Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 21, 2018, 04:04:01 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Opinion of Keynesian Economics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Poll
Question: Keynesian economics
Freedom Policy   -72 (75.8%)
Horrible Policy   -23 (24.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 95

Author Topic: Opinion of Keynesian Economics  (Read 4699 times)
The Self
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2017, 04:05:33 pm »

We are (still) all Keynesians now. Even monetarism is just a flavor of Keynesianism. Its one acceptable capitalist alternative, goldbuggery, is profoundly stupid.

Why don't you like the gold standard?


Because it's the kind of policy that appeals to downscale libertarian (Paulbot) types, but would absolutely decimate business interests, and consequently the economy, if actually enacted.

What is good for business is almost by definition the only good. And gold isn't.

You're an advocate of the military-industrial complex and the Fed's destruction of the common person's means of savings, then?

I'm an advocate of capitalism, which the re-introduction of the gold standard would destroy in short order.
Logged

Can't you see me, yeah, mama - mama - mama? Mama!

Please - Can't you feel my heart?
vanguard96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 796
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2017, 02:06:32 pm »

We are (still) all Keynesians now. Even monetarism is just a flavor of Keynesianism. Its one acceptable capitalist alternative, goldbuggery, is profoundly stupid.

Why don't you like the gold standard?


Because it's the kind of policy that appeals to downscale libertarian (Paulbot) types, but would absolutely decimate business interests, and consequently the economy, if actually enacted.

What is good for business is almost by definition the only good. And gold isn't.

You're an advocate of the military-industrial complex and the Fed's destruction of the common person's means of savings, then?

I'm an advocate of capitalism, which the re-introduction of the gold standard would destroy in short order.

Do you accept the status quo?
If not how would you improve it?
If yes, why do you accept the status quo? Do you have a person in Washington or the state house now? That's what it's coming to. 'We need to get in the game' is what they are saying or else.
Logged
The Self
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2017, 05:42:04 pm »

We are (still) all Keynesians now. Even monetarism is just a flavor of Keynesianism. Its one acceptable capitalist alternative, goldbuggery, is profoundly stupid.

Why don't you like the gold standard?


Because it's the kind of policy that appeals to downscale libertarian (Paulbot) types, but would absolutely decimate business interests, and consequently the economy, if actually enacted.

What is good for business is almost by definition the only good. And gold isn't.

You're an advocate of the military-industrial complex and the Fed's destruction of the common person's means of savings, then?

I'm an advocate of capitalism, which the re-introduction of the gold standard would destroy in short order.

Do you accept the status quo?
If not how would you improve it?
If yes, why do you accept the status quo? Do you have a person in Washington or the state house now? That's what it's coming to. 'We need to get in the game' is what they are saying or else.

I'm not a retard who postures as anti-establishment when I'm not. Being a gold standard Paulbot doesn't make you a rebel.
Logged

Can't you see me, yeah, mama - mama - mama? Mama!

Please - Can't you feel my heart?
mileslunn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,077
Canada


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2017, 12:50:18 am »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.
Logged

Lechasseur
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,166
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2017, 01:45:36 pm »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Agreed
Logged
vanguard96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 796
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2017, 05:38:07 pm »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Why do you think it is sound?

Governments are made up of people too which are irrational actors. Why give them the keys to the economy when they do not have perfect information? Why not let individuals and companies decide in the marketplace? On the scale of an entire country of the size of the US with 320 million people it is hard to ask for someone to really know what is the right mix of spending in the market at any time in the business cycle.

The Fed's own admittance of failing to understand why inflation is the way it is and the yet they still have a reading of the economy and decide to raise rates or hold. It paints the picture of the dangers of the lack of information in the monetary field as well as the trust in technocrats to plan the economy. It is a similar one in the fiscal policy field and government dollars during the recession are coming either from the Treasury - tax collection or from the printing press.

It is telling that Keynes himself even after bank run warning signs were going off that he saw nothing wrong and failed to see the looming Depression.

