Master of Disaster and Taxes upon Taxes

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because it wasn't effective.

We didn't effectively take care of liquidity in the capital markets and provide an effective market for the toxic assets. They bailout was wrong-headed and poorly implemented.

Do you really believe unemployment is caused inefficient aggregate demand that should be rectified by government spending? What about "supply shocks, or sectoral shifts"?

We have excessive wage rates right now and the economy is necessarily correcting itself. The period of this correction is being exacerbated by government's actions.

The instability of today's economy is the result of government's interventions.

Here is why I will never believe in Keynesian economics, as the great saint, Milton Friedman wrote about lag times:



How are your wise and omnipotent fellow Keynesians going to know what the market will be in eight or twelve months? I do not agree with the wisdom or even the good will of your policy wonks.

Friedman is a stud.

Context for the quote, please.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Reducing taxes affects ME directly. I don't directly benefit from government expenditures, as I don't participate in grants, I don't get government contracts and I don't receive any government programs. I pay into social security but believe it will be means-tested by the time I qualify. The government takes from me, but gives me nothing directly. Any benefit I reap is indirect so I am disconnected from it. It is my actual enemy.

I won't receive Medicare, so my "social" benefits will be solely roads, and military, otherwise society provides no benefit to me, so I want to participate in it as little as possible. Its policies have collapsed my local market, a market which may not recover according to some studies until 2030.

And I believe Keynsian is designed to cause capitalism to fail to reduce the import of the capitalistic structure (Yes I know their theories say otherwise but I don't trust their words). Keynsians have never proven their theories can be implemented effectively. I will posit an argument that Keynsians are frustrated capitalists who are on the road to disbelieving in capitalism trending towards Marxism. Many Keynsians are Marxist at heart and wish to see capitalism fail.

You actually believe their theories work in practice. The timing and the efficacy of their theories are not doubted by Keynsians but they are by me. Keynsians tout their theories as a means to eliminate inefficiencies of the capitalist structures, but that doesn't mean I believe their intentions. Their theories don't take account for real world realities such as crowding crushing the multiplier effects. A Keynsian response, we just didn't flood enough money into the system for long enough time. Ugh. Keynsians ignore other factors such as lack of confidence and real world factors.

Look, Arch, you seem like a nice enough guy, but posts like this are why it is so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You have emotional, irrational reactions to things you don't like. If, for example, you aren't DIRECTLY benefited (and are only *gasp* indirectly benefited) by a policy, the indirect benefit becomes "your enemy." That's pretty difficult to make sense of. This is particularly the case when you define "direct" benefits as being only roads and the military. That's just preposterous. If you are lumping everything other than roads and the military into the category of "indirect" benefit (and therefore your "enemy"), the indirect benefits you receive FAR outweigh the direct benefits afforded by society.

When Keynesianism is discussed, rather than articulate an intelligent critique you instead focus on lumping all Keynesians in as Marxists (or people who are well on their way to Marxism because, after all, they must all truly hate capitalism). There's just nothing empirical to support that bizarre contention.

Like Chino, I'm struggling to understand your economic philosophy as it appears, to me, to lack any cohesion or consistency from our brief exchanges. It also appears to rely on a belief that competing philosophies are inherently Marxist and evil (which suggests not much thought has gone into your analysis). Other statements you make about Keynesianism are just false (such as your argument that it doesn't take into consideration crowding).

As I mentioned before, there are legitimate issues with Keynesianism just as there are with Friedman's philosophies, but we can't seem to even get to those topics because of the muddled rhetoric you are throwing out instead. I'm going to bow out of this discussion as it seems particularly pointless.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Look, Arch, you seem like a nice enough guy, but posts like this are why it is so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You have emotional, irrational reactions to things you don't like. If, for example, you aren't DIRECTLY benefited (and are only *gasp* indirectly benefited) by a policy, the indirect benefit becomes "your enemy." That's pretty difficult to make sense of. This is particularly the case when you define "direct" benefits as being only roads and the military. That's just preposterous. If you are lumping everything other than roads and the military into the category of "indirect" benefit (and therefore your "enemy"), the indirect benefits you receive FAR outweigh the direct benefits afforded by society.

When Keynesianism is discussed, rather than articulate an intelligent critique you instead focus on lumping all Keynesians in as Marxists (or people who are well on their way to Marxism because, after all, they must all truly hate capitalism). There's just nothing empirical to support that bizarre contention.

Like Chino, I'm struggling to understand your economic philosophy as it appears, to me, to lack any cohesion or consistency from our brief exchanges. It also appears to rely on a belief that competing philosophies are inherently Marxist and evil (which suggests not much thought has gone into your analysis). Other statements you make about Keynesianism are just false (such as your argument that it doesn't take into consideration crowding).

As I mentioned before, there are legitimate issues with Keynesianism just as there are with Friedman's philosophies, but we can't seem to even get to those topics because of the muddled rhetoric you are throwing out instead. I'm going to bow out of this discussion as it seems particularly pointless.

Friedman pointed out the problem with Keynesians in a much more articulate manner. Borros also did. I can go down the list.

I have both an intellectual disagreement with Keynesian and a personal one. None of the Keynesians policies benefit me. Remember the inflation tax, how the uninformed voter blames the rise in prices on business? I realize inflation for example is a tax incurred by Keynesians financial policies. I also don't trust policy makers to do things in a timely or correct and morally beneficial manner.

I have repeatedly stated Obama's plan is fraught with error in that it did NOT achieve its multiplier effect as shown in the Stanford study.

So, when I attack you Keynsians coherently, you ignore my attacks. And because Friedman attacks, as do others, attack the motives of policy wonks who adhere to Keynesian economics, I attack them less well, but liken them to Marxists who loathe the capitalist system.

Again, you are engaging in ad hominems because you ignore the true arguments. Maybe you should start from a neutralist position if you wish to understand my philosophy.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Friedman pointed out the problem with Keynesians in a much more articulate manner. Borros also did. I can go down the list.

I have both an intellectual disagreement with Keynesian and a personal one. None of the Keynesians policies benefit me. Remember the inflation tax, how the uninformed voter blames the rise in prices on business? I realize inflation for example is a tax incurred by Keynesians financial policies. I also don't trust policy makers to do things in a timely or correct and morally beneficial manner.

I have repeatedly stated Obama's plan is fraught with error in that it did NOT achieve its multiplier effect as shown in the Stanford study.

So, when I attack you Keynsians coherently, you ignore my attacks. And because Friedman attacks, as do others, attack the motives of policy wonks who adhere to Keynesian economics, I attack them less well, but liken them to Marxists who loathe the capitalist system.

Again, you are engaging in ad hominems because you ignore the true arguments. Maybe you should start from a neutralist position if you wish to understand my philosophy.

Are you talking about this Stanford study?

http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/CCTW_100108.pdf

The study argues that ARRA didn't achieve the intended multiplier effect NOT because the multiplier was too big, but the multiplier was applied to the wrong number.

[ChinoCoug]

sorry, wrong paper.

This one: http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Co...2011%20rev.pdf