Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74
Thanks Tree44Thanks

Thread: Corbyn proves folk understand economics

  1. #41
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    The real debate over Keynes analysis is two fold. First, the extent that neo-Keynesianism has misinterpreted the macroeconomic approach (in a bid to make it compatible with neoclassical microeconomics). Second, the extent that Keynes was able to embed behavioural concepts within his approach (using that to reject old physics).

    The truth of course is that he provided an important framework to study the economy, shifting the emphasis away from perceived self regulation. It's the post-Keynesians that have taken it further. For example, without direct reference to Marxism, they are able to appreciate various factors threatening economic crisis. Together with analysis into multiple equilibria, this necessarily widens the debate into optimal fiscal policy.

    Now you might want to hide from the development of economic thought. You'd have to if, like RNG, you want to support austerity.
    I thought I made it very clear: I do NOT "support austerity" in the midst of an economic slump. That is a STUPID idea, and a GREAT way to turn a mild recession into a serious recession, or to turn a serious recession into a Great Depression.

    No. No, PRECISELY as Keynes himself said, the BOOM is the time for austerity.

    If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with Keynes himself. Whether you like it or not.
    Thanks from labrea

  2. #42
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Basic error here! Keynes wasn't applying austerity as right wingers apply it with their blubbering over debt. Keynes was referring to the dangers of overheating and inflationary pressures: 'to protect us from the excesses of the boom and, at the same time, put us in good trim to ward off the cumulative dangers of the slump when the reaction comes, as come it surely will'. That can't be used here as austerity is used within the context of neoliberalism. It's an ideological reaction, rather than any sensible reference to macroeconomic stabilisation.
    As I said, if you think Keynes was advocating ENDLESS budget deficits, you have quite horribly misread the man.
    Thanks from RNG and labrea

  3. #43
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    I thought I made it very clear: I do NOT "support austerity" in the midst of an economic slump. That is a STUPID idea, and a GREAT way to turn a mild recession into a serious recession, or to turn a serious recession into a Great Depression.

    No. No, PRECISELY as Keynes himself said, the BOOM is the time for austerity.

    If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with Keynes himself. Whether you like it or not.
    Keynes, as I've proved, wasn't using austerity as RNG has attempted. He referred to the difficulties associated with macroeconomic stabilisation. He referred to how government should take into account overheating threats

    You don't have a point.
    Last edited by Æthelfrith; 14th June 2017 at 01:23 AM.

  4. #44
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    As I said, if you think Keynes was advocating ENDLESS budget deficits, you have quite horribly misread the man.
    No one has mentioned endless budget deficits, except yourself. Optimal fiscal policy will naturally take into account issues generated by the business cycle. Ultimately it's about avoiding boom and bust.

    The amusing aspect of the 'was Keynes Keynesian?' reference is that it typically focuses on rejection of bastardised Keynesianism. And it was that bastardised version which enables the economic disasters associated with monetarism (and now austerity)
    Thanks from Iolo

  5. #45
    Member Iolo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,395
    Thanks
    1559

    From
    Rhondda, Cymru
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    Nonsense, it's a perfect representative of socialism. BTW, zimbabwe is also run by a socialist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe

    ...Robert Gabriel Mugabe (/muːˈɡɑːbiː/; Shona Shona pronunciation: [muɡaɓe]; born 21 February 1924) is a Zimbabwean revolutionary and politician who has been President of Zimbabwe since 1987; he previously led Zimbabwe as Prime Minister from 1980 to 1987. Ideologically an African nationalist and socialist, he led the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) group from 1975 to 1980 and has led its successor political party, the ZANU - Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF), since 1980....
    You pretend to mean by 'socialist' anyone your masters tell you to hate. Socialism is political control by those who produce the commodities, on behalf of all the rest of the exploited. Socialism, therefore, is democratic rule by vast majority, as you know.
    Thanks from Æthelfrith

  6. #46
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,861
    Thanks
    38868

    From
    Nashville, TN



    Nice to see a discussion on this board among participants whose IQ is greater than their shoe size....somebody might even learn something....na...
    Thanks from Æthelfrith, labrea and BigLeRoy

  7. #47
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Keynes, as I've proved, wasn't using austerity as RNG has attempted. He referred to the difficulties associated with macroeconomic stabilisation. He referred to how government should take into account overheating threats

    You don't have a point.
    My point is that you don't understand Keynes, even though you apparently think you do. Keynes certainly WAS recommending spending cutbacks and/or tax increases during periods of vigorous economic expansion (booms), in order to pay down the debt (naturally) accumulated during economic slumps. And spending cutbacks and/or tax increases are certainly what people mean when they speak of 'austerity policies'.
    Thanks from RNG

  8. #48
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    No one has mentioned endless budget deficits, except yourself. Optimal fiscal policy will naturally take into account issues generated by the business cycle. Ultimately it's about avoiding boom and bust.

    The amusing aspect of the 'was Keynes Keynesian?' reference is that it typically focuses on rejection of bastardised Keynesianism. And it was that bastardised version which enables the economic disasters associated with monetarism (and now austerity)
    I would be interested in seeing your definition of 'bastardized Keynesianism'. If, by 'bastardized Keynesianism' you mean that interpretation of Keynes which thinks he wanted activist stabilization policies to forestall each and every business fluctuation, to rid the economic universe of all recessions, then I am in fact arguing that Keynes himself would almost certainly have rejected such an extreme viewpoint. No one believes in 'Keynesian fine-tuning' of the economy anymore. Not after the experience of the 1970's.

    And I associate our recent 'economic disasters' not so much with monetarism, nor even with poorly-timed austerity policies, but rather with four decades of trickle-down economics and the ensuing evaporation of the middle class.

  9. #49
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    My point is that you don't understand Keynes, even though you apparently think you do. Keynes certainly WAS recommending spending cutbacks and/or tax increases during periods of vigorous economic expansion (booms), in order to pay down the debt (naturally) accumulated during economic slumps. And spending cutbacks and/or tax increases are certainly what people mean when they speak of 'austerity policies'.
    I've already proved your position is untenable, via Keynes' words himself. Keynes was concerned about overheating. Its obvious stuff: fiscal stimulus when booming isn't likely to be a dandy thing! It has naff all to do with 'austerity' economics as right wing regimes have inappropriately applied.

  10. #50
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    I would be interested in seeing your definition of 'bastardized Keynesianism'. If, by 'bastardized Keynesianism' you mean that interpretation of Keynes which thinks he wanted activist stabilization policies to forestall each and every business fluctuation, to rid the economic universe of all recessions, then I am in fact arguing that Keynes himself would almost certainly have rejected such an extreme viewpoint. No one believes in 'Keynesian fine-tuning' of the economy anymore. Not after the experience of the 1970's.

    And I associate our recent 'economic disasters' not so much with monetarism, nor even with poorly-timed austerity policies, but rather with four decades of trickle-down economics and the ensuing evaporation of the middle class.
    My definition? Its an accepted definition. The parent friendly term is of course neo-Keynesianism. Its used to ensure compatibility between orthodox micro and macroeconomics. That was a particularly damaging thing. It sidelined Keynesian comment (until post-Keynesianism of course dominated) and led to fake debate with the monetarists (such as the drivel over the Phillips Curve, using that to cheer monetarist disaster).

    You ignore the damage created by monetarism. Its physically obvious via Britain, where unemployment quadrupled (and Britain is still suffering from structural defects decades later). In terms of economic debate, it certainly led to a macroeconomic discipline that became incapable of expecting, and understanding, the financial crisis.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reich To Bernie Folk
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th May 2016, 10:53 AM
  2. Bernie folk and Hillary folk misremember the 1990s together
    By Babba in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17th May 2016, 10:08 PM
  3. Any country folk here?
    By Country Bumpkin in forum New Users
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 27th August 2014, 02:56 PM
  4. Gun Folk
    By sky writer in forum Warfare
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 28th October 2013, 03:40 AM
  5. Liberals understand economics
    By lakeman in forum Economics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 30th April 2008, 10:12 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed