Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Do I have a completely integrated philosophy? No.
However, I believe more in money supply rather than government spending and taxing.
I advocate "tax cuts", because my primary impetus on taxation and government is minimization of government intrusion. So I advocate all tax cuts and advocate most government shutdowns, cuts and elimination of programs.
I do believe more capital in the markets will allow entrepreneurs to create jobs. I understand if you want to replenish what you spent you do so in good times. But such concepts represent over-simplification and don't seem to work because of delays in government's responses and the time it takes to turn an economy around.
|
I'm truly baffled by what you are writing. It just doesn't make sense. Reducing taxes doesn't put any more money into the economy than government spending. They are two means to the same ends. Oftentimes, government spending is viewed as preferable because of the multiplier effect (Mark Zandi of The Economist has written extensively on this topic). It truly makes very little sense to be so staunchly in favor of one and totally opposed to the other (which is precisely why the Republican position right now of no new revenues is so ridiculous).
As for Marxism v Keynesianism, they are totally antithetical to each other. One is designed to eliminate the capitalistic structure. The other is a mechanism to remove some inefficiencies in the market, thereby enhancing the benefits of the capitalistic structure.
See? This is what happens when people start equating Marxism with socialism with any taxes with government spending with Democrats with Keynesianism economics. All of a sudden, words that have actual discrete meanings are put into a giant pot where they all mean the same thing. There are legitimate criticisms of Keynesianism, just as there are with all other economic theories. You just haven't hit on a single one of them yet.