DC Tom Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 So crackpot ideas have pulled us this far out of the recession, saved General Motors and helped see stock prices rally?? I dare you to explain how.
Wacka Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Obama is the anti-Midas. Everything he or his people have touch has turned to sh**
OCinBuffalo Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) So crackpot ideas have pulled us this far out of the recession, saved General Motors and helped see stock prices rally?? There is a cracked pot I see, but it ain't our President So, are you saying that the crack pots who espouse the crack pot ideology, DIDN'T, run back to crackpot universities once it became clear that crackpot economics doesn't work in the real world? I know, I know, it's not the ideology that's wrong and fails to get results...it's just that the people who implemented it didn't do it the right way. You know who else says that? Scientologists. Yes, your arguments are now just as good as those who believe that we evolved from clams, as neither of you can provide anything to back up what you demand we spend massive sums of $ to hear. And, if the head crackpot at the most crackepotted university who is essentially the keeper of the crackpot flame...doesn't know how to implement the ideology properly...then...a...WTF? Who is supposed to know better how to implement Keynsian economics better than economics professors form Harvard and Berkley? I will give you a mulligan on the University of Chicago guy, because they are not known as a far-left idiocracy. But the rest? No excuses. Either the ideology sucks, or it simply can't EVER be implemented correctly. At the very least it's FAR PAST TIME to get new methodology. Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Adam Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 So, are you saying that the crack pots who espouse the crack pot ideology, DIDN'T, run back to crackpot universities once it became clear that crackpot economics doesn't work in the real world? I know, I know, it's not the ideology that's wrong and fails to get results...it's just that the people who implemented it didn't do it the right way. You know who else says that? Scientologists. Yes, your arguments are now just as good as those who believe that we evolved from clams, as neither of you can provide anything to back up what you demand we spend massive sums of $ to hear. And, if the head crackpot at the most crackepotted university who is essentially the keeper of the crackpot flame...doesn't know how to implement the ideology properly...then...a...WTF? Who is supposed to know better how to implement Keynsian economics better than economics professors form Harvard and Berkley? I will give you a mulligan on the University of Chicago guy, because they are not known as a far-left idiocracy. But the rest? No excuses. Either the ideology sucks, or it simply can't EVER be implemented correctly. At the very least it's FAR PAST TIME to get new methodology. OC- I didn't get a chance to read Zakaria's article about how to get the economy going, but it was something about giving incentives to the private sector to rebuild our infrastructure, while creating jobs in that sector. I am no economic expert, what do you think?
OCinBuffalo Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) OC- I didn't get a chance to read Zakaria's article about how to get the economy going, but it was something about giving incentives to the private sector to rebuild our infrastructure, while creating jobs in that sector. I am no economic expert, what do you think? The shortest version I can do: 1. John Maynard Keynes is best known for saying "in the long run, we are all dead". Which is another way of saying "who cares about people 50 years from now?" He said that approximately 70 years ago...so uh, how does it feel to be somebody Keynes didn't care about Adam? 2. Keynes said what he said because I don't believe he expected his concepts to be scaled and scoped to the level they have been. I believe he was mostly talking about near term, immediate action that would provide an economic spark, and then going back to reliance on what makes any economy go: private sector growth. The context his work was most famously used for was how to get us out of the Great Depression...not how to run the country for the next 60 years. 3. There are reasonable points that can be made that disprove what I am saying in #2. Keynes remains a bit of an enigma for most intellectually honest people. But taken on the whole, Keynes supported government fiscal policy(spending money) over monetary policy(Federal reserve rates, what we now call QE, or printing extra money, etc.). A little known fact: Keynes argued against tightened government control of wages and prices, but if you ask any supposed Keynesian, they will tell you that wage and price controls(i.e. government regulation = EPA, government picking winners and losers with tax loopholes and other laws) is absolutely in line with his thinking. 4. Where Keynes was absolutely wrong: Government Consumption is a good idea because it stimulates growth. In fact, Government Consumption crowds out private consumption and kills growth. If you make widgets, and you can sell them to the government for $5, and government will buy all of them, then private companies don't get any, so they don't grow, because now the short supply makes the price too high for them to pay. You might be able to charge a private company $7 for 20 of them, and the next one $8...but because the government is buying in bulk, all you get is $5...you don't hire new employees, because, you can't afford to. You take the stability of the government price and selling all over the risk of higher price and maybe not selling all...but your business, and therefore the economy, does not grow. Similar thing with government agencies doing jobs the private sector can do. Sound familiar? The fallacy of government spending replacing/propping up consumer spending is exactly why the Obama Stimulus failed. 5. So, on to your question: IF we are talking about simply issuing contracts to government contractors, and not government employees, to build infrastructure, then we are still using Keynesian thinking...it's just by proxy. The government is still spending money it doesn't have, on projects that may or may not be necessary, and certainly aren't evaluated by return on investment. Rather, they are evaluated by: which congresscritter can get what for their state/district, in return for X. 6. #5 simply moves the problem from one place to another, and doesn't solve a major Keynes talking point: the devaluation of our currency. 