Does Keynesian Money Illusion work? Evidence says yes
RayLopez99
But I want your feedback too, so I repeat this thread in this forum.
Read the below and vote--does Keynesianist Money Illusion work? The
evidence says yes, whether we like it or not (yes I am a gold bug!)
RL
Prior to reading this thread, please see this thread on Say's Law for
context: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7410/127588.aspx#127588
Pay particular attention to my posts. I repeat a salient passage from
that thread here:
"These are fundamental and rather simple distinctions. Keynes believes
"animal spirits" cause endogenous ([sic] exogenous) demand shocks.
Austrians, and Say, argue that endogenous demand shocks are impossible
in a truly free market economy, with the exception of either
government interventions or natural disasters and such. "
The followup to that thread is to discuss the question posed by both
Keynesianism and the Austrian School (which, as I posited in the prior
thread, seem to agree that Aggregate Supply (AS) does not change, but
Aggregate Demand does change): how to get Aggregate Demand (AD) "back
to normal" after such a shock (caused by government, natural
disasters, or, my favorite, "and such")?
We'll leave the Austrian reply for another thread (which I think
involves some hocus-pocus involving how the gold standard and a fixed
money supply magically either prevents demand shocks and/or abolishes
the business cycle and/or magically gets AD back to normal). In this
thread, I would like to discuss the Keynesian solution to getting AD
back to normal, which involves the technique of the "helicopter drop"
or "Money Illusion".
For those of you that have never taken a university course in
economics, which, sadly, seems to be the majority, I will give a brief
primer of the "helicopter drop" technique for increasing society's
Aggregate Demand. Suppose due to government intervention, natural
disasters, or "and such" (panic? Joker's Wild), somehow AD falls. We
are in a recession. People are hoarding money. Nobody wants to spend
money because they are afraid, or think they can buy goods later for
less money, or some other reason. Ben Bernanke gets into a Boeing
CH-47 Chinook (Model 234LR, civilian version), loaded with 12 tonnes
of paper money, and begins dropping dollar bills onto denizens in
major metropolitan regions. How did he get that money? Not by working
for it--it was just created overnight in the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing. It's fiat money not even backed by prior US government
committments but brand new money. He does this 100 times in 100 major
cities. No, make that 1000 times. No, make that a million times. What
happens? People get the money, and some of them spend it. This
stimulates the economy. The hoarding spell is broken. AD begins to
rise again. Soon, it's "business as usual", recession over.
What's wrong with this picture? First, Ben himself would not spread
the cash--it would be some government department, probably the US
military, so they would use a military CH-47. More fundamentally,
people have argued (conservative economists, yes, but Austrians? I'm
curious as to their position) that this is a form of "Money Illusion",
and that people will, after the n-th drop, figure out this money is
being printed overnight and is rapidly becoming worthless. The
criticism is a good one, but there's two rebuttals by Keynes: first,
where is "n-th"? Is it after the first drop? The 99th drop? The
999,999th drop? If it's the first drop, then Money Illusion (MI) does
not work--the helicopter drop will have to effect on AD. If it's the
99th drop, MI does work initially, but over time it's attentuated. If
it's the 999999th drop, then MI works fine--by the time the people
figure out they have been "duped", then the economy will be back to
normal, and perhaps at a cost of some future inflation and voter/
citizen ire, it's "business as usual" and MI has worked (although you
can argue it may not work again in the future, once people cotton onto
this technique--this essentially was the point made by proponents of
the "Rational Expectations" school of the 1980s).
Unlike the Austrians with their theories, the Keynesians actually have
proof that Money Illusion works (again, I'm not 100% sure on what the
Austrians believe with respect to MI or anything else--like the French
philosophers like Jacques Derrida, they are hard to pin down). Two
pieces of evidence: stock splits, and university experiments in
sociology labs involving student volunteers and real money.
With stock splits, it has been observed that a 2-for-1 stock split
will almost always result in the stock price going up the next day--
when logically it should not, on average, change much. This is a form
of money illusion. I have seen this work with people I know. And
intuitively people like it when they have "double the shares they had
yesterday". Not logical, but Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in
Economics for exactly this sort of thinking.
With numerous university experiments, involving student volunteers and
real money (cash prizes) researchers have shown MI exists, see, for
example, "Money Illusion and the Market", Jean-Robert Tyran, Science
24 August 2007 317: 1042-1043 ["Individuals often pay more attention
to price tags than to real value. Evidence shows that this may also
have important effects on markets."]
Conclusion: Keynesianism works, much as we hate to admit it. Money
illusion, a central tenant of Keynesianism, works.
More information on MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_illusion
edi...@netpath.net
even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Mason C
>Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
When oh when will we learn?
Rod Speed
> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
> You proven the thing with a few words.
Nope, just claimed it, a different matter entirely.
> The "money printing" to fight a world war ended the Great
> Depression immediately whereas the inadequate spending by FDR,
Corse there was just a tad of a difference in the scale
of those two Keynesian money printing exercises.
> under anarchist Republican pressure
You wouldnt know what real anarchism was if it bit you on your lard arse.
John Galt
Learned what? :-)
Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
We can debate about what's RIGHT all day, but if what you believe is
RIGHT cannot be politically implemented, you need to find another solution.
JG
Rod Speed
> Mason C wrote
>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight a world war ended the Great Depression
>> immediately whereas the inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure to "balance the budget" was
>> only a worthy amelioration.
>> When oh when will we learn?
> Learned what? :-)
> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
They didnt even with a military threat of Hitlerian proportions.
It took Pearl Harbour to piss them off enough.
And the Japs werent even a military threat to the US either.
Mason C
>Mason C wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>
>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>>
>> When oh when will we learn?
>
>Learned what? :-)
>
>Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
>
If the US public is follows the anarchist Republicans and reduces the
government spending in a time of collapse of private aggregate
demand (those new cars sitting in dealer's lots) then we will see
Great Depression #2 and there may very well arise somewhere a
new "Hitler" -- as came out of Great Depression #1 from which the
anarchists have learned nothing, being generally of low IQ and low
education.
>We can debate about what's RIGHT all day, but if what you believe is
>RIGHT cannot be politically implemented, you need to find another solution.
>
>JG
>
No, I don't. What solution is there to a collapse in aggegate demand caused
by public loss of confidence? You tell me. I don't know.
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
Jim Austin
The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
without."
Prosperity returned when Republicans finally forced balanced budgets
over the protests of Truman, when Truman himself picked a tight money
man to head the Federal Reserve Board, when the New Dealers themselves
became less hostile toward business after such businesses had allowed
America to overwhelm the Axis powers with military hardware, and thus
afforded business with regulatory relief. What followed was the
greatest economic expansion that world had ever seen. That expansion
had leveled off during the late 1960s, early 1970s, as governmental
expansion siphoned off capital needed for further expansion.
The Keynesian economic policies followed by the Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon and Carter administrations finally led to the economic crises of
the 1970s with double digit inflation and high unemployment, something
Keynesians regarded as impossible.
> When oh when will we learn?
This guy has yet to absorb all the lessons of history.
Mason C
>On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>>
>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> >Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>> >even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>
>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
>The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
>prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
>below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
>without."
Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were war-time
shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and believe me,
it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and a great relief when the
huge government debt help end it all
Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
The rest of your history came out of some foolish sources I can guess at but
you're stuck with it and there's little hope of educating you.
John Galt
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:45:35 +0530, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mason C wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>>>
>>> When oh when will we learn?
>> Learned what? :-)
>>
>> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
>>
> If the US public is follows the anarchist Republicans
Stop. You're dodging the question. Answer the question as posed, without
your partisan opinions, as it is not a partisan question. There are
obviously more solutions than just "A" and "B".
Then, we can move along with your hypotheticals.
and reduces the
> government spending in a time of collapse of private aggregate
> demand (those new cars sitting in dealer's lots) then we will see
> Great Depression #2 and there may very well arise somewhere a
> new "Hitler" -- as came out of Great Depression #1 from which the
> anarchists have learned nothing, being generally of low IQ and low
> education.
>
>
>> We can debate about what's RIGHT all day, but if what you believe is
>> RIGHT cannot be politically implemented, you need to find another solution.
>>
>> JG
>>
> No, I don't. What solution is there to a collapse in aggegate demand caused
> by public loss of confidence? You tell me. I don't know.
Treat the disease, not the symptoms. "Confidence" is a symptom of the
disease.
JG
John Galt
> John Galt wrote
>> Mason C wrote
>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>
>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>
>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight a world war ended the Great Depression
>>> immediately whereas the inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure to "balance the budget" was
>>> only a worthy amelioration.
>
>>> When oh when will we learn?
>
>> Learned what? :-)
>
>> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
>
> They didnt even with a military threat of Hitlerian proportions.
>
> It took Pearl Harbour to piss them off enough.
>
> And the Japs werent even a military threat to the US either.
Yea, you're absolutely correct on this one. The US wouldn't have entered
the war without an actual attack on North American soil. Without the
Japanese attack, we likely would have let Hitler alone.
JG
Mason C
>Mason C wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:45:35 +0530, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mason C wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>>>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>>>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>>>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>>>>
>>>> When oh when will we learn?
>>> Learned what? :-)
>>>
>>> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>>> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
>>>
>> If the US public is follows the anarchist Republicans
>
>Stop. You're dodging the question. Answer the question as posed, without
>your partisan opinions, as it is not a partisan question. There are
>obviously more solutions than just "A" and "B".
>
>Then, we can move along with your hypotheticals.
But I don't know any other solution. I'm stuck. Can you suggest something?
>
>and reduces the
>> government spending in a time of collapse of private aggregate
>> demand (those new cars sitting in dealer's lots) then we will see
>> Great Depression #2 and there may very well arise somewhere a
>> new "Hitler" -- as came out of Great Depression #1 from which the
>> anarchists have learned nothing, being generally of low IQ and low
>> education.
>>
>>
>>> We can debate about what's RIGHT all day, but if what you believe is
>>> RIGHT cannot be politically implemented, you need to find another solution.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>> No, I don't. What solution is there to a collapse in aggegate demand caused
>> by public loss of confidence? You tell me. I don't know.
>
>Treat the disease, not the symptoms. "Confidence" is a symptom of the
>disease.
>
>JG
So? How to restore confidence? Do nothing? Balance the budget and
reduce demand even further? I'm stumped. Help me out.
But, yes, I have partisan opinions: I think the Republicans are anarchists who
do not believe in the U.S. government. They believe in *no* government, which
makes them anarchists -- as much so as the bomb-throwers of 1920's. And in
fact, some of them are advocates of bomb-throwing right now.
Mason C
>Rod Speed wrote:
>> John Galt wrote
>>> Mason C wrote
>>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>
>>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>
>>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight a world war ended the Great Depression
>>>> immediately whereas the inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure to "balance the budget" was
>>>> only a worthy amelioration.
>>
>>>> When oh when will we learn?
>>
>>> Learned what? :-)
>>
>>> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>>> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
>>
>> They didnt even with a military threat of Hitlerian proportions.
>>
>> It took Pearl Harbour to piss them off enough.
>>
>> And the Japs werent even a military threat to the US either.
Not a military threat? They didn't bomb the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and
destroy a sizable part or our fleet? In the longer run, of course Japan
had no chance against the U.S. -- but how many men did we lose against
their "no military threat"?
>
>Yea, you're absolutely correct on this one. The US wouldn't have entered
>the war without an actual attack on North American soil. Without the
>Japanese attack, we likely would have let Hitler alone.
Debatable speculation. Maybe. I'd guess that FDR and Churchill would
have found a way to help England survive Hitler and it would have taken our
entering the war in Europe. But historical speculation isn't very fruitful.
John Galt
Agreed, particularly when the question on the table is really what sort
of event would be necessary to to get the public to support such
spending levels *today."
However, as you're likely aware, public sentiment prior to Pearl Harbor
was decidedly not in favor of involvement, and FDR (who saw involvement
as inevitable) employed various back-channel methods of working the
problem with Churchill.
JG
Rod Speed
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> John Galt wrote
>>>> Mason C wrote
>>>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>>>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to
>>>>> fight a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas
>>>>> the inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican
>>>>> pressure to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>>>>> When oh when will we learn?
>>>> Learned what? :-)
>>>> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>>>> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
>>> They didnt even with a military threat of Hitlerian proportions.
>>> It took Pearl Harbour to piss them off enough.
>>> And the Japs werent even a military threat to the US either.
> Not a military threat?
Nope, not to the *US*.
> They didn't bomb the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and destroy a sizable part or our fleet?
Thats not the US, thats just Pearl Harbor.
> In the longer run, of course Japan had no chance against the U.S.
Yes, and even Yamamoto realised that and said that he attacked the
US to produce better terms for an armistice with the US that way.
Didnt actually turn out that way, but he had no choice on
attacking the US, that was imposed on him by the military.
> -- but how many men did we lose against their "no military threat"?
That aint the US, thats just Pearl Harbor.
>> Yea, you're absolutely correct on this one. The US wouldn't have
>> entered the war without an actual attack on North American soil.
>> Without the Japanese attack, we likely would have let Hitler alone.
> Debatable speculation. Maybe.
Nope, thats clearly what happened.
> I'd guess that FDR and Churchill would have found a way to help England survive Hitler
Different matter entirely to the immense amount of money the US
chose to spend once the US got involved in WW2 after Pearl Harbor.
> and it would have taken our entering the war in Europe.
Doesnt mean that the US voters would have bought that without Pearl Harbor.
> But historical speculation isn't very fruitful.
Its unavoidable when you are considering what can get the US
voter to buy that sort of immense debt and national commitment.
John Galt
Confidence has a simple cause, and it can be stated as "I might not be
able to support my family." If you break that down further, you find a
simple root: "I might lose MY job".
If the root of the fear is "I might lose MY job", then address the
problem. Since we have a national addiction to using the tax code to
influence the behavior of business, the fact that we are NOT using the
tax code to avert layoffs is, to me, incomprehensible. (People want
THEIR jobs, not just A job, btw; I highly doubt that people who are
losing their machineworking jobs in Michigan and Indiana are much
comforted by the notion that somebody else will hire them to work on
wind turbines. The refusal to spend is emotional, and the difference
between "MY job" and "A job" could translate extends the reluctance to
spend rather significantly.)
And, no, I am not talking about blunt-instrument cuts in the corporate
tax rate. The corporate tax code is so fucked up that a lowering of
rates could not possibly have the the fine-grained result of encouraging
full(er) employment. God only knows how corporations might react, with
all that complexity.
When a company lays off an employee, they lower their spending by the
burdened cost of that employee. However, they also take a smaller tax
INCREASE, in that the burdened cost is deducted from gross income to
obtain taxable income.
So, AS A START, one might consider messing with that deduction over the
next year or two, such as to make it less financially beneficial for
corporations to lay people off.
Another notion (and as you know, I am not generally in favor of
obstructing the normal behavior of the global economy) is to create
additional financial pain on the part of companies who shed jobs in the
US but increase headcount offshore, again for a a one or two year
period. (There is nothing wrong with employing overseas, by my way of
thinking. However, in this downturn, we have seen actual situations
where, on a one-to-one correlative basis, where entire high-training
departments are being laid off and re-hired in India. If a company can
recoup the burdened expense and opportunity cost of doing that such that
it becomes profitable in the short term, then there's something screwed
up in the tax system that can be addressed.
>
> But, yes, I have partisan opinions: I think the Republicans are anarchists who
> do not believe in the U.S. government. They believe in *no* government, which
> makes them anarchists -- as much so as the bomb-throwers of 1920's. And in
> fact, some of them are advocates of bomb-throwing right now.
Leaving that rather --- uh, colorful and debatable-- view aside from the
moment, if the bomb-throwers are angry over massive deficit spending,
and massive deficit spending encourages more people to become
bomb-throwers, then it stands to reason that at some point as government
spending grows, there will be enough bomb-throwers to flip an election
into an opposite direction.
Ergo, my original statement --- if what you believe is RIGHT cannot be
politically implemented, then you need to find another solution. And the
moment that Peter Orsag admitted that, if the CBO's numbers are right
rather than the White House's, then the US is in deep financial shit,
you've given your "bomb throwers" an opening they can -- and will --
drive a Terex Titan through.
http://songsungkyun.cafe24.com/images/terex%20truck.jpg
JG
>
>
>
>
>
>
forbi...@msn.com
> Mason C wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
> > <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
> >> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
> >> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>
> > You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
> > a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
> > inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
> > to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
> > When oh when will we learn?
>
> Learned what? :-)
>
> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
If the politicians would come together I think they would.
> We can debate about what's RIGHT all day, but if what you believe is
> RIGHT cannot be politically implemented, you need to find another solution.
Why can't it be politically implemented? Could it be that some don't
love America enough to sacrifice their political one-ups-manship long
enough to do what's right for US?
Rod Speed
> Mason C wrote
>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Mason C wrote
>>>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Mason C wrote
>>>>> Learned what? :-)
>>>> No, I don't. What solution is there to a collapse in aggegate
>>>> demand caused by public loss of confidence? You tell me. I don't know.
>>> Treat the disease, not the symptoms. "Confidence" is a symptom of the disease.
>> So? How to restore confidence? Do nothing? Balance the budget and reduce demand even further? I'm stumped. Help
>> me out.
> Confidence has a simple cause, and it can be stated as "I might not be able to support my family."
Its more that there might be a significant drop in the personal standard
of living, most obviously with those who dont have any family to support.
> If you break that down further, you find a simple root: "I might lose MY job".
> If the root of the fear is "I might lose MY job", then address the problem.
Lot easier said than done.
> Since we have a national addiction to using the tax code to
> influence the behavior of business, the fact that we are NOT using the tax code to avert layoffs is, to me,
> incomprehensible.
It shouldnt be. The reason is obvious, no one
can agree on how to use the tax code to do that.
> (People want THEIR jobs, not just A job, btw; I highly doubt that people who are losing their machineworking jobs in
> Michigan and Indiana are much comforted by the notion that somebody else will hire them to work on wind turbines.
Thats obviously better than no prospect of any work at all.
> The refusal to spend is emotional,
And quite rational too, particularly when not spending would normally increase
the time between jobs before losing the house etc if you do lose the current job.
> and the difference between "MY job" and "A job" could translate extends the reluctance to spend rather significantly.)
> And, no, I am not talking about blunt-instrument cuts in the corporate tax rate. The corporate tax code is so fucked
> up that a lowering of rates could not possibly have the the fine-grained result of encouraging full(er) employment.
> God only knows how corporations might react, with all that complexity.
> When a company lays off an employee, they lower their spending by the burdened cost of that employee. However, they
> also take a smaller tax INCREASE, in that the burdened cost is deducted from gross income to obtain taxable income.
> So, AS A START, one might consider messing with that deduction over the next year or two, such as to make it less
> financially beneficial for corporations to lay people off.
Its unlikely that that can ever be done effectively.
> Another notion (and as you know, I am not generally in favor of
> obstructing the normal behavior of the global economy) is to create
> additional financial pain on the part of companies who shed jobs in
> the US but increase headcount offshore, again for a a one or two year
> period. (There is nothing wrong with employing overseas, by my way of thinking. However, in this downturn, we have
> seen actual situations
> where, on a one-to-one correlative basis, where entire high-training
> departments are being laid off and re-hired in India. If a company can
> recoup the burdened expense and opportunity cost of doing that such
> that it becomes profitable in the short term, then there's something
> screwed up in the tax system that can be addressed.
Not easily addressed, because they can just buy the goods or services
from an operation outside the country instead of employing foreigners directly.
Rod Speed
>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>>> When oh when will we learn?
>> Learned what? :-)
>> Do you seriously believe that without a military threat of Hitlerian
>> proportions, the US public will go along with spending at those levels?
> If the politicians would come together
Thats never going to happen. In spades with an issue as controversial as that.
> I think they would.
>> We can debate about what's RIGHT all day, but if what you believe is
>> RIGHT cannot be politically implemented, you need to find another solution.
> Why can't it be politically implemented?
Because you will never get the politicians coming together on such a controversial issue.
> Could it be that some don't love America enough to sacrifice their
> political one-ups-manship long enough to do what's right for US?
Or they dont agree on what is right for US.
John Galt
Of course politicians, at their core, love America enough to put aside
all their nonsense. That's precisely what happened at Pearl Harbor. It
created the necessary consensus that a single solution was required, and
it was.
There is, however, no such consensus possible in economic matters. Too
many moving parts. The policy reactions to Pearl Harbor were not
economic, although they had massive economic effect.
JG
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Learned what? :-)
And the LAST thing the economy needs it to have financial disincentives for
laying people off because that would discourage the employment of people.
Econotron
news:scanu4p4j2mruka0q...@4ax.com...
range of very fortunate circumstances after the war. Without them, the
temporary relief of the stimulus, would have ended in even deeper slump.
>
> When oh when will we learn?
>
e.
Jim Austin
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:51 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>
> >> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >> >Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
> >> >even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>
> >> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
> >> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
> >> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
> >> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
> >The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
> >prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
> >below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
> >without."
>
> Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were war-time
> shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
Shortages are very much incompatible with prosperity.
> I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and believe me,
> it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and a great relief when the
> huge government debt help end it all
It only ended unemployment when massive numbers of people got sent off
to war or war production.
> Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
> The rest of your history came out of some foolish sources I can guess at but
> you're stuck with it and there's little hope of educating you.
Which means he is unable to refute history.
> >Prosperity returned when Republicans finally forced balanced budgets
> >over the protests of Truman, when Truman himself picked a tight money
> >man to head the Federal Reserve Board, when the New Dealers themselves
> >became less hostile toward business after such businesses had allowed
> >America to overwhelm the Axis powers with military hardware, and thus
> >afforded business with regulatory relief. What followed was the
> >greatest economic expansion that world had ever seen. That expansion
> >had leveled off during the late 1960s, early 1970s, as governmental
> >expansion siphoned off capital needed for further expansion.
>
> >The Keynesian economic policies followed by the Kennedy, Johnson,
> >Nixon and Carter administrations finally led to the economic crises of
> >the 1970s with double digit inflation and high unemployment, something
> >Keynesians regarded as impossible.
>
> >> When oh when will we learn?
>
> >This guy has yet to absorb all the lessons of history.
And this guy wishes deliberately to disregard history.
Poetic Justice
> On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>>
>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
> The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
> prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
> below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
> without."
>
I was just thinking the other day, that the ECO-WARRIORS are planning on
us living worse than we did during the *RATIONING* of WWII.
It's funny they say we were out of the Depression before the war and yet
during the war it was still depression, even if you could afford items
they weren't available like tires and gas.
remember?
*BUY BONDS*
We sold supplies and armaments to England and Russia before the war
1939-1942, and we got GOLD in exchange, that was what ended the depression.
solon fox
How well does money illusion work when there is a constant barrage of
doomsday speak from the administration, the treasury and talking
heads? Hey, we know talking down the economy works -- especially when
the economy is down. It only follows that talking the economy up would
work as well.
So, let's say that Bernanke is flying around in this helicopter
dropping cash on unsuspecting cities... but, here is the problem
consumers are still looking at their 401K and other equity losses,
whatever cash comes there way is comes nowhere near covering their
capital losses. As a result, they do everything possible to save. They
cut back on expenses, hold down spending and futilely hoard cash in
the hopes of recovering what they think they lost.
The average investor never stops to think that those losses are as
unrealized as the imaginary gains that preceded them.
The other problem is that consumers aren't the recipients of the money
illusion. Right now, those imaginary dollars are locked up in
government bureaucracy and in banks (also covering their losses).
Now, one might well think that this means we need more money illusion,
but the tea party protests seem to indicate that at least some of the
public hasn't been fooled.
The trouble with Keynes and Austrian is that these are chaotic systems
that resist predictive modeling.
-solon fox
RayLopez99
> Mason C wrote
Rod Speed: please go to this thread here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7511/128339.aspx#128339
And apply the full coin of your fertile mind to it. Report back here
or there.
Shows Big Government did not hurt growth in 17 industrial countries.
RL
Stray Dog
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, RayLopez99 wrote:
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics, talk.politics.misc,
> misc.invest.stocks, sci.econ
> Subject: Re: Does Keynesian Money Illusion work? Evidence says yes
>
> On Apr 19, 7:38 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mason C wrote
>
> Rod Speed: please go to this thread here:
> http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7511/128339.aspx#128339
Ray, why are you wasting your time trying to enlighten Rod Speed?
> And apply the full coin of your fertile mind to it.
He doesn't have one. I've been looking for it for 6-7 months now. It ain't
there.
Report back here
> or there.
You'll get a whole raft of his favorite sentences such as "Nope" and
"Wrong" and "More fool you" etc. Rod Speed just "thinks" knowledge into
existence, and "thinks" everyone else has empty brains.
> Shows Big Government did not hurt growth in 17 industrial countries.
FWIW, FYI:
I also recall that back in late 1950s-1960s, growth in the Soviet Union
(more like 100% of everything was govt) was like 8-10% per year. Last
year, Business Week reported that growth in Cuba was 7.5% last year, and
they are also 100% big govt, too.
> RL
>
Rod Speed
> Mason C <maso...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
>>> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
>> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
> It was not the "money printing" that ended the GD in WWII, but the
> whole range of very fortunate circumstances after the war. Without
> them, the temporary relief of the stimulus, would have ended in even
> deeper slump.
It was more that the cold war continued the stimulus
and it didnt take long before Korea etc too.
And the Marshall Plan was important as well.
>> When oh when will we learn?
> You, probably never.
Indeed.
Rod Speed
> Jim Austin wrote
>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing even arguably worked outside of a world war to
>>>> be a jobs program!
>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to
>>> fight a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
>>> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
>>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>> The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living
>> standards plummeted below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do without."
> I was just thinking the other day, that the ECO-WARRIORS are planning
> on us living worse than we did during the *RATIONING* of WWII.
Doesnt matter a damn what they plan on, it aint gunna happen like that.
> It's funny they say we were out of the Depression before the war and yet during the war it was still depression, even
> if you could afford items they weren't available like tires and gas.
> remember?
> *BUY BONDS*
> We sold supplies and armaments to England and Russia before the war 1939-1942, and we got GOLD in exchange,
Wrong on that last.
> that was what ended the depression.
Fraid not. The unemployment rate didnt drop significantly until after Pearl Harbor.
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
Rod Speed
Sure, and I have never believed that it does.
In fact its more about what the voters decide they want govt to do,
most obviously with decent modern universal health care funding
in the 60s you refer to there, and in earlier times, most obviously
with education done by govt, both at the school and university levels.
Corse we decided that we wanted the govt to do the
military and police etc much earlier than that again.
And at least the most basic safetynet for the time past working as well even earlier than the 60s.
Rod Speed
And since the US spends twice the percentage of its GDP on health care
that other modern first world countrys do, and gets about the same result
length of life etc wise, you can make a case that 'big govt' getting involved
in that area should help growth, not hinder it. Corse that would have a short
term effect on unemployment with most of those currently involved in the mindless
paper shuffling exercise that the US currently has instead being out of a job.
Rod Speed
Bugger, I'll end up blind if I dont watch out.
The other obvious example of big govt in spades is WW2 where big govt completely
dominated the economy and that clearly didnt do growth any harm at all.
Stray Dog
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:51:11 +1000
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics, talk.politics.misc,
> misc.invest.stocks, sci.econ
> Subject: Re: Does Keynesian Money Illusion work? Evidence says yes
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> RayLopez99 wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Mason C wrote
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed: please go to this thread here:
>>>> http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7511/128339.aspx#128339
>>>
>>>> And apply the full coin of your fertile mind to it. Report back
>>>> here or there.
>>>
>>>> Shows Big Government did not hurt growth in 17 industrial countries.
>>>
>>> Sure, and I have never believed that it does.
>>>
>>> In fact its more about what the voters decide they want govt to do,
What a joke. Voters never have any control over what the representatives
do. Only what persons get to be the representatives. And, the
representatives kiss the ass of private industry, not the other way
around.
>>> most obviously with decent modern universal health care funding
>>> in the 60s you refer to there, and in earlier times, most obviously
>>> with education done by govt, both at the school and university
>>> levels.
The subject is how much big govt helps the economy, not that education is
"done" by the govt. The major fraction of all education all over
the planet is "done" by the govts.
>>> Corse we
Who is we?
decided that we wanted the govt to do the
>>> military and police etc much earlier than that again.
We did not. The govts decide this all by themselves. Show me one
"election" where the people were given the chance to vote "increase the
military" or "decrease the military".
>>> And at least the most basic safetynet for the time past working as
>>> well even earlier than the 60s.
All started by govt officials, not people.
>> And since the US spends twice the percentage of its GDP on health care
>> that other modern first world countrys do, and gets about the same result length of life etc wise, you can make a case
>> that 'big govt' getting involved in that area should help growth,
Makes no sense. "Big govt" already is involved in HCFA, and the insurance
companies and the medical industries are fertilizing their own growth by
charging twice as much (still double diget increases in costs) for the
same as other modern countries. If we got UHS, the medical industry would
fall back to half its size, thus half its original fraction of total
economy.
not hinder it. Corse that would have
>> a short term effect on unemployment with most of those currently
>> involved in the mindless paper shuffling exercise that the US
>> currently has instead being out of a job.
And, all in the offices of insurance companies and provider offices, not
govt.
> Bugger, I'll end up blind if I dont watch out.
