| || |
The 1930s were after the Panic of 1907. Your argument suggests a lack of sense of time.
Sure, but atrocious demand and employment. Putting the country to war is not respectful of its people.So, you agree the deficit spending worked to grow demand and grow employment.
There's nothing hard pressed about acknowledging the psychological foundation of how people live, work, think, and feel.You'd be hard pressed to prove that Keynesian economic policy caused a war. My point is that the spending ended high unemployment.
Central planning displaces people's attention spans. Therefore, they become irrational and support irrational policies.
Last edited by Daktoria; 5th November 2012 at 03:36 AM.
Letr's review for the slow kids and you to catch up.
*I* did not bring up the bank failures of 1907. I am making a point that it took many years to get from those bank runs, to the creation of the Federal Reserve Act, and then further reforms of banking in the New Deal era. Apparently, you can't keep up with normal human communication, but I'm willing to talk down to you to get you up to speed.
Spend X fo Y, and all uncertainty is eliminated. We know exactly what and how much, with every stimulus. However, its effect is hopefully a change in mood, due to the directional change. That's also uncertain, albeit, no more uncertain than stimulus via lower interest.
Again, schizophrenic. WW2 followed the Great Depression, and war is not a guarantee. Encouraging irrational attitudes, however, deters conflict resolution.The spending was a result of war (you already agreed that's true in a previous post of yours). And sometimnes war comes no matter how much effort is put into avoiding it. But the spending in no way started a war.
Another tangent?Maybe there's some sort of Central Planning in your posts, because they are becoming clear as being irrational. You don't seem to have a grasp on reality. This was not a thread about Marxist Central Planning ideas (which failed as bad as total and complete Laissez Faire does, as history has shown). It's a thread about Keynesian.
Describing freshman monetary policy is also insulting, and you're arrogant to claim we know exactly how the money supply expands. It's impossible to calculate with certainty the money multiplier because we don't know in advance how many times borrowing will recycle.
For example, I'm not sure how claiming public education spending is successful makes sense when conflating previously affluent white suburban school districts with previously failing black inner city counterparts. Meshed together, it'll appear that public spending is the key, but analyzed apart, "No Child Left Behind" policies reveal their inner character.
Last edited by Daktoria; 8th November 2012 at 04:27 AM.
So far, the only Keynesian failures to be shown are that people like you refuse to shed their ignorance. But that's more a failure of Daktoria, than Keynes, Hicks, Stiglitz, Shiller, etc.
Last edited by Shanty; 10th November 2012 at 11:37 PM.
Keynesians are scared to death of the Austrian School. Why is that?The issue is not in the overall equation but in how you make the sum total increase or decrease. If you do nothing and demand drops, then the economy slows down. If you think doing nothing is the proper way to run a national economic policy then vote for Romney. He is your man. If you think the government (fiscal and monetary policy) have a responsibility to actually do something about the economy, vote for Obama. But whichever side you fall on, your analysis of Keynes is completely wrong. I would bet you have absolutely no background in economics at all and took this stuff directly from a Mizes site or from some Rand Paul piece you read. I could be wrong but I doubt it.