7. Now consider the alternative: Indiana's governor put up the maintenance of that state's interstate system and toll collection to the highest bidder. The government gets their take and makes a profit without having to run a deficit-->print money and devalue the currency in order to pay for this plan, the private company creates real jobs that are not paid for by tax dollars, and has to be effective and efficient, or it fails. That is best of all worlds. IF we are talking about #7...in most cases, I am all for it. If we are talking about merely playing a shell game in #4-5, Zakaria can blow it out his ass. Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Booster4324 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I can only imagine what a long version is like. One hopes there is a character limit or he will bust the board thanks to you.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I can only imagine what a long version is like. Knew the usual D-bags would come with the usual D-baggery. Look, I am trying to educate a freshman in college here. WTF do you want? I see little point in leaving out the context... just so I can say "Government spending masquerading as private sector entrepreneurship is phony, and worse, won't work"....and have him have no idea what that means. One hopes there is a character limit or he will bust the board thanks to you. Like you have any idea if what I wrote was accurate or not....I imagine GG does....but it's good to know you are serving the board with your primary skill: counting on your fingers and toes.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I dare you to explain how. Why do I even need too? If they were such crackpot ideas we wouldn't have come out of recession and improved on the situation that the "non-crackpots' got us into. Nice try on the question, though Oh, Keynes is a crackpot? Why didn't it destroy the economy then when it's been practiced? Sounds to me like you are nothing more than a right wing drone
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Why do I even need too? If they were such crackpot ideas we wouldn't have come out of recession and improved on the situation that the "non-crackpots' got us into. Nice try on the question, though You don't "need" to. I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that you expressed a hypothesis you don't understand, and are completely incapable of explaining it. I just thought it would be amusing to watch you try.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 You don't "need" to. I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that you expressed a hypothesis you don't understand, and are completely incapable of explaining it. I just thought it would be amusing to watch you try. So, you actually believe Obama's policies are "crackpot"? Really? Wow
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 So, you actually believe Obama's policies are "crackpot"? Really? Wow I dare you to explain why they're not.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 So, you actually believe Obama's policies are "crackpot"? Really? Wow I think he's asking you to explain why government consumption failed, miserably, to create growth. I'm asking you to define how wage and price controls(remember cap and trade?) , um Obamacare, creates growth. In fact let's make it easier: how does the fact that Medicare exists not make health care cost artificially increase? How does the fact that Medicaid exists not also increase cost for non-Medicaid patients? Go ahead, Mr. Keynes, this should be entertaining.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 I dare you to explain why they're not. That's easy, I already have. If they were crackpot we wouldn't be in a recovery. Why waste more time talking about increased money supply ?
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 That's easy, I already have. If they were crackpot we wouldn't be in a recovery. Why waste more time talking about increased money supply ? And - again - I dare you to explain how.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 I think he's asking you to explain why government consumption failed, miserably, to create growth. I'm asking you to define how wage and price controls(remember cap and trade?) , um Obamacare, creates growth. In fact let's make it easier: how does the fact that Medicare exists not make health care cost artificially increase? How does the fact that Medicaid exists not also increase cost for non-Medicaid patients? Go ahead, Mr. Keynes, this should be entertaining. Of course health care costs increased, the government increased the market by giving all the elderly health care, you really want to take away there coverage to reduce costs? I don't Cap and trade has already proved it's use and effectiveness. Remember acid rain? Where did it go? Cap and trade on silver emissions. Do I really have to explain everything in the world for you? Do you even care that if the government didn't provide health care many people could not get it?
OCinBuffalo Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Of course health care costs increased, the government increased the market by giving all the elderly health care, you really want to take away there coverage to reduce costs? I don't Cap and trade has already proved it's use and effectiveness. Remember acid rain? Where did it go? Cap and trade on silver emissions. Do I really have to explain everything in the world for you? Do you even care that if the government didn't provide health care many people could not get it? Knew you couldn't do it. 1. Medicaid only pays a skilled care provider $18-24 a day, and demands that their resident get the same care as a Medicare or Private Pay resident. The provider's cost per resident is $60-70 a day. So, in order to offset the losses Medicaid creates, the private pay/insurance/Medicare resident has to pay more. 2. If there was no Medicaid, then the market would offer care based on what people could afford to pay. Since when does having Chevy money mean you are entitled to buy a Mercedes? 3. Since there is Medicaid, the market cannot grow and innovate because it is eternally cash starved, so, there's no way to offer poor people Cadillac care for Chevy money, because the government is stifling the entire industry with its useless program. Meanwhile, the people who can afford Mercedes care only get Cadillac at best care, but are required to pay Rolls Royce money...which means they are likely to avoid the market....which means less $ for an already cash starved market. 4. Nothing ever gets better, the price of care continues to rise because supply is either constant or decreasing due to lawyers suing this cash-starved market that cannot help itself get better, while demand and government regulation keeps increasing. But you think...that the government, not providers, provides health care...and you can't wait to support nurse aid unions who want money the providers don't have...and support lawyers suing for money the providers don't have...all because of your stupid Medicaid idea in the first place? Keynes would kick you in the nuts for misrepresenting this stupidity as his work. Edited June 25, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Recommended Posts