You're already there.
> The other obvious example of big govt in spades is WW2 where big govt completely
> dominated the economy
Big govt never "dominated" the economy. It just expanded the budget for
military operations and after the war shrunk back down. You look at DoD
budgets going back to WW2 and as a percent of the GDP, has been going down
over all those decades.
> and that clearly didnt do growth any harm at all.
Funny it never occurs to you that fractional reserve banking expands money
supply, "printing" stock shares/corporate bonds/and corporate loans also
expands assets, and all those "nice" guys in Drexel-Burnham, BCCI, AIG,
Archer-Daniels, Columbia/HCA, Ucars, plus many others managed to
"aggregate assets" over all thise decades without or in spite of govt
efforts.
Stray Dog
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:33:59 +1000
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics, talk.politics.misc,
> misc.invest.stocks, sci.econ
> Subject: Re: # Hey Ray Lopez.....Re: Does Keynesian Money Illusion work?
> Evidence says yes
>
Rod Speed has been having these delusions and fantasies for some time now
that he is "God's gift to mankind" as some kind of ultimate source of
knowledge, infallible source of wisdom, perfect judge of everyone and
everything, and that it represents his noble perogative to call people
names or make other pejorative remarks about them.
Mostly what Rod Speed does is use anyone and everyone around him as
"target practice" rather than anything purposeful or meaningful.
Best response to Rod Speed? Use him for target practice! Or, if you have
any DDT around, spray it on him. He's really a cockroach runing around
trying to pass himself off as a human being.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> RayLopez99 wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Mason C wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed: please go to this thread here:
>>>>> http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7511/128339.aspx#128339
>>>>> And apply the full coin of your fertile mind to it. Report back here or there.
>>>>> Shows Big Government did not hurt growth in 17 industrial countries.
>>>> Sure, and I have never believed that it does.
>>>> In fact its more about what the voters decide they want govt to do,
> What a joke.
We'll see...
> Voters never have any control over what the representatives do.
Wrong. They get to give them the bums rush at the ballot box
when they have fucked up badly enough. Even you should have
noticed that that just happened recently with the Congress.
> Only what persons get to be the representatives.
And what can no longer be representatives too.
> And, the representatives kiss the ass of private industry, not the other way around.
Irrelevant to the repugs getting the bums rush at the ballot box just recently.
>>>> most obviously with decent modern universal health care funding
>>>> in the 60s you refer to there, and in earlier times, most obviously
>>>> with education done by govt, both at the school and university levels.
> The subject is how much big govt helps the economy,
Nope, its actually about whether 'big govt' hurts growth.
> not that education is "done" by the govt.
Govt getting involved in education is clearly an example
of 'big govt' and the worst of the rabid fools claim that
the govt should be involved in education at all at any level.
> The major fraction of all education all over the planet is "done" by the govts.
Yes, and that is a large part of what modern 'big govt' is about now.
>>>> Corse we
> Who is we?
Everywhere in this particular case. The previous
approach was mercenarys and private armys.
>>>> decided that we wanted the govt to do the
>>>> military and police etc much earlier than that again.
> We did not. The govts decide this all by themselves.
There was no govt when americans decided to get rid of the english.
> Show me one "election" where the people were given the chance to vote "increase the military" or "decrease the
> military".
You dont need to do it by election. When the japs were
stupid enough to do over pearl harbor, 'the people's reaction
was so overwhelming that no politician would have even
been stupid enough to just yawn and do nothing about it.
>>>> And at least the most basic safetynet for the time past working as well even earlier than the 60s.
> All started by govt officials, not people.
Wrong, as always. Govt officials just do what the congress decides will be done.
No govt official decides unilaterally to have social security.
>>> And since the US spends twice the percentage of its GDP on health care that other modern first world countrys do,
>>> and gets about the same result length of life etc wise, you can make a case that 'big govt' getting involved in that
>>> area should help growth, not hinder it.
> Makes no sense.
We'll see...
> "Big govt" already is involved in HCFA,
A decent UNIVERSAL health care funding system would
obviously be even bigger govt than the current arrangements.
> and the insurance companies and the medical industries are fertilizing their own growth by charging twice as much
> (still double diget increases in costs) for the same as other modern countries.
All those mindless paper shufflers have to be paid for somehow.
> If we got UHS, the medical industry would fall back to half its size,
The only real change would be the elimination of most of the paper shufflers.
> thus half its original fraction of total economy.
>>> Corse that would have a short term effect on unemployment with most of those currently involved in the mindless
>>> paper shuffling exercise that the US currently has instead being out of a job.
> And, all in the offices of insurance companies and provider offices, not govt.
Yeah, thats what I meant.
>> The other obvious example of big govt in spades is WW2 where big govt completely dominated the economy
> Big govt never "dominated" the economy.
Corse it did when it completely controlled the absolute vast bulk of the
manufacturing and most of the transport and much of the agriculture etc etc etc.
> It just expanded the budget for military operations and after the war shrunk back down.
It involved a hell of a lot more than JUST the budget,
most obviously with wartime manufacturing.
> You look at DoD budgets going back to WW2 and as a percent of the GDP, has been going down over all those decades.
It would be a fucking sight more surprising if it didnt after WW2 had ended.
>> and that clearly didnt do growth any harm at all.
> Funny it never occurs to you that fractional reserve banking expands money supply,
You're lying now, I have said that repeatedly.
> "printing" stock shares/corporate bonds/and corporate loans also expands assets,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had fucking clue about even the most basic stuff.
> and all those "nice" guys in Drexel-Burnham, BCCI, AIG, Archer-Daniels, Columbia/HCA, Ucars, plus many others managed
> to "aggregate assets" over all thise decades without or in spite of govt efforts.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to what is actually being discussed,
WHETHER BIG GOVT NECESSARILY HURTS GROWTH.
Jeffrey Turner
> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
> even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
Only if you're oblivious. Argentina ignored the IMF and spent their way
out of a recession in short order around 2002. And there are plenty of
other examples.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
forbi...@msn.com
At this point we have the ability to look back at the past and see
that
the massive economic side-effect of fighting the war was what was
needed
to get us completely out of the depression. All can see this was the
case.
The war isn't needed because that's just a drain on production.
What's
needed is the spending in a way that puts people back to work, not tax
cuts, not welfare, actual works programs on the scale of WWII.
Why do Republicans consider spending on military OK but other spending
"Socialism?" I'm pretty sure it's just rhetoric used for political
gain when
love for country is needed. Government is the spender of last resort.
We should have filling our coffers during the good times but
Republican
are spendthrifts when they're in power and push fiscal restrait during
Democratic administrations. It's love of power rather than of
country.
Government spending itself doesn't work--it's how the money is spent.
That's why tax cuts don't work and Republicans increase military
spending
at the same time the cut taxes. Military spending helps some but it
isn't
the most efficient use of tax dollars to spur the economy.
Republicans
know these things but they don't care about the nation's people enough
to do the right thing.
forbi...@msn.com
> On Apr 19, 8:42 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:51 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>
> > >> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> > >> >Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
> > >> >even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>
> > >> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
> > >> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
> > >> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
> > >> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
> > >The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
> > >prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
> > >below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
> > >without."
>
> > Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were war-time
> > shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
>
> Shortages are very much incompatible with prosperity.
By which you mean WWII didn't end the Great Depression?
Maybe you mean there weren't shortages during WWII.
I can't tell.
> > I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and believe me,
> > it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and a great relief when the
> > huge government debt help end it all
>
> It only ended unemployment when massive numbers of people got sent off
> to war or war production.
Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work ended
the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of war was
what
made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
targetted
peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication of
productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as delaying
the
application of sufficient resources to the effort delayed the
recovery.
> > Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
>
> Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel the
war
not because of the production itself. You've already accepted that
sending
people off to war and war production is what ended the Great
Depression.
If these same people were put to work producing things that improved
everone's
standard of living then we could have gotten out of the Great
Depression and
had the benifit of an improved standard of living.
Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression would have been
best for those "everbody else".
Jeffrey Turner
You mean all of Hoover's sunny talk about "prosperity is just around the
corner" ended the Great Deepression? Damn! I've been misled.
RayLopez99
> > Shows Big Government did not hurt growth in 17 industrial countries.
>
> FWIW, FYI:
>
> I also recall that back in late 1950s-1960s, growth in the Soviet Union
> (more like 100% of everything was govt) was like 8-10% per year. Last
> year, Business Week reported that growth in Cuba was 7.5% last year, and
> they are also 100% big govt, too.
Well, either the stats are wrong or they are coming off a low base
(Cuba looked pretty primitive, last I visited it).
Check this out:
mises.org for RayLopez:
User Account Banned
You are no longer allowed to access the forums. If you believe this is
in error, please check with the administrator or a moderator.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7410.aspx?PageIndex=4
The Austrian kooks could not take criticism of Say's Law!
RL
Jeffrey Turner
Yes, military Keynesianism after the war was important to America's
continued prosperity. And the tax rate on the very rich was very
high.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> So, AS A START, one might consider messing with that deduction over the
> next year or two, such as to make it less financially beneficial for
> corporations to lay people off.
Or we could nationalize the corporations and use the money that would
have been profits to pay wages.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Leaving that rather --- uh, colorful and debatable-- view aside from the
> moment, if the bomb-throwers are angry over massive deficit spending,
> and massive deficit spending encourages more people to become
> bomb-throwers, then it stands to reason that at some point as government
> spending grows, there will be enough bomb-throwers to flip an election
> into an opposite direction.
Nobody throws bombs over the deficit, or hardly any of the country would
have been left by 1992.
Jim Austin
> On Apr 20, 8:41 am, Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 8:42 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:51 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>
> > > >> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> > > >> >Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
> > > >> >even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>
> > > >> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
> > > >> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
> > > >> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
> > > >> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
> > > >The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
> > > >prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
> > > >below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
> > > >without."
>
> > > Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were war-time
> > > shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
>
> > Shortages are very much incompatible with prosperity.
>
> By which you mean WWII didn't end the Great Depression?
> Maybe you mean there weren't shortages during WWII.
> I can't tell.
World War II ended unemployment. That's all.
> > > I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and believe me,
> > > it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and a great relief when the
> > > huge government debt help end it all
>
> > It only ended unemployment when massive numbers of people got sent off
> > to war or war production.
>
> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work ended
> the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of war was
> what
> made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
> targetted
> peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication of
> productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as delaying
> the application of sufficient resources to the effort delayed the
> recovery.
World War II did not bring prosperity.
> > > Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
>
> > Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>
> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel the
> war not because of the production itself. You've already accepted that
> sending people off to war and war production is what ended the Great
> Depression.
No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
> If these same people were put to work producing things that improved
> everone's standard of living then we could have gotten out of the Great
> Depression and had the benifit of an improved standard of living.
New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving
living standards.
> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression would have been
> best for those "everbody else".
Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal policies that prolonged
the depression.
Rod Speed
> Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote
>>> Shows Big Government did not hurt growth in 17 industrial countries.
>> FWIW, FYI:
>> I also recall that back in late 1950s-1960s, growth in the Soviet
>> Union (more like 100% of everything was govt) was like 8-10%
>> per year. Last year, Business Week reported that growth in
>> Cuba was 7.5% last year, and they are also 100% big govt, too.
> Well, either the stats are wrong or they are coming off a low base
> (Cuba looked pretty primitive, last I visited it).
And you dont need to visit to see that. Look at the cars alone for starters.
Then what most live in.
> Check this out:
> mises.org for RayLopez:
> User Account Banned
> You are no longer allowed to access the forums. If you believe this is
> in error, please check with the administrator or a moderator.
> http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7410.aspx?PageIndex=4
> The Austrian kooks could not take criticism of Say's Law!
Thats why I dont bother with those sort of operations.
Rod Speed
It did a lot more than just that.
>>>> I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and
>>>> believe me, it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and
>>>> a great relief when the huge government debt help end it all
>>
>>> It only ended unemployment when massive numbers of people got sent
>>> off to war or war production.
>>
>> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work ended
>> the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of war was
>> what
>> made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
>> targetted
>> peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication of
>> productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as delaying
>> the application of sufficient resources to the effort delayed the
>> recovery.
> World War II did not bring prosperity.
Corse it did, most obviously to those who were unemployed
previously and who got to work in the industrys that WW2 created.
>>>> Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been
>>>> unemployed.
>>
>>> Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>>
>> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel
>> the war not because of the production itself. You've already
>> accepted that sending people off to war and war production is what
>> ended the Great Depression.
> No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
It did a lot more than just that.
>> If these same people were put to work producing things that improved
>> everone's standard of living then we could have gotten out of the
>> Great Depression and had the benifit of an improved standard of living.
> New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving living standards.
Thats just plain wrong. It improved the living standards of
those who previously did not have work very dramatically.
>> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression
>> would have been best for those "everbody else".
> Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal policies that prolonged the depression.
You havent shown that any of them did that.
Jim Austin
Yes. It resulted in much deaths and destruction.
> >>>> I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and
> >>>> believe me, it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and
> >>>> a great relief when the huge government debt help end it all
>
> >>> It only ended unemployment when massive numbers of people got sent
> >>> off to war or war production.
>
> >> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work ended
> >> the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of war was
> >> what
> >> made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
> >> targetted
> >> peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication of
> >> productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as delaying
> >> the application of sufficient resources to the effort delayed the
> >> recovery.
> > World War II did not bring prosperity.
>
> Corse it did, most obviously to those who were unemployed
> previously and who got to work in the industrys that WW2 created.
It did end unemployment, but production of consumer goods by necessity
plummeted and people learned to do without as massive resources went
into producing non-economic goods. Production of M1 Garands, Sherman
Tanks, P-51 Mustangs, B-17 Flying Fortresses, etc. did not increase
the number of consumer goods available on the civilian market, did not
increase prosperity.
> >>>> Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been
> >>>> unemployed.
>
> >>> Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>
> >> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel
> >> the war not because of the production itself. You've already
> >> accepted that sending people off to war and war production is what
> >> ended the Great Depression.
> > No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
>
> It did a lot more than just that.
Yes, death and destruction.
> >> If these same people were put to work producing things that improved
> >> everone's standard of living then we could have gotten out of the
> >> Great Depression and had the benifit of an improved standard of living.
> > New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving living standards.
>
> Thats just plain wrong. It improved the living standards of
> those who previously did not have work very dramatically.
But again, it reduced the living standards of everyone else.
> >> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression
> >> would have been best for those "everbody else".
> > Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal policies that prolonged the depression.
>
> You havent shown that any of them did that.
What? That not restricting production would have allowed the U.S. to
emerge from the depression quicker than restriction production?
Rod Speed
>>>> Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>>>>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>>>>>> Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>>>>>>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money
>>>>>>>>> printing even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a
>>>>>>>>> jobs program!