Likewise, many neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman were in the dark on 2008 and then later spun info like the Obama stimulus where it was a case where the economy further worsened to say 'well it would have been even worse without it.' Or for 2013 during the timing of the sequester by the Republicans was the talk of the day he mentioned about not wanting to be like Europe with their experience with austerity cuts but when the economy did not sink as he predicted he turned around and credited it to Obama's stewardship of the economy.



Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,418
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2017, 09:52:22 am »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Why do you think it is sound?

Governments are made up of people too which are irrational actors. Why give them the keys to the economy when they do not have perfect information? Why not let individuals and companies decide in the marketplace? On the scale of an entire country of the size of the US with 320 million people it is hard to ask for someone to really know what is the right mix of spending in the market at any time in the business cycle.

The Fed's own admittance of failing to understand why inflation is the way it is and the yet they still have a reading of the economy and decide to raise rates or hold. It paints the picture of the dangers of the lack of information in the monetary field as well as the trust in technocrats to plan the economy. It is a similar one in the fiscal policy field and government dollars during the recession are coming either from the Treasury - tax collection or from the printing press.

It is telling that Keynes himself even after bank run warning signs were going off that he saw nothing wrong and failed to see the looming Depression.

Likewise, many neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman were in the dark on 2008 and then later spun info like the Obama stimulus where it was a case where the economy further worsened to say 'well it would have been even worse without it.' Or for 2013 during the timing of the sequester by the Republicans was the talk of the day he mentioned about not wanting to be like Europe with their experience with austerity cuts but when the economy did not sink as he predicted he turned around and credited it to Obama's stewardship of the economy.





Economics isn't about some fantasy perfect alternative that libertarians/Austrian School types present, economics is about choosing among a limited selection of imperfect alternatives. Keynesianism/fiat money 'backed' by central banks has its imperfections, but the alternative you support is a joke.
Logged


"Freedom just around the corner for you/but with truth so far off, what good will it do?"  Bob Dylan "Jokerman"

Could the 13th Mississippi Congressional District (MS-13) be competitive for the Democrats?
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,761
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2017, 01:10:57 pm »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Why do you think it is sound?

Governments are made up of people too which are irrational actors. Why give them the keys to the economy when they do not have perfect information? Why not let individuals and companies decide in the marketplace? On the scale of an entire country of the size of the US with 320 million people it is hard to ask for someone to really know what is the right mix of spending in the market at any time in the business cycle.

The Fed's own admittance of failing to understand why inflation is the way it is and the yet they still have a reading of the economy and decide to raise rates or hold. It paints the picture of the dangers of the lack of information in the monetary field as well as the trust in technocrats to plan the economy. It is a similar one in the fiscal policy field and government dollars during the recession are coming either from the Treasury - tax collection or from the printing press.

It is telling that Keynes himself even after bank run warning signs were going off that he saw nothing wrong and failed to see the looming Depression.

Likewise, many neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman were in the dark on 2008 and then later spun info like the Obama stimulus where it was a case where the economy further worsened to say 'well it would have been even worse without it.' Or for 2013 during the timing of the sequester by the Republicans was the talk of the day he mentioned about not wanting to be like Europe with their experience with austerity cuts but when the economy did not sink as he predicted he turned around and credited it to Obama's stewardship of the economy.





Economics isn't about some fantasy perfect alternative that libertarians/Austrian School types present, economics is about choosing among a limited selection of imperfect alternatives. Keynesianism/fiat money 'backed' by central banks has its imperfections, but the alternative you support is a joke.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,418
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2017, 04:58:19 am »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Why do you think it is sound?

Governments are made up of people too which are irrational actors. Why give them the keys to the economy when they do not have perfect information? Why not let individuals and companies decide in the marketplace? On the scale of an entire country of the size of the US with 320 million people it is hard to ask for someone to really know what is the right mix of spending in the market at any time in the business cycle.

The Fed's own admittance of failing to understand why inflation is the way it is and the yet they still have a reading of the economy and decide to raise rates or hold. It paints the picture of the dangers of the lack of information in the monetary field as well as the trust in technocrats to plan the economy. It is a similar one in the fiscal policy field and government dollars during the recession are coming either from the Treasury - tax collection or from the printing press.

It is telling that Keynes himself even after bank run warning signs were going off that he saw nothing wrong and failed to see the looming Depression.

