Comments on: Is Mitt Romney a closet Keynesian? Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:42:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Roberta Cashatt Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:26:10 +0000 Possibly you have certainly not planned to do so, although I believe you’ve got managed to convey your state of mind that many everyone is with. Your feeling regarding needing to guide, but not knowing how as well as where, is usually some thing many of us intend as a result of.

By: matthewslyman Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:41:20 +0000 @Caspary: Would society have lost out MORE through an EVEN BIGGER DOWSIZING (a.k.a. “bankruptcy”) that would inevitably have taken place if Bain had not taken the hard decisions and done what they had to do to make these companies profitable? Why do you think these companies had to be sold to Bain at a knock-down price anyway? They weren’t exactly hot-beds of profitability before going into their care… Most of those businesses were on a dead-end track, due to living in a CHANGING WORLD.

Character-assassination attempts aside; with this experience and his time in politics/ as a public servant; no-one knows better than Romney how to fix this system, stop the jobs bleeding to China at the expense of the USA, and rebalance the American economy.

By: Caspary Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:11:33 +0000 Romney is a closet failure- he has only succeeded in enriching himself, but society has lost out through downsizing of the companies Bain managed, outsourcing jobs to China and also the fact that Romney pays very little tax. Yes, a complete closet failure.

By: matthewslyman Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:14:27 +0000 > “Do deficits really matter?”
— I’m glad you’re asking this question! The leaders of some countries (like Argentina) seem to believe deficits don’t matter.

Should we all lift each other up by the seat of each other’s pants? If we try this, then will we all fly in defiance of gravity? Obama has been taxing America at 15% of GDP, and spending at 24% of GDP; yet he talks only of spending more over the next four years. How sustainable is this?
IN the long-term, If we try to make water flow uphill and try to get energy out of it at the same time, water will simply find an alternative way to flow downhill. Similarly, Obama’s economic policy is a Keynesian dead-end… In the long term, it will only tend to support the hoarding of gold and the replacement of the USD-based system of world trade with something else (we’ve already seen proposals to invoice in gold, and Utah has even made gold legal tender!) proves-gold-silver-as-legal-tender/

We’ve got to try something new, and since the root cause of the problem is a LIQUIDITY & CONFIDENCE crisis, it may now require some fresh faces at the top to make this work.

> “Reaganomics proved remarkably successful”
— You’re talking about “Reaganomics” in your article but Romney said in the debate that he’s proposing something different to everything that’s been tried before; which is a good thing because Reaganomics failed last time it was tried! nomics-and-prudent-taxation/
Until you factor in the economic warfare that Reagan was running against the Soviet Union and the peace dividends that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse (which resulted from Reagan’s policies and Soviet paranoia), it’s hard to see “Reaganomics” in a positive light (evaluated as a purely economic policy, it failed). But if you say that under different circumstances it would have made economic sense as well (say, in a severe LIQUIDITY & CONFIDENCE crisis like what we have now); then I can understand and potentially support that point of view. Again, Romney claimed recently that he wasn’t merely planning a re-run of old Reagan era policies — so your article may be partly missing the point.

Cutting tax rates while eliminating deductions and reducing the structural deficit to manageable levels via GDP/3BL-prioritized pruning of spending programs (Romney’s policy) is certainly a more viable plan than wasting $-trillions more on a bunch of bankrupt taxpayer-funded boondoggle patronage projects to keep Democratic Party donors/constituents out of the mire with no overall gain (Obama’s plan, if we go by his record of the last four years or if you heard him speak during the last presidential debate where his response to the crisis was to list loads more incalculably expensive projects that he wants to run in the next four years — perhaps the reason why Obama’s policies have failed is more to do with his specific spending priorities than the actual principle of spending during a severe downturn). Romney’s track-record and economic plan is infinitely more credible than Obama’s.

Will someone with journalistic clout please ask the Romney campaign which deductions he would eliminate? PARTICULARLY: Is Romney going to address those corporate tax deductions (indefinite postponements of tax) that David Cay Johnston has been writing about, which allow large companies with clever accountants like GE to pay near-zero tax rates for years on end whilst operating at record profits? This could reduce the deficit by a few percent, at a stroke…

By: jcfl Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:47:25 +0000 under reagan/bush1 the % deficit to gdp skyrocketed from 32% to 66%, and in ’87 produced a 500+ point tumble in the dow once everyone woke up to realize the “good economy” under reagan was a total sham and completely financed by huge deficit spending. tax cuts to the wealthy is the primary gop goal, not improving the economy through tax cuts. same goal under bush2 (with a 7000+ point slide in the dow) and will also be the same goal under romney if elected. the rest of the BS is, well, just BS.

By: robb1 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:32:37 +0000 We should highlight the corporate fiscal policy vs. the individual.

Closing big corporate loopholes like full offshore outsourcing deductions and raising the 15% corporate federal tax bracket from $50k to $250K would just help create more domestic jobs without raising the deficit.

