Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
"..... There ought to be room in our society for the idea that the government can smooth out the business cycle without resorting to socialist intervention. But thanks to the power of politicized rhetoric, that idea has been unfairly shoved into the closet.."
You mean, government actually has a purpose? A role? Government is legitimate? It is actually supposed to SERVE the public? Gee whiz. I don't argue at all with the author's point. But currently, gummint is in bed with Big Money, and the public is taking it long and hard, and repeatedly. Constantly. It is the taken-for-granted state of affairs, these days.
No one would disagree it's much too much in bed with big money, but otherwise gah, such bullshit paranoia, old, tired, easily disproven; so jeez, give it a rest and go back to Fox viewing and AM listening or whatever.
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Is that such a radical idea? It seems today's government has forgotten all those attributes that Lincoln spoke of.
Sure I watch Fox. ( for a small bit). I cannot take the other networks insulting my beliefs.
Fixed Noise, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CNBC..... All operate within politically correct parameters imposed by the ones in their respective channels/networks who are responsible for making money. The "news" is a whore now for Big Money, these days. I love the way that the Demublicans (sic) are characterized as the "Left." That's funny. Hell, the Democratic Party sits where Eisenhower Republicans were, back in the 1950s. If that's the political "Left," then there truly is no "Left" in the USA. I've been saying that for many years. Even so-called nonprofit PBS, and CBC and BBC have to operate the same way. A truly Leftist position and approach just isn't allowed. The talking heads and their guests will not dare to venture past the political Center, where the Demublicans live.
The problem is not with Keynes, but with a tax-and-spend philosophy that takes the economic stabilization argument of Keynes as license, without considering whether the crisis warrants intervention. Times are always tough enough to justify spending, but never good enough to justify saving.
"The problem is not with Keynes, but with a tax-and-spend philosophy that takes the economic stabilization argument of Keynes as license, without considering whether the crisis warrants intervention. Times are always tough enough to justify spending, but never good enough to justify saving "
Sounds like a worn-out replay from 2008. Suggest you compare contemporary results of US/Bernanke/Keynes vs EU/Merkel/Austria "school" of thought. QED.
>> tax-and-spend philosophy that takes the economic stabilization argument of Keynes as license
What's wrong with this as long as it does not overwhelm GDP?
Government spending, including debt service, takes capital from the private sector. Public sector spending is inherently inefficient (the OPM principle). Prosperity is proportional to efficiency of capital allocation. Therefore higher government spending means a lower GDP.
"The problem is not with Keynes, but with a tax-and-spend philosophy that takes the economic stabilization argument of Keynes as license, without considering whether the crisis warrants intervention. Times are always tough enough to justify spending, but never good enough to justify saving "
Sounds like a worn-out replay from 2008. Suggest you compare contemporary results of US/Bernanke/Keynes vs EU/Merkel/Austria "school" of thought. QED.
Please point to some specific comparison of recent history, in terms of Hayek vs. Keynes? My impression is that recent history demonstrates that demand-side stimulus is simply not very effective at levels that are achievable. However, the liquidity strategy promoted by Bernanke (and seemingly lifted from Friedman) seems to have been effective in avoiding a deflationary crisis. Comments?
Your mind sounds made up, and the only thing you could do is read a bunch of economists whom you probably would have serious distaste for. The usual names; I bet you know them. Gov spending takes from the private sector, lol, where do you suppose the gov spends it? Tell that to supermarkets serving the poor or those who have done say Darpa research. Public sector spending is inherently inefficient? The private sector would be delirious to be as efficiently run with as low overhead as, say, Medicare. Prosperity is a function of a great many things. But whatever. Just do some googling.
Your mind sounds made up, and the only thing you could do is read a bunch of economists whom you probably would have serious distaste for. The usual names; I bet you know them.
Prejudgement? Inquiry was sincerely offered. I'm always interested in understanding the arguments of those who disagree.
Gov spending takes from the private sector, lol, where do you suppose the gov spends it? Tell that to supermarkets serving the poor or those who have done say Darpa research. Public sector spending is inherently inefficient? The private sector would be delirious to be as efficiently run with as low overhead as, say, Medicare. Prosperity is a function of a great many things. But whatever. Just do some googling.
This seems both counter-intuitive and counter-evidential. What do supermarkets in poor neighborhoods have to do with it? More SNAP money? This is stimulative? Mostly it's vote-buying.
I submit that the present recovery status of the US vs EU economies constitutes a "specific comparison of recent history".
I would instead compare previous recoveries to the current recovery. Seems pretty limp, especially when you look at the labor participation rate, continued elevated unemployment rate, and low GDP numbers. About the only bright spot is the stock market.
It's true, that social programs, to a large part, politically are meant to obligate groups of people to the perceived providers of the benefits. Separate the emotional do-good reaction from the political consequences of the programs, and this becomes clear.
"It's true, that social programs, to a large part, politically are meant to obligate groups of people to the perceived providers of the benefits."
Your perspective evidently starts from the proposition that "social programs" are by their very nature somehow intrinsically damaging to our nation's economy, which is certainly far from a proven fact. You must believe that, or there would be nothing to prevent any particular political group from "obligating groups of people".
If you don't in fact believe these programs to be the damaging to the nation, then what reason other than pure social selfishness would there be for militating against them?
Most of life is pure luck: where you are born, the genetics of to whom, and when. Surely the gifts of intelligence and family resources play a huge part in determining where you happen to fall on the economic ladder. The attempt, sometimes flawed to be sure, to ameliorate these problems is in our best interests as a nation: we will not prosper in the long haul by fostering the maintenance of a powerless, dependent and increasing "lower class".
This is probably best dropped, but anyone who flatly asserts the cynnically wacko things timgr does not only hasn't done much hands-on work with the poor, I suggest, but for sure cannot explain all of the red states who would keel over and die were it not for massive fed benefits. timgr, if your assertions were remotely true, the Dems or whoever it is (has been the other guys many times) provides heeyuge bennies to the SE and Texas, and the others, waaay out of proportion to taxes taken in, would get major luv and overwhelming votes from them, and they would be diehard deep blue and covered in BO stickers rather than spittle-flecked talkshow red. And I'm not even mentioning ACA.
If you're just blowing hard (articulately) and actually have not read in these policy areas, please go do that instead of posting pernicious Randian crud.
Yep, it's time to close this thread when some resort to name calling and painting the broad brush on a group. There is no chance for a civil discussion here.
Yep, it's time to close this thread when some resort to name calling and painting the broad brush on a group. There is no chance for a civil discussion here.
I've stopped discussing anything political or anything remotely having to do with it on this board because it's just shouting down anyone who disagrees (this thread is an spot-on example) and a generally completely uncivil tone (same) when it comes to this sort of thing.
• My observations were wholly responsive to the comments of timgr. I did not initiate the commentary on this subject, and in fact very rarely do so. If someone chooses to initiate a conversation of this nature, then it seems reasonable to be allowed to rebut. I believe that it is extremely unhealthy to suggest that opinions on subjects of this sort be allowed to be broached, but not answered.
• I don't believe that my responses were "shouting down" anyone: I feel that they were civilly phrased and reasoned responses to the challenge initiated by timgr.
• If you feel that my responses were uncivil, I'd appreciate it if you could be a little more specific on that, and I'll try to evaluate my writing in view of your criticism.
@Old_Joe, my comments were not directed at you in any manner. I was also replying in agreement as to what @timgr posted early in the thread. @davidrmoran responded to my comments and it started to get personal so I backed out as to not start a war of words. My last response applied to the thread in whole as the conversation continued without my participation until just a while ago.
If you read the whole thread you will see where it started to turn sour.
Political threads are so polarizing that I try not to participate anymore. Sometimes I do want to post my opinion whether it be a friendly disagreement or a balance to a viewpoint. Sadly it always becomes a war of words. Even within my family when the talk turns political, I remain quiet. It's not worth the aggravation.
No one is going to change anyone else's mind here. The civil thing to do would be to respect others views as long as they do not harm others. (Radical Islam for example) There is no need to get personal.
In ending, you were actually civil in your comments. I commend you for that.
@JohnChisum: Where did I get personal with you?? I asked a question, you answered. And the last thing I said to you was approval, dog-style. Jeez louise.
Comments
You mean, government actually has a purpose? A role? Government is legitimate? It is actually supposed to SERVE the public? Gee whiz. I don't argue at all with the author's point. But currently, gummint is in bed with Big Money, and the public is taking it long and hard, and repeatedly. Constantly. It is the taken-for-granted state of affairs, these days.
No one would disagree it's much too much in bed with big money, but otherwise gah, such bullshit paranoia, old, tired, easily disproven; so jeez, give it a rest and go back to Fox viewing and AM listening or whatever.
Sure I watch Fox. ( for a small bit). I cannot take the other networks insulting my beliefs.
As if gov is somehow this evil entity apart from the behaviors of individuals.
I want my beliefs insulted intelligently. Hard to find, true.
I take it you are civically active.
What's wrong with this as long as it does not overwhelm GDP?
Sounds like a worn-out replay from 2008. Suggest you compare contemporary results of US/Bernanke/Keynes vs EU/Merkel/Austria "school" of thought. QED.
Here are some comical Hayek postings.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/keynes-versus-hayek-1932/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/things-that-never-happened-in-the-history-of-macroeconomics/
although these do not speaker to your first post's assertions.
Yes, the approach of Bernanke et alia has been effective. Thank goodness.
WIll read the Krugman posts when I can.
>> More SNAP money? This is stimulative? Mostly it's vote-buying.
Your perspective evidently starts from the proposition that "social programs" are by their very nature somehow intrinsically damaging to our nation's economy, which is certainly far from a proven fact. You must believe that, or there would be nothing to prevent any particular political group from "obligating groups of people".
If you don't in fact believe these programs to be the damaging to the nation, then what reason other than pure social selfishness would there be for militating against them?
Most of life is pure luck: where you are born, the genetics of to whom, and when. Surely the gifts of intelligence and family resources play a huge part in determining where you happen to fall on the economic ladder. The attempt, sometimes flawed to be sure, to ameliorate these problems is in our best interests as a nation: we will not prosper in the long haul by fostering the maintenance of a powerless, dependent and increasing "lower class".
If you're just blowing hard (articulately) and actually have not read in these policy areas, please go do that instead of posting pernicious Randian crud.
Plus what Joe wisely points out.
I'll also suggest this thread be closed.
• My observations were wholly responsive to the comments of timgr. I did not initiate the commentary on this subject, and in fact very rarely do so. If someone chooses to initiate a conversation of this nature, then it seems reasonable to be allowed to rebut. I believe that it is extremely unhealthy to suggest that opinions on subjects of this sort be allowed to be broached, but not answered.
• I don't believe that my responses were "shouting down" anyone: I feel that they were civilly phrased and reasoned responses to the challenge initiated by timgr.
• If you feel that my responses were uncivil, I'd appreciate it if you could be a little more specific on that, and I'll try to evaluate my writing in view of your criticism.
Regards- OJ
If you read the whole thread you will see where it started to turn sour.
Political threads are so polarizing that I try not to participate anymore. Sometimes I do want to post my opinion whether it be a friendly disagreement or a balance to a viewpoint. Sadly it always becomes a war of words. Even within my family when the talk turns political, I remain quiet. It's not worth the aggravation.
No one is going to change anyone else's mind here. The civil thing to do would be to respect others views as long as they do not harm others. (Radical Islam for example) There is no need to get personal.
In ending, you were actually civil in your comments. I commend you for that.
With that, I am done with this thread.