Brazil Travel Buddy. What to do. Where to go. What to see. (Advertisement)

Is Keynesian an Accepted Form of Economics?


By bgamall4   Follow   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:44am   882 views   32 comments
In Las Vegas NV 89117   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

http://say-no-to-recourse-loans.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-keynesian-accepted-form-of-economics.html

There are only two solutions, Keynes stimulus and Mises austerity. Austerity does not work, period. Keynes would work if the money went into the real economy. However it doesn't. It goes into speculation. Speculation must be stopped.

Viewing Comments 1-32 of 32     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    189 threads
    6,672 comments

    1   7:04am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    "form" of economics ?

    THe wording of the question is a little weird.

    But also, I still disagree with you about derivatives. You seem to generalize that all derivatives are bad. Including not only regulated exchange traded financial derivatives that have been big since the 70s, but I presume also commodity futures that have been traded for centuries.

    These all have nothing to do with the shadow banking market derivatives that had such a big role in the crash in 2008, and the need for bailouts of the banks.

  2. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    2   7:57am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Keynes stimulus and Mises austerity

    Both are equally absurd in their solutions, because they both ignore the problem of rent.

    How about Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen, who has debunked neoclassical economics.

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/manifesto/

  3. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    3   8:00am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    But also, I still disagree with you about derivatives. You seem to generalize that all derivatives are bad. Including not only regulated exchange traded financial derivatives that have been big since the 70s, but I presume also commodity futures that have been traded for centuries.

    These all have nothing to do with the shadow banking market derivatives that had such a big role in the crash in 2008, and the need for bailouts of the banks.

    Those derivatives are likely ok, but there is not a regulated market and that could include more than shadow housing derivatives. It could include interest rate derivatives. If the city of Oakland walks away from an interest rate derivative could it expose a bank?

    What if lots of cities did so!

    And to say we are done with shadow bank derivatives may be too optimistic.

    I just quoted the question as it was.

    Finally, if the bankers weren't worried about derivatives why would you think they would care about cutting social security and medicare and the rest? They want those cut precisely because of the derivatives and the need for the Federal government to fill any black holes that they cause.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wall-street-ponzi-scheme-called-fractional-reserve-banking/11600

  4. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    4   8:05am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    How about Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen, who has debunked neoclassical economics.

    I totally agree. Minsky was Keynesian but hated the bubbles and proved austerity was just for the bankers.

    Bankers want three things:

    1. austerity
    2. supply side economics (called percolation by Andrew Mellon)
    3. speculation in futures.

    We have gasoline at the highest level ever for Feb 1. The oil market is cornered.

  5. Entitlemented


    Follow
    Befriend
    11 threads
    376 comments
    Goleta, CA

    5   8:14am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Germany in 2009 inacted moderate cuts in the government spending, focused on inefficiency. The EU decried this "Austerity", and all the experts said it was not going to work.

    Now that Germany is in better shape with manufacturing and fiscally solvent, and has great social services as well.

    Were are all the Keynesians in Deutchland?

  6. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    6   8:20am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Entitlemented says

    Germany in 2009 inacted moderate cuts in the government spending, focused on inefficiency. The EU decried this "Austerity", and all the experts said it was not going to work.

    Now that Germany is in better shape with manufacturing and fiscally solvent, and has great social services as well.

    Retail sales are down in Germany because austerity was exported to the PIIGS nations. German manufacturing is bumping along.

    One thing that must be said is that neoclassical economics includes the Austrians, you know, Mises and the libertarians. The invisible hand of self interest, according to the neoclassical libertarians, a subset of neoclassical economics, always worked for the good of society. But it didn't work.

    Alan Greenspan and the housing bubble proved that this invisible hand was a figment of the libertarian imagination. Mari Carrusa Cabrerra subscribes to this nonsense on CNBC. So do many others on CNBC

  7. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    331 threads
    2,460 comments

    7   8:20am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Entitlemented says

    Germany in 2009 inacted moderate cuts in the government spending, focused on inefficiency. The EU decried this "Austerity", and all the experts said it was not going to work.


    Now that Germany is in better shape with manufacturing and fiscally solvent, and has great social services as well.


    Were are all the Keynesians in Deutchland?

    Links please?? The EU is the one that has been pushing for austerity in many of their member countries-not the other way around.

  8. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    8   8:23am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    I agree with you Lostland. I think Germany benefited from the Euro by exporting easy money and by wanting austerity so that it could be paid back. The Germans have really screwed the Eurozone. But they have also screwed themselves because the bankers want them to now bail everyone else out.

    It is a bad deal all the way around.

  9. errc


    Follow
    Befriend (6)
    45 threads
    2,091 comments
    32 male

    9   8:41am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    I don't think we have a system of economics problem. We have a system of currency problem. I'm still not convinced that we need to have such a malleable currency, where such select few control its valuation. Id prefer market based valuation of a currency

    Otherwise, you always end up with what we have now. A government that will not allow trade or laboring to be commensed or compensated in anything but their currency. Then they can inflate its valuations (devalue) so that the working class folk are levered to the hilt and all their assets are dollar denominated. Then they can pull the rug out from under everyone, by deflating the currency supply, and asset strip the populace to death.

    Economics occurs in the nature state. Its simply risk analysis, where participants trade one thing for another. I agree with uomo senza nome. Many on this board support the teachings of henry george. From learning about him, I've become a fan of the workss of Silvio Gesell (stamped money, free money, natural economic order etc.)

  10. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    10   8:47am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Mises has nothing to do with "austerity" that entails raising taxes to pay the bankers. Mises proposal involve two parts:

    1. Let the bad debts default, let the banks that made the loans eat the losses, going bankrupt if necessary. The result would be lower debt service burden on the rest of the society that did not make the mistaken loans.

    2. Lower taxes, so more of the society's resources is left in the competitive private sector instead of being forcibly taken by the monopolistic government sector.

  11. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    3,693 comments

    11   8:59am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Keynes stimulus

    Where is the other side of keynes theories? The part about paying back stimulus money and putting additional money away when the economy is good. That part has never been tried by "keynesians". Calling the policies of the last 40 years Keynesian is a joke.

  12. finehoe


    Follow
    Befriend
    21 threads
    479 comments
    Washington, DC

    12   9:05am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    The part about paying back stimulus money and putting additional money away when the economy is good. That part has never been tried

    That's not entirely true. We ran surpluses in the 90s, which was the Keynesian thing to do in that economy. But the Republican response was that it demonstrated the US was "overtaxed" and so enacted the Bush tax cuts.

  13. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    13   9:10am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    Where is the other side of keynes theories? The part about paying back stimulus money and putting additional money away when the economy is good. That part has never been tried by "keynesians". Calling the policies of the last 40 years Keynesian is a joke.

    Totally agree. Clinton did balance the budget some, though. He tried but the he ruined it all by allowing Phil Gramm to pass the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

    Both those guys knew they would become rich by helping the banksters.

  14. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    14   9:41am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    Where is the other side of keynes theories? The part about paying back stimulus money and putting additional money away when the economy is good. That part has never been tried by "keynesians". Calling the policies of the last 40 years Keynesian is a joke.

    The joke is on Keynes. Since when did governments have sustained surplus in the long run under a fiat money system? The whole idea of fiat money system is for one generation of politicians to pass the debt to the next generation. Clinton's so-called "surplus" is an accounting trick: it was able to loot the social security surplus thanks to favorable demographics.

  15. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    15   9:47am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Clinton's so-called "surplus" is an accounting trick: it was able to loot the social security surplus thanks to favorable demographics.

    The Bush tax cuts made Clinton look like an economic saint. Bush tax cuts are a huge drag on main street.

  16. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    16   11:41am Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    The Bush tax cuts made Clinton look like an economic saint. Bush tax cuts are a huge drag on main street.

    Bush's error was not in the tax cuts but the massive military spending to "jump-start" the economy in the classical Keynesian attempt. Ask yourself, would you prefer figuring out how to spend your income or would you prefer someone else spend it for you? Which way would end up buying more cost-effective goods and service for your personal taste?

  17. mell


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    256 threads
    3,094 comments
    San Francisco, CA

    17   3:39pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Not accepted by me.

  18. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    18   4:36pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Keynes stimulus and Mises austerity

    Both are equally absurd with their solutions. How about Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen, who have debunked neoclassical economics?

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/manifesto/

  19. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    19   6:26pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Bush's error was not in the tax cuts but the massive military spending to "jump-start" the economy in the classical Keynesian attempt.

    No, Bush was not Keynesian. He was a supply sider, like Andrew Mellon. He allowed massive speculation and leverage. He was a bankernesian.

  20. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    20   6:27pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    Both are equally absurd with their solutions. How about Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen, who have debunked neoclassical economics?

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/manifesto/

    I totally agree. The acceleration of credit is what a bubble is all about. The acceleration of credit is what Mises and Krugman don't allow for.

  21. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    331 threads
    2,460 comments

    21   7:22pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Reality says



    Bush's error was not in the tax cuts but the massive military spending to "jump-start" the economy in the classical Keynesian attempt.


    No, Bush was not Keynesian. He was a supply sider, like Andrew Mellon. He allowed massive speculation and leverage. He was a bankernesian.

    I think Bush defies all logic. He is beyond human comprehension!!

  22. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    22   7:50pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    No, Bush was not Keynesian. He was a supply sider, like Andrew Mellon. He allowed massive speculation and leverage. He was a bankernesian.

    Bush himself was not exactly in charge of his administration. The neocons surrounding him and running his administration were plenty Keynesian in policy outlook. There were plenty talks around the 2000-2001 time frame after the tech bubble burst about the need for a war to stimulate the economy; e.g. how great Pearl Harbor was for the US economy, etc..

  23. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    23   7:53pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    lostand confused says

    I think Bush defies all logic. He is beyond human comprehension!!

    That's just an expression of intellectual laziness. or is that haziness?

  24. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    331 threads
    2,460 comments

    24   8:04pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    lostand confused says



    I think Bush defies all logic. He is beyond human comprehension!!


    That's just an expression of intellectual laziness. or is that haziness?

    Bush and intellectual are like nails on a chalkboard.

  25. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    25   8:20pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Reality says

    Bush himself was not exactly in charge of his administration. The neocons surrounding him and running his administration were plenty Keynesian in policy outlook. There were plenty talks around the 2000-2001 time frame after the tech bubble burst about the need for a war to stimulate the economy; e.g. how great Pearl Harbor was for the US economy, etc..

    Keynes believed that in times of prosperity you put stimulus away. Bush and his economic advisors were supply side economists who believed that you never put stimulus away. And the supply side hot money that came in came to the US from weatlhy financiers the world over, pushed up the price of housing and commodities, in order to fund the oil wars.

  26. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    26   8:31pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    lostand confused says

    Bush and intellectual are like nails on a chalkboard.

    The same can be said of the pointless ad hominin attack. Clinton, Bush, and soon Obama all serve their function as a two-termer: to be the 2nd coming on the way in, and to be discredited on the way out. That's how American democracy gets renewed: hope renewed yet nobody's ego gets too big for the rest of the elite group to handle. All three, plus Bush Sr., are in reality life-long intelligence agents/assets.

  27. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    331 threads
    2,460 comments

    27   8:33pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    lostand confused says



    Bush and intellectual are like nails on a chalkboard.


    The same can be said of the pointless ad hominin attack. Clinton, Bush, and soon Obama all serve their function as a two-termer: to be the 2nd coming on the way in, and to be discredited on the way out. That's how American democracy gets renewed: hope renewed yet nobody's ego gets too big for the rest of the elite group to handle. All three, plus Bush Sr., are in reality life-long intelligence agents/assets.

    Huh?

  28. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    28   8:37pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Keynes believed that in times of prosperity you put stimulus away. Bush and his economic advisors were supply side economists who believed that you never put stimulus away. And the supply side hot money that came in came to the US from weatlhy financiers the world over, pushed up the price of housing and commodities, in order to fund the oil wars.

    How exactly would the pushing up of housing and commodity prices help fund a war? Doesn't war consume commodities? You have the cause and effect backwards. The Cheney team was primarily interested in driving oil price up. Starting a war that disrupts Iraqi oil production and export was the way to do it. They got plenty intellectual support from Keynesians who were looking around for a war to jump-start the economy.

  29. gsr


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    4 threads
    297 comments
    male
    Issaquah, WA
    Premium

    29   4:08pm Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    You mentioned austerity in Euro zone, but you failed to mention big tax increases coupled with highly regulated anti business environment. That's where you fail, along with Henry from BI. You only look at things that you want to look, and skip everything else.

  30. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    117 threads
    17,721 comments

    30   4:16pm Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    What if "economics" is nothing but a frivolous exercise of noise-making?

  31. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,121 threads
    5,891 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    31   4:28pm Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Reality says

    bgamall4 says

    Keynes believed that in times of prosperity you put stimulus away. Bush and his economic advisors were supply side economists who believed that you never put stimulus away. And the supply side hot money that came in came to the US from weatlhy financiers the world over, pushed up the price of housing and commodities, in order to fund the oil wars.

    How exactly would the pushing up of housing and commodity prices help fund a war? Doesn't war consume commodities? You have the cause and effect backwards. The Cheney team was primarily interested in driving oil price up. Starting a war that disrupts Iraqi oil production and export was the way to do it. They got plenty intellectual support from Keynesians who were looking around for a war to jump-start the economy.

    That's easy, it keeps people spending and increases government revenue. Securitization and ponzi bubbles are tools to increase government revenue.

  32. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 threads
    3,666 comments

    32   7:42pm Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    That's easy, it keeps people spending and increases government revenue. Securitization and ponzi bubbles are tools to increase government revenue.

    Government can fund a war by printing. To the extent that asset prices and commodity prices go up, it actually gets in the way of funding the war. In fact, the wars are have been toned down due to threat of commodity prices going through the roof.

    The invasion of Iraq was part and parcel of the effort to reflate the economy, especially raising oil prices from about $10/bbl to a then target of about $28/bbl as that would be most profitable price range for existing big oil companies without bringing too much new production online. A $60-100Billion war and interruption of Iraqi production/export was thought as the perfect formula. The war and occupation dragged on to cost over $1000 billion, and oil price went to $140/bbl! Now new production and new sources of oil was brought online.

    Keep in mind, governments don't go to war because leaders want to fight, but because they want to profit from war-making.

Premium member bgamall4 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 144 milliseconds to create.