Jump to content

Sure, the economy is fine. We're in a recovery, right?


Recommended Posts

 

Bush was evil not for spending money, but for what he was wasting it on. Deficit spending is not a bad thing, it's a matter of policy choices that determines whether it's a useful thing or a fucking waste like Bush's.

 

So you laugh because you're flawed.

It is a bad thing the way we do it.

 

Yes the policy is so much different now, LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Other than say buying a house which typically will give you a return on your investment, How is spening more than you have a good thing ?

Because as long as it is spent on progressive ideas, deficit spending is just wonderful; just ask LH and the rest of them, and they will tell you. It is exactly why their debate points are inconsistent. Once you take removing troops from Iraq, where has Obysmal removed spending from anything that GW funneled money to? In fact, in most areas he has added spending that far exceeds the growth of the population in domestic spending, and has kept everything he and the people on this board railed against.

 

This is exactly why it is so difficult to debate anything with them. Either they know you are telling the truth and make you prove your point with links that they then can then link silly stuff to, or they just don't know because they are idealogues who do not care.

 

Here, I submit to you this------------> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/notsogreat-depression I ask..........how many people have actually ever heard of this depression? Is it taught in our schools? If not, why not? How about------------>because the solution that brought us back so quickly does not jibe with the solutions that progressives/Keynisian koolaiders support.

 

And then, and then, and then, we have this. You have heard LH and his buddies constantly spin on JFKs tax cuts, why they were put in, and how it is all bogus when compared to Ronald Reagans. OK, don't listen to ME, don't listen to LH, and don't listen to his buddies either. Instead, listen to JFK himself, and draw your own conclusions. The clip is 2 minutes as he proposed it on national TV, and any time LH and his cohorts in re-written history tries to tell you different, you will know they are full of bull! http://youtu.be/aEdXrfIMdiU

 

And then we have this----------> http://www.taxeducationfoundation.org/briefs/2012-01.htm In this instance we talk about Reagan, and of course I have no doubt that LH and friends will link 30 opposing pieces to this. Why is that possible? Because Reagan is the most modern President to employ this method of extraction from economic disaster, and so he is the one most attempted to discount by progressives to sway you from this method. Smaller government stops progressives from using vast amounts of the treasury to buy votes, create their utopian Shang-Ri-La, and thus must be avoided at all costs by them. Reagan is the devil to their ideas, and it doesn't make a difference if regular Americans suffer by avoiding these ideas; it is more important that they get the country they want.

 

And then, (I won't link it as there is so many) we have the economic outcome of Obysmals policies. He has followed the Keynisian Koolaiders ideas, and here we are.

 

Of the examples I have given you above, all of them worked, there is no doubt about it, and both Carters and Obysmals Keynisian Koolaiders ideas failed miserably. Unless they are feeling extremely threatened, every example I have given above will be attacked except for JFKs. They will make excuses for him, as he is seen as the 'saint" of the democratic(progressive) party; although if he was alive today, he would be shunned as a supply sider by the progressive party in Washington.

 

So then, who are you going to believe when LH and his cabal start adding in their supposed links? History (that teaches all things) that shows that these events actually did happen; that the economy did grow and people went to work, that unemployment dropped tremendously, that we turned around far faster under these historical examples than what Obysmal has done in 5, going on 6 years........... or as usual, is everyone going to let them convince you your eyes are lying to you, you do not see what you actually see, and that they have the right plan that has never worked before.....proven by the policies of Obysmal, and lets go full speed ahead, and damn those pesky facts that torpedo all of their "fail" theories!

 

Once you know, it doesn't mean your ideas will win, it just means that you fought for the truth. It also means when you are faced with the nonsense put forth by LH and his cabal, you understand they are either lying to your face, or that they are to illiterate (or indoctrinated) to understand the truth. In either case, the best course of action is to ignore them. 1.Why argue with someone whos sole intent is to lie, no matter what the truth is.......... or 2. why argue with someone who when faced with empirical proof you are correct still is to dull or dimwitted to figure it out and still wants to argue with you.