>>>>>>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to
>>>>>>>> fight a world war ended the Great Depression immediately
>>>>>>>> whereas the inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist
>>>>>>>> Republican pressure
>>>>>>>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>>>>>>> The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
>>>>>>> prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards
>>>>>>> plummeted below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it
>>>>>>> up, make it do, do without."
>>>>>> Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were
>>>>>> war-time shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
>>>>> Shortages are very much incompatible with prosperity.
>>>> By which you mean WWII didn't end the Great Depression?
>>>> Maybe you mean there weren't shortages during WWII.
>>>> I can't tell.
>>> World War II ended unemployment. That's all.
>> It did a lot more than just that.
> Yes. It resulted in much deaths and destruction.
So your "that's all" is just plain wrong.
And it did a lot more than just end unemployment too, economically.
>>>>>> I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and
>>>>>> believe me, it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and
>>>>>> a great relief when the huge government debt help end it all
>>>>> It only ended unemployment when massive numbers
>>>>> of people got sent off to war or war production.
>>>> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work
>>>> ended the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of
>>>> war was what
>>>> made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
>>>> targetted
>>>> peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication
>>>> of productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as
>>>> delaying the application of sufficient resources to the effort
>>>> delayed the recovery.
>>> World War II did not bring prosperity.
>> Corse it did, most obviously to those who were unemployed
>> previously and who got to work in the industrys that WW2 created.
> It did end unemployment, but production of consumer goods by necessity
> plummeted and people learned to do without as massive resources went
> into producing non-economic goods. Production of M1 Garands, Sherman
> Tanks, P-51 Mustangs, B-17 Flying Fortresses, etc. did not increase
> the number of consumer goods available on the civilian market, did not
> increase prosperity.
Prosperity is about a hell of a lot more than JUST consumer goods.
Its also about the savings that can be made when working in
the factorys that produce all those war goods, that can be used
to buy stuff like houses etc once the war has ended etc etc etc.
>>>>>> Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
>>>>> Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>>>> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel
>>>> the war not because of the production itself. You've already
>>>> accepted that sending people off to war and war production is what
>>>> ended the Great Depression.
>>> No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
>> It did a lot more than just that.
> Yes, death and destruction.
Lot more than that too.
>>>> If these same people were put to work producing things that
>>>> improved everone's standard of living then we could have gotten
>>>> out of the Great Depression and had the benifit of an improved
>>>> standard of living.
>>> New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving living standards.
>> Thats just plain wrong. It improved the living standards of
>> those who previously did not have work very dramatically.
> But again, it reduced the living standards of everyone else.
Like hell it did, most obviously when the war had ended.
>>>> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression
>>>> would have been best for those "everbody else".
>>> Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal
>>> policies that prolonged the depression.
>> You havent shown that any of them did that.
> What?
The last few words, 'prolonged the depression'
> That not restricting production would have allowed the U.S. to
> emerge from the depression quicker than restriction production?
You havent established that it did restrict production.
And production is useless when there isnt enough money to buy that production anyway.
lorad
> I authored the thread here:http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7511/127628.aspx#127628
>
> But I want your feedback too, so I repeat this thread in this forum.
>
In the short term it does work.
In the long term it devalues the monetary basis - which also leads to
economic collapse.
Rod Speed
> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote
How odd that we actually saw much more economic collapse in the century before 1929.
Mason C
The time from 1945 to 1970 is often called the "Golden Era" for good reason.
It was in fact a time of prosperity and growth. The massive spending for
war broke the Great Depression once and for good.
>
>> > > Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
>>
>> > Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>>
>> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel the
>> war not because of the production itself. You've already accepted that
>> sending people off to war and war production is what ended the Great
>> Depression.
>
>No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
>
>> If these same people were put to work producing things that improved
>> everone's standard of living then we could have gotten out of the Great
>> Depression and had the benifit of an improved standard of living.
>
>New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving
>living standards.
"restricted production"? What in the world are you typing?
>
>> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression would have been
>> best for those "everbody else".
>
>Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal policies that prolonged
>the depression.
Which policies did that? The *contraction* of the New Deal in 1937 under
pressure from the anarchists did indeed prolong the depression. FDR did
the wrong thing then -- much to his discredit.
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>
>>
>> So, AS A START, one might consider messing with that deduction over the
>> next year or two, such as to make it less financially beneficial for
>> corporations to lay people off.
>
> Or we could nationalize the corporations and use the money that would
> have been profits to pay wages.
Sounds great, until the money runs out.
JG
John Galt
What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which consensus
does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit spending to
120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't get consensus to
drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman has written more than a
few articles pointing out that if you're not going to spend ENOUGH, you
won't get the required results.
So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP)
what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted. Better to spend
nothing and take another tack.
The rest of your post is partisan nonsense. We have had a rather drastic
lack of prudent fiscal governance in this country since WW2. We have
created, as you point out, an economic dependence on massive military
spending, creating an employment reliance on military manufacturing,
distorted the housing market to the point where it's damn near killing
us, built a social health care system whose fiscal imbalances cannot
possibly be managed in less than a decade out, fought two wars (Vietnam
and Iraq) without raising the money to pay for them, and the current
POTUS will easily eclipse all prior presidents in deficit spending
combined by the time he's done burning the place down.
I find your partisan myopia to be more than a bit disturbing,
considering the fact that you seem to be a bright guy.
JG
Rod Speed
> forbi...@msn.com wrote
>> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> forbi...@msn.com wrote>>>>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
>>>>> Learned what? :-)
Yes.
> and something for which consensus does not exist.
Consensus is irrelevant.
> WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit spending to 120% of GDP.
Almost no one actualy considered the deficit at all.
> Without that sort of impetus, you won't get consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels.
That isnt what drove the US involvement in WW2.
> Krugman has written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're not going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the
> required results.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP)
You dont know that.
> what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted.
Or that either.
> Better to spend nothing and take another tack.
Not it it doesnt avoid another great depression or worse.
> The rest of your post is partisan nonsense. We have had a rather
> drastic lack of prudent fiscal governance in this country since WW2.
We have however seen a very decent result anyway.
> We have created, as you point out, an economic dependence on massive military spending,
That hasnt been established either.
> creating an employment reliance on military manufacturing,
And that in spades.
> distorted the housing market to the point where it's damn near killing us,
And that in spades, particularly when plenty of other first world
countrys have seen the same housing market result and havent
had the same massive military spending, most obviously with Japan.
> built a social health care system whose fiscal imbalances cannot possibly be managed in less than a decade out,
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Particularly when every other modern first world country spends HALF
the GDP that the US does on that, and they all get a better result too.
> fought two wars (Vietnam and Iraq) without raising the money to pay for them,
And the US economy survived Vietnam fine.
> and the current POTUS will easily eclipse all prior presidents in deficit spending combined
Thats a lie. Its nothing like the expenditure that WW2 involved.
> by the time he's done burning the place down.
The same stupid claim was made about FDR.
> I find your partisan myopia to be more than a bit disturbing,
Your problem.
> considering the fact that you seem to be a bright guy.
>> Why do Republicans consider spending on military OK but other spending "Socialism?"
Mason C
>What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which consensus
>does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit spending to
>120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't get consensus to
>drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman has written more than a
>few articles pointing out that if you're not going to spend ENOUGH, you
>won't get the required results.
>
>So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP)
>what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted. Better to spend
>nothing and take another tack.
WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU think the
problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
The Egyptians built pyramids to keep the men busy and out of war.
What should WE build? If anything. War machines? Railroad lines?
Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
lorad
Build an alternate energy national network..
It will cost around 3 trillion.. will put millions to work.. will
reduce exporting money to supply necessary energy.. will clean up the
environment.. will produce manufactured goods for export, will reduce
funding for foreign enemies.. will help lift the country out of the
current economic malaise.
Will also put a lot of neocon crook oil price manipulators out of
work... 'win-win' as they say.
Rod Speed
> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which
>>> consensus does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit
>>> spending to 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't
>>> get consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman
>>> has written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're
>>> not going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the required results.
>>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120%
>>> of GDP) what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted.
>>> Better to spend nothing and take another tack.
>> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU
>> think the problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
>> The Egyptians built pyramids to keep the men busy and out of war.
No they didnt. They did both.
>> What should WE build? If anything. War machines? Railroad lines?
>> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
> Build an alternate energy national network..
Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
> It will cost around 3 trillion.. will put millions to work..
> will reduce exporting money to supply necessary energy..
> will clean up the environment..
Nukes would be much better on that. No pollution from stupid wind farms.
> will produce manufactured goods for export,
Nope, those would still be made in china. Nukes wouldnt be tho.
> will reduce funding for foreign enemies..
Not a chance.
> will help lift the country out of the current economic malaise.
Nope. Consumer confidence will return much quicker.
> Will also put a lot of neocon crook oil price manipulators out of work...
Not a chance.
> 'win-win' as they say.
Most of yours is pure fantasy.
John Galt
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:43:28 +0530, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which consensus
>> does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit spending to
>> 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't get consensus to
>> drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman has written more than a
>> few articles pointing out that if you're not going to spend ENOUGH, you
>> won't get the required results.
>>
>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP)
>> what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted. Better to spend
>> nothing and take another tack.
>
> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>
> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU think the
> problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
balance sheets are fixed.
So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
JG
zzbu...@netscape.net
> lorad wrote
>
> > Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
> >> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which
> >>> consensus does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit
> >>> spending to 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't
> >>> get consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman
> >>> has written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're
> >>> not going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the required results.
> >>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120%
> >>> of GDP) what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted.
> >>> Better to spend nothing and take another tack.
> >> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
> >> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU
> >> think the problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
> >> The Egyptians built pyramids to keep the men busy and out of war.
>
> No they didnt. They did both.
>
> >> What should WE build? If anything. War machines? Railroad lines?
> >> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
> > Build an alternate energy national network..
>
> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
>
> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
Well, the morons with their persitent natural gas problems is mostly
why the people with actual non-zero economic brains
invented light sticks, gas turbine engines, drones, cruise missiles,
phalanx,
microwave ovens, mircowave cooling, self-replicating machines, and
AUVs.
So it has nothng really to do with houses, ships. trucks, or
trains.
It's only concerns uneducable greedy idiots.
forbi...@msn.com
> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
> balance sheets are fixed.
>
> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
to public production and the management centered in demand
driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
Egalitarian.
John Galt
> On Apr 23, 4:44 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
>> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
>> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
>> balance sheets are fixed.
>>
>> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
>
> I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
I hate them. Far more than you, I expect, since I rather detest
government intervention more than you tend to, I suspect.
But, they're obviously efficient.
> We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
> should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
> This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
> to public production and the management centered in demand
> driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
>
> Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
> Egalitarian.
And too expensive to get passed outside of a fully-performing private
sector. What did Krugman estimate? 3.6T in stimulus would be what's
required?
And what are we politically stuck on? 800B, plus quarterly pocket change
to the auto makers?
Let's get practical. You can feed your inner utopian when times are
better, and there is money to do so.
JG
Jeffrey Turner
> lorad wrote
>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>>> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which
>>>> consensus does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit
>>>> spending to 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't
>>>> get consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman
>>>> has written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're
>>>> not going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the required results.
>
>>>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120%
>>>> of GDP) what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted.
>>>> Better to spend nothing and take another tack.
>
>>> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>
>>> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU
>>> think the problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
>
>>> The Egyptians built pyramids to keep the men busy and out of war.
>
> No they didnt. They did both.
>
>>> What should WE build? If anything. War machines? Railroad lines?
>
>>> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
>
>> Build an alternate energy national network..
>
> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
No it wouldn't. Much too expensive. Much too dirty to mine the fuel
and dispose of the waste. Too much water needed to cool them.
> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
It's not dense enough.
RayLopez99
wrote:
>
> I was just thinking the other day, that the ECO-WARRIORS are planning on
> us living worse than we did during the *RATIONING* of WWII.
>
> It's funny they say we were out of the Depression before the war and yet
> during the war it was still depression, even if you could afford items
> they weren't available like tires and gas.
>
> remember?
> *BUY BONDS*
>
> We sold supplies and armaments to England and Russia before the war
> 1939-1942, and we got GOLD in exchange, that was what ended the depression.
The funny thing about gold during the Great Depression: those
countries like the US that went off the gold standard did better than
those that stayed on. And the US actually got more gold AFTER it went
off the gold standard than before.
So we can conclude various things:
1) Keynesians say: this proves the gold standard does not work (read
Barry Eichengreen's book "Gold Fetters" on this theme). This is the
canonical "received wisdom" today that's in every textbook.
2) More neutral / agnostic observers have said: US got more gold
because of political factors, not economic. Even though France was
still on the gold standard, a lot of gold fled France and UK and other
gold backed countries because the US was seen as "war-proof", that is,
the US would likely not be invaded in any war. France less so. UK
might also be affected by a war. So the US was a "safe haven", that's
why the US got gold.
3) Austrians *might* say (I suspect--they are kind of kooky so there's
no telling): reason gold standard did not work in the "golden era" was
because it was a fiat-based gold standard, meaning two things: (1)
PAPER was backed by gold BY LAW. But, LAWS CAN CHANGE. Hence people
holding this paper "knew" that it really wasn't gold, especially after
the US went off the gold standard. This sounds plausible to me. (2)
gold backed fiat paper was not freely convertible between countries.
That is, if you ran exports/imports you could not convert your fiat US
dollars into gold, unless your amount was huge (I forget the exact
amount). That is, converting paper money into gold was reserved
essentially for huge players like banks, central banks, or huge
multinational corporations--not the average guy. So the average guy
had no way of diversifying outside their home currency. In many
countries, even to convert paper into gold you had to fork over a huge
amount of paper. I find this a secondary factor that's somewhat
convincing.
All in all, I feel a gold standard could work, but, using only gold
and not fiat money you run afoul of 'sticky prices' as well as lack of
'money illusion', which are the central tenets of Keynesianism, and
which have been shown in at least laboratory experiments to work.
In conclusion: a gold standard is at best no worse than fiat money,
and at worse much worse than fiat money. So essentially the Keynesians
have it right. That said, the practice of BIG GOVERNMENT (constant
deficits, every year) is a path to perdition. Again, government is
long term neutral (it's just like taking workers out of the economy,
as if they never existed, but not really hurting the economy in terms
of rate of growth (note carefully--rate of growth, not the level of
GNP--since every model out there says what's important is rate of
growth such as per capita growth, not the absolute level of GNP--says
the Solow model), but, long term government deficits are not neutral
but harmful if they rise fast, as in the USA now (long term debt to go
from 40% of GNP to 90% of GNP due to the Bush/Obama stimulus/
bailouts).
And that's the last world. Even Rod Speed would agree with the above.
RL
John Galt
Not sure what that means. They use it in India to run city buses, which
in India tend to be packed with people (including a dozen or so on the
roof, oftentimes).
JG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> lorad wrote
>>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>>>> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which
>>>>> consensus does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit
>>>>> spending to 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't
>>>>> get consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman
>>>>> has written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're
>>>>> not going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the required results.
>>>>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP) what spending we *will* tolerate will be
>>>>> largely wasted. Better to spend nothing and take another tack.
>>>> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>>>> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU
>>>> think the problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
>>>> The Egyptians built pyramids to keep the men busy and out of war.
>> No they didnt. They did both.
>>>> What should WE build? If anything. War machines? Railroad lines?
>>>> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
>>> Build an alternate energy national network..
>> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
> No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
> Much too expensive.
Much cheaper than his alternative.
> Much too dirty to mine the fuel
You clearly dont have a clue about that.
> and dispose of the waste.
Dont have to do anything with the waste, just leave it at the power station.
> Too much water needed to cool them.
They dont have to be water cooled and even you should
have noticed that there is plenty of water in the oceans.
>> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
> It's not dense enough.
How odd that LPG and LNG are used in cars right now.
Rod Speed
It means that he doesnt have a clue.
> They use it in India to run city buses, which in India tend to be packed with people (including a dozen or so on the
> roof, oftentimes).
And plenty of cars too. My town's entire taxi fleet runs on it. Works fine.
Rod Speed
> Poetic Justice <@Poetic-Justice.talk-n-dog.com> wrote
>> I was just thinking the other day, that the ECO-WARRIORS are planning
>> on us living worse than we did during the *RATIONING* of WWII.
>> It's funny they say we were out of the Depression before the
>> war and yet during the war it was still depression, even if you
>> could afford items they weren't available like tires and gas.
>> remember?
>> *BUY BONDS*
>> We sold supplies and armaments to England and Russia before the war 1939-
>> 1942, and we got GOLD in exchange, that was what ended the depression.
> The funny thing about gold during the Great Depression:
> those countries like the US that went off the gold
> standard did better than those that stayed on.
Thats a coincidence tho, the US was always going to win once it got involved completely.
> And the US actually got more gold AFTER it went off the gold standard than before.
Just because of the war tho, not because it went off the gold standard.
> So we can conclude various things:
Nope, you havent established causation.
> 1) Keynesians say: this proves the gold standard does not work
> (read Barry Eichengreen's book "Gold Fetters" on this theme).
> This is the canonical "received wisdom" today that's in every textbook.
Doesnt mean that WW2 proves that tho.
> 2) More neutral / agnostic observers have said: US got more gold
> because of political factors, not economic. Even though France was
> still on the gold standard, a lot of gold fled France and UK and other
> gold backed countries because the US was seen as "war-proof",
> that is, the US would likely not be invaded in any war. France less
> so. UK might also be affected by a war. So the US was a "safe
> haven", that's why the US got gold.
So there is no real evidence on the gold standard question,
things are much too complicated by the effects of the war.
> 3) Austrians *might* say (I suspect--they are kind of kooky so there's
> no telling): reason gold standard did not work in the "golden era" was
> because it was a fiat-based gold standard, meaning two things: (1)
> PAPER was backed by gold BY LAW. But, LAWS CAN CHANGE.
> Hence people holding this paper "knew" that it really wasn't gold,
> especially after the US went off the gold standard. This sounds
> plausible to me.
Doesnt to me.
> (2) gold backed fiat paper was not freely convertible between countries.
> That is, if you ran exports/imports you could not convert your fiat US
> dollars into gold, unless your amount was huge (I forget the exact
> amount). That is, converting paper money into gold was reserved
> essentially for huge players like banks, central banks, or huge
> multinational corporations--not the average guy. So the average
> guy had no way of diversifying outside their home currency.
That last is just plain wrong.
> In many countries, even to convert paper into gold you had to fork over a huge
> amount of paper. I find this a secondary factor that's somewhat convincing.
Pity its just plain wrong.
> All in all, I feel a gold standard could work,
What matters is that fiat money works better.
Which might just be why every country that matters a damn has changed to it.
> but, using only gold and not fiat money you run afoul of 'sticky prices' as well
> as lack of 'money illusion', which are the central tenets of Keynesianism, and
> which have been shown in at least laboratory experiments to work.
Laboratory experiments are completely irrelevant to a country's economy.
> In conclusion: a gold standard is at best no worse than fiat money,
Thats just plain wrong, its clearly worse. Which is why
every country that matters a damn has abandonged it now.
> and at worse much worse than fiat money. So essentially
> the Keynesians have it right. That said, the practice of BIG
> GOVERNMENT (constant deficits, every year) is a path to perdition.
Thats just one type of big govt. Its perfectly possible to have
big govt without constant deficits and some countrys have that.
> Again, government is long term neutral (it's just like taking workers
> out of the economy, as if they never existed, but not really hurting
> the economy in terms of rate of growth (note carefully--rate of
> growth, not the level of GNP--since every model out there says
> what's important is rate of growth such as per capita growth,
> not the absolute level of GNP--says the Solow model),
What matters is that SOME approaches to big govt produces
reduced growth, most obviously with govt car manufacturing.
Compare the GDR with west germany on that sometime.
> but, long term government deficits are not neutral but harmful if
> they rise fast, as in the USA now (long term debt to go from 40%
> of GNP to 90% of GNP due to the Bush/Obama stimulus/bailouts).
Have fun explaining how come the govt deficits
that were even bigger due to WW2 worked fine.
> And that's the last world.
Nope.
> Even Rod Speed would agree with the above.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Rod Speed
> Mason C wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:43:28 +0530, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which
>>> consensus does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit
>>> spending to 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't
>>> get consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman
>>> has written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're
>>> not going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the required results.
>>>
>>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of
>>> GDP) what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted.
>>> Better to spend nothing and take another tack.
>>
>> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>>
>> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU think the
>> problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
>
> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically,
> isn't going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their
> personal balance sheets are fixed.
The problem isnt their personal balance sheets, its consumer confidence.
While ever their jobs are at risk they wont spend like they used to.
> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
Wont help, because it isnt the problem.
Jeffrey Turner
That's salt water. Very corrosive. Especially when hot. And
desalinization would add significantly to the number of plants that
would need to be built.
>>> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
>
>> It's not dense enough.
>
> How odd that LPG and LNG are used in cars right now.
Well, there's hardly any infrastructure for fueling them, and I've got
my doubts about how far you could go on a tank. But aside from the
cost and impracticality, it's a great idea.
forbi...@msn.com
> And too expensive to get passed outside of a fully-performing private
> sector. What did Krugman estimate? 3.6T in stimulus would be what's
> required?
>
> And what are we politically stuck on? 800B, plus quarterly pocket change
> to the auto makers?
Obama is a pragmatist with his head on the prize. If you listen
closely
he called the stimulus bill a good downpayment. Had he thought it
all that would be needed he would have called it a good buy. He knows
what is politically achievable given circumstances and how to change
them.
Rod Speed
>>> No it wouldn't.
>> Yes it would.
>>> Much too expensive.
Works fine for cooling nukes.
> And desalinization would add significantly to the number of plants that would need to be built.
Completely trivial to desalinate using the nuke.
>>>> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
>>> It's not dense enough.
>> How odd that LPG and LNG are used in cars right now.
> Well, there's hardly any infrastructure for fueling them,
Wrong, as always. There is in fact plenty enough.
> and I've got my doubts about how far you could go on a tank.
More fool you. It isnt a problem.
> But aside from the cost and impracticality,
How odd that the entire taxi fleet in my town uses that approach.
They do that for a reason.
> it's a great idea.
It is indeed. Save on the immense cost of imported oil too.
Les Cargill
> On Apr 22, 10:56 am, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:43:28 +0530, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which consensus
>>> does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit spending to
>>> 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't get consensus to
>>> drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman has written more than a
>>> few articles pointing out that if you're not going to spend ENOUGH, you
>>> won't get the required results.
>>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP)
>>> what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted. Better to spend
>>> nothing and take another tack.
>> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>>
>> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU think the
>> problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
>>
>> The Egyptians built pyramids to keep the men busy and out of war.
>>
>> What should WE build? If anything. War machines? Railroad lines?
>>
>> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
>
> Build an alternate energy national network..
> It will cost around 3 trillion.. will put millions to work..
So $3M/#millions per worker? Wouldn't a dollar-serial-number
lottery be better then? Randomly select #million serial
numbers, and give the money away.
After all, it's not that the cost of building
the thing is the problem.
It's the cost after it's built that keeps on giving.
> will
> reduce exporting money to supply necessary energy.. will clean up the
> environment.. will produce manufactured goods for export, will reduce
> funding for foreign enemies.. will help lift the country out of the
> current economic malaise.
>
> Will also put a lot of neocon crook oil price manipulators out of
> work... 'win-win' as they say.
>
>
>
We all employ those "neocon crook oil price maipulators", unless
we choose to live in a hunter-gatherer fashion.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Mason C wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:43:28 +0530, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What's needed is a matter of opinion, and something for which
>>> consensus does not exist. WW2 created a consensus to drive deficit
>>> spending to 120% of GDP. Without that sort of impetus, you won't get
>>> consensus to drive spending to the necessary levels. Krugman has
>>> written more than a few articles pointing out that if you're not
>>> going to spend ENOUGH, you won't get the required results.
>>>
>>> So, if the public won't tolerate spending at WW2 levels (120% of GDP)
>>> what spending we *will* tolerate will be largely wasted. Better to
>>> spend nothing and take another tack.
>>
>> WHAT "other tack" C'mon, help us out. What do you propose?
>>
>> We're stuck with low aggregate demand or whatever YOU think the
>> problem is. Whatever it is, what are the alternatives?
>
> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
> balance sheets are fixed.
>
> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
>
> JG
>
Pretty much.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Apr 23, 4:44 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
>> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
>> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
>> balance sheets are fixed.
>>
>> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
>
> I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
As opposed to oblique, indirect handouts that confuse all
price signaling? We keep fixing the fixes caused by Fed
intervention. It's not a *bad* system, but it behaves
exactly as Hayek predicted it would.
It tries to do a very noble thing, but it'd be kinder to
simply inject the money directly.
When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
get in the way of those who are doing real things.
> We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
> should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
I think exactly the same thing, but I recognize just
how contradictory this impulse is. Keynsianism is
just *impossible* to do. That we manage it at all
takes the very best we have.
It's equivalent to attempting to consciously control
your digestion.
> This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
> to public production and the management centered in demand
> driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
>
I do not ever believe you'll be able to implement that. Even
if it's theoretically possible, the #1 question on the AP
Econ exam is about the invariance of scarcity.
> Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
> Egalitarian.
I'm sure that would create lots of employment. For grave-diggers.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
The better he is, the narrower the ledge upon which he walks. I
hope *somebody* is showing him lots and lots of
detail about LBJ, because.... well, LBJ is the last guy
who really tried to Fix Things. It is very difficult
for me to believe that Barrack Obama is inherently a
more talented pol than Johnson was. But it is possible.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Switzerland also stands as a data point here, so...
> 3) Austrians *might* say (I suspect--they are kind of kooky so there's
> no telling): reason gold standard did not work in the "golden era" was
> because it was a fiat-based gold standard, meaning two things: (1)
> PAPER was backed by gold BY LAW. But, LAWS CAN CHANGE. Hence people
> holding this paper "knew" that it really wasn't gold, especially after
> the US went off the gold standard. This sounds plausible to me.
It sounds convoluted to me.
> (2)
> gold backed fiat paper was not freely convertible between countries.
Bingo. And I think ( but I can't fully recall ) that this is
pretty much always the way of it ( to keep fiat currencies
stable ) and hence the Keynesian "gold does not work" thing...
You either have *one currency* for all humanity or you have
varying fiat currencies to provide slip between stocks. If it's
all one stock, then....
> That is, if you ran exports/imports you could not convert your fiat US
> dollars into gold, unless your amount was huge (I forget the exact
> amount). That is, converting paper money into gold was reserved
> essentially for huge players like banks, central banks, or huge
> multinational corporations--not the average guy. So the average guy
> had no way of diversifying outside their home currency. In many
> countries, even to convert paper into gold you had to fork over a huge
> amount of paper. I find this a secondary factor that's somewhat
> convincing.
>
> All in all, I feel a gold standard could work, but, using only gold
> and not fiat money you run afoul of 'sticky prices' as well as lack of
> 'money illusion', which are the central tenets of Keynesianism, and
> which have been shown in at least laboratory experiments to work.
>
Aye.
> In conclusion: a gold standard is at best no worse than fiat money,
> and at worse much worse than fiat money. So essentially the Keynesians
> have it right. That said, the practice of BIG GOVERNMENT (constant
> deficits, every year) is a path to perdition. Again, government is
> long term neutral (it's just like taking workers out of the economy,
> as if they never existed, but not really hurting the economy in terms
> of rate of growth (note carefully--rate of growth, not the level of
> GNP--since every model out there says what's important is rate of
> growth such as per capita growth, not the absolute level of GNP--says
> the Solow model), but, long term government deficits are not neutral
> but harmful if they rise fast, as in the USA now (long term debt to go
> from 40% of GNP to 90% of GNP due to the Bush/Obama stimulus/
> bailouts).
>
> And that's the last world. Even Rod Speed would agree with the above.
>
> RL
Well done, sir.
--
Les Cargill
Poetic Justice
> forbi...@msn.com wrote:
>> Obama is a pragmatist with his head on the prize. If you listen
>> closely
>> he called the stimulus bill a good downpayment.
*WELCOME TO OBAMA LAND*
Mason C
> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
Build an alternate energy national network..
It will cost around 3 trillion.. will put millions to work.. will
reduce exporting money to supply necessary energy.. will clean up the
environment.. will produce manufactured goods for export, will reduce
funding for foreign enemies.. will help lift the country out of the
current economic malaise.
Will also put a lot of neocon crook oil price manipulators out of
work... 'win-win' as they say.
=======
>> Build an alternate energy national network..
>
> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
No it wouldn't. Much too expensive. Much too dirty to mine the fuel
and dispose of the waste. Too much water needed to cool them.
========
>>>> Build an alternate energy national network..
>
>>> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
>
>
> You clearly dont have a clue about that.
>> and dispose of the waste.
>
> Dont have to do anything with the waste, just leave it at the power station.
>
>> Too much water needed to cool them.
>
> They dont have to be water cooled and even you should
> have noticed that there is plenty of water in the oceans.
That's salt water. Very corrosive. Especially when hot. And
desalinization would add significantly to the number of plants that
would need to be built.
>>> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
>
>> It's not dense enough.
>
> How odd that LPG and LNG are used in cars right now.
Well, there's hardly any infrastructure for fueling them, and I've got
my doubts about how far you could go on a tank. But aside from the
cost and impracticality, it's a great idea.
===========
> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
> balance sheets are fixed.
>
> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
to public production and the management centered in demand
driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
Egalitarian.
==========
And too expensive to get passed outside of a fully-performing private
sector. What did Krugman estimate? 3.6T in stimulus would be what's
required?
And what are we politically stuck on? 800B, plus quarterly pocket change
to the auto makers?
Let's get practical. You can feed your inner utopian when times are
better, and there is money to do so.
===========
> And too expensive to get passed outside of a fully-performing private
> sector. What did Krugman estimate? 3.6T in stimulus would be what's
> required?
>
> And what are we politically stuck on? 800B, plus quarterly pocket change
> to the auto makers?
Obama is a pragmatist with his head on the prize. If you listen
closely
forbi...@msn.com
> forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 4:44 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
> >> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
> >> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
> >> balance sheets are fixed.
>
> >> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
>
> > I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
>
> As opposed to oblique, indirect handouts that confuse all
> price signaling? We keep fixing the fixes caused by Fed
> intervention. It's not a *bad* system, but it behaves
> exactly as Hayek predicted it would.
I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
change ratically quite quickly to something else. The
notion of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things
will settle about a given outcome until sufficient change
is applied then that outcome will be nearly out of the
question.
Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
upon one of its short edges again.
> It tries to do a very noble thing, but it'd be kinder to
> simply inject the money directly.
It is better to engineer the outcome then apply appropriate
force. If the outcome isn't stable then don't bother.
> When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
> subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
> get in the way of those who are doing real things.
Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
> > We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
> > should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
>
> I think exactly the same thing, but I recognize just
> how contradictory this impulse is. Keynsianism is
> just *impossible* to do. That we manage it at all
> takes the very best we have.
>
> It's equivalent to attempting to consciously control
> your digestion.
There is a reason the path least travelled is so.
> > This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
> > to public production and the management centered in demand
> > driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
>
> I do not ever believe you'll be able to implement that. Even
> if it's theoretically possible, the #1 question on the AP
> Econ exam is about the invariance of scarcity.
Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
taxation; but then you should already know that. I believe real value
is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable
use.
> > Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
> > Egalitarian.
>
> I'm sure that would create lots of employment. For grave-diggers.
I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will take your
comment as agreement. I'm hoping we can wake up and use
natural reduction through birth control.
Gafr
>
> No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
You must be a socialist because you are clearly ignorant of finance
and economic theories.
Probaby another Trotskyite.
Les Cargill
> On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 4:44 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
>>>> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically, isn't
>>>> going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until their personal
>>>> balance sheets are fixed.
>>>> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
>>> I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
>> As opposed to oblique, indirect handouts that confuse all
>> price signaling? We keep fixing the fixes caused by Fed
>> intervention. It's not a *bad* system, but it behaves
>> exactly as Hayek predicted it would.
>
> I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
> to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
> explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
> change ratically quite quickly to something else. The
> notion of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things
> will settle about a given outcome until sufficient change
> is applied then that outcome will be nearly out of the
> question.
>
When you say that, I visualize Robert MacNamara before
television cameras.
POVERTY IS HUMANITY'S DEFAULT STATE, It's absence is the
*exception*. Our forebears died for no good reason at all.
If you ate today...
> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
> upon one of its short edges again.
>
I have no idea....
>> It tries to do a very noble thing, but it'd be kinder to
>> simply inject the money directly.
>
> It is better to engineer the outcome then apply appropriate
> force. If the outcome isn't stable then don't bother.
>
My, what arrogance. Or humility.
>> When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
>> subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
>> get in the way of those who are doing real things.
>
> Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
> we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
>
The *entire* point under discussion ( if there is a discussion)
is that nobody alive today could tell the difference.
>>> We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
>>> should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
>> I think exactly the same thing, but I recognize just
>> how contradictory this impulse is. Keynsianism is
>> just *impossible* to do. That we manage it at all
>> takes the very best we have.
>>
>> It's equivalent to attempting to consciously control
>> your digestion.
>
> There is a reason the path least travelled is so.
>
Well, thanks for that. After all, why replace a few billion
years of gratuitously provided autonomic regulation
of the distribution of gastric juices with a finite
state machine...
>>> This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
>>> to public production and the management centered in demand
>>> driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
>> I do not ever believe you'll be able to implement that. Even
>> if it's theoretically possible, the #1 question on the AP
>> Econ exam is about the invariance of scarcity.
>
> Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
> taxation; but then you should already know that.
For sufficiently depressed values of "know".
> I believe real value
> is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
> By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable
> use.
>
I begin to suspect you have never seen a Clint Eastwood Western. Always
back bloody-mindedness, but keep your exit paths clear.
>>> Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
>>> Egalitarian.
>> I'm sure that would create lots of employment. For grave-diggers.
>
> I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will take your
> comment as agreement.
No, nothing of the sort. A really large set of well-intentioned
inputs into things might result in that.
> I'm hoping we can wake up and use
> natural reduction through birth control.
Ferocity in the prosecution of credit card limits works better
than birth control.
Sorry, you need both.
--
Les Cargill
forbi...@msn.com
I believe neither of these assertions. Things change. The
Amazon Rain forest will not be restored as it is today
once it is destroyed. None the less it is as it is today.
That poverty is a stable state doesn't iimply it is the only
stable state.
> If you ate today...
>
> > Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
> > pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
> > sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
> > its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
> > upon one of its short edges again.
>
> I have no idea....
>
> >> It tries to do a very noble thing, but it'd be kinder to
> >> simply inject the money directly.
>
> > It is better to engineer the outcome then apply appropriate
> > force. If the outcome isn't stable then don't bother.
>
> My, what arrogance. Or humility.
>
> >> When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
> >> subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
> >> get in the way of those who are doing real things.
>
> > Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
> > we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
>
> The *entire* point under discussion ( if there is a discussion)
> is that nobody alive today could tell the difference.
I think they can but many chose not to.
> >>> We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
> >>> should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
> >> I think exactly the same thing, but I recognize just
> >> how contradictory this impulse is. Keynsianism is
> >> just *impossible* to do. That we manage it at all
> >> takes the very best we have.
>
> >> It's equivalent to attempting to consciously control
> >> your digestion.
>
> > There is a reason the path least travelled is so.
>
> Well, thanks for that. After all, why replace a few billion
> years of gratuitously provided autonomic regulation
> of the distribution of gastric juices with a finite
> state machine...
You and I both know metaphor.
Or do I presume too much?
> >>> This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
> >>> to public production and the management centered in demand
> >>> driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
> >> I do not ever believe you'll be able to implement that. Even
> >> if it's theoretically possible, the #1 question on the AP
> >> Econ exam is about the invariance of scarcity.
>
> > Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
> > taxation; but then you should already know that.
>
> For sufficiently depressed values of "know".
This is why our exchanges end so badly.
You know stuff you don't know and don't know
information you have been given many times and
is in fact quite knowable. Education is neither
knowledge or wisdom. I have some of all three
but also lack some of each as well. Why would
you answer a request for clarification with an insult
to both of us? Earlier you wrote "My, what arrogance.
Or humility." Please reflect upon your words and
the years of our exchanges.
> > I believe real value
> > is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
> > By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable
> > use.
>
> I begin to suspect you have never seen a Clint Eastwood Western. Always
> back bloody-mindedness, but keep your exit paths clear.
Do you lack vision of the possible? Everything we do requires a level
of
trust. Yesterday I was riding up the elevator at work while two
people
were discussing their passions. One asserted that most of our
applications
only needed a single server and by reducing our redundancy and
eliminating
three of our four data centers we could save tons of money. Even when
I
assert what I know I ask others to follow Reagan's advice to "trust
but
verify." Every system has points of failure. Redundancy and negative
feedback system are keys to stability. Seldom can retreat paths be
kept clear even though other exits present themselves.
> >>> Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
> >>> Egalitarian.
> >> I'm sure that would create lots of employment. For grave-diggers.
>
> > I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will take your
> > comment as agreement.
>
> No, nothing of the sort. A really large set of well-intentioned
> inputs into things might result in that.
You accept poverty as the default position. I do not. I ask you
again to expand upon your notions "about the invariance of scarcity".
Have you taken the default position or assigned it to others?
> > I'm hoping we can wake up and use
> > natural reduction through birth control.
>
> Ferocity in the prosecution of credit card limits works better
> than birth control.
>
> Sorry, you need both.
I have no offspring and all debts are from month to month.
John Galt
That will have to be your opinion, then. Mine is that you've seen all
the stimulus you're going to see.
JG
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote
>> forbi...@msn.com wrote
>>> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> The problem is low aggregate demand related to the fact that the
>>>> consumer, who is responsible for 70% of that demand historically,
>>>> isn't going to respond to attempts to get them to spend until
>>>> their personal balance sheets are fixed.
>>>> So, fix their personal balance sheets. Directly.
>>> I'm not sure I like direct handouts to either the rich or the poor.
>> As opposed to oblique, indirect handouts that confuse all
>> price signaling? We keep fixing the fixes caused by Fed
>> intervention. It's not a *bad* system, but it behaves
>> exactly as Hayek predicted it would.
> I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
> to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
> explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
> change ratically quite quickly to something else. The notion
> of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things will settle
> about a given outcome until sufficient change is applied then
> that outcome will be nearly out of the question.
Irrelevant to economics.
> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
> upon one of its short edges again.
Mindlessly superficial when discussing economics.
>> It tries to do a very noble thing, but it'd be
>> kinder to simply inject the money directly.
> It is better to engineer the outcome then apply appropriate
> force. If the outcome isn't stable then don't bother.
Easier said than done.
>> When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
>> subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
>> get in the way of those who are doing real things.
> Most subsidies are misplaced.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> We wouldn't be in the oil mess we are in if subsidies
> weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
Bullshit. It would still have happened.
>>> We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
>>> should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
>> I think exactly the same thing, but I recognize just
>> how contradictory this impulse is. Keynsianism is
>> just *impossible* to do. That we manage it at all
>> takes the very best we have.
>> It's equivalent to attempting to consciously control your digestion.
> There is a reason the path least travelled is so.
Waffle.
>>> This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
>>> to public production and the management centered in demand
>>> driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
>> I do not ever believe you'll be able to implement that. Even
>> if it's theoretically possible, the #1 question on the AP
>> Econ exam is about the invariance of scarcity.
> Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
> taxation; but then you should already know that. I believe real value
> is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
> By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable use.
Nice theory. Pity about the real world.
>>> Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound. Egalitarian.
>> I'm sure that would create lots of employment. For grave-diggers.
> I fear we are at unsustainable population levels.
More fool you.
> I will take your comment as agreement.
It isnt.
> I'm hoping we can wake up and use natural reduction through birth control.
No need in the first world, not one modern first world country is
even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
China has fixed their problem too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
> You must be a socialist
Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face ?
> because you are clearly ignorant of finance and economic theories.
> Probaby another Trotskyite.
Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face in spades ?
Jim Austin
> Jim Austin wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Jim Austin wrote
> >>> forbisga...@msn.com wrote
> >>>> Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> >>>>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
> >>>>>> Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
> >>>>>>>> edi...@netpath.net <edi...@netpath.net> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money
> >>>>>>>>> printing even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a
> >>>>>>>>> jobs program!
> >>>>>>>> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to
> >>>>>>>> fight a world war ended the Great Depression immediately
> >>>>>>>> whereas the inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist
> >>>>>>>> Republican pressure
> >>>>>>>> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
> >>>>>>> The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
> >>>>>>> prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards
> >>>>>>> plummeted below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it
> >>>>>>> up, make it do, do without."
> >>>>>> Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were
> >>>>>> war-time shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
> >>>>> Shortages are very much incompatible with prosperity.
> >>>> By which you mean WWII didn't end the Great Depression?
> >>>> Maybe you mean there weren't shortages during WWII.
> >>>> I can't tell.
> >>> World War II ended unemployment. That's all.
> >> It did a lot more than just that.
> > Yes. It resulted in much deaths and destruction.
>
> So your "that's all" is just plain wrong.
He's saying that World War II didn't result in deaths and destruction?
> And it did a lot more than just end unemployment too, economically.
It resulted in a massive amount of resources going into production of
much military equipment that was destined to be blown up or scrapped.
> >>>>>> I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and
> >>>>>> believe me, it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and
> >>>>>> a great relief when the huge government debt help end it all
> >>>>> It only ended unemployment when massive numbers
> >>>>> of people got sent off to war or war production.
> >>>> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work
> >>>> ended the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of
> >>>> war was what
> >>>> made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
> >>>> targetted
> >>>> peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication
> >>>> of productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as
> >>>> delaying the application of sufficient resources to the effort
> >>>> delayed the recovery.
> >>> World War II did not bring prosperity.
> >> Corse it did, most obviously to those who were unemployed
> >> previously and who got to work in the industrys that WW2 created.
> > It did end unemployment, but production of consumer goods by necessity
> > plummeted and people learned to do without as massive resources went
> > into producing non-economic goods. Production of M1 Garands, Sherman
> > Tanks, P-51 Mustangs, B-17 Flying Fortresses, etc. did not increase
> > the number of consumer goods available on the civilian market, did not
> > increase prosperity.
>
> Prosperity is about a hell of a lot more than JUST consumer goods.
There isn't any prosperity without consumer goods.
> Its also about the savings that can be made when working in
> the factorys that produce all those war goods, that can be used
> to buy stuff like houses etc once the war has ended etc etc etc.
But Keynesianism is hostile to savings. Keynesians believe in
inflating the currency that reduces the value of savings.
> >>>>>> Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
> >>>>> Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
> >>>> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel
> >>>> the war not because of the production itself. You've already
> >>>> accepted that sending people off to war and war production is what
> >>>> ended the Great Depression.
> >>> No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
> >> It did a lot more than just that.
> > Yes, death and destruction.
>
> Lot more than that too.
Whatever.
> >>>> If these same people were put to work producing things that
> >>>> improved everone's standard of living then we could have gotten
> >>>> out of the Great Depression and had the benifit of an improved
> >>>> standard of living.
> >>> New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving living standards.
> >> Thats just plain wrong. It improved the living standards of
> >> those who previously did not have work very dramatically.
> > But again, it reduced the living standards of everyone else.
>
> Like hell it did,
This guy argues against facts.
> most obviously when the war had ended.
Most obviously what?
> >>>> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression
> >>>> would have been best for those "everbody else".
> >>> Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal
> >>> policies that prolonged the depression.
> >> You havent shown that any of them did that.
> > What?
>
> The last few words, 'prolonged the depression'
It's the matter of counting the years.
The depression lasted from 1929 to the eve of World War II in 1941.
That's 12 years. Previously, depressions and recessions lasted from
six months to a year and a half.
> > That not restricting production would have allowed the U.S. to
> > emerge from the depression quicker than restriction production?
>
> You havent established that it did restrict production.
New Dealers believed that the depresion resulted from overproduction.
> And production is useless when there isnt enough money to buy that production anyway.
Which is the Keynesean belief that a nation can spend itself rich.
They believe that all that new money they create represents new
purchasing power.
Jim Austin
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 21, 5:52 am, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
> >> On Apr 20, 8:41 am, Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 19, 8:42 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:51 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > > >On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
>
> >> > > >> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> >Bullshit. There's NEVER been any time when Keynesian money printing
> >> > > >> >even arguably worked outside of a world war to be a jobs program!
>
> >> > > >> You proven the thing with a few words. The "money printing" to fight
> >> > > >> a world war ended the Great Depression immediately whereas the
> >> > > >> inadequate spending by FDR, under anarchist Republican pressure
> >> > > >> to "balance the budget" was only a worthy amelioration.
>
> >> > > >The "'money printing' to fight a world war" did not bring about
> >> > > >prosperity. It ended unemployment, but living standards plummeted
> >> > > >below 1929 levels with people motivated to "use it up, make it do, do
> >> > > >without."
>
> >> > > Child, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there were war-time
> >> > > shortages. Of course. Stuff went to fight a very big war.
>
> >> > Shortages are very much incompatible with prosperity.
>
> >> By which you mean WWII didn't end the Great Depression?
> >> Maybe you mean there weren't shortages during WWII.
> >> I can't tell.
>
> >World War II ended unemployment. That's all.
>
> >> > > it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and a great relief when the
> >> > > huge government debt help end it all
>
> >> > It only ended unemployment when massive numbers of people got sent off
> >> > to war or war production.
>
> >> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work ended
> >> the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics of war was
> >> what
> >> made it work. How does war destruction lead to prosperity that
> >> targetted
> >> peace time replacement would not? War production is misapplication of
> >> productive resources and only delayed the recovery just as delaying
> >> the application of sufficient resources to the effort delayed the
> >> recovery.
>
> >World War II did not bring prosperity.
>
> It was in fact a time of prosperity and growth. The massive spending for
> war broke the Great Depression once and for good.
Not quite.
To reinsert what was omitted:
"Prosperity returned when Republicans finally forced balanced budgets
over the protests of Truman, when Truman himself picked a tight money
man to head the Federal Reserve Board, when the New Dealers themselves
became less hostile toward business after such businesses had allowed
America to overwhelm the Axis powers with military hardware, and thus
afforded business with regulatory relief. What followed was the
greatest economic expansion that world had ever seen. That expansion
had leveled off during the late 1960s, early 1970s, as governmental
expansion siphoned off capital needed for further expansion."
> >> > > Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
>
> >> > Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>
> >> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to fuel the
> >> war not because of the production itself. You've already accepted that
> >> sending people off to war and war production is what ended the Great
> >> Depression.
>
> >No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
>
> >> If these same people were put to work producing things that improved
> >> everone's standard of living then we could have gotten out of the Great
> >> Depression and had the benifit of an improved standard of living.
>
> >New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded improving
> >living standards.
>
> "restricted production"? What in the world are you typing?
"Restricted production."
> >> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression would have been
> >> best for those "everbody else".
>
> >Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal policies that prolonged
> >the depression.
>
> Which policies did that?
Pro free market policies. Specifically, avoid Smoot Hawley, massive
credit expansion by the Fed during the 1920s and the Revenue Act of
1932 where Hoover rose taxes during the depth of the depression.
FDR's hostility toward business scared business persons from
investing.
> The *contraction* of the New Deal in 1937 under
> pressure from the anarchists did indeed prolong the depression. FDR did
> the wrong thing then -- much to his discredit.
A new generation came to dominate the Congress after the 1936
election, called the Lost Generation. They were the ones that fought
in World War I, raised hell during the Roaring Twenties, were hit the
hardest by the depression during their prime earning years but
benefitted least by the New Deal largely because they didn't want it.
That generation in Congress forced FDR to run up record numbers of
vetoes to defend the New Deal. After World War II, they forced
balanced budgets, tight money and regulatory relief. They blocked New
Deal type legislation until the mid 1960s. They were the ones that
heralded the greatest economic expansion the world had ever seen, an
expansion that ended when the last of them were out of Congress.
John Galt
>> Help us out here. What SHOULD we do?
>
> Build an alternate energy national network..
> It will cost around 3 trillion.. will put millions to work.. will
> reduce exporting money to supply necessary energy.. will clean up the
> environment.. will produce manufactured goods for export, will reduce
> funding for foreign enemies.. will help lift the country out of the
> current economic malaise.
That's where we started. If you can't get 3T to spend on X, you can't
get it to spend on Y.
>
> Will also put a lot of neocon crook oil price manipulators out of
> work... 'win-win' as they say.
>
> =======
>
>>> Build an alternate energy national network..
>> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
>
> No it wouldn't. Much too expensive. Much too dirty to mine the fuel
> and dispose of the waste. Too much water needed to cool them.
>
> ========
>
>>>>> Build an alternate energy national network..
>>>> Change over to nukes would make much more sense.
>>
>> You clearly dont have a clue about that.
>>> and dispose of the waste.
>> Dont have to do anything with the waste, just leave it at the power station.
>>
>>> Too much water needed to cool them.
>> They dont have to be water cooled and even you should
>> have noticed that there is plenty of water in the oceans.
>
> That's salt water. Very corrosive. Especially when hot. And
> desalinization would add significantly to the number of plants that
> would need to be built.
Not a problem. Nuke plants near the sea already use salt water for
cooling, primarily, and have for decades. Lead resists corrosion. In
fact, some new reactor concepts are designed to use molten salt as the
coolant rather than water.
>
>>>> Keep the natural gas for a transport fuel and stop wasting it heating houses.
>>> It's not dense enough.
>> How odd that LPG and LNG are used in cars right now.
>
> Well, there's hardly any infrastructure for fueling them, and I've got
> my doubts about how far you could go on a tank. But aside from the
> cost and impracticality, it's a great idea.
I see no issues with cost and practicality. CNG is the same stuff we
pipe into our homes to cook with; some retrofit is require to provide
fueling stations, but the underlying infrastructure is in place, and the
fueling infrastructure is in the process of being built out.
The average range for CNG urban buses per tank is about 275 miles per
refill. Mass produced passenger vehicles (which are currently made by
Fiat, Mercedes, Skoda, Opel, Citroen, Volvo, Ford, VW, Honda, Toyota,
and Mazda) will travel between 200 and 550 km per refill, largely
dependent on the size of the tank.
[Opel Zafira] "Taking average fuel consumption of approximately 5.3
kilograms of natural gas per 100 kilometers* and the current price of
around 0.76 euros per kilo of natural gas, fuel costs can be reduced by
approximately 30 percent compared to diesel variants, or even around 50
percent compared to gasoline models. (...) this type of propulsion
generates 80 percent less nitrogen oxide than a diesel and around 25
percent lower CO2 emissions than a gasoline engine (diesel: minus 10
percent)."
JG
Les Cargill
Then I don't know what to say. They are both true.
It simply does not get any simpler. The fossil record
proves you wrong.
> Things change. The
> Amazon Rain forest will not be restored as it is today
> once it is destroyed.
Nor will the coelocanth be raised up.
> None the less it is as it is today.
> That poverty is a stable state doesn't iimply it is the only
> stable state.
>
I did not say it was a *stable* state. I said it was
a default state.
>> If you ate today...
>>
This... this is the point. "You ate today". Yes, you did.
You little eater, you. You *cute* little eater.
Look at the losers who did no eat on their today,
lo those many years ago.
All of history conspires to gain you calories.
>>> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
>>> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
>>> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
>>> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
>>> upon one of its short edges again.
>> I have no idea....
>>
>>>> It tries to do a very noble thing, but it'd be kinder to
>>>> simply inject the money directly.
>>> It is better to engineer the outcome then apply appropriate
>>> force. If the outcome isn't stable then don't bother.
>> My, what arrogance. Or humility.
>>
>>>> When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
>>>> subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
>>>> get in the way of those who are doing real things.
>>> Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
>>> we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
>> The *entire* point under discussion ( if there is a discussion)
>> is that nobody alive today could tell the difference.
>
> I think they can but many chose not to.
>
Yeah, well... I can't do much with that.
>>>>> We need a sefl-sustaining economy. Government spending
>>>>> should be done in a way that moves us towards that goal.
>>>> I think exactly the same thing, but I recognize just
>>>> how contradictory this impulse is. Keynsianism is
>>>> just *impossible* to do. That we manage it at all
>>>> takes the very best we have.
>>>> It's equivalent to attempting to consciously control
>>>> your digestion.
>>> There is a reason the path least travelled is so.
>> Well, thanks for that. After all, why replace a few billion
>> years of gratuitously provided autonomic regulation
>> of the distribution of gastric juices with a finite
>> state machine...
>
> You and I both know metaphor.
> Or do I presume too much?
>
Not too much.
>>>>> This means the resultant production facilities should be convertable
>>>>> to public production and the management centered in demand
>>>>> driven production rather than demand manipulating sales techniques.
>>>> I do not ever believe you'll be able to implement that. Even
>>>> if it's theoretically possible, the #1 question on the AP
>>>> Econ exam is about the invariance of scarcity.
>>> Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
>>> taxation; but then you should already know that.
>> For sufficiently depressed values of "know".
>
> This is why our exchanges end so badly.
> You know stuff you don't know and don't know
> information you have been given many times and
> is in fact quite knowable. Education is neither
> knowledge or wisdom. I have some of all three
> but also lack some of each as well. Why would
> you answer a request for clarification with an insult
> to both of us? Earlier you wrote "My, what arrogance.
> Or humility." Please reflect upon your words and
> the years of our exchanges.
>
Years are just a waste of time.
Do you have a point?
>>> I believe real value
>>> is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
>>> By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable
>>> use.
>> I begin to suspect you have never seen a Clint Eastwood Western. Always
>> back bloody-mindedness, but keep your exit paths clear.
>
> Do you lack vision of the possible? Everything we do requires a level
> of
> trust. Yesterday I was riding up the elevator at work while two
> people
> were discussing their passions. One asserted that most of our
> applications
> only needed a single server and by reducing our redundancy and
> eliminating
> three of our four data centers we could save tons of money. Even when
> I
> assert what I know I ask others to follow Reagan's advice to "trust
> but
> verify." Every system has points of failure. Redundancy and negative
> feedback system are keys to stability. Seldom can retreat paths be
> kept clear even though other exits present themselves.
>
W. T. F.?. ?. ?. Metaphor, Eastwood...
>>>>> Energy independent, Sustainable production. Environmentally sound.
>>>>> Egalitarian.
>>>> I'm sure that would create lots of employment. For grave-diggers.
>>> I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will take your
>>> comment as agreement.
>> No, nothing of the sort. A really large set of well-intentioned
>> inputs into things might result in that.
>
> You accept poverty as the default position. I do not. I ask you
> again to expand upon your notions "about the invariance of scarcity".
> Have you taken the default position or assigned it to others?
>
I.... I just don't know what to make of this. You, in effect reject
the overwhelming evidence of everything we know of man.
Again.
THE. DEFAULT. STATE. OF. MAN.
Is poverty.
You accept that *or you lie*. It is inevitable,
inarguable, and A Fact.
This is a self-organizing system from which we all derive great
benefit.
>>> I'm hoping we can wake up and use
>>> natural reduction through birth control.
>> Ferocity in the prosecution of credit card limits works better
>> than birth control.
>>
>> Sorry, you need both.
>
> I have no offspring and all debts are from month to month.
So good for you. I have offspring you should fear, for I have
trained them.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
Your "that's all" is just plain wrong.
>> And it did a lot more than just end unemployment too, economically.
> It resulted in a massive amount of resources going into production of
> much military equipment that was destined to be blown up or scrapped.
So your "that's all" is just plain wrong.
>>>>>>>> I saw the Great Depression and I saw the U.S. fleet at Ulithi and
>>>>>>>> believe me, it was a very big war, a very painful depression, and
>>>>>>>> a great relief when the huge government debt help end it all
>>>>>>> It only ended unemployment when massive numbers
>>>>>>> of people got sent off to war or war production.
>>>>>> Ah, having the government put massing numbers of people to work
>>>>>> ended the Great Depression. Surely you can't mean the specifics
>>>>>> of war was what made it work. How does war destruction lead to
>>>>>> prosperity that targetted peace time replacement would not?
>>>>>> War production is misapplication of productive resources and
>>>>>> only delayed the recovery just as delaying the application of
>>>>>> sufficient resources to the effort delayed the recovery.
>>>>> World War II did not bring prosperity.
>>>> Corse it did, most obviously to those who were unemployed
>>>> previously and who got to work in the industrys that WW2 created.
>>> It did end unemployment, but production of consumer goods by
>>> necessity plummeted and people learned to do without as massive
>>> resources went into producing non-economic goods. Production of M1
>>> Garands, Sherman Tanks, P-51 Mustangs, B-17 Flying Fortresses, etc.
>>> did not increase the number of consumer goods available on the
>>> civilian market, did not increase prosperity.
>> Prosperity is about a hell of a lot more than JUST consumer goods.
> There isn't any prosperity without consumer goods.
Wrong, as always. And those consumer good just came later,
after the war had ended, its not that they never came either.
>> Its also about the savings that can be made when working in
>> the factorys that produce all those war goods, that can be used
>> to buy stuff like houses etc once the war has ended etc etc etc.
> But Keynesianism is hostile to savings.
Irrelevant to your silly claim about prosperity.
> Keynesians believe in inflating the currency that reduces the value of savings.
Like hell they do. And that didnt happen significantly as a result of WW2 anyway.
>>>>>>>> Living standards went up markedly for all those many who had been unemployed.
>>>>>>> Which means living standards went down for everybody else.
>>>>>> While this was the case it was because of productive needs to
>>>>>> fuel the war not because of the production itself. You've already
>>>>>> accepted that sending people off to war and war production is
>>>>>> what ended the Great Depression.
>>>>> No. I only said it ended massive unemployment.
>>>> It did a lot more than just that.
>>> Yes, death and destruction.
>> Lot more than that too.
> Whatever.
Plenty who were employed when WW2 started
ended up with much better employment for example.
And much better opportunitys as the result of what they
saved during the war, and stuff like the GI bill etc etc etc.
And the entire world benefitted dramatically from the
very significant advances in heavy aircraft etc etc etc.
>>>>>> If these same people were put to work producing things that
>>>>>> improved everone's standard of living then we could have gotten
>>>>>> out of the Great Depression and had the benifit of an improved
>>>>>> standard of living.
>>>>> New Deal policies restricted production and thus precluded
>>>>> improving living standards.
>>>> Thats just plain wrong. It improved the living standards of
>>>> those who previously did not have work very dramatically.
