Comments on: Tea Party cools as Keynes makes a comeback Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: JayTrader Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:07:10 +0000 This is not an argument between Keynes V. Hayek, or Tea Party V. Obama. It’s at the end of the day really Big Business/Corporations V. the Taxpayer. Guess what? The Taxpayer is losing. Endless Bailouts/Bonus payments to the ones that screwed it all up in the first place. If both Keynes & Hajek were alive today they both would be equally horrified to see what has happened. Keynesian worked in the 1930’s because Gov Debt levels were very low. The country was a surplus country going into the great depression. It is totally different today as debt levels were obese going into the great recession. The Austrian method would have worked 30 years ago when the global financial system wasnt so interconneced. Both are excellent ideas in theory but life is not theory. There is no easy way out of this mess except time.

If an argument needs to be made, its not an argument between Keynes V. Hajek but Keynes V. Milton Friedman. The Monetarists have lost, you can’t simply control the economy and prices via the Interest Rate/Money Channel. This idea has been soundly defeated as Monetary Policy in a balance sheet recession is totally impotent. We need fiscal policy. Europe needs a sound unified fiscal policy out of their mess.

By: MaggieMP Thu, 01 Sep 2011 05:58:58 +0000 I’m no economist – have been become a somewhat reluctant student of economic theory in the last year or so!

My general understanding of Keynesian strategies suggests that bailing bankers, who then hold funds, is *not* in the spirit of Keynesian theory, which emphasized getting money into circulation. So I don’t count bailing bankers as “Keynesian”.

In fact, bailing bankers seems more in line (in outcome at least) with Hayek’s views (i.e. unfettered accumulation of wealth will ‘magically’ create prosperity for those who’ve been disenfranchised by withdrawal of funds from ‘commons’ investments, such as public health, education, utilities, etc.).

The fundamental questions remain: “Who are we as a species?”; “What is our unique promise relative to other life forms?”; “What is ‘an economy’, why do we have one, and is it meant to serve humanity’s promise, or is humanity meant to serve the mechanisms of ‘an economy’?”; and – “What stewardship practices do 21stC national and global conditions (including earth itself) require in order that humanity may rise to its potential?”

There are many more questions of this type that we ignore at our peril. What are the motivations of Group X, Group Y, when they promote economic solutions? How comprehensive to ‘best potential for all’ is their thinking? What are their beliefs about potential of each child born?

Economic solutions to resource access and management are constructs, designs. None are ‘sacred’. We are free to design and adjust these as we see fit.

“Social Darwinism” is a ‘belief\'; it is challenged by in-born urge to ‘community and social beingness’, which are best served by empathy, which – until we learn to abandon it, is also ‘inborn’. (I’m a retired long time teacher of young children – I’ve witnessed natural empathy and have seen it eroded.)

American founders recommended attention to common weal for a reason.

In our ‘resource insecurity’, all of us (as humans, with human psychology), are susceptible to “turning on one another”, discounting one another’s humanity. This does not bode well for us. Enough research has been done on inequality (Wilkinson and Pickett’s “Spirit Level” for a start) for us to have guidance.

Our choice, always.

By: WhoCares101 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:46:19 +0000 The UK is not a problem because of Keynes theory, its in a problem because the Government finally ran out of other people’s money (thank you Margaret Thatcher), and the Feral Children got mad, because they actually might have to grow up and work for a living.

Would that the rest of you stop trying to find a way to get the government to take care of you and just stand on your own two feet.

Some of us were raised with the idea of we work, we get paid, and if there’s not work, we find work, or make it. We dont’ accept hand-outs (we leave it for those who really need it), and we give to charity, because we don’t think the government can do better than we can.

Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Do any of you really think any government would even try to cut spending, if they had another way to get it from the people?

Its time to fish or cut bait. Either we can live the American dream and get off the dole or be the ‘lilies of the valley’, and end up like Greece.

By: Kanapapa Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:13:34 +0000 What I have read here just don’t quite feel right. So I’ll put it in my own words.

What we are going through is a polarizing series of events affecting our common fiscal and economic health with roots that reach far into the past. Liberals see our current state as due to the intransigence of conservatives who have always seemed to them to have little sense of social consciousness and obligation and are entirely too serious about religious matters. Conservatives see the current state as due to the indolence of liberals who know neither right from wrong nor do they appreciate ethics of allowing rewards to those who work for them and seem thoroughly confused on the need to live according to firmly established principles and social boundaries.

Which of the points of view are right? It doesn’t matter. What matters is that the two come to learn to have grace and humility towards those with different views and that this has more to do with perspective than content.

You cant know anyone really until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.. and just be glad you’re a mile away from them if you’ve got their shoes.

By: newulm55 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:47:23 +0000 Keynes never left the building… we’ve had zero spending cuts and massive budget increases. Simple math states if the gov cut spending to what it collects (even w/ tax increase) we are in an instant depression.

PS – the depression did not end until after the WWII, we were the only industrial power left to product goods. I don’t see that happening again.

By: laguardia23 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:45:54 +0000 The boomer generation is feeling guilty for the things they did to make the economy the way it is now and as a result are leaning further to the right and against this Keynesian thinking so they can feel better about themselves. The previous generation sees no incentive to correct this, so they stick it to the government for it. Simple deferral of responsibility.

By: advocatusdiabol Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:34:41 +0000 “mw101563, if Keynes’ theory didn’t work during the Great Depression, what exactly happened?”

It did work. What really pulled the USA out of the GD was the massive Keynesian war spending to gear up for WW2. Nothing else came close to ending the GD. Keynes was right and still is. the failure has been insufficient commitment. Without world war, the spending in the early 1930s wasn’t enough either—FDR’s programs reduced unemployment from 24% to 19% and that was it.

By: Wooly Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:05:13 +0000 Nicky’s article is just so funny…..he says, for instance, “go to London, where a Hayekian experiment is in full swing.”
Nick…my man…c’mon….what’s happening in London is precisely BECAUSE of Keyesian economic policies. DUH! What do you think they’ve been practicing over there for the past 30-40 years? The results are not surprising…what WOULD be surprising is if the results had been different….but in the end, they never, ever, ever, never are. I only had to be shocked once to understand I shouldn’t put my finger in the socket…on the other hand, some people never learn, no matter the results. Communist, socialist polies ALWAYS fail and ALWAYS have. (Name one that hasn’t…anywhere on the planet…).
Milton had/has it right. Capitalism is the answer…or at least, the best answer man has developed to date. Can you name any other monetary system that has provided more opportunity, more success, more wealth for more people? Can you, please? Capitalism cannot work without a free market. Governments hinder free markets, but are necessary. Governements should therefore be limited to necessity and then we ALL can live better. (PLEASE SUPPORT TERM LIMITS AT ALL LEVELS.)

By: Minnesotamike Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:03:11 +0000 To zotdoc above. Maybe your father had an easier time of things because he lived in our country before Nafta, Cafta and FREE trade. I live in Northern Minnesota and can see the trainloads of goods coming south daily. But strangely enough the cars are mostly empty going north. This did not happen before NAFTA. The same thing is happening at the Mexican border. Remember Ross Peroit and the “Giant sucking sound of our jobs leaving America”. Ross was right!!!

By: RickCaird Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:57:13 +0000 It is always fun to read “wishful thinking” masquerading as “news”.

And for @seattlesh, we already did turn to the “lunatic fringe”. We did that in 2008 and are working to recover from that mishap.