Trump Brings Back Keynesian Economics

Good for you.

I have an investment strategy in a great company you trust. It's called Madoff Investment Securities LLC. I'm sure your trust in the company will be richly rewarded.

 

I hear Wells Fargo has an excellent reputation!

 

It's not simplistic at all. I am accounting for ALL INCENTIVES. You are willfully ignoring all incentives created by the state.

Every single example on this list,

*Investopedia: What Are Some Current Examples of Oligopolies

enjoy state granted privilege. All but the last two enjoy well known state granted overt monopoly status.

Cable Television Services (local right of way monopoly status justified by myth of "natural monopoly")
Entertainment Industries (Music and Film) (monopoly status granted by IP law)
Airline Industry (monopoly status established by barriers to entry erected by FAA regulations)
Mass Media (monopoly status established by barriers to entry erected by FCC regulations (FCC is not accepting applications for new licenses))
Pharmaceuticals (monopoly status granted by IP law and established by barriers to entry erected by FDA regulations)
Computer & Software Industry (monopoly status granted by IP law)
Cellular Phone Services (monopoly status granted by IP law and barriers to entry erected by FCC regulations)
Smart Phone and Computer Operating Systems (monopoly status granted by IP law)

Do you support removing all grants of monopoly and barriers to entry, or do you favor monopoly status?

 

I know the name, but not much about the company. Am I free to invest or not at my own volition?

 

Monopoly "grants" are those that undertaken by a state or Federal government agency.

Oligopolies are man-made, and for as long as Federal government does not want to go after them, they will thrive.

Obama did nothing to interfere (in the ones I listed), when he should have done so. Can't imagine why he didn't, but its true that the Replicants made his life miserable from 2010 onward when they controlled the HofR ...

 

Oh wow. You got me there. I surrender.

 

Laughable. You believe the fantasy that individuals' desire for security is sufficient to maximise productive enterprise in a community, and hence the State is unnecessary.

Your simplistic view of the world ignores the complex interaction of economic activity, at both the local and the global levels. For example:

Keynes' ideas for mutually beneficial international trade (Bretton Woods,1944), an undeniable good, which took into account the differing natural and human resources of nations, were rejected by the Americans out of unmitigated self -interest at a time when they were the world's largest creditor nation, a rejection for which they themselves have paid a hefty price (which Trump is not very happy about) since Japan, Germany, Korea, China, et al have proved able competitors

Private sector activity alone has never been able to fully utilise the available resources (labour and materials).

Interesting article from Chris Brown:

"If someone tells you that the government can't afford something, like say...Paying benefits to SS recipients or fund healthcare or build a bullet train from NY to LA....Be sure and ask why.

If they say the US government can't afford it, remind them how silly that is. The government can create all the money it wants and it can use those dollars to purchase whatever it wants from the US private sector.

At that point, you'll probably be told (in a scolding voice) that when the government creates money that it results in inflation.
To which, you'd point out that they said *money* was the limitation and now they've rightly identified the real limitation.

Now that we've identified the real constraint, make sure you both agree on the cause of inflation driven by demand. Simply put, inflation driven by demand happens when demand for goods and services exceeds the private sectors ability to supply them. Now in the case of a bullet train from Boston to LA, do you really believe that there isn't enough labor and raw materials in the nation to supply what's needed to build a train? Really? I mean we've funded billions, even trillions of dollars to fight 2 wars, but we don't have the resources to build a train without causing insurmountable shortages such that it will cause the value of the dollar to fall long term? What about healthcare? Does anyone really believe that the nation can't find people to step up into those jobs (if the training was freely available) without creating massive permanent labor shortages?

The reality is that we have 20 million people (source BLS) who are under/unemployed with a net 145k new workers entering the job force each month (Source WSJ). The labor is there. The private sectors productive capacity is at 75%, which is 5% lower than the 40-year average, 10% lower than the 40-year high and 17% lower than the 75-year high (1940's). (Source https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/)

The reality is that we fear inflation more than we fear unemployment and wasting potential productivity.
[Edited for clarity])

 

The real question should be, Anyone who thinks a Political Party has the consumer's/or backers (I added that) interest at heart is deluding themselves. I don't need your lecture on big business, they are highly intertwined with all of Washington. I think they lost their bet this time though.

 

CLASS STRUGGLE

We are "preaching to the blind". They just don't care about the stats.

They've got their minds made up, and there's nothing (absolutely nothing) that will undo their blind faith in "individualism". Even the fact that it is inherently unfair a factor in a market-economy.

As I keep asking, "Find me a multimillionaire who made their fortune on a deserted island." Since the dawn of time humans have learned to live in "collectives". Why?

Because "individuals of mankind" learned over the centuries that it is best to specialize, each combining to produce what they know best and then depending upon a market to barter amongst them for whatever they needed most produced by others.

The only part of that economic mechanism that has evolved is that we no longer "barter" (except in very specific circumstances) goods/services amongst us, but employ capital/money to conduct the exchange. All else remains the same.

Furthermore, we have learned over the centuries that key-services should be performed by a central authority. For the longest time, that responsibility was reserved to a monarch. Because, more often than not, the monarch had used military might to acquire both land and cities. These became the central mechanism of a market-economy largely based upon Agriculture; which came to an end in the latter half of the 19th century replaced by the Industrial Age. (People came off the land and entered industrial cities to labor in "workshops".

It was the Industrial Age that changed the richness of a nation from "land" to "manufacturing". And since the wealth of an agricultural-based monarchy (aka "landed gentry") diminished, that of Industry became the prime manipulator of a capitalist-based industrial economy.

And thus the conflict between the lesser and upper classes broke into rebellion. Those rebellions reduced monarchies in Europe into Token Entities - ie., "window dressing". The right to vote for central leadership defined political parties, and said parties adopted "political premises" that were appreciated by wholly different classes of people.

And we are still at that stage of evolution - where upper-income taxation was instituted to facilitate the rush of Income into Wealth that produced the capital for investment in the market-economy. (Which wealth is simply handed down from generation to generation, as the monarchies of Europe still do today.)

But unfortunately this occurs with an accompanying serious inequality of the classes. Which became known as "class struggle" ...

(And the above is not the end of history. The rest gets even more interesting because it defines the world in which we presently live. The classes have come less distinct - lower, middle and upper.)

 

Is this supposed to be some kind of argument to show the necessity of the state?

 

Private sector.... public sector (the state)...yes I suppose it is.

 

You forget the fact that presidents were "voted into office" means that there was no "usurpation" of powers. They are bona-fide elected officials of government.

Look up the words in a dictionary before using them ...

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usurp I suggest reading definition 1.2. Here let me help you. Usurp - Encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights)

Just because someone was elected doesn't mean they can't be a usurper. An example for you, President Obama trying to unilaterally change immigration law. The office of President doesn't have that power but he tried to take it anyway. There are more examples, like the mandate that places a requirement on living, but why bother when Obama's out in about 14 days. He's just not worth the time.

 

As elected representatives of the people, they are genuine. Not usurpers.

The are encroaching on nobody's rights having been elected democratically.

The only guy encroaching on rights is Donald Dork. He was not elected by the popular vote, and by an aberrant concoction (called the 12th Amendment to the constitution) won a highly undemocratic "winner-take-all" election in the Electoral College.

Which is a manipulative artifice that we, the sheeple, should rid from our "democracy".

From Salon, The system really is rigged: Why “winner-take-all” voting is killing our democracy
- an excerpt:

 

According to your logic there are no limits on Presidential power simply because they are elected.

The rest of your post is just sore loser grumbling and worth of an appropriate response. Mmmm sweet neoMarxists tears sweeten my coffee just right.

 

Not at all. You've forgot your Civics lesson from High School. (If you ever took the course.)

The fundamental, innovative advance of both the French and American articles of constitution (18th century) called for the separation of powers - Executive, Legislative and Judicial. That key precept of democracy has been copied throughout the world, with only some exceptions. (The Middle-east where the interpretation of a book written 1400 years ago still prevails in many countries.)

The powers of the PotUS are not "supreme" - never have been, never will be ...

Blah, blah, blah.

Ignorant sarcasm ...

 

The necessity of the state is perfectly obvious. No state, no defense of the nation. No state, no laws protecting us from seizure of property without legal mandate. No state, no lower-cost Primary-through-Tertiary Education.

Soon on your doorstep, the Federal Government is about to strip you of the most "reasonable" to date HealthCare system it ever had (ObamaCare). Which remains twice as expensive as the European countries where it is managed by a National HealthCare System:


From the "Commonwealth Fund’s Study Results of International HealthCare Performance":

 

Yes, I know the President's powers are limited, part of the reason I called him a usurper. When a President acts unilaterally to change laws he has no authority to change he is trying to steal power. When a government forces the citizens of the country it represents to buy a product/service simply for being alive they are infringing on the citizens rights. Yes, usurp was the right word. It maybe a little strong but it gets the job done.

Mmmm thanks for the sweetener, I was running a little low.

 

You really need a lesson in Civics. Change laws without the consent of Congress? Wow!

The PotUS is usurping nobody's powers. So, you give me a concrete example of what you think is usurpation of powers. And, I will show you how - under a tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative & Judicial) - it is simply not possible without the interference of the other two entities.

About ObamaCare. Nobody is preventing you from calling upon a first-rate doctor who charges you $50K (an arm-and-leg fee) for taking off your arm-and-a-leg. But, if you opt for ObamaCare there is likely only a percentage of that amount that will be reimbursed.

In fact, in France, where I live, due to a truly Universal HealthCare Service, all medical acts are defined by a central authority as to how much a doctor can require you to pay. With your "HeathCare Insurance Card", your doctor goes to their HIC web-site and you pay the entire transaction. The doctor gets their fees and you get reimbursed into your bank account a percentage of the sum.

That percentage is 100% in the UK, but in most cases the sum reimbursed is between 70/85% of the cost, and the rest you are reimbursed by your Mutualized Medical Insurance - if you have one, which costs you about $100 a month for your family.

It is for this reason that the HealthCare costs of National Health Care Insurance in Europe costs about half, per capita, that of the US:


Which is why both Bernie recently and Hillary in the 1990s wanted to offer Americans the same advantages of the European National HealthCare Services. But, of course, the doctors did not want that to happen.

Because, they'd have to take a cut in fees since the NHCS stipulates the fee-schedule applied. In the US, a GP makes (on average) $190K a year and in France they earn half that amount (and it is three time the average French income) ...

PS: Why we Yanks never adopted these two basic features of Progressive Political Thinking never ceases to amaze Europeans.
PPS: For futher info regarding EU Healthcare: Public health (Improving health for all EU citizens)

 

If President Obama hadn't over stepped his boundaries the SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled against him. Save your "civics lesson" for someone willing to waste there time on your long winded post. The word is usurp, if it triggers you, oh well.

 

With the election of pragmatist Trump? We will see.

From another thread:

Of course conservatives no doubt dismiss in principle transferring some money creation rights from private banks to the public sector, because this would imply a significant role for the public sector, which is forbidden by conservative ideology.

But technology resulting in an ever more connected world will allow new approaches to deal with a dysfunctional financial system.

https://www.intellihub.com/why-donal...t-free-money/#

BTW, I think I heard today that Trump is furiously back-pedalling (already!) on his commitment to double GDP growth. Conservatism triumphs again!

[Watch out for a reaction in the equities markets; the run-up has been fueled by
expectations of massive increases in infrastructure spending, as proposed by Trump. But share markets don't ride on mere hope, forever...]

 

How impetuous must one be to so boldly betray such ignorance of law?

Ignorance and pride are an embarrassing combination.

 

You would do better to offer cogent arguments in rebuttal rather than dimwit sarcasm ...

 

That's not sarcasm. I'm calling it like I see it.
You haven't made an argument to rebut, and this isn't the thread for it.

 

This thread is about Trump and Keynes.

Your extreme libertarian position that denies the necessity of government to foster good relations, including economic and trade relations, between individuals and nations in this complex globalised world, is frankly boring and certainly of little consequence for the real world.

Speaking of which, this is the latest state of play:

Trump has today said (speaking to British and German news outlets) that he believes in free-trade, so long as it is "fair" trade, (or lately the word is "smart" trade). Apparently the US has an $850 billion trade deficit with the world, about 3/4 of which is with China.

What does this actually mean, ie, do Trump's plans imply a beggar-thy neighbour-approach, or can he envision a system which is advantageous for all participants. Obviously the WTO free-trade rules benefit some companies, maybe even most countries, but many individuals and regions are left behind.
(The destruction of Detroit alone is a disgraceful example of global trade
dysfunction, and this is only a tiny 'tip of the iceberg' when compared with the negative world wide effects).

Meanwhile Trump has to deal with a US government debt that is by some reports impossible to ever repay, and the US is by no means the most acutely threatened economy in this regard.

It's a dangerous situation that can easily be manipulated into increasing tensions between nations (eg, by the likes of that vision-less, possibly senile, old man in the US senate recently, accusing Russia and China of all sorts of sins when in reality they are only looking after their own self interests as best they can, in a dysfunctional global economy. Do we really deserve 'leaders' like these? And btw Taiwan is occupied by Chinese people who should be left to sort out their own disagreements, for God's sake).

The Davos talk-fest is due next week. I predict absolutely nothing that would actually aid Trump, or any other world leader, to grow their economies for the advantage of everyone.

In fact a Keynsian overview of the global economy by a properly constituted IMF and World Bank is an absolute necessity - the direct opposite of the fantasy of free, unimpeded economic transactions between individuals, in a global world.

Oxfam today released the latest figures: the 8 wealthiest billionaires in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion people.

Change now is an absolute necessity, if the western democracies are to survive, and the world is to avoid the age-old 'cure' of war, the ultimate admission of failure in human affairs.

(BTW, the Left don't seem to be able to come up with solutions these days; and I think Trump is being badly treated by accusations of racism, eg he has a point when he points out that these 'warriors for racial equality' could be doing more for the economic circumstances of black people in the US rather than wasting words on perceived racism. Trump's mettle will be tested in the coming months. I hope he reveals a measure of the status of his office).

To be continued....