Likewise, many neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman were in the dark on 2008 and then later spun info like the Obama stimulus where it was a case where the economy further worsened to say 'well it would have been even worse without it.' Or for 2013 during the timing of the sequester by the Republicans was the talk of the day he mentioned about not wanting to be like Europe with their experience with austerity cuts but when the economy did not sink as he predicted he turned around and credited it to Obama's stewardship of the economy.





Economics isn't about some fantasy perfect alternative that libertarians/Austrian School types present, economics is about choosing among a limited selection of imperfect alternatives. Keynesianism/fiat money 'backed' by central banks has its imperfections, but the alternative you support is a joke.


If anybody wants me to put some meat onto this bone (not that anybody has asked), as I like to point out, for anybody interested in macro-economics (which I'm actually largely not all that interested in, but I can go with it to a point) www.measuringworth.com is a great site.

1.For what it's worth, a central bank whose sole purpose is fighting inflation is actually following Monetarism and not Keynesian, but be that as it is (The Fed has a so-called duel mandate, but the actual people on the Fed have chosen to define that the best way to bring about 'full employment' is through low and stable inflation, which is also the other part of the mandate.  I don't know if they've ever stated that explicitly.)  

If you check, inflation for instance, https://www.measuringworth.com/inflation/,  you'll see that despite whatever questions the Federal Reserve may have in understanding inflation they've actually done a pretty solid job of keeping yearly inflation rates within a narrow range, from 2000-2016, for instance, the inflation rate ranged from -0.36% (2009) to 3.84% (2008).  For 10 of the 17 years,  the annual inflation rate was between the 1-3% range the Fed desires.

Taking a look at a random sampling of years while the U.S was on the Gold Standard, I choose at random 1890-1906 (random other than deliberately excluding the 'Panic' of 1907).  Inflation ranged from -4.36% in 1894 (after the 1893 'Panic') to 2.28% in 1903.   6 of those 17 years have inflation rates of between 1-3% but five years are listed as having an inflation rate of 0.00% which I find a little hard to believe.  So, not too bad, but if you accept that there are sound reasons to have a little inflation, the Fed clearly has done a better job than the Gold Standard.

2.If you check the numbers before the U.S had a national currency, the inflation rate frequently swings wildly from year to year.

3.In regards to actual Keynesian economics, the idea of priming the pump (although lets not forget that term didn't exist prior to Donald Trump inventing it this year)  may not be perfect and, sure, nobody knows what the 'proper' amount of spending should be, but if the fiscal policy is a bit off from the 'proper' amount, so what?  How bad is the marginal harm?

Contrast that with the Austrian School idea that the government shouldn't get involved because, well it just shouldn't!  and consider the harm from waiting for 'market forces' to self correct so that input and other material prices fall low enough to the point where businesses start hiring again.  (Assuming those businesses are even still in business.)

4.I realize less was understood about economics during the time the U.S was on the Gold Standard (which probably isn't a coincidence) but I would ask you to find me a gold bug prior to the 'Panics' of 1893 or 1907 who predicted those events.

5.Finally, you've misused the term 'plan the economy.'  The Federal Reserve attempts to regulate the economy by regulating the money supply.  'Planning the economy' refers to socialism.

I should find the exact quote and person because it's very impressive and because it was said more than 1,000 years before Adam Smith, but some Chinese philosopher said something like "There are 4 parts to an economy: printing of currency, banking, production and trade/commerce. By judiciously controlling the printing of currency the government can successfully regulate the other three."

« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 05:20:11 am by 136or142 »Logged


"Freedom just around the corner for you/but with truth so far off, what good will it do?"  Bob Dylan "Jokerman"

Could the 13th Mississippi Congressional District (MS-13) be competitive for the Democrats?
vanguard96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 796
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2017, 02:55:33 pm »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Why do you think it is sound?

Governments are made up of people too which are irrational actors. Why give them the keys to the economy when they do not have perfect information? Why not let individuals and companies decide in the marketplace? On the scale of an entire country of the size of the US with 320 million people it is hard to ask for someone to really know what is the right mix of spending in the market at any time in the business cycle.