By: Caspary Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:40:52 +0000 Romney is a pure capitalist. If you look at all his work throughout his life, it’s been about enriching himself at the expense of everything and everyone. Private Equity does not create jobs, it destroys them by downsizing, stripping and outsourcing jobs. Romney looks for ways to pay the least taxes possible, and he even banks his money overseas where he can earn the best returns and pay the least taxes. Romney is not of one economic persuasion or another. If he knew he’d make more money by being a communist, then Romney is the type that would become a communist without delay. In fact, a year ago Romney was fervently on the right-wing, anti-abortion, pro-Romneycare (Obamacare) etc. Now he’s moved so far to the left, just this week he’s anti-Obamacare, won’t change abortion laws, etc. Romney is a closet flip-flopper!

By: Gordon2352 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:16:55 +0000 I forgot to mention that perhaps the most egregious error you make is contained in this statement:

“Perhaps large tax cuts would boost the U.S. economy so strongly that the lost revenues would quickly be restored through rapid income growth?

In the Denver debate, Romney focused on this growth theme: “The revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That’s how we get growth and how we balance the budget.”

Many Democrats instinctively reject the possibility of self-financing tax cuts, accusing Romney of “magical thinking” and likening his approach to Reagan’s trickle-down economics.

But let us not forget that Reaganomics proved remarkably successful, generating average growth of 4.7 percent annually for six years.

And neither should Democrats forget that self-financing fiscal stimulus, whether through tax cuts or public spending, is the essence of Keynesian economics.”



In fact, tax cuts for the wealthy result in exactly the opposite, because of their propensity to hoard cash.

The specific problem with what Romney is saying is that to give the US wealthy more money is to finance their capital investments in lower cost, less regulatory third world countries. This is pure BS on the face of it, since it is a matter of public record Romney with all his wealth has NEVER produced jobs in the US. He has, in fact, gone out of his way to destroy US jobs. And most of his income is derived from offshore tax havens, which proves the wealthy do not “spread the wealth” with their ever-growing largess.

THAT does NOT mean jobs in the US.

THAT is our problem right now. We are currently financing the wealthy class on their greatest profit binge in history. In fact, it is this massive investment in the third world countries for the past 30+ years that is the root cause of the problem.

If we give them more money by reducing taxes they will continue to strip this country of everything we have simply to gain more wealth for themselves.


And NO there is no such thing as “self-financing fiscal stimulus, whether through tax cuts or public spending” — tax cuts don’t translate into “fiscal stimulus” for the reasons I stated above, and “public spending” is simply transfer payments that produce no revenue, which can ONLY be gained by exports (except we have no manufacturing base left anymore) — and it is certainly NOT “the essence of Keynesian economics”.

By: Gordon2352 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:46:46 +0000 Are you serious? Where did you get your degree in economics? I would ask for my money back.

The least you can do is stop trying to peddle your twisted version of economics to those who understand it — reading your BS hurts my brain.

Clearly, you do not understand Keynesian economics — put very simply, it is designed to be economic triage for an economy that has collapsed due to unfettered capitalism, mainly because capitalism without strict rules and regulations is highly unstable (i.e. certainly not “self-correcting” as the wealthy class and their sycophants would have you believe), but NOT as a permanent solution!

Also, if you understood Keynesian economics you would know that we are in what Keynes called a “liquidity trap”, a fact no one wants to mention.


From Wikipedia (solely for easy access to those who don’t understand what the term means, evidently including you):

“A liquidity trap is a situation described in Keynesian economics in which injections of cash into the private banking system by a central bank fail to lower interest rates and hence fail to stimulate economic growth.

A liquidity trap is caused when people hoard cash because they expect an adverse event such as deflation, insufficient aggregate demand, or war.

Signature characteristics of a liquidity trap are short-term interest rates that are near zero and fluctuations in the monetary base that fail to translate into fluctuations in general price levels.


I would like to make one addition to the above definition. The wealthy are hoarding cash because that is what the wealthy class normally does (history is my proof). And it has now reached such a global phenomenon that there is little cash remaining for anyone else, which drives up prices, drives down demand and increases profits for the wealthy class. Soon the global economy will collapse due to a lack of liquidity. Printing money is NOT a solution, because it decreases the value of the cash in circulation, which causes hyperinflation. DUH!

Apparently not even Mr. Bernanke seems to understand what a liquidity trap is either, since he is attempting to re-inflate the US economy by printing money when there is clearly no demand.

If you want to understand the inevitable results of what Mr. Bernanke is doing, I suggest you take a look at the definition of “hyperinflation”.

There is so much else wrong with what you say that I simply cannot address it in this venue. For example, “Do deficits really matter?” is so stupid a comment that it can’t be answered at all.

PLEASE stop writing about things you know absolutely nothing about!

By: bcrawf Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:17 +0000 What is being ignored in this article is the greatly heightened extent to which the wealth being produced in our economy is being captured at the top and not spread across the working population. When the worker produces more, for the most part he does not earn more, so simple economic formulas or theories which were useful and descriptive in the past may not be so now. The S&P Index has almost doubled since early 2009, but the middle class has continued to be hollowed out.