Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74
Thanks Tree44Thanks

Thread: Corbyn proves folk understand economics

  1. #51
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    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.
    Dude, stop and think before you post. What is the OPPOSITE of fiscal stimulus?
    Thanks from RNG

  2. #52
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1457

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Dude, stop and think before you post. What is the OPPOSITE of fiscal stimulus?
    Dude, stop and read. Austerity economics does not refer to optimal fiscal policy. Keynes referred to how the government has to be concerned about overheating (and therefore there are of course business cycle reasons to have temporary surplus). Austerity economics is used to refer to a ideological led reduction in the size of the state: 'Debt has to fall' cos Mr President is the same as Auntie Mildred's purse.

  3. #53
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    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.
    If you are a trained economist, and you didn't see the financial crisis and the Great Recession coming, you should take up a different line of work. Like picking vegetables.

    I happen to be one of the very small minority of economists who was LOUDLY warning about the Great American Housing Bubble of the mid-2000's, telling people that it would inevitably burst, and that when it did, it would trigger the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. For all my troubles, I was called a 'Chicken Little', a 'gloom-and-doomer', and (my favorite), a 'girlie-man economist'. I also warned people that it would take the better part of a decade to recover from the Great Recession. It did.

    So you don't need to lecture ME about not expecting or not understanding the financial crisis, sir.

    The discussions about the Philips Curve were NOT 'drivel'. There IS a short-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation. But there is no necessary long-run trade-off between the two, so that the LONG-RUN Philips Curve is simply a vertical line. Not only is this NOT 'drivel', it is one of the more important scientific advances in our understanding of how economies work that we have seen in the last half-century.

  4. #54
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Dude, stop and read. Austerity economics does not refer to optimal fiscal policy. Keynes referred to how the government has to be concerned about overheating (and therefore there are of course business cycle reasons to have temporary surplus). Austerity economics is used to refer to a ideological led reduction in the size of the state: 'Debt has to fall' cos Mr President is the same as Auntie Mildred's purse.
    You're simply WRONG about what Keynes believed. He favored fiscal CONTRACTION during boom periods IN ORDER to pay down the debt incurred during the downturn phases of the business cycle. It was far more about keeping control of government debt than it was to 'prevent overheating'. Keynes was HARDLY concerned about 'overheating' in the deflationary 1930's!! He WAS concerned about an unsustainable accumulation of government debt.

    And, to REMIND you, Keynes used the word 'austerity' himself:

    Keynes: "The boom, and not the slump, is the time for austerity."

    It is a very simple sentence. Why are you having such grave difficulties in comprehending it??
    Thanks from RNG

  5. #55
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Dude, stop and read. Austerity economics does not refer to optimal fiscal policy. Keynes referred to how the government has to be concerned about overheating (and therefore there are of course business cycle reasons to have temporary surplus). Austerity economics is used to refer to a ideological led reduction in the size of the state: 'Debt has to fall' cos Mr President is the same as Auntie Mildred's purse.
    Addendum: You are using a phrase, 'austerity economics', that I don't Keynes would have ever used. And yes, he certainly would NOT have been a proponent of 'an ideological led reduction in the size of the state'. I don't believe we are in disagreement there. Yet he was quite comfortable with the use of the word 'austerity' to refer to policies of pulling back on government spending and perhaps raising taxes on people and businesses, during the boom phases of the business cycle.

  6. #56
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1457

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    If you are a trained economist, and you didn't see the financial crisis and the Great Recession coming, you should take up a different line of work. Like picking vegetables.
    Most macroeconomists didn't see it coming. That is just a factual comment. Its also obvious that the fake debate between neo-Keynesianism and Monetarism enabled that knowledge flaw.

    I happen to be one of the very small minority of economists who was LOUDLY warning about the Great American Housing Bubble of the mid-2000's, telling people that it would inevitably burst, and that when it did, it would trigger the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. For all my troubles, I was called a 'Chicken Little', a 'gloom-and-doomer', and (my favorite), a 'girlie-man economist'. I also warned people that it would take the better part of a decade to recover from the Great Recession. It did.
    I've seen no evidence that you're an economist. I have seen you refer to the orthodox position (and that orthodoxy also suggested understanding of the macroeconomy, arguably alien to Keynes and the behavioural perspective). When it comes to crisis theory we know that the Marxists have the most detailed account. Post-Keynesians have caught up a bit mind you.

    So you don't need to lecture ME about not expecting or not understanding the financial crisis, sir.
    If you followed right wing economics then you would have no understanding. That's the reality of real world economics...

    The discussions about the Philips Curve were NOT 'drivel'. There IS a short-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation. But there is no necessary long-run trade-off between the two, so that the LONG-RUN Philips Curve is simply a vertical line. Not only is this NOT 'drivel', it is one of the more important scientific advances in our understanding of how economies work that we have seen in the last half-century.
    This is just cretinous repetition of Friedman. And of course that derived the folly of monetarism...

  7. #57
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    I've seen no evidence that you're an economist.
    OK, I am through with you, idiot. I've been teaching university economics for almost thirty years now. My areas of expertise are rather numerous: Economic growth theory, international trade theory and international economics more generally, natural resource and environmental economics, demographics, science and technology policy in the modern capitalist state, and the history of technology.

    And you, I think, are nothing more than an overly talkative Econ 101 student, trying to 'wow' people on the Internet with some big words that you heard in your class.
    Thanks from RNG

  8. #58
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1457

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Addendum: You are using a phrase, 'austerity economics', that I don't Keynes would have ever used. And yes, he certainly would NOT have been a proponent of 'an ideological led reduction in the size of the state'. I don't believe we are in disagreement there. Yet he was quite comfortable with the use of the word 'austerity' to refer to policies of pulling back on government spending and perhaps raising taxes on people and businesses, during the boom phases of the business cycle.
    Its difficult to talk about truth in economics. Its a pluralist subject after all. But we can say, without any doubt, that Keynes' austerity has nothing in common with today. I've had to say it numerous times: he was referring to changes in fiscal policy according to the characteristics of the business cycle; he wasn't making some inane comment about 'magic money trees' (as applied by right wing ideology)

  9. #59
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1457

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    OK, I am through with you, idiot. I've been teaching university economics for almost thirty years now.
    Then why did you deliberately misinterpret Keynes? Why did you make that comment about Keynes' not being a Keynesian when we knew that research referred to the intellectual debate over the relevance of neo-Keynesianism?

    My areas of expertise are rather numerous: Economic growth theory, international trade theory and international economics more generally, natural resource and environmental economics, demographics, science and technology policy in the modern capitalist state, and the history of technology.
    You going to pretend expertise by boring me with Solow now?

    And you, I think, are nothing more than an overly talkative Econ 101 student, trying to 'wow' people on the Internet with some big words that you heard in your class.
    I haven't made the errors dear boy

  10. #60
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,421
    Thanks
    4454

    From
    British expat in USA
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    No, the financial elite are fine with democracy, so long as 'the people' elect the right candidate. But the men who smoke cigars do NOT like riots.
    There's been increasing attacks on democracy from the elites on the right, from gerrymandering to voter suppression to Peter Thiel's chilling remark that he believes freedom is incompatible with democracy. Of course, that rather depends on whose freedom we're talking about, but we know whose freedom he was talking about.
    Last edited by tnbskts; 14th June 2017 at 12:12 PM.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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