Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: Donald Trump Is A Vulgar Keynesian

  1. #21
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Six View Post
    Krugman's a partisan hack who sold out any and all semblance of objectivity long ago. This is the same that claimed Greece could simply devalue its way out of their debt crisis if they had access to their own sovereign National currency

    Worse was Krugman's defense of the Fannie and Freddie after the Sub-prime crisis.
    Fannie, Freddie and You - The New York Times

    If Krugman starts predicting un-paralleled economic growth over the next 4 years then I'll start to worry.



    Yup, he's proposing massive new fiscal stimulus, and we'll see how successful he is with a GOP Congress that understands just how ineffective stimulus spending is when it comes to growing market based economies. The only savings grace is that Hillary wont be allowed to waste American tax dollars " investing in Green energy " and he wont be raising taxes to pay for it



    He's proposed removing the IDIOTIC 33 % tax Americans corporations are hit with when they try to repatriate overseas profits back to the US. What made Sanders and Hillary's economic initiatives so potentially destructive was the tax increases. Both of them were planning on new stimulus spending while simultaneously driving off private sector investment capital.

    Sanders especially would have been a disaster of epic proportions.



    First, Trumps no Conservative, never has been a Conservative and it remains to be seen if he's truly embraced the Conservative ideology. As a PROUD Conservative I can tell you we dont " loathe, revile, and despise " Fiscal stimulus or Keynes goofy economic concepts, we just know they're not effective and we definitely understand why the Left embraces them blindly

    Its basically Govt intervention into the economy under the pretense that its a effective strategy
    (1) Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate in Economics. And you are not.

    (2) Mr. Krugman was PERFECTLY correct when he wrote this, taken from your link to his NYT editorial of 2008:

    Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.

    Partly thatís because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didnít do any subprime lending, because they canít: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesnít meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.

    LeRoy: I would be willing to be that you cannot even name the person who alerted the country to the accounting irregularities at Fannie and Freddie back in 2003, which LED to the regulators curtailing their lending. IF you cannot tell us who that person was, you will stand revealed as a poseur.

    (3) We NEED to invest in green energy. Perhaps you haven't heard, but 2016 is on the path to becoming the warmest year on record. The previous record-holder was the previous year, 2015. Are you a climate change denialist, like our new scientifically illiterate President? He's going to try to revive the coal industry. While he's at that, he might as well be trying to revive the once-thriving typewriter industry. It is JUST that stupid.

    (4) President Obama more than once proposed lowering that very high corporate profits tax. Republicans didn't want to 'play ball', because they didn't want Obama to get any credit for doing so.

    (5) I was NEVER a Bernie Sanders supporter and would NOT have voted for him. Hillary's proposed tax increase was very modest, and her plan would not have led to an enormous increase in the national debt. Which Mr. Trump's 'plan' WILL do.

    (6) Roughly 85% of professional economists believe that fiscal stimulus IS effective in a less-than-fully employed economy. Whether those policies are WISE in the long run is a quite separate question. It is for reasons such as that, that I am NOT a Keynesian. The ironic thing is that we are now going to be mounting a MASSIVE fiscal stimulus, dwarfing the stimulus we applied in 2009, in an economy that is very close to full employment.
    Thanks from labrea

  2. #22
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by res View Post
    That's all fine. But in order for the policy to be anything close to Keynesian it has to have an increase in government expenditure through specific programmes aimed at spurring demand.

    Cutting taxes is the opposite spectrum of the economic theory. It is based in Says law where supply determines demand. The problem with Republicans since Nixon (especially Reagan) is that they never managed to get it into their heads that increased military spending coupled with deregulation and cutting of corporate and income taxes amounts to a disaster. Nothing Keynesian about it. I think you are getting too attached to Krugman's interpretation of "government intervention" which he twists and turns in order for it to fit his agenda. The link between cutting taxes "the modern Republican way" and Keynesianism is tenuous at best.
    If you think there is nothing 'Keynesian' about military spending, I invite you to Google on the phrase 'military Keynesianism'.

    And you continue to misconstrue what is MEANT by vulgar Keynesianism. I see no reason why I should have to define it for you a THIRD time. Instead, you should just go back through the thread and READ more carefully, starting with the OP.

  3. #23
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    Yep, and both parties practice keynesian economics, but it will be funny to see the libs here criticize their own economics because it doesn't have a (D) next to it.
    (1) The stimulus Trump is talking about simply DWARFS the stimulus we applied in 2009.

    (2) In 2009, we were on the verge of plunging into the Second Great Depression. Today, we have an economy operating very near full employment.
    Thanks from labrea

  4. #24
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by res View Post
    John Kennedy cut taxes! But John Kennedy was able to do it because he had surpluses. During his presidency US debt decreased steadily, as it had under Truman and Eisenhower.
    The problem is cutting taxes while your debt is increasing. Only a moron does that, and every Republican that came after Jimmy Carter's presidency has been such a moron (though the jury is still out on GHWB as he reluctantly increased taxes). It is idiotic to cut taxes and not cut expenditure, if you are a proponent of classical economics.

    If you are a Keynesian you will increase expenditure to spur demand and thus growth because your position is that a temporary increase in wealth will have a multiplier effect on your economy and would eventually leave you with residual real wealth once the prices are adjusted for inflation after one or two cycles. From that point it's easy to dismiss Krugman's view of "vulgar Keynesians" as just a nice catch-phrase with no substance behind it.
    And now, for the FOURTH time in this thread, that is NOT what is MEANT by the phrase vulgar Keynesianism. Krugman called Bush and Cheney 'vulgar Keynesians' because they were arguing for a tax cut to WARD off what they saw as a LOOMING recession, that hadn't even happened yet.

