|
07-11-2011, 03:44 PM | #1 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Master of Disaster and Taxes upon Taxes
Obama is easy to hate. He is the Captain of the biggest economic disaster in the history of the world and he plans more mayhem, while ill-informed Keynsians such as Cali actually believe they know what they're doing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-11-2011, 07:56 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.
Why are you advocating we extend Bush's tax cuts during this economic downturn then? That constitutes a countercyclical policy.
__________________
太初有道 |
07-11-2011, 08:59 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
I'm guessing it's because he thinks counter-cyclical policies are identical to Marxism. I'm also guessing it's because he agrees the theory of counter-cyclical spending makes sense to him at some level. If he would read more about it rather than equating it with Marxism, I think he'd be interested by the "multiplier effect" and that tax cuts have among the lowest multiplier factor.
|
07-11-2011, 09:53 PM | #4 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-12-2011, 12:54 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
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. |
|
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM | #6 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I won't receive Medicare, so my "social" benefits will be solely roads, and military, otherwise society provides no benefit to me, so I want to participate in it as little as possible. Its policies have collapsed my local market, a market which may not recover according to some studies until 2030. And I believe Keynsian is designed to cause capitalism to fail to reduce the import of the capitalistic structure (Yes I know their theories say otherwise but I don't trust their words). Keynsians have never proven their theories can be implemented effectively. I will posit an argument that Keynsians are frustrated capitalists who are on the road to disbelieving in capitalism trending towards Marxism. Many Keynsians are Marxist at heart and wish to see capitalism fail. You actually believe their theories work in practice. The timing and the efficacy of their theories are not doubted by Keynsians but they are by me. Keynsians tout their theories as a means to eliminate inefficiencies of the capitalist structures, but that doesn't mean I believe their intentions. Their theories don't take account for real world realities such as crowding crushing the multiplier effects. A Keynsian response, we just didn't flood enough money into the system for long enough time. Ugh. Keynsians ignore other factors such as lack of confidence and real world factors.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 07-12-2011 at 02:43 PM. |
|
07-13-2011, 03:49 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
When Keynesianism is discussed, rather than articulate an intelligent critique you instead focus on lumping all Keynesians in as Marxists (or people who are well on their way to Marxism because, after all, they must all truly hate capitalism). There's just nothing empirical to support that bizarre contention. Like Chino, I'm struggling to understand your economic philosophy as it appears, to me, to lack any cohesion or consistency from our brief exchanges. It also appears to rely on a belief that competing philosophies are inherently Marxist and evil (which suggests not much thought has gone into your analysis). Other statements you make about Keynesianism are just false (such as your argument that it doesn't take into consideration crowding). As I mentioned before, there are legitimate issues with Keynesianism just as there are with Friedman's philosophies, but we can't seem to even get to those topics because of the muddled rhetoric you are throwing out instead. I'm going to bow out of this discussion as it seems particularly pointless. |
|
07-13-2011, 01:51 PM | #8 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I have both an intellectual disagreement with Keynesian and a personal one. None of the Keynesians policies benefit me. Remember the inflation tax, how the uninformed voter blames the rise in prices on business? I realize inflation for example is a tax incurred by Keynesians financial policies. I also don't trust policy makers to do things in a timely or correct and morally beneficial manner. I have repeatedly stated Obama's plan is fraught with error in that it did NOT achieve its multiplier effect as shown in the Stanford study. So, when I attack you Keynsians coherently, you ignore my attacks. And because Friedman attacks, as do others, attack the motives of policy wonks who adhere to Keynesian economics, I attack them less well, but liken them to Marxists who loathe the capitalist system. Again, you are engaging in ad hominems because you ignore the true arguments. Maybe you should start from a neutralist position if you wish to understand my philosophy.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-13-2011, 08:51 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
Are you talking about this Stanford study? http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/CCTW_100108.pdf The study argues that ARRA didn't achieve the intended multiplier effect NOT because the multiplier was too big, but the multiplier was applied to the wrong number.
__________________
太初有道 |
|
07-14-2011, 02:46 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
__________________
太初有道 |
Bookmarks |
|
|