On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > Subject: Re: Would this be good for IT, or what? (UNCLASSIFIED) > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> And for the other major sector of the economy (the government) – if they >>> couldn't borrow either, the Depression would have been much worse (Maynard >>> Keynes – a rather famous economist – wrote a rather revolutionary book on >>> aggregate demand and equilibrium in the economy). >> >> As a non-productive entity, the government doesn't contribute to the >> economy, it is a drag on the economy. Keynes was wrong on just about >> all counts. > > I went to Uni and got a degree with a major in Economics. I'm reasonably > appraised on major theories of economics, and whilst Keynes wasn't right about > everything, theories on aggregate demand and equilibrium are pretty mainstream > (you'll find them in any first year economics text).
Mainstream or not, the art (I won't call it a science) of economics in its infancy. Just because Keynesianism is taught doesn't make it so. >> For a better understanding, try Murray Rothbard's or Ludwig von Mises' >> works, but not Milton Friedman. > > Let's keep your views on the role of government out of the debate. I'm not > talking > about the desirability of the government regulation vs libertarian social > order. And > I don't want to start discussions about whether Hayek is great or whatever. I > tend > to find that people who dismiss, out of hand, pillars of the profession, as > generally > ideological and not accepting of discussion. Sorry, my views on the role of government are intimately tied with my economic views. Pretty much can't be separated. > I'm accepting the current reality that there are three major injectors of > demand into > an economy (consumers, business and government) and pointing out that the > ability > to access credit (or debt or whatever you want to call it) to smooth out > fluctuations in > income, or to take advantage of investment opportunities etc has made the > economy > far larger than it would otherwise be, as well as allow people to satisfy > desires/needs > they wouldn't otherwise be able to. > > This isn't a socio-political statement - it's a statement about economics. > I'm not > interested in the debating the desirability of government - let's just take > that government > exists at the moment regardless of whether we like it or not, and figure out > whether debt > is good/bad in that context. As a tool in use by individuals, debt is just one of many. Like any other tool, it must be understood and used correctly to be helpful in achieving goals. Most people don't have that understanding, or perhaps the maturity to use it wisely, and should therefore not use it, or use it extremely sparingly. This is a bit less true of businesses, as they can more easily hire the help needed to manage debt well. For governments, it's entirely another story. Debt for a government is something that can be manipulated in ways that individuals and businesses can't, because they hold the power of the gun - literally. They can, and do regularly, change the rules of the game to take advantage their subjects/citizens. Kurt ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