    If I have to explain to this to you a FIFTH time, I am going to unhesitatingly classify you as a RETARD.

    Debt did NOT decrease during Kennedy's Presidency. You are surely talking about the debt-to-GDP RATIO, which DID continue to decline up until the late 1970's. In Kennedy's time, we DID have very large TRADE surpluses, so our position in regard to NATIONAL SAVING was MUCH better than it was in Reagan and post-Reagan times.
    Thanks from labrea

  5. #25
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    29,324
    Thanks
    23319

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by res View Post
    I completely agree. And that's why I think it's a bullshit argument on Krugman's part to call the neocons "vulgar Keynesians".
    The basic tenet of Keynes theory is that the marginal propensity to consume of poor people is far greater than that of rich people. In other words poor people consume a far greater part of their their income than do rich people which is on average very true. And as we have seen from the recently released Panama papers, rich people do not tend to reinvest money but to accumulate it making that much less money available for consumption, driving down demand and creating a downward spiral. That's the basic argument for redistribution of wealth.

    What modern Republicans have been doing is not Keynesianism by any stretch of imagination. It's what Bernie Sanders rightly called "redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich". That is a very dangerous thing for any democracy.
    It isn't sustainable. Its like killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

  6. #26
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,065
    Thanks
    2202

    From
    ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    (1) The stimulus Trump is talking about simply DWARFS the stimulus we applied in 2009.

    (2) In 2009, we were on the verge of plunging into the Second Great Depression. Today, we have an economy operating very near full employment.
    That stimulus has to get through the House and Senate. I suspect that Ryan will try and implement his "Better Way" agenda but include some of what Trump is talking. Trump is still determined to build the wall, and reconstruct our trade agreements.

    And the employment numbers are skewed because they aren't accounting for the labor participation rate.

  7. #27
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    That stimulus has to get through the House and Senate. I suspect that Ryan will try and implement his "Better Way" agenda but include some of what Trump is talking. Trump is still determined to build the wall, and reconstruct our trade agreements.

    And the employment numbers are skewed because they aren't accounting for the labor participation rate.
    The Bureau of Labor Statistics PREDICTED, way back in 2006, ten years ago, and long before Mr. Obama became President, that the labor force participation rate would fall and fall, for the next twenty years. It's a demographic thing, mostly explained by the en masse retirement of the Baby Boom generation.

  8. #28
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,065
    Thanks
    2202

    From
    ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    The Bureau of Labor Statistics PREDICTED, way back in 2006, ten years ago, and long before Mr. Obama became President, that the labor force participation rate would fall and fall, for the next twenty years. It's a demographic thing, mostly explained by the en masse retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
    And are you counting part-time jobs as full employment too?

  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,049
    Thanks
    3766

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Well, we ALL know that Donald Trump is a vulgar person, of course. We've all heard the pussy-grabbing comments. And that's vulgar.

    But that's NOT the kind of 'vulgarity' I'm talking about here.

    I'm thinking back to a memorable Paul Krugman column from early 2001, after the SCOTUS had installed George W. Bush as President.

    And Bush and Cheney were calling for a ginormous tax cut to ward off what they saw as a looming recession.

    And even though Krugman is a Keynesian himself, he dubbed that idea 'vulgar Keynesianism': the notion that we should try to ANTICIPATE recessions and implement tax cuts to try to prevent that recession before it even HAPPENED.

    Donald Trump is a vulgar Keynesian in THAT sense. He is calling for a truly MASSIVE fiscal stimulus, and at a time when the U.S. economy is NOT in a recession. He is calling for:

    (1) A Trillion dollar plus infrastructure program;

    (2) A possibly trillion dollar plus military spending spree;

    (3) And, of course, ENORMOUS tax cuts, and mostly for our billionaires.
    Can you explain how an enormous tax cut can be "mostly for our billionaires?"

    And conservatives are SUPPOSED to loathe, revile, and despise Lord Keynes and his radical ideas.....
    Most voters in general apparently don't even know who the f*** Keynes is.

    CHEW on THAT, conservatives. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    You've gone over to the Dark Side.
    Both parties seem to want to spend on infrastructure, but if they're low man on the totem they'll attack the other party for suggesting it.

  10. #30
    res
    res is offline
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,392
    Thanks
    953

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    And now, for the FOURTH time in this thread, that is NOT what is MEANT by the phrase vulgar Keynesianism. Krugman called Bush and Cheney 'vulgar Keynesians' because they were arguing for a tax cut to WARD off what they saw as a LOOMING recession, that hadn't even happened yet.

    If I have to explain to this to you a FIFTH time, I am going to unhesitatingly classify you as a RETARD.

    Debt did NOT decrease during Kennedy's Presidency. You are surely talking about the debt-to-GDP RATIO, which DID continue to decline up until the late 1970's. In Kennedy's time, we DID have very large TRADE surpluses, so our position in regard to NATIONAL SAVING was MUCH better than it was in Reagan and post-Reagan times.
    If you keep acting like a self grandising twat I'm sure soon enough someone is going to put you down in real life. There's no need for me to call you a conceited stupid prick.

    To get back to the rest of your post. Just because Paul Krugman said something doesn't mean I have to find it logical, even if you do. Secondly, 'military Keynesianism' is a pejorative term which has as much actual meaning as the term 'vulgar Keynesian'.
    Last edited by res; 14th November 2016 at 10:19 PM.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 8th October 2016, 12:18 PM
  2. Trump Is Vulgar To Women
    By Madeline in forum Political Controversies
    Replies: 480
    Last Post: 31st May 2016, 07:23 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13th April 2016, 04:04 PM
  4. Obama denounces rise of 'vulgar and divisive' politics of Trump
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 19th March 2016, 09:37 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th March 2016, 04:04 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed