It may sound pompous, I dunno. But according to the macroeconomics I learned, the ideas you have been talking about prolonged the depression by perhaps five years. Sure, in the long run the economy would have recovered on its own but as the man said, "in the long run we are all dead." Keynes' ideas were applied and the Depression ended.
Now, there are problems with any model and his is probably not the exception. But it's such a given in that field of knowledge that I really don't know how to discuss economics with you if you keep dismissing him. Perhaps that makes me not a very good teacher, perhaps it simply makes me tired and not a volunteer for this. It's like arguments about religion. You can't discuss cosmology with someone who rejects the theory of evolution and the big bang. Those ideas may not be perfect, but they are, at the moment, the best models we've got. Not only that, but when someone starts saying "I don't care what you say, I still think (bla bla bla) then there really is no point to the argument/discussion, because duh, they don't care what you say. So people have come along and said, ok, it has been shown that you can increase demand for goods by increasing the pool of available money. However, this does not fit our ideology because ::gasp:: this might result in poor people getting money and that would be bad for the balance of power around here and just bad generally because that would be welfare. We'd rather increase the supply of goods and services on the theory that people will want them and demand will therefore increase. So proponents of this theory gave money to wealthy people, assuming that they would invest it and more goods would become available. Note that giving money to wealthy people and corporations is ok, and not welfare at all. The assumption proved flawed -- most recipients put their windfalls into savings vehicles or tax funds where the benefit was spread over multiple countries and multinationals and in this country economic stagnation and trade deficits resulted. We've done this twice now, and imho it's a clear example of why we should not engage in faith-based economics. >> Dana wrote: >> because experience says your mind is closed? Duh. Do you know who Keynes is >> yet? > >1.) That's the reason for the Welfare Invitational! Instead of >talking about Keynes, talk about 3 non-handicapped people who need our >tax dollars because they can't work. That way we avoid the whole >Keynes issue. > >2.) Well, Let's talk Keynes. If I understand you, you're saying that >Keynes has solved all of our social problems in the 20s and 30s if we >could just translate his musings into policy. > >Here's my problem with that: how is it that you're the only one that >sees the genius? > >As for me, it's not that I don't know about Keynes, I'm just being >polite and hoping that when you actually try to explain it you'll see >the error of your judgement. > >Since you never really attempt to explain it, I can only assume that > >1.) Either you don't understand him yourself, but need a >rationalization to justify your emotions rather that obviously >conflict with your reason, or > >2.) You would rather not admit you're wrong. > >Seriously, don't you find your tossing around of the Keynes name to be >a bit pompous? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:194699 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
