silly economics

You really have a perception problem. My post was simply because you made a absolute statement saying that every economist agree that Keynesian theory is correct. And I just posted a Wiki statement that some people do not agree.

I did not say what I believe. You just assumed that because I said you are wrong, that I was pushing an opinion. ( Well I was, but the opinion was that you made a stupid statement. )

I understand Keynesian theory perfectly well. And understand the strong points as well as the weak points. I also understand everyone does not agree with the Keynesian theory. You do not.

Dan

Arthur sees as pointless, but seems to have been the difference between th e 1929-1933 Great Depression (when US production capacity shrank by 25%)and the 2008-2016 Great Recession (when US production capacity didn't rise as fast as everybody would have liked,but did keep on rising).

depression, but not so much during the recession in 2008. ( The recession ended long before 2016. The recession is technically over when the GNP sta rts increasing. In this last recession it just seemed to last longer as th e recovery was very weak.). The problem is that things change and the mult iplier is no longer as large as it was.

The size Keynesian multiplier does depend on the spending habits of the peo ple who get the money. The best idea is to give to the poor, who can be rel ied on to spend all of it. The Republican dominated congress after 2010 did n't think like that, and saw it as a kind of pork barrel which should be di rected at people who would be likely to express their gratitude by voting f or them , rather than the Democrats. Sadly, their supporters aren't as spen d-thrift in a recession as Democrat-voting welfare recipients.

ay in the U.S.

Only when it isn't directed correctly.

Security and other pensions keep putting money in people pockets to spend.

Increasing these benefits as a form of stimulus spending does give you a pr etty good multiplier.

no Social Security.

That doesn't follow. If you are on Social Security it's hard to save, and v ery few do. The difference between 1930 and 2010 was that money went to the poor in 1930 and a lot less of it went to the poor in 2010.

imulus spending. We certainly did not see a big jump in GNP as a result of the stimulus spending.

If the GNP is rising at it's "natural rate", fast enough to use up all the resources available, but not so fast as to start inflationary competition f or those resources, you don't need stimulus spending, and it should have be en tapered off before the GNP was rising that fast.

What stimulus spending did do was to reverse the precipitous fall in GNP in 2008.

During the Great Depression, the decline was marginally faster, and the eco nomy kept shrinking for about three years.

may not be very effective, it is about the only thing that can be done. I t is not reassuring to say the economy is going to hell and we have not got a clue about what to do.

ite a book about ten years from now. Until then I will reserve judgement.

As if Dan has any judgement to reserve ...

bout.

e a absolute statement saying that every economist agree that Keynesian the ory is correct. And I just posted a Wiki statement that some people do not agree.

I said that most do (see the end of this post for my cut-and-pasted actual words) which is not an absolute statement, and not falsified by your observ ation that some economists don't endorse it. I have pointed out that the ki nd of people who endow named professorship in economics tend not to like Ke ynes theories, and economists who hope to get one of those professorships m ight be chary of endorsing Keynes.

are wrong, that I was pushing an opinion. ( Well I was, but the opinion wa s that you made a stupid statement. )

The stupidity was all in your reading of my statement. "Most" is not a syno nym for "all".

points as well as the weak points. I also understand everyone does not ag ree with the Keynesian theory. You do not.

I'm perfectly well aware that some economists - not all that many - don't e ndorse Keynes - and what I posted should have made that perfectly clear, ev en to somebody with your cognitive deficits.

To repeat what you seem to have been reacting to

"Most economists are neo-Keynesians. The Keynesian insight means that nice simple mathematical models of the economy haven't got a hope of working, an d the grown-ups have learned to live with that. There's still a lunatic fri nge that thinks that the perfectly rational agent in a a nice simple mathem atical model can get you publications, even if it can't predict anything."

but - assuming a perfectly adjusted growth in the money supply which calculates Perfectly the level of increase in production and population

- should not cause any inflation at all. Actual inflation is the error bar on those calculations.

The problem is that "*INFLATION!*" of us older folks recent memory has noght to do with how it might be applied now.

To that; yes, you had inflation but if you got enough cash together, you could buy instruments from the local banks to where returns were high enough that you could beat it.

I haven't seen anybody refer to Fr. Coughlin in a lot of years. It's not clear to me that he's a credible source.

In economics, the "dismal science", by choosing the "right" assumptions you can "prove" whatever position takes your fancy :( That's why I prefer electronics.

Whatever the causes, whatever the theories, whatever the politics, whatever the other effects, a principal effect of inflation /is/ to repudiate past debts.

That's why that understanding is so powerful.

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 11:06:02 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote: T

Explain to me how one directs stimulus spending to the poor but in a way that none of it is spent in Wal-Mart buying things made in India and China.

Easy. In the thirties Social Security was not a significant part of the economy. So the stimulus spending was a larger percentage of the economy.

Just remember I am smarter than you. So likely have better judgement than you. Certainly able to cope better with staying employed.

Dan

The government was backing them or, worst case, they could turn around and pawn them off the next idiot. Either way, they had no skin in it. They were absolute idiots because, while their lending operation was packaging these losers selling them to the next idiot, their investment operation was buying the junk same sort of junk from the other guy.

No need to mix the motivation with the effects. Yes, it's governments' of way welching on debts, which is to say, not delivering the benefits / value / repayments promised.

But it is accomplished by taking the value of savings from people who worked and saved, to benefit those who did not. A stealth tax.

With a progressive tax system, inflation also hikes tax rates, by pushing people into higher brackets over time.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reno threatened to prosecute them. And HUD threatened, too.

When their livelihoods are threatened, people fold.

James Arthur

I'm not. You are - by calling inflation a tax.

I didn't realise governments are that omnipotent! I thought the "market forces" were omnipotent!

Nonsense.

Taxes are (1) directly taken by governments and (2) directly end up in their coffers.

Inflation does neither 1 nor 2.

You are confusing cause and effect. Yes, people's savings are diminished, but not for that cause.

Oh, it is, absolutely. Because otherwise debt accumulates and slows things down.

But we should be able to have money supply growth with minimal error.

Yes but they could also make noise about it while they fold, but they didn't because they were cowards. That's why the Secretary of HUD became governor of New York.

That privilege is restricted to a very small circle of Brits who have the right ancestors and went to the right schools.

My younger brother got hugged by Princess Anne once (shortly after the Olympic committee had awarded the 2012 Olympics to the UK), but that's as close as it gets for us colonials.

actually a device invented by the founding tax evaders to let the people wh o owned the country continue to run the country for their own benefit, behi nd a rather thin veneer of democracy.

stitution so they could continue to run the country for their benefit.

he government from gaining control over the other parts of the government.

The equally famous separation of powers.

How so?

Crumbs. Chip and PIN has been around over here for so long that supermarket checkout staff have to go through a special procedure if someone wants to pay by actually signing a physical slip. My mum has a prehistoric bank card that requires this which is how I know.

They have now finished rolling out the next stage which is contactless

terminal (much like an Oyster card for transport networks).

The advert for this is ludicrous of a man on a water slide buying stuff as he whizzes past (I kid you not). Smartphones are in on the game too.

This ad went viral in 2008 (I have no idea why).

Indeed which can be a serious hit for smaller businesses.

Even in the USA house prices are running ahead of real wages (just not by quite as much as in New Zealand, Germany, Sweden and the UK).

But houses in the USA tend to be only cheap in the places with no jobs and no prospects of there ever being any. ISTR US rust belt derelict homes going for about $5k or thereabouts in the 2008 crash.

Doesn't alter the fact that in the USA places where the best jobs are like New York and San Fransisco the house prices are also high.

RE1

buying.

nd

-Lasse

Oh, that's not the best source: rather, look at the Declaration of Independence, which said much the same thing. It has lots of signatures, indicating a breadth of support for the notion.

Apparently some of the commentators on the "Federalist Papers" - a few of which seem to have been written by the same John Jay - used the same phrase.

Since the people who were providing the breadth of support happened to own a lot of the US at the time it isn't surprising that the notion was popular. It's very much a Moderate Enlightenment point of view.