 

Ignore, ignore, and then.....IGNORE MORE!

 

Find those who you can at least talk to. While it may be fun to prove these people wrong, it gets you nowhere. They don't care if you are right wanting to save your country, they only care about their progressive, Shang-Ri_la.

Edited by Imawhosure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Other than say buying a house which typically will give you a return on your investment, How is spening more than you have a good thing ?

 

Are you talking about government spending or personal? I'm talking about government which is completely different than your household. You should realize this. I know Cal50 doesn't but your generally smarter than he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go over this slowly so you can understand it. Before you go off on Keynes and his theories, it would do for you to read them. I know that's asking a lot especially since you don't even read the Austrian school theories only dumbed down articles from the NRO. I realize throwing my screen name around and using all sorts of circles and arrows with a paragraph on the back is much more fun, but have you tried to read your all inclusive ramblings? I know crystal meth users who have shorter benders than your posts.

 

But lets address what I can make out of what you posted.

 

1. There is no political reason that it is not taught in higher education. As you will find out if you took a long hard look at this, a majority of the economists that are studied heavily spend very little time on this, whether it is Keynesian, Austrian or Chicago school. I'm sure that there are some works out there but it is not limited by politics. Next, Powell's article which is short of evidence and long on conjecture has some flaws as pointed out by Kuehn, http://menghusblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/a-critique-of-the-austrian-school-interpretation-of-the-1920-21-depression-rae.pdf. Perhaps you could find something in the economics field as opposed to someone who...

expert in the history of liberty.

 

 

as the Cato institute says he is. I'll leave the leg work to you, although most scholarly work is not as short as what your used to reading and they lack pictures so I'm sure you won't bother.

 

2. Ah, Kennedy. First you haven't heard me discuss Kennedy's tax cuts constantly. I don't have any issues with the rate cuts he proposed. I think we all can agree that 90% was way too fucking high, as was the 70% after the 64 tax cuts. He was not a Saint, but rather a pragmatic politician and one that erred on the side of demand even with the tax cuts.

 

I think that your the one being revisionist about Kennedy as although he wanted to cut taxes, he did not attempt to cut spending by the federal government.

 

The president finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes.

 

 

Also i'd like to point out that in his address on August 13, 1962, his platform contained a number of very democratic platforms; Invest tax credits, increased funding for public works and infrastructure, federal unemployment extension and increasing federal assistance to universities. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8812 . Hardly the supply side guy your claiming.

 

Hers' a link of Kennedy supporting the creation of Medicare. http://youtu.be/_gu1HyCeEus

 

 

Perhaps you've become disjointed because i used a Kennedy line and think that I've spent many posts discussing him when i haven't.

 

3. I do like that you campaign against my links while throwing your assorted own in the post, especially since your's are a bit simplistic and generally not the whole picture. Why yes, they should by all means ignore everything but your ramblings and half-truths. LOL.

 

4. I do like the overly simplistic wite that you link to at the Tax whatever. It's really awesome to look at it and see a whole shipload of Bruce Bartlett links in the footnotes. I then only have to link to a couple Bruce Bartlett op=e-eds to explain away your beliefs. Simple and yet effective.

 

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgotten-tax-record

 

This was just the first of many tax increases that President Reagan endorsed and signed into law. There were 11 major tax increases during his administration. And this doesn’t count the fact that Reagan intentionally delayed the start of tax indexing, which was part of the 1981 tax bill, until 1985 so as to capture a lot of anticipated bracket-creep for the Treasury. In fact, it was the failure of inflation to come in as fast as White House economists expected that created much of the deficit problem. I estimate that lower than expected inflation and the loss of bracket creep was responsible for about half the budget deficit in 1981 and 1982.[12] It’s also worth noting that the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was revenue-neutral in the long run, was a fairly substantial revenue-raiser its first year, increasing taxes by $18.6 billion or 0.41 percent of GDP.[13]
According to a table in Reagan’s last budget (FY 1990), the cumulative legislated tax increase during his administration came to $132.7 billion as of 1988 ($367 billion today). This compared to a gross tax cut of $275.1 billion. Thus Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-gop-should-stop-invoking-reaganomics/2012/01/31/gIQAQRb6mQ_story.html

