The roots of economic chaos
What Will Rogers said was once funny: "Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for!"
It isn't funny today. We get not only the government paid for by massive takings by force from all of us but even more government paid for by putting our children for generations in debt, massive borrowing and running the money printing presses like mad.
Worse this is supported by officially sanctioned economic doctrine. Keynes and latter day disciples like Krugman claim that spending and "demand" are the engines of wealth and that the only investment in production ta actually helps is from government. You couldn't make this crap up.
It isn't funny today. We get not only the government paid for by massive takings by force from all of us but even more government paid for by putting our children for generations in debt, massive borrowing and running the money printing presses like mad.
Worse this is supported by officially sanctioned economic doctrine. Keynes and latter day disciples like Krugman claim that spending and "demand" are the engines of wealth and that the only investment in production ta actually helps is from government. You couldn't make this crap up.
Let's all vote for Bernie so our kids can have a free education. Pot will be free too.
Everything will be hunky dory. It's flower power, y'all.
Who says we can eat our cake and have ti too?
Excuse me. Time to contemplate my navel.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
So much for the flower children....where have all their lineage gone? Gone to jackboots everyone. Looks like they'll never learn.
who was teaching grad school on the side. . I begged to
differ with him about Keynes. . he was not amused. -- j
.
I did very poorly in school because I would rather fail than suck up to most of the asshole teachers.
which I used to teach others, later, in the certified manager
program out of ICPM in Virginia. -- j
.
Just how many times do these socialists have to burn themselves before they realize the stove is hot and that thei9r policies are a dead-end for us all no matter how much Crony-capitalism you throw into the mix?!
Keynes was wrong then and he and Krugman are still wrong today! They have engineered what will be the worst economic collapse in the history of the human race......
sh!t for education, and punishment for having a thought. -- j
.
Remember, the Hegelian model was adopted by Nazis Germany and Stalinist Russia for their respective national educational systems. Out of the Frankfort School, reading, writing, arithmetic gave way to doctrinaire ideologies such as; Arbor day, Political Correctness and a host of anti-American/anti-Constitutional doctrines. Don't believe me? Check it out!
all over this nation. -- j
.
Really!
Would someone please ask Krugman about the profitability of the last few companies HE ran?
Are the demands of an American millionaire or a poor filth-laden slob in one of the hell-holes of the world somehow different? I think not.
Ideally, (certainly NOT what is at work in the current economic environment wherein it is taught - and you have apparently accepted, that we can "demand" our way to prosperity) the former has REAL money that represents past production that is "unconsumed," with which to demand current and future production. On the other hand the poor wretch wishes he might be able to "demand" same, though owing to not having been able to first produce more than he has consumed, has little or nothing with which to "demand."
"Demanding" or consuming your way to prosperity is much like f...ing on behalf of virginity.
The more wealth you have, the more likely you are to think from an investment mentality. The less wealth you have, the more likely you are to think with a consumption mentality.
It is the people who think investment that produce things, vs. consuming them.
The demands are different. Teaching people to invest, even when they are poor, is the road to wealth, the American Dream. Not consumption.
This stupidity has been tried again and again and the only time it seemed to work as designed was when Ronald Reagan developed his "Spend Bold" strategy of priming the pump by the DoD infusing massive amounts of Federal dollars into purchasing hardware and related services, rebuilding the US military.
This actually did create jobs and "trickled" down throughout the economy. The difference between Obama federal spending and Reagan's was hard goods being purchased that translated into thousands of manufacturing jobs. Obama on the other hand spend billions hiring people to work for the government, producing nothing of value.
That my friends is the difference between a successful president and a presidential wannabe.
The paternalistic assumption that the gov 'knows what is right for us' is upstream from its assertion that 'therefore it can take the money from whomever it wants to make that happen'.
Jan
...so to speak.
Jan
I have accepted no such thing. I believe in production as the engine of prosperity - producing more value than was consumed in producing it.
Rand echoed that statement via the caricature of Floyd Ferris: "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden."
People supporting the continued borrowing aren't doing it because of a mis-application of Keynes. They're doing it for the same reason people run up credit cards unintentionally.
Back to school Mr. Krugman!!!
We really need two different words for what they teach Keynesianism means in school and what it means here. I haven't read the primary soruces. I just know the two are nothing alike. If it means gov't spending results in growth, I disagree. If it means paying off debt or going into debt affects aggregate demand, which affects the economic cycle, I agree with it strongly. We need two words.
You gain the output of factors of production that would have gone unused and wasted.
As for your comment on demand driven back it up with facts and prove the use of 'never' same as before couch potato rhetoric with no proofs offered.
Nyet nyet no change the subject. Back up your statement with something besides .....nothing.
Kinda like asking who are the number one shyster businesses and not mentioning Cingular ATT. Some of us , me included took them to task for not recognizing the disenfranchised 35% to 50% nor the existence of undervoting and None of the Above. Some of that is starting to work. Interesting work covers a wide category of poltiical and consumer oriented questions. They also were leaving out purchasing by internet and that's been added.
I also kicked them about using wrong definitions etc. just like I do here. Why? Why not? The one's we've been spoon fed for years do not work....my personal system does.
Gilder, George (2013-06-10). Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World (p. 65). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
1 James Livingston, Against Thrift: Why Consumer Culture Is Good for the Economy, the Environment, and Your Soul (New York: Basic Books, 2011).
More from Livingston..
"Between 1900 and 2000, real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent. Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of GDP. What’s more, in 1900, almost all investment came from the private sector— from companies, not from government— whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor. 5 Business investment is, meanwhile, an actual hazard: So corporate profits do not drive economic growth— they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble…. Consumer spending is not only the key to economic recovery in the short term; it’s also necessary for balanced growth in the long term…. [W] e consumers need to save less and spend more in the name of a better future. 6"
6 Livinston, “It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid!”
Gilder, George (2013-06-10). Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World (p. 305). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Quoting "statistics" is a little on the bogus side because a skilled "craftsperson" can manipulate the outcome just about any way they want.
reading between the lines of your post, it seems to be embracing a more Keynesian model and implies that private capital gives way to some form of government stimulus. Excuse me if I have mistaken your post.
Your take on the use of private capital to inflate the post 1929 stock market really sounds more like the fact that government by "encouraging" people who cannot afford mortgages to get them with ease, thus inflating the real estate market with a irrational demand for housing. That, in turn caused the great collapse of a couple of years ago. Now they have reinstated the same stupid stimulation making easy (I.e., recently printed) money available to people who cannot afford what they wish to buy.
As I am sure you are aware, another massive bubble is now in scope with these Keynesian/Krugman "fixes". I for one will gladly take my chance with a Free Market approach and to hell with government intervention!
Stop Enabling
Take Control
Make Change
Or if you like the way things are going vote Democrat or Republican. Doesn't matter which. It's the same party and come to think of it they are the only ones allowed to have candidates on the ballot.
Thanks to you.
Not voting on that particular line is 'undervote' = No Confidence vote in parliamentary systems and for us translates to "None of the Above."
Currently runs 35 or so percent in Presidential cycles and right at 50 percent in non Prez elections.
Unless they start counting all those who didn't vote and those who didn't register as winner take all. A step I wouldn't put past the left for half second.
That 35 to 50 percent is a source of real power but there is no one or no one entity to lead that sort of cooperation. Still the rule remains
First - cease enabling.
Second - regain control
Third - Make changes of common ground agreed areas
Fourth - then deal with the rest of it....
The other option is learn to say We Serve The Party!
With GDP computed this way they have to push for more and more consumer and government spending to improve GDP. Total madness.