The Fed's own admittance of failing to understand why inflation is the way it is and the yet they still have a reading of the economy and decide to raise rates or hold. It paints the picture of the dangers of the lack of information in the monetary field as well as the trust in technocrats to plan the economy. It is a similar one in the fiscal policy field and government dollars during the recession are coming either from the Treasury - tax collection or from the printing press.

It is telling that Keynes himself even after bank run warning signs were going off that he saw nothing wrong and failed to see the looming Depression.

Likewise, many neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman were in the dark on 2008 and then later spun info like the Obama stimulus where it was a case where the economy further worsened to say 'well it would have been even worse without it.' Or for 2013 during the timing of the sequester by the Republicans was the talk of the day he mentioned about not wanting to be like Europe with their experience with austerity cuts but when the economy did not sink as he predicted he turned around and credited it to Obama's stewardship of the economy.





Economics isn't about some fantasy perfect alternative that libertarians/Austrian School types present, economics is about choosing among a limited selection of imperfect alternatives. Keynesianism/fiat money 'backed' by central banks has its imperfections, but the alternative you support is a joke.

I see the state as a very poor and inefficient benefactor. It's pretty easy to see this on a daily basis.

Your ad hom on Austrian economics is beside the point...
 
Keynesianism's models depend on so many aggregates and assumptions in consumption function that is revealed as threadbare when compared to real life

Here's a quote from Murray Rothbard's Spotlight on Keynesianism:

"This failure of the Keynesian model is a direct result of misleading aggregative concepts. Consumption is not just a function of income; it depends, in a complex fashion, on the level of past income, expected future income, the phase of the business cycle, the length of the time period under discussion, on prices of commodities, on capital gains or losses, and on the cash balances of consumers.

....

Thus, aggregative economics is a drastic misrepresentation of reality. The aggregates are merely an arithmetic cloak over the real world, where multitudes of firms and individuals react and interact in a highly complex manner. The alleged "basic determinants" of the Keynesian system are themselves determined by complex interactions within and between these aggregates."

Check yourself before you wreck yourself...
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,418
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2017, 03:41:49 pm »

The idea in itself is sound, but generally works horribly as most governments only follow Keynesian partially not fully.  Otherwise they run deficits during a recession, but continue to run them during growth.  Keynesian says you spend more during recessions to stimulate the economy, but cut back during growth however governments very rarely do the latter thus why it often hasn't worked well.  If they followed it fully instead of partially it would work well.

Why do you think it is sound?

Governments are made up of people too which are irrational actors. Why give them the keys to the economy when they do not have perfect information? Why not let individuals and companies decide in the marketplace? On the scale of an entire country of the size of the US with 320 million people it is hard to ask for someone to really know what is the right mix of spending in the market at any time in the business cycle.

The Fed's own admittance of failing to understand why inflation is the way it is and the yet they still have a reading of the economy and decide to raise rates or hold. It paints the picture of the dangers of the lack of information in the monetary field as well as the trust in technocrats to plan the economy. It is a similar one in the fiscal policy field and government dollars during the recession are coming either from the Treasury - tax collection or from the printing press.

It is telling that Keynes himself even after bank run warning signs were going off that he saw nothing wrong and failed to see the looming Depression.

Likewise, many neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman were in the dark on 2008 and then later spun info like the Obama stimulus where it was a case where the economy further worsened to say 'well it would have been even worse without it.' Or for 2013 during the timing of the sequester by the Republicans was the talk of the day he mentioned about not wanting to be like Europe with their experience with austerity cuts but when the economy did not sink as he predicted he turned around and credited it to Obama's stewardship of the economy.





Economics isn't about some fantasy perfect alternative that libertarians/Austrian School types present, economics is about choosing among a limited selection of imperfect alternatives. Keynesianism/fiat money 'backed' by central banks has its imperfections, but the alternative you support is a joke.


Your ad hom on Austrian economics...
 