 

When comparing Reagan’s policies with Republican proposals today, several things stand out. Inflation is low now. We are not looking at “bracket creep” or sharply rising taxes, as we were in the late 1970s. The top income tax rate is 35 percent, half the rate Reagan inherited. And federal revenue is at a 60-year low of about 15 percent of GDP, compared with a post-World War II average of about 18.5 percent.
These differences are essential to understanding why Reagan’s policies worked when they did — and why they are not appropriate today.
All of the evidence tells us that the economy’s fundamental problem today is not on the supply side but the demand side. According to a recent study by Credit Suisse, two-thirds of the difference in growth at this point in the business cycle, compared with previous cycles, is due to slower consumer spending. And low inflation — as well as widespread unemployment, vast stocks of unsold houses, empty factories and other indicators — tells us that money is tight, not loose, as was the case in the late 1970s.

 

 

Enjoy. You'll no doubt have anther drunken uncle post coming soon.

Edited by Langston Hughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geeze, race is always brought in some kind of way. OK, I can do it to. Black people, are good people, who just want to get ahead like the rest of us. If Mr Obama cared about African Americans, he would do his level best under economic principles that actually have been proven to work through out history.

 

Instead, he listens to these Keynesian Koolaiders.....and because he has taken their prattle to heart, the black kids of America are on the outside looking in within the walls of these liberal stronghold cities. Nice way to give them a leg up as they enter the workforce there Mr Obysmal. You are really compassionate. http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2014/01/92-of-black-male-teens-unemployed-in-chicago-83-nationally/

 

By the way, my drunk uncle sent me that; which just proves empirically that a totally drunk uncle, is still 5 times smarter than a sober, progressive, Keynisian Koolaider-)

 

As a great President once told us; and every progressive on here never want you to hear those words---------->

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

 

And for those of you who doubt what I say, I put forth this question------> Keynsians are soooo smart, if you don't believe it, just ask them, lol. So, if they know all, see all, and can predict with Keynisian Koolaid certainty how to fix economic whoas, then it should be extremely easy for them to predict things........like say.......what would happen without using their great policies after WWII was over. There are 100s of links to their predictions, I am using this one because I think it spells out quite well their incompetence at ANYTHING. http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/09/finance-economy-great-depression-opinions-contributors-jason-e-taylor.html But if you want to moan and groan about it being a conservative link, much to your chagrin, once you put the question to Google, even liberal sites show you screwed the pooch. But then, I have many predictions that you Koolaiders said waiting in the wings that were......are you ready....are you sure....... ALL bassackwards; and hell, I got 1/2 of them from that crusty old drunk uncle too-)

Edited by Imawhosure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes let's artificially drop the rates and spend spend spend. Well please tell when are we going to stop it? There is no end in sight and we are so deep in there may never be a end. You guys can say the economy is/was doing good but compare it to history and you might not even be at average.

 

Hey how about another round of QE so we can make the rich richer and then complain about the evil rich and the giant gap between the rich and poor?

 

Don't you get it? It's a never ending trap you can't get out of, well not until it ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And THERE it is... the race card again.

Talking economic theories and you bring that in. It's like we're discussing how we like our steak done and you say we're racist for not including chicken.

 

Why i'm confused as to how you guys felt there is race being brought into it. Unless you have trouble with context and assume that my typo was not meant o be SITE, but WHITE.

 

3. I do like that you campaign against my links while throwing your assorted own in the post, especially since your's are a bit simplistic and generally not the whole picture. Why yes, they should by all means ignore everything but your ramblings and half-truths. LOL.

4. I do like the overly simplistic wite that you link to at the Tax whatever. It's really awesome to look at it and see a whole shipload of Bruce Bartlett links in the footnotes. I then only have to link to a couple Bruce Bartlett op=e-eds to explain away your beliefs. Simple and yet effective.

 

 

Is this what your referring to? Site...look where the W and S are located on your keyboard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geeze, race is always brought in some kind of way. OK, I can do it to. Black people, are good people, who just want to get ahead like the rest of us. If Mr Obama cared about African Americans, he would do his level best under economic principles that actually have been proven to work through out history.

 

Instead, he listens to these Keynesian Koolaiders.....and because he has taken their prattle to heart, the black kids of America are on the outside looking in within the walls of these liberal stronghold cities. Nice way to give them a leg up as they enter the workforce there Mr Obysmal. You are really compassionate. http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2014/01/92-of-black-male-teens-unemployed-in-chicago-83-nationally/

 

By the way, my drunk uncle sent me that; which just proves empirically that a totally drunk uncle, is still 5 times smarter than a sober, progressive, Keynisian Koolaider-)

 

As a great President once told us; and every progressive on here never want you to hear those words---------->

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

 

And for those of you who doubt what I say, I put forth this question------> Keynsians are soooo smart, if you don't believe it, just ask them, lol. So, if they know all, see all, and can predict with Keynisian Koolaid certainty how to fix economic whoas, then it should be extremely easy for them to predict things........like say.......what would happen without using their great policies after WWII was over. There are 100s of links to their predictions, I am using this one because I think it spells out quite well their incompetence at ANYTHING. http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/09/finance-economy-great-depression-opinions-contributors-jason-e-taylor.html But if you want to moan and groan about it being a conservative link, much to your chagrin, once you put the question to Google, even liberal sites show you screwed the pooch. But then, I have many predictions that you Koolaiders said waiting in the wings that were......are you ready....are you sure....... ALL bassackwards; and hell, I got 1/2 of them from that crusty old drunk uncle too-)

 

1. No race is not always brought in. It was a typo.

 

2. You telling us what economic principles work is laughable. You can't even tell us what the economic principles of the various schools are, let alone what works.

 

3. Your link is interesting but it's not that it's at a conservative source that is the problem. It's that there are a number of errors in it's work.

a. If you read any of the work of Posen, a noted Japan economic expert you'll find that he doesn't fault the stimulus for the failures in moving Japan's economy but bad monetary policy.

b. A majority of the economists surveyed by the Booth school of business found that the stimulus did stabilize the country from a much bigger recession.

c. Your constipated then laxative method of letting lose on multiple thoughts is a little bit much. I know i can be heard to read, but damn some order would be really nice.

4. Could you put the personal attack at the end or the beginning of your thoughts, just so I could make out when your actually trying to insult me and when you just lost your train of thought and decided an attack would work better than trying to figure out where you left off.

5. His name is Keynes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. No race is not always brought in. It was a typo.

 

2. You telling us what economic principles work is laughable. You can't even tell us what the economic principles of the various schools are, let alone what works.

 

3. Your link is interesting but it's not that it's at a conservative source that is the problem. It's that there are a number of errors in it's work.

a. If you read any of the work of Posen, a noted Japan economic expert you'll find that he doesn't fault the stimulus for the failures in moving Japan's economy but bad monetary policy.

b. A majority of the economists surveyed by the Booth school of business found that the stimulus did stabilize the country from a much bigger recession.

c. Your constipated then laxative method of letting lose on multiple thoughts is a little bit much. I know i can be heard to read, but damn some order would be really nice.

4. Could you put the personal attack at the end or the beginning of your thoughts, just so I could make out when your actually trying to insult me and when you just lost your train of thought and decided an attack would work better than trying to figure out where you left off.

5. His name is Keynes

1. A likely story, but as usual, if you say it is so, we are supposed to believe it like your economic theories that do not work, just look at Obama.

 

2. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look back in history to know what has/has not worked. You are hoping it does, but that is not the case.