>>> But again, it reduced the living standards of everyone else.
>> Like hell it did,
> This guy argues against facts.
You havent established that that is a fact. Its actually just your pig ignorant claim.
>> most obviously when the war had ended.
> Most obviously what?
The significantly increased living standards after the war had ended.
>>>>>> Maybe you think a continuance of the Great Depression
>>>>>> would have been best for those "everbody else".
>>>>> Best would have been the avoidance of New Deal
>>>>> policies that prolonged the depression.
>>>> You havent shown that any of them did that.
>>> What?
>> The last few words, 'prolonged the depression'
> It's the matter of counting the years.
Like hell it is on your CLAIM that the New Deal prolonged the depression.
> The depression lasted from 1929 to the eve of World War II in 1941.
> That's 12 years. Previously, depressions and recessions lasted from
> six months to a year and a half.
Bare faced pig ignorant like with the long depression. It was called that for a reason.
>>> That not restricting production would have allowed the U.S. to
>>> emerge from the depression quicker than restriction production?
>> You havent established that it did restrict production.
> New Dealers believed that the depresion resulted from overproduction.
Like hell they did. And even if they believed that, that doesnt make it gospel.
>> And production is useless when there isnt
>> enough money to buy that production anyway.
> Which is the Keynesean belief that a nation can spend itself rich.
Keynesianism aint about 'rich'
> They believe that all that new money they create represents new purchasing power.
Corse it did.
Mason C
>Which is the Keynesean belief that a nation can spend itself rich.
>They believe that all that new money they create represents new
>purchasing power.
Nonsense. How can such goofiness be answered? I won't even try.
Mason C
>New Dealers believed that the depresion resulted from overproduction.
>
bullshit
>> And production is useless when there isnt enough money to buy that production anyway.
>
>Which is the Keynesean belief that a nation can spend itself rich.
>They believe that all that new money they create represents new
>purchasing power.
bullshit
RayLopez99
> > The funny thing about gold during the Great Depression: those
> > countries like the US that went off the gold standard did better than
> > those that stayed on. And the US actually got more gold AFTER it went
> > off the gold standard than before.
>
> > So we can conclude various things:
>
> > 1) Keynesians say: this proves the gold standard does not work (read
> > Barry Eichengreen's book "Gold Fetters" on this theme). This is the
> > canonical "received wisdom" today that's in every textbook.
>
> > 2) More neutral / agnostic observers have said: US got more gold
> > because of political factors, not economic. Even though France was
> > still on the gold standard, a lot of gold fled France and UK and other
> > gold backed countries because the US was seen as "war-proof", that is,
> > the US would likely not be invaded in any war. France less so. UK
> > might also be affected by a war. So the US was a "safe haven", that's
> > why the US got gold.
>
> Switzerland also stands as a data point here, so...
>
Yes, Switzerland is a data point for a country that did not leave the
gold standard, and I was surprised that France and Belgium, which also
both held onto gold, were not as bad off as I thought: see here:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/243118/Great-Depression/234440/Timing-and-severity
(note the peak to trough stats, not the recovery stats, which the
article makes clear are not accurate since France did not recover
until 1938.
The Wikipedia entry also is not as strong on evidence as I'd like to
see that leaving the gold standard was good (and note China, on a
silver standard, had no depression): "According to later analysis, the
earliness with which a country left the gold standard reliably
predicted its economic recovery. For example, Great Britain and
Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much
earlier than France and Belgium, which remained on gold much longer.
Countries such as China, which had a silver standard, almost avoided
the depression entirely. The connection between leaving the gold
standard as a strong [SIC!--STRONG? I THINK NOT-RL] predictor of that
country's severity of its depression and the length of time of its
recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries,
including developing countries. This partly explains why the
experience and length of the depression differed between national
economies.[12]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Suspending_gold_payments_to_fund_the_war
What this shows me is that there is no doubt a statistical link
between leaving the depression and the gold standard, but it appears
to be a weak link ('recovery' was very muted in the countries that
left the gold standard--and you cannot really say any country, whether
or not it left the gold standard, fully recovered until after WWII
ended). Further, the depth of the depression (peak to trough) is not
correlated with whether or not a country was on the gold standard, see
the britannica link above.
> > 3) Austrians *might* say (I suspect--they are kind of kooky so there's
> > no telling): reason gold standard did not work in the "golden era" was
> > because it was a fiat-based gold standard, meaning two things: (1)
> > PAPER was backed by gold BY LAW. But, LAWS CAN CHANGE. Hence people
> > holding this paper "knew" that it really wasn't gold, especially after
> > the US went off the gold standard. This sounds plausible to me.
>
> It sounds convoluted to me.
It sounds convoluted but I've heard the Austrians make exactly this
point. To me it is somewhat plausible, but speculative. When the US
was on the gold standard in the late 19th century, very, very, very
few people bothered to change paper to gold, but it was an option
(Mises.org even admits this, which undercuts their argument that all
fiat paper is bad, whether or not backed by gold). So the argument
would be (and it's related to the point you like) that if you cannot
convert small amounts of gold into paper and vice versa (rather than
only very large amounts as was permitted in the 1920s) the confidence
of millions of 'little people' is lost, and this creates uncertainty
in the marketplace.
>
> > (2)
> > gold backed fiat paper was not freely convertible between countries.
>
> Bingo. And I think ( but I can't fully recall ) that this is
> pretty much always the way of it ( to keep fiat currencies
> stable ) and hence the Keynesian "gold does not work" thing...
Yes.
>
> You either have *one currency* for all humanity or you have
> varying fiat currencies to provide slip between stocks. If it's
> all one stock, then....
>
Yes. A "world currency" is also gold-bug and Nobel Prize winner
Robert A. Mundel's idea for a more stable world economy.
> > All in all, I feel a gold standard could work, but, using only gold
> > and not fiat money you run afoul of 'sticky prices' as well as lack of
> > 'money illusion', which are the central tenets of Keynesianism, and
> > which have been shown in at least laboratory experiments to work.
>
> Aye.
Yes. Another point: if we survive this crisis, you realize the US
government and all expansionist governments will take credit, under
Keynesianism, even though Keynesian fiscal policy probably has not had
enough time to stimulate the economy in fact. But governments will,
perhaps rightly, take credit for "stemming the panic" even though,
IMO, a 19th century approach to let prices liquidate and seek their
own level would also have worked, and worked cheaper, since it would
reintroduce moral hazard. If we don't survive the crisis, no doubt
because of government interference with price clearing of junk/toxic
debt, the governments will also attempt to say capitalism is dead,
IMO. So we have a classic Hobbesian choice, of the kind Hobbes would
find ironic.
> > And that's the last world. Even Rod Speed would agree with the above.
Yes, Rod Speed would agree, but only in a lucid moment
RL
RayLopez99
> I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
> to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
> explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
> change ratically quite quickly to something else. The
> notion of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things
> will settle about a given outcome until sufficient change
> is applied then that outcome will be nearly out of the
> question.
>
> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
> upon one of its short edges again.
Question: why do supporters of government intervention--like
Steiglitz and Krugman--who cite game theory, don't consider that the
natural, global equilibrium is applied by the Invisible Hand? Does
7000 years of history mean nothing?
> > When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
> > subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
> > get in the way of those who are doing real things.
>
> Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
> we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
Yes, I somewhat agree, as the government in the US should be taking a
bigger slice of tax revenues from gasoline, since petrol is
underpriced due to negative externalities like possible harmful global
warming.
> Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
> taxation; but then you should already know that. I believe real value
> is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
> By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable
> use.
Henry George's tax on rent seeking, like owning land? It's popular
with state governments already.
> I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will take your
> comment as agreement. I'm hoping we can wake up and use
> natural reduction through birth control.
No. As Harvard economost Mankew on his blog, and as predicted by the
Solow model of growth variants, a large population increases the rate
of technology creation (more Einsteins per planet earth, since
geniuses are a function of population).
And think of the spinning top--it is very stable, as long as it is
spinning. That's true of every human enterprise too, as predicted by
the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in short, spin and die slower or
stop spinning and just die now).
RL
Mason C
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 10:17 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
>> I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
>> to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
>> explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
>> change ratically quite quickly to something else. The
>> notion of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things
>> will settle about a given outcome until sufficient change
>> is applied then that outcome will be nearly out of the
>> question.
>>
>> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
>> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
>> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
>> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
>> upon one of its short edges again.
>
>
>Question: why do supporters of government intervention--like
>Steiglitz and Krugman--who cite game theory, don't consider that the
>natural, global equilibrium is applied by the Invisible Hand? Does
>7000 years of history mean nothing?
What's this? The economic system is *never* in equilibrium. It is
continuously evolving, sometimes with monstrous, unpredictable bumps.
The mathematical economics theories would have it going toward
equilbrium but that doesn't prove it ever gets there.
The "Invisible Hand" -- if not governed by morals or laws -- and it often
is not (we are seeing such a time right now) -- will run the economy into a
ditch.
Rod Speed
> forbisga...@msn.com wrote
>> I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
>> to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
>> explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
>> change ratically quite quickly to something else. The
>> notion of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things
>> will settle about a given outcome until sufficient change is
>> applied then that outcome will be nearly out of the question.
>> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
>> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
>> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
>> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
>> upon one of its short edges again.
> Question: why do supporters of government intervention--like
> Steiglitz and Krugman--who cite game theory, don't consider that
> the natural, global equilibrium is applied by the Invisible Hand?
They basically dont believe that it is, and the evidence is overwhelming that it isnt.
> Does 7000 years of history mean nothing?
Easy to claim that stuff.
>>> When things go badly is when people who are taking
>>> defacto subsidies are convinced they are doing great
>>> things and get in the way of those who are doing real things.
>> Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
>> we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
> Yes, I somewhat agree, as the government in the US should be taking
> a bigger slice of tax revenues from gasoline, since petrol is underpriced
> due to negative externalities like possible harmful global warming.
Doesnt make much difference in practice. Thats what
most of western europe has done since the war.
>> Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts
>> on taxation; but then you should already know that. I believe real
>> value is in the form resources take rather than in the resources
>> themselves. By taxing the resources people will put them to
>> their most valuable use.
> Henry George's tax on rent seeking, like owning land?
> It's popular with state governments already.
And city govts in spades.
>> I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will
>> take your comment as agreement. I'm hoping we can
>> wake up and use natural reduction through birth control.
> No. As Harvard economost Mankew on his blog, and as predicted
> by the Solow model of growth variants, a large population increases
> the rate of technology creation (more Einsteins per planet earth,
> since geniuses are a function of population).
Nice theory. Pity that neither china or india has
produced even a single einstein in modern times.
And the industrial revolution started on some soggy little island off the western coast of europe.
> And think of the spinning top--it is very stable, as long as it is spinning.
> That's true of every human enterprise too, as predicted by the Second
> Law of Thermodynamics (in short, spin and die slower or stop spinning
> and just die now).
Mindlessly superficial.
Rod Speed
> if we survive this crisis, you realize the US government and all
> expansionist governments will take credit, under Keynesianism,
I doubt they will take credit on that basis.
And it isnt even true, most obviously with the massive injection of liquidity.
> even though Keynesian fiscal policy probably has not had
> enough time to stimulate the economy in fact. But governments
> will, perhaps rightly, take credit for "stemming the panic"
No perhaps about it.
> even though, IMO, a 19th century approach to let prices
> liquidate and seek their own level would also have worked,
But would certainly have produced another great depression or worse.
> and worked cheaper,
Depends on how you count the most. The cost of 30% unemployment
is massive, even if you just count the monetary cost in welfare
payments alone and ignore the personal cost.
> since it would reintroduce moral hazard.
Yes, but at one hell of a cost.
> If we don't survive the crisis,
Corse we'll survive. We survived all the crises in the century before
1929, we survived the great depression, two world wars, countless
pointless stupid wars like Vietnam, etc etc etc. The west particularly
can survive anything, quite literally. Its one hell of a robust system.
> no doubt because of government interference with price clearing of junk/toxic
> debt, the governments will also attempt to say capitalism is dead, IMO.
Not a chance. Essentially because there is no viable alternative.
The ONLY thing that works over the long hauls is a mix
of capitalism and socialism with the worst excesses of
capitalism like slavery and monopolys etc proscribed.
> So we have a classic Hobbesian choice,
No we dont.
> of the kind Hobbes would find ironic.
Nope.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Apr 23, 10:17 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
>> I'll have to clarify. Years ago gaming theory was applied
>> to things such as the Attica Riot. Chaos theory helped
>> explain why what appeared to be a stable situation could
>> change ratically quite quickly to something else. The
>> notion of a local minima (or maxima) explains why things
>> will settle about a given outcome until sufficient change
>> is applied then that outcome will be nearly out of the
>> question.
>>
>> Consider a domino standing on its short edge. It can be
>> pushed slightly and return to standing but once pushed
>> sufficiently it will likely end up on its face or back. From
>> its face or back it takes much more force to get it to land
>> upon one of its short edges again.
>
> Question: why do supporters of government intervention--like
> Steiglitz and Krugman--who cite game theory, don't consider that the
> natural, global equilibrium is applied by the Invisible Hand? Does
> 7000 years of history mean nothing?
There is no invisible hand. The IH is a religious concept.
>>> When things go badly is when people who are taking defacto
>>> subsidies are convinced they are doing great things and
>>> get in the way of those who are doing real things.
>> Most subsidies are misplaced. We wouldn't be in the oil mess
>> we are in if subsidies weren't applied to achieve this local minima.
>
> Yes, I somewhat agree, as the government in the US should be taking a
> bigger slice of tax revenues from gasoline, since petrol is
> underpriced due to negative externalities like possible harmful global
> warming.
Agreed. The government should do more to compensate for negative
externalities.
>> Please expand upon this thought. I like Henry George's thoughts on
>> taxation; but then you should already know that. I believe real value
>> is in the form resources take rather than in the resources themselves.
>> By taxing the resources people will put them to their most valuable
>> use.
>
> Henry George's tax on rent seeking, like owning land? It's popular
> with state governments already.
Some. But the schools in New Hampshire, among many others, suffer the
consequences.
>> I fear we are at unsustainable population levels. I will take your
>> comment as agreement. I'm hoping we can wake up and use
>> natural reduction through birth control.
>
> No. As Harvard economost Mankew on his blog, and as predicted by the
> Solow model of growth variants, a large population increases the rate
> of technology creation (more Einsteins per planet earth, since
> geniuses are a function of population).
>
> And think of the spinning top--it is very stable, as long as it is
> spinning. That's true of every human enterprise too, as predicted by
> the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in short, spin and die slower or
> stop spinning and just die now).
We are fast consuming too much of the planet's output. And global
warming is going to make the results much worse. Technology doesn't
look bound to save us.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire