Is more debt worth Keynesian policy?

Well, I am not supportive of a bloated government. We are as bloated as ever right now.

 

You're being inconsistent. You've supported inefficient Keynesianism. 'Inefficiency', in this context, refers to greater expenditure to stabilise demand conditions. You have therefore tacitly supported greater government interventionism than is actually required.

 

Let us make one thing clear: what Keynesianism essentially is is just a REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH to compensate for a transient decline in wealthy people spending money on creating wages. You can disguise it however you want, but nothing is going to change this.

Now, I am not necessarily against redistribution, but the government should be very careful how it spends money. I think all too often Keynesians think actually just spending the money is the important thing. Apparently they have little respect for other people's wealth.

 

This is utter drivel. Keynesianism is two things. First, its a school of thought (with multiple sub-disciplines) that allows us to understand macroeconomic phenomena. Second, it provides the means to allow the status quo to be maintained (minimising the threats posed by economic shock). All rather conservative really!

 

Reagan was for a strong national defense. That is where much of the expansion took place. It is one of our federal government's Constitutional obligations. Obama is gutting national defense, and expanding areas of government that are unconstitutional. That's the big difference.

 

Authoritarianism will indeed hammer home military waste. You're not saying anything that discounts your statist nature

 

How exactly is taking my money when things are good, then giving it back when things are bad helpful? Be a little more specific than "macroscopic"

 

The problem is that you do not understand the economics involved. Even something as simple as automatic stabilisers (such as unemployment benefit) demonstrates the gains from managing demand

 

You're confused. I am for Constitutional government. Far from Statist.

 

I'm confused? You're the one supporting a bloated government through an inefficient form of Keynesianism. Perhaps you haven't understood what you've typed? Have a moment or two!

 

Why don't you explain your "inefficient form of Keynesianism" for all of us since you're the self-proclaimed scholar? Reagan bolstered national defense, which is supported by the Constitution, cut government in other areas, lowered taxes and created 21 million jobs. Call it what you want. I call what is happening now, a disaster, and nothing like the Reagan years. Take three moments, my stubborn, fixated friend.

 

Already had, keep up! Military Keynesianism is less effective than the use of civilian expenditures in stabilising demand conditions. More bloated government interventionism is therefore required. You're a statist, you just don't know it (as you're inanely supporting Reagan's policies for party political reasons, despite the economics involved leading to greater government interference in the economy)

 

I am as much a statist, as you are NOT a liberal. You amuse me! If I were a statist, I would hit the campaign trail with Obama.

 

Unfortunately we differ considerably. I know the consequences of what I say, you do not. Your support for inefficient Keynesianism is certainly statist. I appreciate, however, that will create dissonance for you.

 

Quite frankly, I do not care what you think. What is clear is that you are a big government liberal. I know you will deny it, but that is expected.

 

"Statism" in the form of supporting a strong national defense and the stable globalized economy that it provides is perfectly legitimate according to the cultural tradition of the USA and it's Constitution.

"Statism" in the form of impossible to sustain supports for an undereducated middle class falling behind in the globalized economy due to its own complacency is not.

Your vaunted economics is completely devoid of any cultural contexts whatsoever and strictly relies on everyone being a rational and logical robot with no preconcieved cultural notions or ideas. Right or wrong, there are traditions and cultural ideas that take precedence over the raw logic of Keynesian economics.

 

What I think? This has nothing to do with me. You're the one celebrating inefficient Keynesianism. I think that's a weird choice, but that is irrelevant to the point.

 

Wrong again! This is purely objective: open support for inefficient Keynesianism. I of course appreciate where that support come from: a mixture of inane party politics (where they'd support a monkey if he was on the right side) and an authoritarianism inconsistent with individualism

 

Perhaps silicon should read history, Jeffersonians did not approve of a large standing army. Washington himself promoted a neutral position globally. Kinda bit us in the arse in 1812. Still, too much military is too much cost and I would be for the scheduled defense cuts as long as revenue is increased through targeted tax increases. As for stimulus, hell yes, the more the merrier. You either believe in Keynesian economics or not. The numbers are mind boggling but so is our GNP, we can do it.

 

No, because nothing the government does produces lasting economic benefit and leaves crippling debt for future generations to handle. It is irresponsibility on the grandest scale imaginable.

 

At least you didn't deny being a big government liberal.

 

I'm not interested in your ignorance of political economy. That is a standard result amongst the right. That you celebrate bloated government through inefficient Keynesianism does amuse me though

 

Your arrogance overcomes your ability to convince anyone of anything. You seem to be bloated on self aggrandizement.

Now, about the only thing you can claim the government has done that had any lasting effect on the economy were a couple of the big things. The national highways, and space flight, both created because of a war footing and military goals, you know, that inefficient Keynesian model you keep talking about.

 

You are alone in your utopian, ignorant world, my friend.

 

Arrogance? How frightfully droll! I've been but a kitty cat in my warmest congratulations towards a right winger's honesty. Its terribly rare to get them to admit their support for inefficient Military Keynesianism. They'd typically go for dishonesty over supply side economics (Always a bad idea as the biggest example of such economics is Thatcherism which was successful in one endeavour: a substantial rise in poverty).

I personally would abhor inefficient Keynesianism. The idea of a bloated government, typically feeding a military industrial complex that leads to further painful profiteering, just isn't consistent with my support for individualism. But each to their own! And at least we see openness from the right winger here. The party political grunt and the authoritarian taint is in spiffing full display