My 'ad hom' was that Austrian School proponents promote their economic view as a 'perfect alternative.'  If you feel that that is an 'ad hom' please tell me the flaws you see in Austrian School economics.
Logged


"Freedom just around the corner for you/but with truth so far off, what good will it do?"  Bob Dylan "Jokerman"

Could the 13th Mississippi Congressional District (MS-13) be competitive for the Democrats?
Free Bird
TheHawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,069
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2017, 10:38:23 am »

Current users disregard the idea that you cut back when times are good, and also generally disregard the value of saving therefore.
Logged

I feel liberal and around conservatives and conservative around liberals. Seems I just canít win.
Free Bird
TheHawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,069
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2017, 10:39:55 am »

Horrible policy. Cut spending when there is a deficit.
How the fyck would that do anything for the economy?

Warren Harding and the early 20s economy says hi.
Logged

I feel liberal and around conservatives and conservative around liberals. Seems I just canít win.
Mondale
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,980
United States
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2017, 04:47:11 pm »

Kensyism doesn't work but I support it

In other words I'm a leftist
Logged

Devout Centrist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,422
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.45, S: -10.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2017, 01:56:09 am »

I am a New Keynesian, my ideas are a synthesis between Monetarism and Old School Keynesianism, with an aversion to austerity during recessions.

haha f**k that
Logged

136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,418
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2017, 02:21:55 am »

I am a New Keynesian, my ideas are a synthesis between Monetarism and Old School Keynesianism, with an aversion to austerity during recessions.

haha f**k that

How is that different than Neo Classical economics?
Logged


"Freedom just around the corner for you/but with truth so far off, what good will it do?"  Bob Dylan "Jokerman"

Could the 13th Mississippi Congressional District (MS-13) be competitive for the Democrats?
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,576


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2017, 03:04:25 am »

Keynes died in 1946, so he may not have the end all answers to contemporary economics, but he was more right in his lifetime than anyone has the right to be. And his ideas are certainly better than the Austrian and neoliberal ones that followed.
Logged

Chinese American for Trump. MAGA/KAG 2020.
vanguard96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 796
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2017, 11:01:56 am »

Keynes died in 1946, so he may not have the end all answers to contemporary economics, but he was more right in his lifetime than anyone has the right to be. And his ideas are certainly better than the Austrian and neoliberal ones that followed.

Except that Austrian ideas were around before (Menger and Bohm von Bawerk in the 19th century) and were gaining strength contemporaneous to Keynes. You may know of the Hayek-Keynes rap battle YouTube video.

It was the smearing of classical liberalism as being the cause of the depression - when it was plainly not - as well as the forces of the left rising in the 1930's that saw the Austrian school fail to win many converts despite predicting the Depression which is something that Keynes whiffed on. Austrians were able to also explain stagflation of the 1970's - something that Keynesian & neoclassical followers had a tough time getting around.

They were never discredited, it just went underground in the pre-war years. Having socialist economic policy-friendly fascists who absolutely hated classical liberalism about as much as they hated Jews did a lot to break up the original movement in Austria. Especially when the leader of the movement, Mises, himself was Jewish. Then alongside but not entirely in lockstep with the rise of the new post-war conservative movement the Austrian school saw a new flowering in the 1960's and early 1970's alongside the Chicago school led by Milton Friedman. 

The Keynesian views, flawed as they are, fit in with the idea of increasing state power so of course your lot will prefer it. The Austrian views fit in with the idea of decreasing state power so they were at odds with both the socialist and nationalist views that predominated in the 1st half of the 20th century.

Thus any tenuous connection to the Austrian school is a guilt by association thus Margaret Thatcher's record despite not following the tenets of classical liberalism is considered a black stain on Austrian economics.

I guess if you want a large corporatist economy working hand in hand with a large bureaucratic government then Keynesianism is perfect even though the model has so many assumptions that put it so far from reality.

It all fits in together quite well with interventionist Wilsonian democracy abroad. Intervention by the government with fiscal policy as per Keynesian economics, intervention by the quasi governmental Federal Reserve in monetary affairs. Both together have a mission to manage the economy (looking at inflation & unemployment). Now we've seen our debt go to 20T and the deficit is a hellish $666B - and a ruinous crisis ten years ago. Yet we're still going to the same well.

It's disheartening.
Logged
Maverick J-Mac
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2017, 07:03:24 pm »

For those of you who are millennials, did you know Alan Keyes didn't have a degree in economics?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines