Is more debt worth Keynesian policy?

I voted no, but the real cost has not been proven yet. It is obvious the current spending has had little effect as normal growth after a recession is much more robust. The next bubble may be a world credit bubble. The more in debt a country is, the worse off it will be. We have not seen yet if the long term debt will prove to be a drag on the economy so the jury is still out on that. Only time will tell, so it is prudent to be cautious, both fiscally and with claims of doom and failure.

 

I'm not a liberal so you've gone off on one there. It does amuse me, however, that right wingers- by celebrating Ron- are also celebrating a particularly inefficient form of Keynesianism.

 

You could fool anyone with your posts then.

There was a lot more we liked about Reagan.

 

Socialism and liberalism are incompatible. Bit obvious really.

Try to keep to the thread's topic. Why do you think the right tolerated Ron's inefficient form of Keynesianism? Easily fooled perhaps?

 

Things are much worse today. Obama is a complete failure. Jobs were created during the Reagan years.

 

Ron just went for boring ole inefficient Keynesianism in a relatively more stable economic environment. You didn't answer the question: Why do you think the right tolerated Ron's inefficient form of Keynesianism? Easily fooled perhaps?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

 

I'm not interested in your copy and pastes. Please answer the question(s): Why do you think the right tolerated Ron's inefficient form of Keynesianism? Easily fooled perhaps?

 

Because it worked, that's why. What Obama is doing today is not an apples to apples comparison, just the opposite.

Do you live on PF 24/7? You're always here.

 

Keynesianism works? Well done. Good point well made.

But why choose an inefficient form of it? We know, via economic evidence (not opinion piece) that military keynesianism is less effective at managing demand. Indeed, once we factor in other aspects covered in political economy, we can refer to numerous aspects of crowding out generated by arms production investments.

Watching the darts. There isn't much challenge so I can reply between throws

 

Yes, Keynesianism does work. But only to a point. Too much of anything is a bad thing. If you drink too much water, it can kill you. At some point you have to have fiscal and monetary restraint from a government standpoint. Is there a point for you Rev, or does this just go on infinitely? Again, just print money and give it away if that's the case. Why pay taxes at all?

I hope you are watching cricket at least, because a game of 501 would be a little boring.

 

Do you honestly think empty cliché is going to be an effective response? Perhaps you can answer the question dodged by the other fellow: Why do you think the right tolerated Ron's inefficient form of Keynesianism? Easily fooled perhaps?

 

You do not see the irony of your statement?
You state how important a macroeconomic view is, then completely disregard the macroeconomic view when relating education to income level. I suspect that "study" did not actually show any wider benefit at all. The facts can be selectively interrpreted to support different positions.

I have already explained why education is not the answer:
http://www.politicalforum.com/education/239164-wasting-money-education.html

For the individual, yes, but NOT necessarily for the whole society.

 

Sounds like you've got your understanding of irony from a Canadian singer. Something for you to work on!

Stabilising an inherently unstable economic paradigm, if you want to reproduce capitalist profit, is of course a jolly important macroeconomic goal. However, to suggest that government spending can be understood purely in terms of fiscal policy is cretinous.

No, you gave a strict screening understanding of education, despite strict screening being rejected by empirical study. Ignoring the human capital role of education would also be cretinous

To the economy! You're responding to a comment that makes that clear. Your dogma just isn't compatible with economic reality

 

plutocracy is the best economic system , once all the world's money is owned by about 100 people trickle down economics will really start to work

 

Just don't get confused thinking that what Reagan did is what Obama is doing. Not even close. One worked. The other is continuing to fail miserably.

 

I'm not interested in your party political humph over Obama. Its obvious tthat we can't compare the current crisis (the result of neo-liberalism harvested by the likes of Reaganomics and Thatcherism) with Big Ron's spell. I'm just impressed that you weren't just prepared to support Keynesianism, you were prepared to support a terribly inefficient form. Well done!

 

I support what works.

 

I thought the exceptional economic growth under Reagan was mostly just financed by Treasury bonds (debt), and swapping the social security and pension trust funds out with Treasury obligations (more debt).

Is economic growth financed by debt real economic growth?

Another intriguing question: if cutting taxes has a multiplying effect on the economy, no doubt raising taxes to pay off debts have just the opposite effect, perhaps even more so. So I do not see how cutting taxes by running a budget deficit would help in the long term.

 

Inefficient Keynesianism works, but why go for the inefficiency? You'd have to be a hardcore statist. Its great to see you being honest about these matters. Its an all to rare phenomena

 

Nothing is perfect, and I am far from being a statist. Obama would be that.

 

Obviously, but your system is in such total disintegration that not even a world war will help this time. We're all done for. Enjoy!

 

Supporting an inefficient form of Keynesianism is statist as it necessarily means a bloated government is required

 

No - just the most minimal common sense.

 

Technically Keynesianism isn't left orientated and right wingers, given their innate authoritarianism, will be all Marquis de Sade for military waste.