Comments on: The continued slur against Keynes Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:47:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: mlebauer Fri, 10 May 2013 16:37:43 +0000 “Keynes did not advocate long-term large-scale public borrowing; on the contrary, he said borrowing should be paid back as soon as the recovering business cycle began its upswing.”

That’s the key issue with Keynesianism today, better termed as a pidgin “neo-Keynesianism”. It has become an excuse for politicians and crony-capitalists to engage in debt fueled influence peddling and rent seeking. There is no mechanism for thrift during good times that pays back the borrowing used to stimulate out of recessions. Keynesianism in effect cements in place vested interests that do not behave according to efficient market theory.

By: COindependent Thu, 09 May 2013 13:41:08 +0000 @pseudo Therefore, any person who is motivated to get ahead and build a financial base, regardless of whether they are there or not, is automatically considered a person of wealth and subject to attack?

That runs counter to how my family of (legal) immigrants was raised and the reason they came to America in the first place. NB: my grandfather always referred to our nation as “America”, not the United States, as he embraced the American Dream that a person’s ambition is their only limitation.

If the entitlement mentality, and the zero-sum economic philosophy (where one can only create wealth at the expense of another person, as espoused by the President) has served to diminish that, and is cause for unwarranted demonization, then the future is bleak. However, I am not drinking the statist kool-aid.

By: asmith36 Wed, 08 May 2013 22:14:59 +0000 COIndependent: perhaps only the wealthy have the unfettered time to weigh in on this debate.

By: asmith36 Wed, 08 May 2013 21:10:36 +0000 First: it is is: it’s and its: is possessive (I may not be an economist, Coindependent, but grammar does matter).

Next: So which side of the asinine positions of Mark Zuckerberg (a new Koch Brother replica) would H or K be on? Would either of these gentlemen (note no woman in that arena) support raping the countryside via fracking, tucking into virgin Alaska’s Tundra for carbon-poisoning minerals? Or supporting H1 visas while leaving most of the undocumented without help?

A tangential query.

By: PseudoTurtle Wed, 08 May 2013 20:34:24 +0000 @ COindependent —

Pardon me for MY faux pas.

I assumed from some of your previous responses you were.

I must say, though, aren’t you a bit touchy where no harm was meant?

Virtually all of my comment was directly on target, with a bare mention that you might prefer Keynes being labeled as a gay, due to your previous comments where we have had differences.

Sorry, my mistake.

By: ptiffany Wed, 08 May 2013 19:49:58 +0000 Excellent job of logically tying together verifiable facts and history! Then, for those with other dimension ideologies – the imagination, not real dimension – facts and real history are all nonsense as they follow the Palin Rule: “If you don’t know something, just make it up!” That seems to be the mantra of the viewers of Faux News as well.

It is such a joy to experience someone who can still reason and is willing to share.

By: COindependent Wed, 08 May 2013 15:35:48 +0000 @ Psuedo. Assuming one is “wealthy” and positioning your response accordingly is jumping the shark. Stay on point and refrain from the direct and indirect attacks. “wealthy” –far from it, still working, with a mortgage.

And, the author did challenge the Harvard professor–which was the point of the article.

By: wilywascal Tue, 07 May 2013 22:06:08 +0000 It would be nice if we finally recognized once and for all that the Chicago School of Economics thought has done far more harm than good. Even their idol, the Scottish father of economics, felt that banks were too important to leave unregulated. Not so for these clowns, and we consequently ended up with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But it isn’t just the neocons who have been drinking the Kool-Aid, it’s been liberal politicians, as well.

It’s too bad Keynes isn’t alive today, but Paul Krugman is no slouch, either. Now, if only enough people would listen to reason instead of confining themselves to misguided ideologies, we could escape the carnage of the neocons faulty economic theories and turn this economy around quickly to end the needless suffering.

Unfortunately, it looks like conservatives are bound and determined to make sure the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty, which also happens to be those toward the bottom forced to sacrifice greatly while those at the top bearing most of the responsibility suffer little or not at all for their unmitigated greed. Nothing new there–Republicans have been playing that game for years. Putting ideologies ahead of the good of the citizens they represent is also expected with these jokers. What is surprising is that such a large segment of the current crop of American voters hasn’t yet wised up to this dog and pony show.

By: PseudoTurtle Tue, 07 May 2013 21:23:34 +0000 @ COindependent —

I stand corrected!

Greed is indeed an “equal opportunity employer”.

However, arguing that only one professor speaking out regarding Keynes sexual orientation — granted that this news should come as no surprise to anyone who has researched Keynes and his economic theories — is not misusing his position to deliberately reach out to those not in economics is an attempt to taint Keynes’ theories to the general public, is ignoring the source.

If a Harvard professor unwisely made such comments in terms of Keynes in terms of his race, for example, assuming that Keynes was not of the white English establishment, he would be “tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail”, and you know it.

To dismiss such remarks from a Harvard professor is to allow prejudicial remarks from an authoritative source go unchallenged.

No doubt, being a member of the wealthy set yourself, you wouldn’t mind this, but to use a metaphor from baseball, a “foul ball is a foul ball” no matter how you look at it.

You cannot expect to score with a foul ball, but that is what you are arguing.

In this case, “foul” should retain its non-baseball meaning, which is “grossly offensive to the senses; disgustingly loathsome; noisome: a foul smell”, but the author chooses instead to “pass along” this “foul ball” to the economically uneducated masses, thus aiding and abetting what has happened.

To me, a major journalistic faux pas.

But, hey, Reuters plays by their own rules anyhow.

So how can really expect the truth? Right?

By: Benny27 Tue, 07 May 2013 21:23:12 +0000 Funny the post above mine does not mention glass-steagal. Selective history like this is the problem, not a solution.

Imagine the tinfoil it takes to make a hat big enough to blame sarbanes–oxley and dodd-frank for the financial crises we now face? give your head a shake, or at least attempt to provide some justification.