 

3. Your argument is always there are errors. It is never about what did happen, but rather there are errors. In the world according to you, it doesn't make any difference if things were good, or bad, or terrible under the policies, but rather you attempt to discredit the good times and explain them away as errors, then justify the terrible times.............as it was not implemented correctly. Typical progressive.

 

A. If you want someone from Japan to take your position, then maybe I should take someone from North Korea. Take your own position, and support it through logical discourse.

 

B. What makes you think I am disagreeing on this one? All I am saying is that we will pay for it down the road. It could very well be better to deal with it then as opposed to now, and we shall see. I will not try and claim you are wrong, or correct on this one.

 

C. I can't waste my employers time sitting on a computer like some people. I have to add as much content as I can, thus giving the people who can waste time a period to think. You may use it well, and if your thinking wasn't so short circuited, you could actually be an asset.

 

4. I would never personally attack you; unless you believe that me strongly suggesting that Kenesisian koolaid is bassackwards is dissing you. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize to you and your cabal. If you want to drive yourselves off the economic cliff; feel free, as long as you leave the rest of us alone.

 

5. I know his name is Keynes, and I also know Barrys name is Barack. But, if Barry can call himself whatever he wants, and create policies that screw us, I think I should be excused for re-naming his economic methods author; especially since his authors method has never worked since its inception. Therefore.....Barack is really Barry, (dingleberry or Mr Obysmal in my book) and Mr Keynes is Mr Keynisian Koolaid. Sounds fair to me; or all of the sudden, you don't believe in fairness? I thought that is what you supported!

 

Your arguments are invalid, not because you can post links to counteract mine, but because you can't show a link where your theories work. You are taking the basic rino theory of, "going against something," instead of being "for something," and showing that it works. Me saying that Clinton was incompetent, then posting Monica Lewinsky threads does nothing to countermand the growth his administration enjoyed.

 

Look here----------->I am really open minded. I am worried about the economics of this country, and its debt. Show us that Keynes works! Show us where it has been implemented and has succeeded. It shouldn't be hard. You are versed in this method, so show everyone by countries that have used it. My only suggestion is that you do not use the UK, because if you do, what you are going to find is that the loss of services is dramtic; but hey, maybe that is what you want to use. If so, be my guest. Who am I to argue with you. I mean, then we can argue over what Americans will lose, instead of over what Americans will get.

 

And so, your job is simple---------> I know that Keynes theory is not that old, so I can't demand a look far back in time that has used it. But what I can ask is...............show us someone who used something close to this method as a country, that is still in great shape. I can show just this century where anti Keynes theories were used to resurrect economies, eventhough some didn't know they were using them; but I will give you great latitude here..............find someone even using close to what Keynes expounds ANYWHERE in the last 200yrs that is still doing well, more than 75 years after they used the method.

 

We can all agree to disagree, but more than likely, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Edited by Imawhosure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. A likely story, but as usual, if you say it is so, we are supposed to believe it like your economic theories that do not work, just look at Obama.

 

2. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look back in history to know what has/has not worked. You are hoping it does, but that is not the case.

 

3. Your argument is always there are errors. It is never about what did happen, but rather there are errors. In the world according to you, it doesn't make any difference if things were good, or bad, or terrible under the policies, but rather you attempt to discredit the good times and explain them away as errors, then justify the terrible times.............as it was not implemented correctly. Typical progressive.

 

A. If you want someone from Japan to take your position, then maybe I should take someone from North Korea. Take your own position, and support it through logical discourse.

 

B. What makes you think I am disagreeing on this one? All I am saying is that we will pay for it down the road. It could very well be better to deal with it then as opposed to now, and we shall see. I will not try and claim you are wrong, or correct on this one.

 

C. I can't waste my employers time sitting on a computer like some people. I have to add as much content as I can, thus giving the people who can waste time a period to think. You may use it well, and if your thinking wasn't so short circuited, you could actually be an asset.

 

4. I would never personally attack you; unless you believe that me strongly suggesting that Kenesisian koolaid is bassackwards is dissing you. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize to you and your cabal. If you want to drive yourselves off the economic cliff; feel free, as long as you leave the rest of us alone.

 

5. I know his name is Keynes, and I also know Barrys name is Barack. But, if Barry can call himself whatever he wants, and create policies that screw us, I think I should be excused for re-naming his economic methods author; especially since his authors method has never worked since its inception. Therefore.....Barack is really Barry, (dingleberry or Mr Obysmal in my book) and Mr Keynes is Mr Keynisian Koolaid. Sounds fair to me; or all of the sudden, you don't believe in fairness? I thought that is what you supported!

 

Your arguments are invalid, not because you can post links to counteract mine, but because you can't show a link where your theories work. You are taking the basic rino theory of, "going against something," instead of being "for something," and showing that it works. Me saying that Clinton was incompetent, then posting Monica Lewinsky threads does nothing to countermand the growth his administration enjoyed.

 

Look here----------->I am really open minded. I am worried about the economics of this country, and its debt. Show us that Keynes works! Show us where it has been implemented and has succeeded. It shouldn't be hard. You are versed in this method, so show everyone by countries that have used it. My only suggestion is that you do not use the UK, because if you do, what you are going to find is that the loss of services is dramtic; but hey, maybe that is what you want to use. If so, be my guest. Who am I to argue with you. I mean, then we can argue over what Americans will lose, instead of over what Americans will get.

 

And so, your job is simple---------> I know that Keynes theory is not that old, so I can't demand a look far back in time that has used it. But what I can ask is...............show us someone who used something close to this method as a country, that is still in great shape. I can show just this century where anti Keynes theories were used to resurrect economies, eventhough some didn't know they were using them; but I will give you great latitude here..............find someone even using close to what Keynes expounds ANYWHERE in the last 200yrs that is still doing well, more than 75 years after they used the method.

 

We can all agree to disagree, but more than likely, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

1. Context, it helps with reading comprehension.

2. I wouldn't ask a rocket scientist to look back and try to establish what worked economically. I'll stick with economists.

3. if your historian makes a case and doesn't accurately account for all the variables, or more likely in this case purposely ignores them than his work is subject to criticism, which it was by a noted economist, not a historian.

A. Since you know so much, Adam Posen is an American economist who is regarded as one of a few experts on the Japanese economy during the time period your author (historian) uses.

B. My position is that Posen is correct in his evisceration of your author (historian)

C. Well, that's because your retired now. I heard that you wasted a lot of Ford's time pushing your politics at Indy. So much so that almost everyone was aware of you and your brothers politics. I guess only the special people can do it, like Sparkies. If any other tradesmen have spare time then they are evil and you must cast doubt on their character.

4. Yes, you do engage in personal attacks. Ask Fired? He's somewhat of an expert on this, but he is generally reluctant to suggest it about anyone but me.

 

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

 

 

Now you did notice that in your 3c. that you subtly questioned my character as if were i post and why makes my argument less valid. personal attack.

5. If you know his name is KEYNES with a NES then how do you get KeyNISian"? I could care less about grammar but it shows that you are not really looking into economics as much as your letting these little articles tell you what to think.

 

Finally, I have given you a number of links that show where Keynesian theory does work, although like much of theory it is not exactly the same. You could read some of their works if you like. "Restoring Japan's Economic Growth" is a good one, by the aforementioned Adam Posen.

 

And I have no idea what ANTI_KEYNES economics are? Could you extrapolate on that? is that like being the anti-Christ? I mean i'm familiar with the different economic theories and schools but what is the ANTI-Keynes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2. I wouldn't ask a rocket scientist to look back and try to establish what worked economically. I'll stick with economists.

5. If you know his name is KEYNES with a NES then how do you get KeyNISian"? I could care less about grammar but it shows that you are not really looking into economics as much as your letting these little articles tell you what to think.

 

Finally, I have given you a number of links that show where Keynesian theory does work, although like much of theory it is not exactly the same. You could read some of their works if you like. "Restoring Japan's Economic Growth" is a good one, by the aforementioned Adam Posen.

 

And I have no idea what ANTI_KEYNES economics are? Could you extrapolate on that? is that like being the anti-Christ? I mean i'm familiar with the different economic theories and schools but what is the ANTI-Keynes?

2. What answer do you get when you look back?

 

I would say the ANTI_KEYNES economics you say you don't know are the only one you ever talk about and say is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having government involvement in your business affairs is like having to drag a sack of manure with another one on your back. Businesses do not leave the country for cheaper labor. They leave to get away from the government. With automation, labor is not a significant factor. However businesses are loathe to say that they are against the government when government still has them by the balls, so they blame high wages. Also, by cutting jobs and lowering wages, they are striking a blow against the hated government by starving them of tax revenue. Much of what government now does is redundant and unnecessary. Government spawns the worst types of crime. We have the banksters, drug prohibition enabling the multi-billion dollar a year drug "cops-and-robbers" show, with spin-off consequences which negatively affect all of society. We have bigger and bigger corporations stifling competition and new technology because of government regulations which make it impossible for new competitors to start up. I could go on and on. Our system is anything but Capitalist. It is a combination of Communism and Fascism; which despite what you were indoctrinated to believe in your government-run schools, are closely related, not polar opposites. Communism is government ownership. Fascism is government control. One is extreme left; the other is far left. We have never seen true Capitalism. True Capitalism does not exist where you have Big Government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. Context, it helps with reading comprehension.

2. I wouldn't ask a rocket scientist to look back and try to establish what worked economically. I'll stick with economists.

3. if your historian makes a case and doesn't accurately account for all the variables, or more likely in this case purposely ignores them than his work is subject to criticism, which it was by a noted economist, not a historian.

A. Since you know so much, Adam Posen is an American economist who is regarded as one of a few experts on the Japanese economy during the time period your author (historian) uses.

B. My position is that Posen is correct in his evisceration of your author (historian)

C. Well, that's because your retired now. I heard that you wasted a lot of Ford's time pushing your politics at Indy. So much so that almost everyone was aware of you and your brothers politics. I guess only the special people can do it, like Sparkies. If any other tradesmen have spare time then they are evil and you must cast doubt on their character.

4. Yes, you do engage in personal attacks. Ask Fired? He's somewhat of an expert on this, but he is generally reluctant to suggest it about anyone but me.

 

 

Now you did notice that in your 3c. that you subtly questioned my character as if were i post and why makes my argument less valid. personal attack.

5. If you know his name is KEYNES with a NES then how do you get KeyNISian"? I could care less about grammar but it shows that you are not really looking into economics as much as your letting these little articles tell you what to think.

 

Finally, I have given you a number of links that show where Keynesian theory does work, although like much of theory it is not exactly the same. You could read some of their works if you like. "Restoring Japan's Economic Growth" is a good one, by the aforementioned Adam Posen.

 

And I have no idea what ANTI_KEYNES economics are? Could you extrapolate on that? is that like being the anti-Christ? I mean i'm familiar with the different economic theories and schools but what is the ANTI-Keynes?

Let us not make this thread about us Langston, but rather about what it is supposed to be.

 

With that being said, I will give you a few tidbits.......

 

1. I did not work in Indy, never worked in Indy, so whomever your source is happens to be wrong. So whatever you think I did there is bogus, as I have never been in Indy, just driven through it.

 

2. Why I spell it Keynisian Koolaiders is simple............ it has more syllables. I could have spelled it correctly, but then it wouldn't sound as good as it does.

 

3. Attacking you is not my main objective at all. In fact, you might be a pretty decent guy as far as I know. I know you have a wealth of information, and that is certainly not bad.

 

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Back to the thread-)

 

A. Variables. Variables? No solution is the exact solution for every problem, economic or not. The difference though is simple--------->as we live todays economy, the ideas we are using has come mostly from your playbook. Where are we after 5yrs? How much more do we owe? When we talk about other periods in time things went South with other ideas employed, we see non of these outcomes.

