence they end up destroying people.  A prime example of this is the Child Tax Credit.  It is a statistical fact that children from larger families perform worse in school, are more likely to join the military, and utlimately are economically worse off.  The Child Tax Credit inadvertently encourages such behavior.  There are so many things in the tax code I can go on and on about, but this is just one example.  There are so many subtle loopholes the GOP puts through to eventually make our country like a Latin American plutocracy. 

[dazzleman]

If anything we need to go back to more Keynesian economic policies.  Our current policies are outright plutocratic and slowly inching toward that as we speak.  Karl ROve has been selling these as "pro-family" where in esscence they end up destroying people.  A prime example of this is the Child Tax Credit.  It is a statistical fact that children from larger families perform worse in school, are more likely to join the military, and utlimately are economically worse off.  The Child Tax Credit inadvertently encourages such behavior.  There are so many things in the tax code I can go on and on about, but this is just one example.  There are so many subtle loopholes the GOP puts through to eventually make our country like a Latin American plutocracy. 

Do you really believe that families would make a conscious decision to have more children just to get a paltry tax credit?  It's not like the old AFDC, in which unmarried welfare mothers who were completely incapable of raising children were paid significant additional amounts, relative to their income, to have additional children.  Which Republican is responsible for enacting and maintaining that system?

[TeePee4Prez]

If anything we need to go back to more Keynesian economic policies.  Our current policies are outright plutocratic and slowly inching toward that as we speak.  Karl ROve has been selling these as "pro-family" where in esscence they end up destroying people.  A prime example of this is the Child Tax Credit.  It is a statistical fact that children from larger families perform worse in school, are more likely to join the military, and utlimately are economically worse off.  The Child Tax Credit inadvertently encourages such behavior.  There are so many things in the tax code I can go on and on about, but this is just one example.  There are so many subtle loopholes the GOP puts through to eventually make our country like a Latin American plutocracy. 

Do you really believe that families would make a conscious decision to have more children just to get a paltry tax credit?  It's not like the old AFDC, in which unmarried welfare mothers who were completely incapable of raising children were paid significant additional amounts, relative to their income, to have additional children.  Which Republican is responsible for enacting and maintaining that system?

Well I don't think our society in any way should be encouraging mass breeding.  Children are put at a significant disadvantage if this were the case.  My grandmother will tell you flat out.  She was one of 12 and said to me before she died "Oh hell, even us good Catholics back in the 50s used birth control."  My grandfather was one of 16.  Though he was more socially conservative than her, some of his stories were interesting given the fact that some of his older brothers were thrown out at 12 or 13 years old because younger kids were on the way and they couldn't feed them.  Great way to have a family.  Good ol' Irish Catholic mentality !

[The Duke]

Since Keynes said that taxation that was above 25% of GDP would cripple the economy, I don't know that it fair to make the flat statement that he though government spending was better than a tax cut.  True, that first 25% would do more for us than if we sent it all back in taxes, but Keynes also understood the situational aspect to it.  Is it better to raise taxes from 99% to 100% or cut them to 98%?  I think he'd say cut them to 98%, since he'd understand that 100% taxation is crazy, and apparently, so is 26% taxation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since Keynes said that taxation that was above 25% of GDP would cripple the economy, I don't know that it fair to make the flat statement that he though government spending was better than a tax cut.  True, that first 25% would do more for us than if we sent it all back in taxes, but Keynes also understood the situational aspect to it.  Is it better to raise taxes from 99% to 100% or cut them to 98%?  I think he'd say cut them to 98%, since he'd understand that 100% taxation is crazy, and apparently, so is 26% taxation.

There's a difference between 100% and 26% taxation, you know.

[opebo]

One can have taxation of 25% of GDP, but get most of it from the top 2%, and all of it from the top 20% of the economic heirarchy.  This will lead to top tax rates of much higher than 25%, but an overall tax percentage of GDP right in line with Keynes's suggestion.

[A18]

Congress currently spends 35% of GDP.

[The Duke]

Since Keynes said that taxation that was above 25% of GDP would cripple the economy, I don't know that it fair to make the flat statement that he though government spending was better than a tax cut.  True, that first 25% would do more for us than if we sent it all back in taxes, but Keynes also understood the situational aspect to it.  Is it better to raise taxes from 99% to 100% or cut them to 98%?  I think he'd say cut them to 98%, since he'd understand that 100% taxation is crazy, and apparently, so is 26% taxation.

There's a difference between 100% and 26% taxation, you know.

Yes, but there are similarities too.  Both would be rejected by Keynes for example WHICH WAS MY WHOLE ING POINT!!!

[opebo]

Congress currently spends 35% of GDP.

I'm getting a lot less than that:
From the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0
Federal Outlays, 1962 to 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(As a percentage of GDP)
1962  18.8
1965  17.2
1970  19.3
1975   21.3
1980   21.6
1985   22.9
1990   21.8
1995   20.7
2000   18.4
2001   18.4

[A18]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates

Government expenditures as a share of GDP increased less in 2003 (0.4 percentage point to 35.9 percent) than they did in 2002 (0.7 percentage point).

[opebo]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates

Government expenditures as a share of GDP increased less in 2003 (0.4 percentage point to 35.9 percent) than they did in 2002 (0.7 percentage point).

So what is this right-wing think tank adding in that the Congressional Budget Office does not?

Just a side note, but the most interesting aspect of that heritage.org country site is how many of those countries have a higher per capita GDP than the US - lots of European ones do!  Wow, Japan is way ahead as well.

[A18]

I shouldn't have said Congress. I meant government as a whole, including the states and local entities.