Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 81

Thread: Keynesian economics ~~ Soviet Communism

  1. #61
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Just curious, Winston, who do you think was a better president from a strictly economic perpsective: Reagan or Clinton?
    Reagan, he believed in people's own ability to better themselves and he made people believe in themselves. Clinton believed in economic policy.

  2. #62
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Just curious, Winston, who do you think was a better president from a strictly economic perpsective: Reagan or Clinton?
    With respects to Winston and to the fact the question is directed at him, I think the difference between Clinton and Reagan is chalk and cheese, and you can tell who I think is better. I think Bush 1 and Clinton are both better than Reagan, and both are better than Bush 2 or Obama in my opinion.

  3. #63
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    With respects to Winston and to the fact the question is directed at him, I think the difference between Clinton and Reagan is chalk and cheese, and you can tell who I think is better. I think Bush 1 and Clinton are both better than Reagan, and both are better than Bush 2 or Obama in my opinion.
    I always considered Bush 1 one of our best Presidents. Outstanding State Department, did a brilliant job in handling the first Iraq war and put a sound budget plan on the books which helped put us in good financial standing to pay for the military buildup and peace dividend that the Reagan administration achieved.

    Clinton did a tremendous job in welfare reform, open trade and deregulation. He also set up the subsequent housing crisis by changing the mandates at HUD and his failure to take down Bin Ladin after the WTC was attacked on his watch caused another huge fiscal mess when we were attacked, had our economy stopped and then were forced into a 4 plus trillion dollar war with no end in sight.


    The clean air act Bush 1 signed was a complete dissaster. When they added MBT's to gasonline they put water tables all over the country in danger.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-18-2011 at 09:27 AM.

  4. #64
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I always considered Bush 1 one of our best Presidents. Outstanding State Department, did a brilliant job in handling the first Iraq war and put a sound budget plan on the books which helped put us in good financial standing to pay for the military buildup and peace dividend that the Reagan administration achieved.

    Clinton did a tremendous job in welfare reform, open trade and deregulation. He also set up the subsequent housing crisis by changing the mandates at HUD and his failure to take down Bin Ladin after the WTC was attacked on his watch caused another huge fiscal mess when we were attacked, had our economy stopped and then were forced into a 4 plus trillion dollar war with no end in sight.


    The clean air act Bush 1 signed was a complete dissaster. When they added MBT's to gasonline they put water tables all over the country in danger.
    You are talking about the 2nd Iraq War? Or Afghanistan? I assume the latter - you have to remember if you didn't wage the first you would have had a lot more resources to wage the second - it's likely the Afghanistan War would have been over years ago.

    The 2nd Iraq War you weren't "forced into": contrast the handling of Bush 1's Iraq War with that of his son. Bush 1 was a true world leader, whereas his son couldn't lead a p*ss up at a brewery.

  5. #65
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Further grist for the orginal OP from today's Washington Post.:

    The dangers of being wrong on Keynes

    By Ezra Klein, Published: July 18

    If you ask economists what went wrong during the Great Depression, you’ll often hear: “We hadn’t read Keynes yet.” That’s John Maynard Keynes, author of the “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” After the crash, his description of economic crises — and how to get out of them — became so widely accepted that, in the 1960s, President Richard Nixon said, “We’re all Keynesians now.”
    Well, we’re not all Keynesians now. When you hear “Keynesian” today, it’s usually with “Obamacare” and “socialists.” It’s Republican shorthand not only for the economic theory that governed the Obama administration’s response to the crisis, but also for the general Democratic outlook. And it’s not a compliment.
    “The president’s team were fervent believers in the theories of a British economist called John Maynard Keynes,” wrote Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in his election-year manifesto, “Young Guns.” He’s right about that. Lawrence Summers, the former director of the National Economic Council, and Christina Romer, the former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, were two of the most influential Keynesian economists in the country. Obama didn’t just have a team of Keynesians. He had the Keynesian all-star team.
    Perhaps the president’s team should have better explained their theories to Cantor. In his book, Cantor goes on to describe Keynesianism as the theory “that government can be counted on to spend more wisely than the people.” He’s wrong — and wrong in a way that’s making it harder to recover from this crisis, and could make it harder to respond to the next one.
    “I think Keynes mistitled his book,” Summers says. “The correct title would have been ‘A Specific Theory of Collapsing Employment, Interest and Money’. What his book really was about was the proper understanding of the convulsive downturns to which a free-market economy is intermittently prone.”
    The idea, in other words, is not about whether the government spends money better than individuals. After all, a lot of the policies advocated by the Keynesians, like the Making Work Pay tax cut, put money into the hands of individuals so that they can spend it. The idea is that the government has a role to play when, because of a “convulsive downturn,” a crisis begins feeding on itself.
    Keynes — and others who later elaborated on his work, like Hyman Minsky — taught us that although markets are usually self-correcting, they occasionally enter destructive feedback loops in which a shock to, say, the financial system scares business and consumers so badly that they hoard money, which worsens the damage to the system, which further persuades other economic players to hoard, and so on and so forth.
    In that situation, the role of the government is to break the cycle. Because businesses and consumers have stopped spending, the government breaks the cycle by spending. As clean as that theory is, it turned out to be a hard sell.
    The first problem was conceptual. What Keynes told us to do simply feels wrong to people. “The central irony of financial crises is that they’re caused by too much borrowing, too much confidence and too much spending, and they’re solved by more confidence, more borrowing and more spending,” Summers says.
    The second problem was practical. “What I didn’t appreciate was the extent to which we only got one shot on stimulus,” Romer says. “In my mind, we got $800 billion, and surely, if the recession turned out to be worse than we were predicting, we could go back and ask for more. What I failed to anticipate was that in the scenario that we found we needed more, people would be saying that what was happening showed that stimulus, in general, didn’t work.”
    And even if Congress was willing to green-light more money, spending it turned out to be harder than the Keynesians had hoped. “Anybody who is honest and knowledgeable will say it is harder to move money quickly and well in reality than it is in the textbook model. I don’t think the idea that lots more money could have been moved is credible unless there had been a whole set of prior planning,” Summers says.
    Prior planning, it turns out, is important. Keynesianism may be a theory of crises, but it requires planning during non-crisis periods. And looking back, we weren’t prepared to go Keynesian. At all.
    For one thing, if you’re going to spend during downturns, you have to save during expansions. That wasn’t a big part of George W. Bush administration policy, of course.
    Another clear takeaway is that formulas are more reliable than Congress. It would be much better if federal support for programs such as Medicaid and unemployment insurance was explicitly tied to the unemployment rate. Hoping Congress will act responsibly over any extended period of time isn’t, as they say, a plan.
    It would also be good to keep projects in “shovel-ready” condition when times are good so that federal money could be used effectively and quickly when times turn bad. Undeniably, the country’s infrastructure needs are great. If the federal government made a more explicit commitment to invest in infrastructure during downturns, states could be given the certainty and the incentives to keep a long list of projects ready to go.
    But rather than improving on Keynes, the Republican Party has turned against him and the Democratic Party has stopped trying to defend him, much less continue to implement his recommendations.
    “The polarization of fiscal policy is one of the worst legacies to come out of the recession,” Romer says, sighing. “Before the crisis, there was agreement that what you do when you run out of monetary tools is fiscal stimulus. Suddenly, it’s like we’re back in the 1930s.”

  6. #66
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    “The polarization of fiscal policy is one of the worst legacies to come out of the recession,” Romer says, sighing. “Before the crisis, there was agreement that what you do when you run out of monetary tools is fiscal stimulus. Suddenly, it’s like we’re back in the 1930s.”
    the problem is without keynes the gov't has nothing in their tool box

    it's not realistic to just say let the free market do whatever, and consequences be damned. those days are long gone. and they weren't that great anyway.

  7. #67
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    the problem is without keynes the gov't has nothing in their tool box

    it's not realistic to just say let the free market do whatever, and consequences be damned. those days are long gone. and they weren't that great anyway.
    The problem as noted is that both in nature and in economics there are feedback loops (self-reinforcing patterns) both negative and positive that can spiral a system into periods of extreme turbulence/chaos. The psychology of markets is very much driven by such behavioral responses. Unless there is someone at home to regulate the highs and lows, natural markets will be a serious roller-coaster ride, which tends to run counter to the human need/desire for reasonable stability. It's a balancing act.

  8. #68
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    You are talking about the 2nd Iraq War? Or Afghanistan? I assume the latter - you have to remember if you didn't wage the first you would have had a lot more resources to wage the second - it's likely the Afghanistan War would have been over years ago.

    The 2nd Iraq War you weren't "forced into": contrast the handling of Bush 1's Iraq War with that of his son. Bush 1 was a true world leader, whereas his son couldn't lead a p*ss up at a brewery.
    The 2nd Iraq War. I think it's total speculation to think more resources would have any dramatic difference in the outcome in Afghanistan. While we may have been able to kill more terrorists faster, my guess is no matter what we do in Afghanistan in 10 years it will be exactly the same as it was the day before we entered.

  9. #69
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaSteve View Post
    I have to agree with Bit...by the way, do you think your military, homeland security (FBI, NSA, etc) might need to be 'revisited'? It might be time to actually cut some of these areas.
    How about cutting the money we handout to the UN, billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, most of the African Continent, in fact the entire globe. Take care of America first and screw the rest!

  10. #70
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    I'm from Australia - and I apologise if I am overly hurtful to the person a lot of people see as a hero around here. Obviously, as I've stated, I just don't see why Reagan is lionised as he is because the facts as I see it just don't paint him that way. As I see it Reagan is the root cause for your economic ills today, his policies and his economic approach started this entire debt-cycle that you are locked into today. Don't forget he escalated your public debt by a factor of almost 500% (when you count in the fiscal lag experienced by Bush 1) in 12 years what took your country almost 200 years to build. Reagan was awful for your country because your country is built on its well-earned economic might - during his time your country went from the largest creditor in the world to one of the worlds largest debtors - he whittled away centuries of good work of your previous leaders and citizens. The apologists for him claim he did this to "break communism", but if you can make a link between supply-side economics and the breaking of communism I'm a monkey's Uncle. The thing is I just can't understand why he's such a hero to certain people over there when he should be the exact opposite. Reagan had the leadership and economic skills of a poor Hollywood actor, funny that.
    I don't bother anymore Black Death....I'm just a socialist Canadian....

  11. #71
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    not really. there's an idea of common good and its in the interest of the common good to feed the hungry and aid the sick. also today's benefactor might be tomorrow's recipient. it all comes around.
    What is actually interesting is a Republican who does not believe in the common good is going against the theological basis of the fundamental aspects of the party.

    And NO, I am not a Liberal....

  12. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    For the record, this wasn’t the only time that Davis helped accommodate Hitler. In 1940, he hooked up with one of the worst, most seditious communist fronts ever to operate in the United States: the American Peace Mobilization. That group, which in 1940 sought to keep America out of the war and from stopping Hitler because Hitler (at the time) was allied with Stalin, was organized by CPUSA and the Comintern in Chicago, which was where Davis was located.

    The communists who organized the “peace” mobilization sought out dupes from the Religious Left and other various “progressive” factions. They also directly recruited African Americans, claiming that the evil FDR was seeking to send black boys to their death to fight for evil Churchill and the British. This was the kind of vulgar propaganda that CPUSA regularly peddled. One of the African Americans that they targeted was Frank Marshall Davis. This was a powerful factor in bringing Davis into the Party as an eventual full member.

    I must note that it was also through this group that Davis would work with Robert Taylor, who just happened to be the grandfather of Valerie Jarrett.

    FP: That’s remarkable. Valerie Jarrett today is Obama’s right-hand woman in the White House.

    Kengor: Yes, and it’s even more eerie than that. Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, also worked with Vernon Jarrett in these circles. Vernon Jarrett was Valerie’s father-in-law. And it’s worse still. Davis, Obama’s mentor, also worked with Harry and David Canter, two other Chicago communists. The Canters mentored a young man named David Axelrod in Chicago in the 1970s. So, the troika that’s arguably running America today—Obama and Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod—all have common bonds in Chicago’s communist circles from the 1940s. Their mentors knew each other.

