Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74
Thanks Tree44Thanks

Thread: Corbyn proves folk understand economics

  1. #61
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    23,329
    Thanks
    19730

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    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?


    You going to pretend expertise by boring me with Solow now?


    I haven't made the errors dear boy
    You are GROTESQUELY misinterpreting Keynes. I would call that an error.

  2. #62
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    3674

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith 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)
    Incorrect. I referred to endless budget deficits.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  3. #63
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    3674

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    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.
    The combination of tax cuts, increased spending and allowing the financial industry to become Yuuuge and bigly thieves is what buggered us. But trickle down is a more efficient way of saying that.

  4. #64
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    3674

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    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. 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.
    But you don't use anywhere near as many obscure polysyllabic words so he must be better than you even though I suspect he doesn't understand a bunch of them.

  5. #65
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,273
    Thanks
    1163

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    You are GROTESQUELY misinterpreting Keynes. I would call that an error.
    I quoted him directly. Its obvious that he was linking fiscal policy to overheating. You might want to correct your lesson plans. Wouldn't want to see students suffering from bum information...
    Last edited by Ęthelfrith; 14th June 2017 at 11:38 PM.

  6. #66
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,273
    Thanks
    1163

    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    The combination of tax cuts, increased spending and allowing the financial industry to become Yuuuge and bigly thieves is what buggered us. But trickle down is a more efficient way of saying that.
    You're all over the place here, misapplying terms and focusing on the wrong elements. You're correct in referring to regulation, but that has naff all to do with trickle down (which focused on badly applied analysis into work incentives). Sum it up within neoliberalism (ie market fundamentalism)

  7. #67
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    23,329
    Thanks
    19730

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    I quoted him directly. Its obvious that he was linking fiscal policy to overheating. You might want to correct your lesson plans. Wouldn't want to see students suffering from bum information...
    Here's the direct quote from Keynes that YOU are ignoring:

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

    You are making the perfectly PREPOSTEROUS proposition that Keynes was worried about economies 'overheating' in the middle of the 1930's, when he wrote his General Theory.

    Apparently you are unaware that in the 1930's, the entire Western world was mired in a decade-long deflationary Depression.

    NO ONE, and I do mean NO ONE, was worried about economies 'overheating' in the middle of the 1930's.

    The COMPLAINT against Keynesian policies in the 1930's, coming from conservatives in both America and Europe, is that such policies would lead to unacceptable increases in the national debt.

    You're dismissed. You're a rank amateur.
    Thanks from RNG

  8. #68
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,273
    Thanks
    1163

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Here's the direct quote from Keynes that YOU are ignoring:

    Lord Keynes: "The boom, and not the slump, is the time for austerity."
    Why are you playing pretend? He was referring to optimal fiscal policy: "to protect us from the excesses of the boom".

    You are making the perfectly PREPOSTEROUS proposition that Keynes was worried about economies 'overheating' in the middle of the 1930's, when he wrote his General Theory.

    Apparently you are unaware that in the 1930's, the entire Western world was mired in a decade-long deflationary Depression.

    NO ONE, and I do mean NO ONE, was worried about economies 'overheating' in the middle of the 1930's.
    Keynes was a clever fellow. He understood, when referring to fiscal policy, both boom and recession had to be considered. That you don't appreciate that again questions your economics background.

    The COMPLAINT against Keynesian policies in the 1930's, coming from conservatives in both America and Europe, is that such policies would lead to unacceptable increases in the national debt.

    You're dismissed. You're a rank amateur.
    Awful comment, only suggesting knowledge flaw. Economic history refers to how Keynes was rejected due to innate conservatism. Keynesian was forced on the US through world war. See, for example, Renshaw (1999, Was There a Keynesian Economy in the USA between 1933 and 1945?, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 34, pp 337-364) who writes:

    "As Eccles pointed out, counter-cyclical spending was really a conservative option which implied 'sustaining government contributions to general purchasing power while the obstacles to private spending are cleared away'. The basic structure and values of capitalism, the ownership and control of the system, would not be disturbed in the long run if such policies were adopted. Yet despite such spending to make good the failure of private investment and so reduce unemployment in 1933-35, and again in 1938-39, almost one in six Americans were still out of work in 1939. In that sense, as Herbert Stein has argued, 'It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to Keynes."

  9. #69
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    23,329
    Thanks
    19730

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Why are you playing pretend? He was referring to optimal fiscal policy: "to protect us from the excesses of the boom".


    Keynes was a clever fellow. He understood, when referring to fiscal policy, both boom and recession had to be considered. That you don't appreciate that again questions your economics background.


    Awful comment, only suggesting knowledge flaw. Economic history refers to how Keynes was rejected due to innate conservatism. Keynesian was forced on the US through world war. See, for example, Renshaw (1999, Was There a Keynesian Economy in the USA between 1933 and 1945?, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 34, pp 337-364) who writes:

    "As Eccles pointed out, counter-cyclical spending was really a conservative option which implied 'sustaining government contributions to general purchasing power while the obstacles to private spending are cleared away'. The basic structure and values of capitalism, the ownership and control of the system, would not be disturbed in the long run if such policies were adopted. Yet despite such spending to make good the failure of private investment and so reduce unemployment in 1933-35, and again in 1938-39, almost one in six Americans were still out of work in 1939. In that sense, as Herbert Stein has argued, 'It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to Keynes."
    Nowhere was I claiming that we actually implemented Keynesian policies in the 1930's in America. So now I have cause to question your reading comprehension, as well.

  10. #70
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,273
    Thanks
    1163

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Nowhere was I claiming that we actually implemented Keynesian policies in the 1930's in America. So now I have cause to question your reading comprehension, as well.
    Your attacks lack imagination and class. You stated "[t]he COMPLAINT against Keynesian policies in the 1930's". There weren't any Keynesian policies in the 30s. I also notice that you make these little foot-stamps as a means to avoid actually responding to the comments made. Hope you react better to the questions from your pretend students...

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reich To Bernie Folk
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th May 2016, 09:53 AM
  2. Bernie folk and Hillary folk misremember the 1990s together
    By Babba in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17th May 2016, 09:08 PM
  3. Any country folk here?
    By Country Bumpkin in forum New Users
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 27th August 2014, 01:56 PM
  4. Gun Folk
    By sky writer in forum Warfare
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 28th October 2013, 02:40 AM
  5. Liberals understand economics
    By lakeman in forum Economics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 30th April 2008, 09:12 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed