Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

How so? It didn't lead to WW2? Or any of the other forever wars caused by the military industrial complex?

---

Keynes prescription was for increased spending. World War II was exactly that.

---

So my statement said that WW2 was caused directly by Keynesian economics, to which you said that statement couldn't be more wrong. Now you are admitting it was completely right. Thanks for playing.

---

No it was a form of the exact spending level needed. It was highly unfortunate it was in the form of a war. However, it exactly proves the correctness of Keynesian economics.

---

So you are now arguing my original statement was right. WW2 was caused by Keynesian economics.

---

WW2 was caused by Pearl Harbor.....that had nothing to do with Keynesian Economics. The war itself was just the example needed to show the power of Keynes theory however....it was unfortunately in a destructive war but the premise is the same.

---

WW2 was absolutely not caused by Pearl Harbor. It had been going on for 2 years at that point.

ac04 said:

---

we are living through the "power of keynes theory" right now. what he misses is that unlimited spending is not without consequence, you are just punting the consequences down the road to future generations. we are those future generations.

---

And his current disciples can't even tell you what year WW2 started.

Neehau said:

---

Keynes was right about everything... His general theory is the basis for modern macroeconomics.

---

You meant this as a brag, but these days it's more of a scarlet letter. Modern macroeconomics' jaunt into MMT was one of the most predictably destructive policy actions ever taken, and we aren't even close to the end of the pain.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

How so? It didn't lead to WW2? Or any of the other forever wars caused by the military industrial complex?

---

Keynes prescription was for increased spending. World War II was exactly that.

---

So my statement said that WW2 was caused directly by Keynesian economics, to which you said that statement couldn't be more wrong. Now you are admitting it was completely right. Thanks for playing.

---

No it was a form of the exact spending level needed. It was highly unfortunate it was in the form of a war. However, it exactly proves the correctness of Keynesian economics.

---

So you are now arguing my original statement was right. WW2 was caused by Keynesian economics.

---

WW2 was caused by Pearl Harbor.....that had nothing to do with Keynesian Economics. The war itself was just the example needed to show the power of Keynes theory however....it was unfortunately in a destructive war but the premise is the same.

---

WW2 was absolutely not caused by Pearl Harbor. It had been going on for 2 years at that point.

---

You are right. The US entered with Pearl Harbor. I was stating that in relation to the level of government spending we needed to get out of the depression. World War II started when a far right regime in Germany decided their race needed more breathing room so they invaded Poland.

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

Spending is spending in your economic world and is the foundation for Keynesian economics and the recipe for success. Thus, Keynesians were logically* predicting an economic disaster when the war ended because spending would drop as the war effort wound down.

However, after something like 75% of government spending was cut in the 3-4 years immediately following WWII and price controls were removed and all those boys came home...the economy exploded.

Had nothing to do with Keynesian economics and everything to do with cutting spending (ie an anti-Keynesian policy) and unleashing capitalism.

Thus, your statement above could not be more wrong.

* Logically in this scenario meaning that if you believed in Keynesian economics then you had to believe that ending the war would lead to economic calamity.

WWII started when Imperialist Japan expanded into Chinese Manchuria and then China itself and set conditions for inevitable economic conflict with western colonial powers over regional resources it would need, and when Hitler assumed political power in 1933 and a conflict over the Danzig corridor in Poland and the Rhine regional border with France and war reparations in general became inevitable, and when Mussolini invaded African Ethiopia and other areas abutting colonial British territory.

And more. It was almost an inevitable outcome of World War I which was unfinished.

Keynesian policies inevitably fail in application because human beings are inadequate to the task of successfully implementing them without net doing as much harm as good at the micro level, and most probably macro harm as well. We simply can't possibly respond dynamically enough the right times and places with the right amounts of stimulation and withdrawal of such even with purely apolitical and objective positive intent. We are wholly and utterly inadequate to the task, and highly corruptible in addition to that. Politics inevitably takes precedence over objective policy and the results are inevitably always suboptimal and therefore net destructive. Badly timed, badly allocated.

YouBet said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

Spending is spending in your economic world and is the foundation for Keynesian economics and the recipe for success. Thus, Keynesians were logically* predicting an economic disaster when the war ended because spending would drop as the war effort wound down.

However, after something like 75% of government spending was cut in the 3-4 years immediately following WWII and price controls were removed and all those boys came home...the economy exploded.

Had nothing to do with Keynesian economics and everything to do with cutting spending (ie an anti-Keynesian policy) and unleashing capitalism.

Thus, your statement above could not be more wrong.

* Logically in this scenario meaning that if you believed in Keynesian economics then you had to believe that ending the war would lead to economic calamity.

---

It had everything to do with Keynesian Economics and the fact, unfortunately, that we became the worlds manufacturing facility. You have heard of the Marshall Plan I take it? That combined with us being the only country having manufacturing infrastructure in place is what lead to the post War boom.

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

How so? It didn't lead to WW2? Or any of the other forever wars caused by the military industrial complex?

---

Keynes prescription was for increased spending. World War II was exactly that.

---

It wasn't the spending, it was the destruction of all of our chief rivals. When you control 50% of the entire worlds production the economic outlook will be pretty good.

YouBet said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

Spending is spending in your economic world and is the foundation for Keynesian economics and the recipe for success. Thus, Keynesians were logically* predicting an economic disaster when the war ended because spending would drop as the war effort wound down.

However, after something like 75% of government spending was cut in the 3-4 years immediately following WWII and price controls were removed and all those boys came home...the economy exploded.

Had nothing to do with Keynesian economics and everything to do with cutting spending (ie an anti-Keynesian policy) and unleashing capitalism.

Thus, your statement above could not be more wrong.

* Logically in this scenario meaning that if you believed in Keynesian economics then you had to believe that ending the war would lead to economic calamity.

---

That isnt what Keynes called for. Keynes called for the government to work on the demand curve as opposed to the supply curve. Understanding that distinction, which you clearly don't or are deliberately ignoring, is the fundamental difference.

Incredible that you come here and post this garbage after the last year and a half of direct proof that Keynesian economics are garbage.

I know you're a troll, but cmon man. Do better.

Neehau said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

Spending is spending in your economic world and is the foundation for Keynesian economics and the recipe for success. Thus, Keynesians were logically* predicting an economic disaster when the war ended because spending would drop as the war effort wound down.

However, after something like 75% of government spending was cut in the 3-4 years immediately following WWII and price controls were removed and all those boys came home...the economy exploded.

Had nothing to do with Keynesian economics and everything to do with cutting spending (ie an anti-Keynesian policy) and unleashing capitalism.

Thus, your statement above could not be more wrong.

* Logically in this scenario meaning that if you believed in Keynesian economics then you had to believe that ending the war would lead to economic calamity.

---

That isnt what Keynes called for. Keynes called for the government to work on the demand curve as opposed to the supply curve. Understanding that distinction, which you clearly don't or are deliberately ignoring, is the fundamental difference.

---

so he told the government they just needed to sell 2 more teas to make up the difference

Neehau said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

Spending is spending in your economic world and is the foundation for Keynesian economics and the recipe for success. Thus, Keynesians were logically* predicting an economic disaster when the war ended because spending would drop as the war effort wound down.

However, after something like 75% of government spending was cut in the 3-4 years immediately following WWII and price controls were removed and all those boys came home...the economy exploded.

Had nothing to do with Keynesian economics and everything to do with cutting spending (ie an anti-Keynesian policy) and unleashing capitalism.

Thus, your statement above could not be more wrong.

* Logically in this scenario meaning that if you believed in Keynesian economics then you had to believe that ending the war would lead to economic calamity.

---

That isnt what Keynes called for. Keynes called for the government to work on the demand curve as opposed to the supply curve. Understanding that distinction, which you clearly don't or are deliberately ignoring, is the fundamental difference.

---

You don't even know what year WW2 started. It's evident that you don't understand Keynes economic theory any better.

Pookers said:

---

Neehau said:

---

In 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote the following regarding inflation:

Quote:

---

As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

---

Some American progressives seem to have forgotten Keynes' warning. Even as inflation is detonating the macroeconomy, they're frantically fighting against the idea of hiking interest rates. The reason is that they fear that rate increases will inevitably lead to a recession.
I personally believe the Fed should hike rates by 200bps (2%) in a single meeting . Arin Dube, an economist at UMass-Amherst, foretold that a move like this would cause "very high unemployment":
[url=https://twitter.com/arindube/status/1535422384152399873][/url]
MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes said such a move would throw 5 million Americans out of work. The Roosevelt Institute's J.W. Mason from two months ago argued that a recession is much worse than inflation (it seems unlikely he has changed his outlook since then). Other progressives in the economics world also scare tactic the idea of recession, even if they don't explicitly weight it against inflation.
[url=https://twitter.com/arindube/status/1535422384152399873][/url]
The fear of an economic downturn is certainly legitimate. The Great Depression was the greatest economic calamity in our history so far, and the Great Recession that began in 2008 was enormously damaging as well. The Volcker recessions of the early 1980s that ended the 70s inflation didn't last as long, but the second one was deep and painful and left permanent scars on the Rust Belt. The harms of unemployment are concentrated on society's most vulnerable.

---

Keynes is a hack, hope this helps.

---

This "analysis" is silly.

What Keynes theorized and keynesians advocate are not the same thing. Deficit spending to spur an economy in recession might not be that bad an idea, assuming you pay the debt off, aren't already in massive, stupid, silly debt and are generally economically responsible otherwise. This government has not been that since the 80's.

I think raising interest rates CAN help inflation, but mostly to the extent said inflation is caused by too much lending. It can also lower inflation by purposefully putting an economy into a recession/depression (by lowering demand) - but that in itself is no guarantee of stopping inflation either.

Raising rates will not help inflation when inflation is caused by:

1) Too much printing of money. You print more money, you're gonna get more inflation. The government doesn't care what the interest rates are when they are just giving the money away. Normally this doesn't happen in large enough quantities to matter. It did during COVID though.

2) Not enough supply. When prices go up because of lowered supply (COVID, Russia/Ukraine, etc) raising rates is not going to increase that supply, nor will it effectively reduce demand. In fact, it will keep supply low because interest to borrow money to increase supply will be more expensive.

Raising rates doesn't increase supply, but it does decrease demand. But that also causes recession/depression.

So raising rates somewhat will help a little, but won't really solve anything without also throwing us into a recession/depression. Raising rates 3+ % will definitely trigger a recession/depression.

Better options are:

1) Mild rate increases
2) Government needs to stop printing and spending
3) Policy changes to ease supply chain problems (for both oil/gas as well as non-energy supply chain issues).
4) Policy changes/tax breaks to invest some of the excess money in circulation - encourage investment to help the supply chain problems. More supply with same demand = lower prices.

Then just give it time for those actions to take effect and not do knee jerk rate changes.

I think the Fed sees that the Biden admin will not make any policy changes however because they are clueless - so I think they DO raise rates 3+ pts before this is all over.

The forgotten depression 1920-1921 started out every bit as bad as 1929. But evaporated in only a couple years. While the great depression lasted 10 years (actually longer).

What was the difference between the two? The 1920 depression "cured itself" as the government allowed the free market to work (that's why it was "forgotten"). While Hoover and FDR inflicted Keynesianism on the nation making their depression longer and deeper and making it "great".

Keynesianism fails every time.

aTmAg said:

---

The forgotten depression 1920-1921 started out every bit as bad as 1929. But evaporated in only a couple years. While the great depression lasted 10 years (actually longer).

What was the difference between the two? The 1920 depression "cured itself" as the government allowed the free market to work (that's why it was "forgotten"). While Hoover and FDR inflicted Keynesianism on the nation making their depression longer and deeper and making it "great".

Keynesianism fails every time.

---

Yep.

aTmAg said:

---

The forgotten depression 1920-1921 started out every bit as bad as 1929. But evaporated in only a couple years. While the great depression lasted 10 years (actually longer).

What was the difference between the two? The 1920 depression "cured itself" as the government allowed the free market to work (that's why it was "forgotten"). While Hoover and FDR inflicted Keynesianism on the nation making their depression longer and deeper and making it "great".

Keynesianism fails every time.

---

Except when it doesn't.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Keynesian policies inevitably fail in application because human beings are inadequate to the task of successfully implementing them without net doing as much harm as good at the micro level, and most probably macro harm as well. We simply can't possibly respond dynamically enough the right times and places with the right amounts of stimulation and withdrawal of such even with purely apolitical and objective positive intent. We are wholly and utterly inadequate to the task, and highly corruptible in addition to that. Politics inevitably takes precedence over objective policy and the results are inevitably always suboptimal and therefore net destructive. Badly timed, badly allocated.

---

Pretty much nails it. The theory may very well be correct. But human interference/greed/fallibility means that implementation is impossible and will never actually work.

Why are economic theories bred in an academic lounge always wrong? Just asking.

Is OP the sock account for Oldag2020?

Neehau said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

The forgotten depression 1920-1921 started out every bit as bad as 1929. But evaporated in only a couple years. While the great depression lasted 10 years (actually longer).

What was the difference between the two? The 1920 depression "cured itself" as the government allowed the free market to work (that's why it was "forgotten"). While Hoover and FDR inflicted Keynesianism on the nation making their depression longer and deeper and making it "great".

Keynesianism fails every time.

---

Except when it doesn't.

---

Still waiting for that. Unicorns will likely evolve from Horses sooner.

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Keynes policies have led to millions of jobs destroyed, millions of people's wealth decreased, and government selling out its citizens so that they can fund forever wars. WW2 was caused by adherence to Keynesian economics. The current military industrial complex is directly caused by our adherence to Keynesian economics. I assume this means you support all of those things?

---

Keynesian economics is what got us out of the depression. Your statement above could not be more wrong.

---

We had an earlier depression in 1920...

The Alternative Worked Better....

Quote:

---

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

---

Isn't it funny how that very libertarian approach worked far better than anything Keynes or his adherents have done since?

Neehau - how does the US government keep spending?

Use real dollars that already exist? Only way to get more is to tax more and hamper consumer spending.
Print more money? That just contributes to more inflation.
Take more money via debt? Keep over-leveraging and we'll be even more exposed to volatile market movements.

Spending with no thought of cuts or paying down debt it dumb.

Two Teas, is that you?

Beat40 said:

---

Neehau - how does the US government keep spending?

Use real dollars that already exist? Only way to get more is to tax more and hamper consumer spending.
Print more money? That just contributes to more inflation.
Take more money via debt? Keep over-leveraging and we'll be even more exposed to volatile market movements.

Spending with no thought of cuts or paying down debt it dumb.

---

Manipulating the demand curve does not mean printing money or increasing spending. It means implementing policy to cause shifts in aggregate demand.

Neehau said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

The forgotten depression 1920-1921 started out every bit as bad as 1929. But evaporated in only a couple years. While the great depression lasted 10 years (actually longer).

What was the difference between the two? The 1920 depression "cured itself" as the government allowed the free market to work (that's why it was "forgotten"). While Hoover and FDR inflicted Keynesianism on the nation making their depression longer and deeper and making it "great".

Keynesianism fails every time.

---

Except when it doesn't.

---

Try addressing the point next time.

Why did the "smaller government, lower taxes" approach work far better than that used by the Keynesians in the 1930s?

Neehau said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Neehau - how does the US government keep spending?

Use real dollars that already exist? Only way to get more is to tax more and hamper consumer spending.
Print more money? That just contributes to more inflation.
Take more money via debt? Keep over-leveraging and we'll be even more exposed to volatile market movements.

Spending with no thought of cuts or paying down debt it dumb.

---

Manipulating the demand curve does not mean printing money or increasing spending. It means implementing policy to cause shifts in aggregate demand.

---

so selling two more teas without increasing customers...sounds familiar.

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Neehau - how does the US government keep spending?

Use real dollars that already exist? Only way to get more is to tax more and hamper consumer spending.
Print more money? That just contributes to more inflation.
Take more money via debt? Keep over-leveraging and we'll be even more exposed to volatile market movements.

Spending with no thought of cuts or paying down debt it dumb.

---

Manipulating the demand curve does not mean printing money or increasing spending. It means implementing policy to cause shifts in aggregate demand.

---

so selling two more teas without increasing customers...sounds familiar.

---

Just flag the troll and move on.

lb3 said:

---

Two Teas, is that you?

---

Yup. Both had 3 stars.

techno-ag said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Two Teas, is that you?

---

Yup. Both had 3 stars.

---

Expains the abhorrently bad lack of intellectual horsepower.

Neehau said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I would also rather face a recession than unbound inflation.

The problem with Keynes is that he was wrong on a lot, but his disciples don't care. He was also right on a lot, but those portions of his teaching his disciples almost entirely ignore. And his his disciples are currently in charge of our economy.

---

Keynes was right about everything.

Most brilliant economist in the history of the profession. His general theory is the basis for modern macroeconomics. Bertrand Russell described him as the most gifted man he had ever known.

---

Sarcasm duly noted.

The problem many people make is to identify a simple factor, in this case inflation, and make sweeping statements about the effects.

Anybody that believes this crap probably would be fine getting up in the morning, see no clouds and believe there will be no rain today.

Same **** was done with COVID, global warming, etc.

Why was half this thread deleted?

I don't see how you get extremely high inflation down WITHOUT a recession. IMO it has to happen.

There are too many people/firms that are circulating cash, you have to slow that down. Slowing that down means negative growth. Now there is some debate on how painful that slowdown has to be. The FED is trying its best for the "soft-landing" and as mild of a recession as possible, but plans typically go the way you want them to.