    I know this is incredible, but it’s true. You couldn’t make this up. No one would believe it. We’re being governed by ghosts from Chicago’s Communist Party glory years.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-g...80%99s-mentor/

  13. #73
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    07-19-2011, 11:56 PM
    Did you seriously Walking Dead a year old thread?

    Thread Necro, Worst Necro.

    Start a new thread next time.

  14. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Did you seriously Walking Dead a year old thread?

    Thread Necro, Worst Necro.

    Start a new thread next time.
    LMAO

    Get lost.

  15. #75
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Did you seriously Walking Dead a year old thread?

    Thread Necro, Worst Necro.

    Start a new thread next time.
    You should be happy, in doing so FF's dredged up some of your most pined-for lib posters.

    Funny how you keep saying how you'll do and say as you please yet others can't Very B. Hussein-like!

  16. #76
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    You should be happy, in doing so FF's dredged up some of your most pined-for lib posters.

    Funny how you keep saying how you'll do and say as you please yet others can't Very B. Hussein-like!
    Avoiding Thread Necro is common board courtesy. I guess the old moderator in my just couldn't help itself.

    With that said, if this board section had any meaningful moderation, the thread would have been locked, and the poster warned or infracted. Thats how most pro boards operate.

    So I guess my little nanny-state reminded that Thread Necro is bad is no big deal after all.

    In any event, why do you care which posters I liked or miss? Does my enjoyment of others viewpoints mean that much (or anything) to you that it bears additional comment?

  17. #77
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Avoiding Thread Necro is common board courtesy. I guess the old moderator in my just couldn't help itself.

    With that said, if this board section had any meaningful moderation, the thread would have been locked, and the poster warned or infracted. Thats how most pro boards operate.

    So I guess my little nanny-state reminded that Thread Necro is bad is no big deal after all.

    In any event, why do you care which posters I liked or miss? Does my enjoyment of others viewpoints mean that much (or anything) to you that it bears additional comment?
    I know how much you hate thread necro ...but the ones you miss most? Dopey lib infantile reprobates all that deserve to be resigned to the ash heap of human history and spake of nevermore.

  18. #78
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    I know how much you hate thread necro ...but the ones you miss most? Dopey lib infantile reprobates all that deserve to be resigned to the ash heap of human history and spake of nevermore.


    I don't dislike Liberals for being Liberal, even aggressively so.

    Troll, them I hate at times.

    But your average J.I. Liberal, or Socialist, or Communist even....no, I don't hate them, and I often like them outside of their political beliefs. Same as I often like the Religious outside of their religious beliefs. I enjoy that they exist to provide counter arguments here, without them there would be no discussion.

    Political leanings are only one part of the greater whole. And I'm a hippie I guess, I try not to hate anyone just for holding an opposing viewpoint from my own. I get angry not at them, but at me for being unable to convinve them of the wisdoms of my argument.

  19. #79
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post


    I don't dislike Liberals for being Liberal, even aggressively so.

    Troll, them I hate at times.

    But your average J.I. Liberal, or Socialist, or Communist even....no, I don't hate them, and I often like them outside of their political beliefs. Same as I often like the Religious outside of their religious beliefs. I enjoy that they exist to provide counter arguments here, without them there would be no discussion.

    Political leanings are only one part of the greater whole. And I'm a hippie I guess, I try not to hate anyone just for holding an opposing viewpoint from my own. I get angry not at them, but at me for being unable to convinve them of the wisdoms of my argument.
    After 9/11 I don't suffer lib fools gladly, even relatives. Their collective idiocy almost got me killed that day and subsequently has cost me literallly 100s of thousands of dollars through lost wages, diminished home values and suchlike. So my tolerance for them and their depredations is stretched Fourex thin-life would be better if these odious quislings along with their illlegal alien leeches and Occufilth storm troops just blasted off to Uranus and never came back - They need me more than I need them - I don't need their dopey worldview, prejudices, and I can certainly find my own pr0n.

    PS I enjoyed that rant!

    Libs-cant live with em cant live without 'em

  20. #80
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Frequent Flyer View Post
    LMAO

    Get lost.
    Get back to your post, weekend soldier.


    Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us