lots of good points in this thread
Tu Stultus Es
Thanks!
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
It's about power. It's always about power. American politicians think they are god and Keynesian economics gives them the illusion that they can manipulate the economy and force it to conform to the models political scientists produce.. The problem with political science, and what makes it fall flat on its face, is that it deals with human beings instead of inanimate objects.eleven bravo wrote:
lots of good points in this thread
Try hosting a birthday party sometime. Invite 40 of your closest friends, and make a guarantee to the bar that 40 will show up (or you face a penalty). Odds are at least 10 will have other priorities and won't conform to your wishes. You'll end up paying the penalty. Political scientists hate freedom and free will because it fucks up their models. They can't force all their friends to show up so it makes it difficult for them to plan. It would be so much nicer if people were pieces on a chess board that could be moved around by some master will; so much more organized, efficient etc.
In the end this is why every piece of legislation written comes with penalties attached: jail time, fines, etc. They don't want people walking around in a chaotic mass doing whatever they want, they want order, because it's easier to model and plan. Nevermind that the whole exercise is futile in the first place. People are not chess pieces, they'll do whatever they want. If you try to control them, they'll find a way out of it or around it. It's human nature. You'd have more luck trying to push water uphill.
no good points there
Tu Stultus Es
lol Macbeth. Keynesian economics does work. It was applied in Australia during the GFC and lo and behold we escaped a recession.
If you want to stimulate an economy, a tax break to the wealthy means little. They are wealthy cause they have a lot of money, giving them more and they have no incentive to spend it, especially during poor economic times.
Give a tax break or even stimulus package in real dollar amounts to the poorer scale of people, they are likely to spend straight away, they have debts and living expenses that take a lot of their pay each week. More spending money for them gets spent. This stimulates an economy extremely well.
Sure it's wielding a mallet to fine tune a complex economy, but it does work. If a government saves during good times and spends during a recession it's going to be able to avoid recession and stimulate growth. Government building projects during a recession also works because it creates immediate jobs. You can build roads, infrastrastructure that helps the economy in the long term and the employed help it in the immediate.
How can you say that government stimulus doesn't work when it's been proven to?
If you want to stimulate an economy, a tax break to the wealthy means little. They are wealthy cause they have a lot of money, giving them more and they have no incentive to spend it, especially during poor economic times.
Give a tax break or even stimulus package in real dollar amounts to the poorer scale of people, they are likely to spend straight away, they have debts and living expenses that take a lot of their pay each week. More spending money for them gets spent. This stimulates an economy extremely well.
Sure it's wielding a mallet to fine tune a complex economy, but it does work. If a government saves during good times and spends during a recession it's going to be able to avoid recession and stimulate growth. Government building projects during a recession also works because it creates immediate jobs. You can build roads, infrastrastructure that helps the economy in the long term and the employed help it in the immediate.
How can you say that government stimulus doesn't work when it's been proven to?
Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-03-20 15:19:36)
good points AR
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
It never has worked AR. US was in a deeper recession due to having keynesian economic plans during the great depression and now TARP plans. Australia never really got hit because we were lucky to be a large resource boom fueled by China.AussieReaper wrote:
lol Macbeth. Keynesian economics does work. It was applied in Australia during the GFC and lo and behold we escaped a recession.
If you want to stimulate an economy, a tax break to the wealthy means little. They are wealthy cause they have a lot of money, giving them more and they have no incentive to spend it, especially during poor economic times.
Give a tax break or even stimulus package in real dollar amounts to the poorer scale of people, they are likely to spend straight away, they have debts and living expenses that take a lot of their pay each week. More spending money for them gets spent. This stimulates an economy extremely well.
Sure it's wielding a mallet to fine tune a complex economy, but it does work. If a government saves during good times and spends during a recession it's going to be able to avoid recession and stimulate growth. Government building projects during a recession also works because it creates immediate jobs. You can build roads, infrastrastructure that helps the economy in the long term and the employed help it in the immediate.
How can you say that government stimulus doesn't work when it's been proven to?
The best "interventionist" plan a government could do is give everyone "spending vouchers" which is essentially a tax break but the vouchers can only be spent and redeemed for cash by business and cannot be deposited by individuals.
The reason why tax breaks are a lot better is because the money is better spent and doesn't spike prices in certain industries. Most gov intervention just puts money in construction, which just raises the housing and construction costs while the rest of the economy is still in the shitter. Australia's "stimulus package" was unnecessary as the country never really got hit by the GFC in the first place. China's now having problems with its economy growing too fast because the dumbfucks there thought they needed a stimulus package.
Yes I do however agree that a balanced budget is one of the most essential factors to a country's economic well beings. All countries with high debts are in the shitter now, you can't spend money that you can't afford to pay back. It saves a lot more time and money for governments to hand out tax breaks to everyone rather then give "stimulus packages" to certain industries.
Good points
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You've said K-economics doesn't work, then argue spending vouchers do work. How can you argue both? A voucher is exactly like the stimulus of giving low income earners a sudden bank deposit. Vouchers that can't be deposited by individuals is why Keynes argues not to give it to the wealthy who have no need to spend it. So does k-economics work or not mate?Cybargs wrote:
It never has worked AR. US was in a deeper recession due to having keynesian economic plans during the great depression and now TARP plans. Australia never really got hit because we were lucky to be a large resource boom fueled by China.
The best "interventionist" plan a government could do is give everyone "spending vouchers" which is essentially a tax break but the vouchers can only be spent and redeemed for cash by business and cannot be deposited by individuals.
The reason why tax breaks are a lot better is because the money is better spent and doesn't spike prices in certain industries. Most gov intervention just puts money in construction, which just raises the housing and construction costs while the rest of the economy is still in the shitter. Australia's "stimulus package" was unnecessary as the country never really got hit by the GFC in the first place. China's now having problems with its economy growing too fast because the dumbfucks there thought they needed a stimulus package.
Yes I do however agree that a balanced budget is one of the most essential factors to a country's economic well beings. All countries with high debts are in the shitter now, you can't spend money that you can't afford to pay back. It saves a lot more time and money for governments to hand out tax breaks to everyone rather then give "stimulus packages" to certain industries.
The reason the US has suffered so greatly and the stimulus not as effective as possible, was that the US was already deeply in debt. You said it yourself, you can't spend money you can't afford pay back. The US did not have a balanced budget when it entered the GFC. K-economics even highlights the need for this. Save in boom and spend in gloom. So can't see what your point is when it was predicted that the stimulus would be harder to effect a country without a balanced budget.
And how exactly do house prices rise when the government starts construction projects? Would you rather the property values seen in the states and massive foreclosures? Higher housing prices during a recession can be a great sign.
Australia was hit by the GFC, China alone didn't save us. We were in a technical recession for a month or two. Did you notice Swan credited with economic praise from other countries financial institutions?
Giving a check to everyone doesn't do anything to stimulate the economy. Most people use that extra money to pay down bills, not spend it frivilously, so it does zero to boost GDP. Nice theory though, steal from the rich, give to the poor, and everyone benefits. Too bad it's a fairy tale.
Any impact it does have is marginal at best. A few hundred dollars of extra spending per person? Please. That's like 1% of a persons yearly income, at best. It would be nothing more than a blip. Scale, Aussie, it's all about scale. Tossing out stimulus checks does nothing more than buy votes a la Bush and his tax rebates.
Edit - and you're wrong Aussie, China is the ONLY reason you didn't go into recession with the rest of the world. Any stimulus your government injected did fuckall to avert it. Your mining companies did it all by themselves.
Any impact it does have is marginal at best. A few hundred dollars of extra spending per person? Please. That's like 1% of a persons yearly income, at best. It would be nothing more than a blip. Scale, Aussie, it's all about scale. Tossing out stimulus checks does nothing more than buy votes a la Bush and his tax rebates.
Edit - and you're wrong Aussie, China is the ONLY reason you didn't go into recession with the rest of the world. Any stimulus your government injected did fuckall to avert it. Your mining companies did it all by themselves.
Last edited by Jay (2012-03-20 19:11:44)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I never praised keynesian economics, I said the best interventionist plan is for spending vouchers. Personally I think doing nothing and let things come back at a normal pace is better. Higher prices in one sector while everyones income is the same isn't a good thing. Just look at banana prices, you can't argue that the farmers are happy with 15 dollar a kilo bannanas can you?AussieReaper wrote:
You've said K-economics doesn't work, then argue spending vouchers do work. How can you argue both? A voucher is exactly like the stimulus of giving low income earners a sudden bank deposit. Vouchers that can't be deposited by individuals is why Keynes argues not to give it to the wealthy who have no need to spend it. So does k-economics work or not mate?Cybargs wrote:
It never has worked AR. US was in a deeper recession due to having keynesian economic plans during the great depression and now TARP plans. Australia never really got hit because we were lucky to be a large resource boom fueled by China.
The best "interventionist" plan a government could do is give everyone "spending vouchers" which is essentially a tax break but the vouchers can only be spent and redeemed for cash by business and cannot be deposited by individuals.
The reason why tax breaks are a lot better is because the money is better spent and doesn't spike prices in certain industries. Most gov intervention just puts money in construction, which just raises the housing and construction costs while the rest of the economy is still in the shitter. Australia's "stimulus package" was unnecessary as the country never really got hit by the GFC in the first place. China's now having problems with its economy growing too fast because the dumbfucks there thought they needed a stimulus package.
Yes I do however agree that a balanced budget is one of the most essential factors to a country's economic well beings. All countries with high debts are in the shitter now, you can't spend money that you can't afford to pay back. It saves a lot more time and money for governments to hand out tax breaks to everyone rather then give "stimulus packages" to certain industries.
The reason the US has suffered so greatly and the stimulus not as effective as possible, was that the US was already deeply in debt. You said it yourself, you can't spend money you can't afford pay back. The US did not have a balanced budget when it entered the GFC. K-economics even highlights the need for this. Save in boom and spend in gloom. So can't see what your point is when it was predicted that the stimulus would be harder to effect a country without a balanced budget.
And how exactly do house prices rise when the government starts construction projects? Would you rather the property values seen in the states and massive foreclosures? Higher housing prices during a recession can be a great sign.
Australia was hit by the GFC, China alone didn't save us. We were in a technical recession for a month or two. Did you notice Swan credited with economic praise from other countries financial institutions?
Housing prices rise when theres heavy intervention in construction, since it takes away the labour from your usual housing construction to do other things, thus raising the cost of labour. Australia's housing prices are already ridiculously high and were in one of the largest housing bubbles ever, even the IMF and world bank came out and said the house prices are 25% overvalued.
Being in a recession for a month or two does not qualify for being in a recession, it's usually done by quarters. Contractions and expansions happen all the time, its unnecessary to intervene all the goddamn time. Business cycles are a natural part of the economy, the more you intervene the more you're prone to fuck things up.
That's why permanent tax cuts are the best, and temporary measures are just that, temporary, doesn't help the economy in the long part.Jay wrote:
Giving a check to everyone doesn't do anything to stimulate the economy. Most people use that extra money to pay down bills, not spend it frivilously, so it does zero to boost GDP. Nice theory though, steal from the rich, give to the poor, and everyone benefits. Too bad it's a fairy tale.
Any impact it does have is marginal at best. A few hundred dollars of extra spending per person? Please. That's like 1% of a persons yearly income, at best. It would be nothing more than a blip. Scale, Aussie, it's all about scale. Tossing out stimulus checks does nothing more than buy votes a la Bush and his tax rebates.
Edit - and you're wrong Aussie, China is the ONLY reason you didn't go into recession with the rest of the world. Any stimulus your government injected did fuckall to avert it. Your mining companies did it all by themselves.
That being said, Australia does need more infrastructure projects not because "hur dur save economy," but because we seriously are in need of an infrastructure overhaul.
Not to mention the inflation....
KE sucks.
KE sucks.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
who here can explain the fundamentals of keynesian economics?
How about key aspects of keynesian economics implemented in the US?
How about how those policies have been beneficial/detrimental to the US economy using specific examples? Especially how these policies specifically have impacted the US positively or negatively, as opposed to other measures enacted in tandem and/or in addition to the keynesian policies.
All this talk, I'm interested in seeing someone here demonstrate their knowledge of it instead of just talking about how it's bad or good. If no detailed response is given, I'll just assume you're all just regurgitating shit you read/watch.
How about key aspects of keynesian economics implemented in the US?
How about how those policies have been beneficial/detrimental to the US economy using specific examples? Especially how these policies specifically have impacted the US positively or negatively, as opposed to other measures enacted in tandem and/or in addition to the keynesian policies.
All this talk, I'm interested in seeing someone here demonstrate their knowledge of it instead of just talking about how it's bad or good. If no detailed response is given, I'll just assume you're all just regurgitating shit you read/watch.
good post
Tu Stultus Es
1. Keynesian economics is all about intervention. How the government should influence the economy during periods of contractions and expansions through spending, taxes, interest rate influences etc etc.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
who here can explain the fundamentals of keynesian economics?
How about key aspects of keynesian economics implemented in the US?
How about how those policies have been beneficial/detrimental to the US economy using specific examples? Especially how these policies specifically have impacted the US positively or negatively, as opposed to other measures enacted in tandem and/or in addition to the keynesian policies.
All this talk, I'm interested in seeing someone here demonstrate their knowledge of it instead of just talking about how it's bad or good. If no detailed response is given, I'll just assume you're all just regurgitating shit you read/watch.
2. Keynesian policies have been extremely detrimental to the US economy ala Great Depression new deal plans as it extended the period of the great depression.
Note that the US took a huge dive while other countries didn't tank as much as the USA.
The USA only had their golden 50s period only because they had bomb their shit out of their major manufacturing competitors (Germany and Japan).
ok, one person has failed the test so far. Any others?
it came from kenya with obama, nuff said.
http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergr … N1102.htmlKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ok, one person has failed the test so far. Any others?
go take a macro econ course.
Wiki is your friend Ken. But hey, from now on, if you don't write me a concise report anything and everything you ever say in here, I'll just assume you're parroting shit.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
who here can explain the fundamentals of keynesian economics?
How about key aspects of keynesian economics implemented in the US?
How about how those policies have been beneficial/detrimental to the US economy using specific examples? Especially how these policies specifically have impacted the US positively or negatively, as opposed to other measures enacted in tandem and/or in addition to the keynesian policies.
All this talk, I'm interested in seeing someone here demonstrate their knowledge of it instead of just talking about how it's bad or good. If no detailed response is given, I'll just assume you're all just regurgitating shit you read/watch.
I tossed out a point. Is inflation present in the US? Is it not one of principles of KE? Flood the markets with cash? I'm not going to do homework merely because you clapped your hands.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
What you should note its bad inflation, where's its raising prices of goods artificially without the market finding a natural point for prices. price and wages floors/ceilings are also the dumbest shit in the world too. lol @argentina beef price crash.
lol and you accuse me of parroting my professorsCybargs wrote:
http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergr … N1102.htmlKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ok, one person has failed the test so far. Any others?
go take a macro econ course.
i never said that. i just told him to take an econ course. shits pretty much the same concepts everywhere.Macbeth wrote:
lol and you accuse me of parroting my professorsCybargs wrote:
http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergr … N1102.htmlKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ok, one person has failed the test so far. Any others?
go take a macro econ course.
I'm not the one talking about keynesian economics here and how they affect different aspects of the US economy. You guys are. I asked you to explain what keynesian economics is all about. I asked you to back up your reasoning that it is beneficial/detrimental to the US economy, like a few here have claimed.
The response was, "here's my demonstration that I don't know what I'm talking about, plus a chart and a youtube video." "Wiki is your friend." "Take an econ course."
So far I'm not convinced you know anything.
I've taken a total of 2 econ classes in my life. I read Wealth of Nations for the first international relations class I took when I was 19. I had to write a paper on it (A). I read 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' on my own time because I was never really into economics and wanted to become familiar with something other than Das Kapital. Maybe I'll explain my understanding of keynesian economics and how I think it affects modern society after I smoke a doobie and eat some homemade tamales. If I do it will just be so I don't look like an asshole in this thread. I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to have a high level of understanding of economic systems. But I'm also not coming in here acting like I do.
The response was, "here's my demonstration that I don't know what I'm talking about, plus a chart and a youtube video." "Wiki is your friend." "Take an econ course."
So far I'm not convinced you know anything.
I've taken a total of 2 econ classes in my life. I read Wealth of Nations for the first international relations class I took when I was 19. I had to write a paper on it (A). I read 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' on my own time because I was never really into economics and wanted to become familiar with something other than Das Kapital. Maybe I'll explain my understanding of keynesian economics and how I think it affects modern society after I smoke a doobie and eat some homemade tamales. If I do it will just be so I don't look like an asshole in this thread. I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to have a high level of understanding of economic systems. But I'm also not coming in here acting like I do.
And I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You got that response from me, as you decide to make yourself in your words "look like an asshole", by attempting to needle us on shit you just admitted yourself, that you aren't very familiar with.
So then what the point of even writing you a report on it? How would you even know if what Cybargs was telling you was "right"? Why bother?
So then what the point of even writing you a report on it? How would you even know if what Cybargs was telling you was "right"? Why bother?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.