 

While I know you would never personally attack me; what would you say if I was on here telling everyone that my ideas were the right ideas, the economy looked like this after 5yrs of doing my ideas, and virtually every other time we had to get out of a mess, we used Keynes ideas?

 

Would you say I was crazy? How about an ideologue? Incompetent? Maybe none of those, but you sure would be rolling your eyes all over the place, and not be happy to boot if anyone bought into such illogical logic.

 

B. The case you make is quite compelling; problem is historical data doesn't back you up. I mean even one of your own guys admits it. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/14/were-spending-more-than-ever-and-it-doesnt-work/ And, while I won't post them here for bandwidth reasons, many European countries had much lower unemployment rates than we did under FDR until the war. His policies were not working, period.

 

Let me close by saying that the right way is not necessarily the loving way, nor the compassionate way, and probably not even the cuddly way. But facts are strange things to get around Langston................. if the right thing to do, was the easy thing to do, then most people would do the right thing. More and more we see these policies as fail, and the only way to prove they are the correct policies is success.

 

Not to mention, these policies kinda go against the grain of the constitution, which is a double no-no. I have no problem whatsoever of you espousing such things, but at least put forth the reality that we have to change/alter what our founding fathers said to accomplish your goals.

 

Hey, you may be right.......errr no, correct. We may need the Langston/Obama plan to succeed down the road. I am willing to consider accepting it, once you show me/us that socialism works well for everyone. Good luck, don't work to hard, and hope you have a great day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us not make this thread about us Langston, but rather about what it is supposed to be.

 

With that being said, I will give you a few tidbits.......

 

1. I did not work in Indy, never worked in Indy, so whomever your source is happens to be wrong. So whatever you think I did there is bogus, as I have never been in Indy, just driven through it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks as if langston is caught in another lie......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks as if langston is caught in another lie......

Well my friend Napfirst..............there are people on here who know what facility I have worked in, Mr Cap for one, and I think if I remember correctly, you do too.

 

If you do, please inform Langston that he is barking up the wrong tree. I am really tired of people tying me to ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Personally, I am kinda like you, a free thinker, who doesn't tie themselves to a political party. I never suggested for an instant that democrats are a bunch of dummies with unusable ideas, just the ones in power.

 

You are retired, aren't you Napfirst? I suppose these young progressives who know everything would like us both to go to Florida and just retire. Maybe they are correct. Maybe we should use the meager wealth we have created, and leave the country to these young, no it all, whippersnappers. Of course, if we do this, we have abandonded our children, grandchildren, and the next generation. Somehow, I do not think our forefathers would have supported us doing this.

 

They may yet win the day, but at least those we leave behind will not curse us for doing absolutely nothing, as future freedoms were stripped away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my friend Napfirst..............there are people on here who know what facility I have worked in, Mr Cap for one, and I think if I remember correctly, you do too.

 

If you do, please inform Langston that he is barking up the wrong tree. I am really tired of people tying me to ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Personally, I am kinda like you, a free thinker, who doesn't tie themselves to a political party. I never suggested for an instant that democrats are a bunch of dummies with unusable ideas, just the ones in power.

 

You are retired, aren't you Napfirst? I suppose these young progressives who know everything would like us both to go to Florida and just retire. Maybe they are correct. Maybe we should use the meager wealth we have created, and leave the country to these young, no it all, whippersnappers. Of course, if we do this, we have abandonded our children, grandchildren, and the next generation. Somehow, I do not think our forefathers would have supported us doing this.

 

They may yet win the day, but at least those we leave behind will not curse us for doing absolutely nothing, as future freedoms were stripped away.

Yeah Ima I've been retired over 10 years now....you can't tell langston anything ...he made a big fool of himself when he went on and on about you working in Indy and how you were thought of there......half of what he says is superfuluous BS... and his posting about you proves it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...