[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It is actually kind of terrible to know what’s going to happen yet be utterly and completely powerless to stop it. Watching a society willingly and joyfully destroy itself, to turn itself into a pit of hell…just not something someone should have to see.[/quote]
sad but true.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is why someone like Ron Paul or Sarah Palin will not get people with real power pushing for them – their election would DECREASE the power of government and those who benefit from a powerful centralized state.
[/quote]
How do you lump Ron Paul and Sarah Palin together?[/quote]
x1000
Yeah, no kidding. She spouts the same faux populism/fiscal conservatism that all the Neo-Cons do. She seems worlds away from Paul.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is why someone like Ron Paul or Sarah Palin will not get people with real power pushing for them – their election would DECREASE the power of government and those who benefit from a powerful centralized state.
[/quote]
How do you lump Ron Paul and Sarah Palin together?[/quote]
x1000
Yeah, no kidding. She spouts the same faux populism/fiscal conservatism that all the Neo-Cons do. She seems worlds away from Paul.[/quote]
I am not so sure about that, she did endorse Rand Paul. She seems to me to be right of the republicans and left of Ron Paul.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is why someone like Ron Paul or Sarah Palin will not get people with real power pushing for them – their election would DECREASE the power of government and those who benefit from a powerful centralized state.
[/quote]
How do you lump Ron Paul and Sarah Palin together?[/quote]
x1000
Yeah, no kidding. She spouts the same faux populism/fiscal conservatism that all the Neo-Cons do. She seems worlds away from Paul.[/quote]
I am not so sure about that, she did endorse Rand Paul. She seems to me to be right of the republicans and left of Ron Paul.[/quote]
I have a hard time seeing it in terms of simple right/left.
Paul (for the most part), is a right/libertarian, i.e. libertarian (conservative) on fiscal policy, but also in terms of social issues, 4th amendment estuff, and foreign policy.
Palin, is very much not, and has displayed quit the authoritarian streak when is comes to foreign policy, and domestic social issues. And I doubt she would actually be a fiscal conservative when the time actually came, and would no doubt find socially motivated pet-projects, and overseas projection of US power to put us further into debt.
About all I see in common is that they both are for lower taxes, and neither has a snow-flake’s chance in hell of getting elected.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I have a hard time seeing it in terms of simple right/left.
Paul (for the most part), is a right/libertarian, i.e. libertarian (conservative) on fiscal policy, but also in terms of social issues, 4th amendment estuff, and foreign policy.
Palin, is very much not, and has displayed quit the authoritarian streak when is comes to foreign policy, and domestic social issues. And I doubt she would actually be a fiscal conservative when the time actually came, and would no doubt find socially motivated pet-projects, and overseas projection of US power to put us further into debt.
About all I see in common is that they both are for lower taxes, and neither has a snow-flake’s chance in hell of getting elected.[/quote]
Palin is financially conservative, she is at the very least willing to finally let us make the next step and become an oil producing nation. She does have a neo con foreign policy but her finances are very similar to Paul.
And I wouldn’t be too sure about saying neither have a chance of winning. This economy is about to crash, Ron Paul was the only politician warning us. Sarah with the GOP backing and the Tea Party backing would win after this collapse happens(and it will happen before next election).
If I had told you 3 months ago a Republican would hold the senate seat in Mass. would you have thought that was possible?
The other facet of keynesiam is it assumes that the delta G multiplier will be uninhibited. For example, they pump 100 dollars into the economy, and the fiscal multiplier is say 5. So for every dollar, 5 dollars is created economically, I use the term created loosely.
This however, assumes, perfect liquidity in these transactions. As we have seen in TARP however, the stimulus given to banks was primarily used for mergers and not lending. Thus the fiscal multiplier did not occur because people can, and do sit on this injection of money.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
The other facet of keynesiam is it assumes that the delta G multiplier will be uninhibited. For example, they pump 100 dollars into the economy, and the fiscal multiplier is say 5. So for every dollar, 5 dollars is created economically, I use the term created loosely.
This however, assumes, perfect liquidity in these transactions. As we have seen in TARP however, the stimulus given to banks was primarily used for mergers and not lending. Thus the fiscal multiplier did not occur because people can, and do sit on this injection of money.[/quote]
Isn’t that just an argument for target tax-credits/rebates, rather than a cash handout?
[quote]Osmosis wrote:
I’m a university educated man. I’m not an economist and never studied economy but increasing the debt should never be a desireable goal.
Isn’t operating a business on extended credit(debt) what caused this economy to flounder? And now Obama wants to increase the debt!! The current market is probably in a more realist spot based on the actual amount of funds on hand.
We (Americans) should be pulling together to try to eliminate debt just like we pulled together during World War II to stop tyranny with every facet of life focused toward winning the war. But, I guess that type of thinking isn’t good for business.
I’ll credit the Democrats with a saying from one of their own “Ask not what your Country can do for you, but ask what you can do for you Country!” Again, that mindset isn’t good for business.[/quote]
It’s also not good for liberty. WWII is not a good place to talk about, since Keynesian principles were used by FDR to spend money that we did not have, expand credit that should not have been, etc.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
The other facet of keynesiam is it assumes that the delta G multiplier will be uninhibited. For example, they pump 100 dollars into the economy, and the fiscal multiplier is say 5. So for every dollar, 5 dollars is created economically, I use the term created loosely.
This however, assumes, perfect liquidity in these transactions. As we have seen in TARP however, the stimulus given to banks was primarily used for mergers and not lending. Thus the fiscal multiplier did not occur because people can, and do sit on this injection of money.[/quote]
ahh the often cited multiplier. Funny how that never gets applied to money that comes out of the economy. Like paying back the 100 dollars that was pumped into the economy.
I really do need to go back and read Keynes.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Which is exactly why Keynes in a later paper disavowed much of his thought in The General Theory as dangerous in practice.
[/quote]
Do you have a source for this? I had heard he did this, but never bothered to look for it.
Keynesianism was the last attempt to perpetuate the system of leeching by elites, through credit.
"The real US unemployment picture is one reason why the parasites and predators who gather in Davos are so concerned. Their 300 year-old system of credit and debt concocted to drain the productivity of others has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams; but it has come at a costâ??their host, society, upon which their profits depend is now collapsing.
Their concern is genuine, similar to that of plantation owners whose slaves are falling prey to disease and death brought on by age and overwork. That such was inevitable did not occur to them so inured were they from living off the labor of others; and, now, while their dilemma is obvious the solution is not.
Were it not for the trillions of dollars of government aid in 2009, the global banking system would have already collapsed and the world would again be deep in the throes of another depression, where credit-driven demand sinks in an ocean of debt and settles on the bottom where it slowly drowns.
But the collapse has not been averted, it has only been delayed. The trillions of dollars spent to postpone the day of reckoning were borrowed and soon the bill will be proffered and payment demanded for having done so."
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article17111.html
The world will change, as Obama says. It won’t include him.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ahhh, Keynes…What a disaster this philosphy turned out to be. The fatal flaw in Keynes theory is that he thought cycle of money hoarding would continue endlessly until the system came to a complete halt. It’s an easy fear to have when your in the midst of a crisis, but the reality is simply that in recession, people do save more and spend less, but eventually people have to spend. You need things eventually.
The vicious cycle does end. When you keep throwing money at it, you keep it running, but just barley. But it’s better when people can feel the bottom with their feet, then they know what they have and know what they can do. If you keep tossing them scraps they never really know where you are at financially and you end up depending on the good graces of those in charge. That’s one flaw.
Second, flaw is that the Keynesian model can actually work, but it has to be done correctly. You can’t just borrow a bunch of money, throw it at your friends and constituents and hope the economy bounces back. First, you have to have the money, it’s better not to borrow; but I understand sometimes you must. Second, you have to use the money to invest in goods and services and have a chance to earn that money back from the recipients, not the tax payers.
In other words, if you are going to use a Keynesian model the use of the money has to be specific, and the gov. has to get something in return for the money that is useful.
Economy is stupidly simple. Lot’s of money circulating, good economy. Little money circulating, bad economy. Things that put money in to circulation helps, things that take money out, hurt. You have to do both, you just have to balance what you take out with what you put in.[/quote]
Money has little to do with a good economy.
It is more basic than that. It’s all about productivity.
Where Keynes goes wrong is in his idea that government consumption will always positively impact the economy; neglecting the fact that consumption can only happen while there are goods to consume. Where the government spends there is over consumption and malinvestment because many people treat the US Treasury like a magic piggy bank that never runs dry of funds.
Where investment is not based on real savings (i.e., when it is based solely on inflation) there is a tendency for malinvestment because resources get depleted which then become more expensive to the actual sectors of the economy where that investment would have been more beneficial. For example, the housing boom drove up prices for homes when it would have been better had the resources been used for something else like building factories or whatever. Now there are nothing but a bunch of empty homes sitting unproductively on the market.[/quote]
Money is representative of goods ans services, and that has everything to do with economy.
And if the governement were consuming that would be better than what it is doing right now. Only thing infrastructure spending consumes is money. Once the job is finished, there’s no more work and there is no return.
And I definitely want my 4.1 billion dollars to ACORN back.
At least Nasty Pelosi is consuming…copious amounts of alcohol and flowers.[/quote]
But underlying the value of money is production. As long as money supply remains relatively constant goods and services become cheaper as they become more abundant.
Everything depends on production.
None eat until the work is done.[/quote]
The under lying value of money is confidence. It is valuable as long as people feel like, when they hand over money, they get something in return.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is why someone like Ron Paul or Sarah Palin will not get people with real power pushing for them – their election would DECREASE the power of government and those who benefit from a powerful centralized state.
[/quote]
How do you lump Ron Paul and Sarah Palin together?[/quote]
They both believe in less government and more freedom. But, from the point of view of politicians, what’s there in that concept for anyone?
They are like oil and water, HH. Sorry.
[quote]pat wrote:
The under lying value of money is confidence. It is valuable as long as people feel like, when they hand over money, they get something in return. [/quote]
Would the supply of money have no affect on people’s confidence in it?
Would an increase in purchasing power thru increased production not affect people’s confidence in it?
Propping economics up on a purely psychological framework is an extremely problematic oversimplification.
You fail to address why people may or may not have confidence in a money.
Supply and demand still rules this game.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The under lying value of money is confidence. It is valuable as long as people feel like, when they hand over money, they get something in return. [/quote]
Would the supply of money have no affect on people’s confidence in it?
Would an increase in purchasing power thru increased production not affect people’s confidence in it?
Propping economics up on a purely psychological framework is an extremely problematic oversimplification.
You fail to address why people may or may not have confidence in a money.
Supply and demand still rules this game.[/quote]
It is not confidence in the money per se, if I were to simplify it I would say that it’s confidence in the government + (big plus) how much money is printed. There is a lot of other factors and we cannot determine quadratically how much money is actually worth by these factors. However, we can tell how much money is worth by how much you have to trade for a good.