republican economics

[glassgowkiss]

good job- not!

and now they want the same! good fucking job!

[billcoe]

In 1929, the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 3%. In 1933, 25% of all American workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.

 

In April 2010, the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.9%, but the government’s broader U-6 unemployment rate was 17.1%. There are six unemployed people, on average, for each available job.Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

 

source Wikipedia

 

ps, as an interesting heads up countering your title - the house, senate and the Presidency are all Democratic ruled/majority right now Bob.

[prole]

ps, as an interesting heads up countering your title - the house, senate and the Presidency are all Democratic ruled/majority right now Bob.

 

And according to every analyst that's spoken on the subject, it's the only reason why the numbers aren't higher.

[JayB]

I have yet to encounter a Keynesian who can employ the tools of Keynesian economics to explain why paying every unemployed person to spend eight hours a day shouting at the sun wouldn't bring about a recovery via the magic of the Keynesian multiplier.

 

Far better still would be to pay people $50 an hour to destroy 50% of the nation's most productive cropland. To get the most out of the multiplier, I've proposed dispensing the rock-salt one-grain at a time, and the long-acting herbicide one drop at a time with hand-held eye droppers. Toss in 100% pensions when the said cropland has been destroyed and you've got yourself the makings of a Keynesian miracle.

 

The price of farm products skyrockets and farmers start plowing that increased purchasing power back into the economy, the folks who used to make their living building luxury condos and McMansions are fully employed at a living wage and then some - and prosperity is assured.

 

Keynesians - have at it. Use Keynesian economics to explain why the above wouldn't be just the ticket for getting the country out of a recession.

[olyclimber]

who would be writing the paychecks? Multinational corporations or the government? You'd have to clear all this with the herbicide eye droppers union of course.

[glassgowkiss]

ps, as an interesting heads up countering your title - the house, senate and the Presidency are all Democratic ruled/majority right now Bob.

it's obvious you know how to read a chart- not!

[prole]

I have yet to encounter a Keynesian who can employ the tools of Keynesian economics to explain why paying every unemployed person to spend eight hours a day shouting at the sun wouldn't bring about a recovery via the magic of the Keynesian multiplier.

 

Far better still would be to pay people $50 an hour to destroy 50% of the nation's most productive cropland. To get the most out of the multiplier, I've proposed dispensing the rock-salt one-grain at a time, and the long-acting herbicide one drop at a time with hand-held eye droppers. Toss in 100% pensions when the said cropland has been destroyed and you've got yourself the makings of a Keynesian miracle.

 

The price of farm products skyrockets and farmers start plowing that increased purchasing power back into the economy, the folks who used to make their living building luxury condos and McMansions are fully employed at a living wage and then some - and prosperity is assured.

 

Keynesians - have at it. Use Keynesian economics to explain why the above wouldn't be just the ticket for getting the country out of a recession.

 

You should write a book, "Jay_B's Big Book of Economistic Brain Teasers". Great for when you're on the toilet bowl or stuck in an airport but not much good for real life.

[Hugh Conway]

bullshit. the Cato Institute has managed to turn that kind of drivel into a multi-million dollar business

[JayB]

I have yet to encounter a Keynesian who can employ the tools of Keynesian economics to explain why paying every unemployed person to spend eight hours a day shouting at the sun wouldn't bring about a recovery via the magic of the Keynesian multiplier.

 

Far better still would be to pay people $50 an hour to destroy 50% of the nation's most productive cropland. To get the most out of the multiplier, I've proposed dispensing the rock-salt one-grain at a time, and the long-acting herbicide one drop at a time with hand-held eye droppers. Toss in 100% pensions when the said cropland has been destroyed and you've got yourself the makings of a Keynesian miracle.

 

The price of farm products skyrockets and farmers start plowing that increased purchasing power back into the economy, the folks who used to make their living building luxury condos and McMansions are fully employed at a living wage and then some - and prosperity is assured.

 

Keynesians - have at it. Use Keynesian economics to explain why the above wouldn't be just the ticket for getting the country out of a recession.

 

You should write a book, "Jay_B's Big Book of Economistic Brain Teasers". Great for when you're on the toilet bowl or stuck in an airport but not much good for real life.

 

Should be a snap. Just read what "every analyst" has had to say and you should have all of the tools you need to make your case.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Isn't this explained by Keynes himself by Book 4 Chapter 16 of the General Theory?

[JayB]

Which part?

 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch16.htm

 

This:

 

"If, in such circumstances, we start from a position of full employment, entrepreneurs will necessarily make losses if they continue to offer employment on a scale which will utilise the whole of the existing stock of capital. Hence the stock of capital and the level of employment will have to shrink until the community becomes so impoverished that the aggregate of saving has become zero, the positive saving of some individuals or groups being offset by the negative saving of others. Thus for a society such as we have supposed, the position of equilibrium, under conditions of laissez-faire, will be one in which employment is low enough and the standard of life sufficiently miserable to bring savings to zero. More probably there will be a cyclical movement round this equilibrium position. For if there is still room for uncertainty about the future, the marginal efficiency of capital will occasionally rise above zero leading to a “boom”, and in the succeeding “slump” the stock of capital may fall for a time below the level which will yield a marginal efficiency of zero in the long run. Assuming correct foresight, the equilibrium stock of capital which will have a marginal efficiency of precisely zero will, of course, be a smaller stock than would correspond to full employment of the available labour; for it will be the equipment which corresponds to that proportion of unemployment which ensures zero saving.

 

The only alternative position of equilibrium would be given by a situation in which a stock of capital sufficiently great to have a marginal efficiency of zero also represents an amount of wealth sufficiently great to satiate to the full the aggregate desire on the part of the public to make provision for the future, even with full employment, in circumstances where no bonus is obtainable in the form of interest. It would, however, be an unlikely coincidence that the propensity to save in conditions of full employment should become satisfied just at the point where the stock of capital reaches the level where its marginal efficiency is zero. If, therefore, this more favourable possibility comes to the rescue, it will probably take effect, not just at the point where the rate of interest is vanishing, but at some previous point during the gradual decline of the rate of interest.

 

We have assumed so far an institutional factor which prevents the rate of interest from being negative, in the shape of money which has negligible carrying costs. In fact, however, institutional and psychological factors are present which set a limit much above zero to the practicable decline in the rate of interest. In particular the costs of bringing borrowers and lenders together and uncertainty as to the future of the rate of interest, which we have examined above, set a lower limit, which in present circumstances may perhaps be as high as 2 or 2 1/2 per cent. on long term. If this should prove correct, the awkward possibilities of an increasing stock of wealth, in conditions where the rate of interest can fall no further under laissez-faire, may soon be realised in actual experience. Moreover if the minimum level to which it is practicable to bring the rate of interest is appreciably above zero, there is less likelihood of the aggregate desire to accumulate wealth being satiated before the rate of interest has reached its minimum level.

 

The post-war experiences of Great Britain and the United States are, indeed, actual examples of how an accumulation of wealth, so large that its marginal efficiency has fallen more rapidly than the rate of interest can fall in the face of the prevailing institutional and psychological factors, can interfere, in conditions mainly of laissez-faire, with a reasonable level of employment and with the standard of life which the technical conditions of production are capable of furnishing.

 

It follows that of two equal communities, having the same technique but different stocks of capital, the community with the smaller stock of capital may be able for the time being to enjoy a higher standard of life than the community with the larger stock; though when the poorer community has caught up the rich — as, presumably, it eventually will — then both alike will suffer the fate of Midas. This disturbing conclusion depends, of course, on the assumption that the propensity to consume and the rate of investment are not deliberately controlled in the social interest but are mainly left to the influences of laissez-faire.

 

If — for whatever reason — the rate of interest cannot fall as fast as the marginal efficiency of capital would fall with a rate of accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a rate of interest equal to the marginal efficiency of capital in conditions of full employment, then even a diversion of the desire to hold wealth towards assets, which will in fact yield no economic fruits whatever, will increase economic well-being. In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies when alive and pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals and endow monasteries or foreign missions, the day when abundance of capital will interfere with abundance of output may be postponed. “To dig holes in the ground,” paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends.

[prole]

I have yet to encounter a Keynesian who can employ the tools of Keynesian economics to explain why paying every unemployed person to spend eight hours a day shouting at the sun wouldn't bring about a recovery via the magic of the Keynesian multiplier.

 

Far better still would be to pay people $50 an hour to destroy 50% of the nation's most productive cropland. To get the most out of the multiplier, I've proposed dispensing the rock-salt one-grain at a time, and the long-acting herbicide one drop at a time with hand-held eye droppers. Toss in 100% pensions when the said cropland has been destroyed and you've got yourself the makings of a Keynesian miracle.

 

The price of farm products skyrockets and farmers start plowing that increased purchasing power back into the economy, the folks who used to make their living building luxury condos and McMansions are fully employed at a living wage and then some - and prosperity is assured.

 

Keynesians - have at it. Use Keynesian economics to explain why the above wouldn't be just the ticket for getting the country out of a recession.

 

You should write a book, "Jay_B's Big Book of Economistic Brain Teasers". Great for when you're on the toilet bowl or stuck in an airport but not much good for real life.

 

Should be a snap. Just read what "every analyst" has had to say and you should have all of the tools you need to make your case.

 

"I am now a Keynesian in economics" --Richard Nixon, 1971

"I've abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market system" --George W. Bush, 2008

 

You douchebags should be praising Keynes as the savior of global capitalism 4 or 5 times over by now! But then, I guess someone has to play the role of doctrinaire.

 

 

[JayB]

I have yet to encounter a Keynesian who can employ the tools of Keynesian economics to explain why paying every unemployed person to spend eight hours a day shouting at the sun wouldn't bring about a recovery via the magic of the Keynesian multiplier.

 

Far better still would be to pay people $50 an hour to destroy 50% of the nation's most productive cropland. To get the most out of the multiplier, I've proposed dispensing the rock-salt one-grain at a time, and the long-acting herbicide one drop at a time with hand-held eye droppers. Toss in 100% pensions when the said cropland has been destroyed and you've got yourself the makings of a Keynesian miracle.

 

The price of farm products skyrockets and farmers start plowing that increased purchasing power back into the economy, the folks who used to make their living building luxury condos and McMansions are fully employed at a living wage and then some - and prosperity is assured.

 

Keynesians - have at it. Use Keynesian economics to explain why the above wouldn't be just the ticket for getting the country out of a recession.

 

You should write a book, "Jay_B's Big Book of Economistic Brain Teasers". Great for when you're on the toilet bowl or stuck in an airport but not much good for real life.

 

Should be a snap. Just read what "every analyst" has had to say and you should have all of the tools you need to make your case.

 

"I am now a Keynesian in economics" --Richard Nixon, 1971

"I've abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market system" --George W. Bush, 2008

 

You douchebags should be praising Keynes as the savior of global capitalism 4 or 5 times over by now! But then, I guess someone has to play the role of doctrinaire.

 

 

Yes. Without his insights we never would have had, say, Phoenician traders plying the Mediterranean, etc, etc.

 

Anyhow - does the "paradox of thrift" involve savings in the form of CD's, bank deposits, T-Bills, etc - or just physical currency?

 

I've been hoping to find someone who has a keen understanding of Keynesian economics to explain that to me, and now it appears I've got one at the ready.

 

 

[prole]

Wiping Capitalism's Ass For 70 Years!

 

You must hold him in contempt for not allowing us to reach your utopia yet.

[prole]

Yes. Without his insights we never would have had, say, Phoenician traders plying the Mediterranean, etc, etc.

 

Is this when you fellows date the origins of capitalism? Christ, why not take it all the way back to the frickin' Holocene? Find a goddamn gene for it or something? Fit in good with your "human nature" arguments.

[billcoe]

I've been hoping to find someone who has a keen understanding of Keynesian economics to explain that to me, and now it appears I've got one at the ready.

 

Good luck with that! Why you would assume the collective brain trust of whiners around here could assist in this disproves any theory of your high intelligence level sir! LOL!

 

Besides, this would be better discussed around a campfire with a beer as it's at least a full evenings conversation, and not a 2 min sound bite. I was going to finish my post with a pic of Sgt Schultz and his famous "I know Notzing" claim, but will toss this out instead.

[pink]

I've been hoping to find someone who has a keen understanding of Keynesian economics to explain that to me, and now it appears I've got one at the ready.

 

Good luck with that! Why you would assume the collective brain trust of whiners around here could assist in this disproves any theory of your high intelligence level sir! LOL!

 

Besides, this would be better discussed around a campfire with a beer as it's at least a full evenings conversation, and not a 2 min sound bite. I was going to finish my post with a pic of Sgt Schultz and his famous "I know Notzing" claim, but will toss this out instead.

 

well put u old crusty balding ass mother fucker

[tvashtarkatena]

I couldn't understand the mumbling, what, with JayB's cock in his mouth and all....

[JayB]

Yes. Without his insights we never would have had, say, Phoenician traders plying the Mediterranean, etc, etc.

 

Is this when you fellows date the origins of capitalism? Christ, why not take it all the way back to the frickin' Holocene? Find a goddamn gene for it or something? Fit in good with your "human nature" arguments.

 

I don't think it requires an abstract theory of either human nature or economics to conclude that people were engaging in production and exchange long before there was...written language...much less a formalized theory to tell them how or why to do either.

 

Market processes don't require market theories in order to function. This fact seems to be quite disconcerting to a broad class of activists and intellectuals, who do require market theories in order to function.

[Weekend_Climberz]

Some day in the future, we're all gonna realize that the capitalists are trying to play out Atlas Shrugged. Only that they didn't realize the proletariats weren't gonna take it laying down.

[rob]

I don't think it requires an abstract theory of either human nature or economics to conclude that people were engaging in production and exchange long before there was...written language...much less a formalized theory to tell them how or why to do either.

 

Market processes don't require market theories in order to function. This fact seems to be quite disconcerting to a broad class of activists and intellectuals, who do require market theories in order to function.

 

Markets aren't an inherent thing. They are social constructs, and therefore need rules. They are not a natural process and the uncontrolled practice of it is not superior. If you just "leave it alone" things won't get better, because greed and selfishness ARE inherent, and they regularly interfere with and undermine human enterprise.

[JayB]

I don't think it requires an abstract theory of either human nature or economics to conclude that people were engaging in production and exchange long before there was...written language...much less a formalized theory to tell them how or why to do either.

 

Market processes don't require market theories in order to function. This fact seems to be quite disconcerting to a broad class of activists and intellectuals, who do require market theories in order to function.

 

Markets aren't an inherent thing. They are social constructs, and therefore need rules. They are not a natural process and the uncontrolled practice of it is not superior. If you just "leave it alone" things won't get better, because greed and selfishness ARE inherent, and they regularly interfere with and undermine human enterprise.

 

So - there was complete anarchy before we had abstract models and formalized mathematical representations of them administered by a central authority who had the foresight to translate them into a set of laws?

 

Per your definition, nothing that humans engage in is a natural process since everything from sex to defecation to eating is governed by an ornate set of rules and norms associated with a local and mutable social context.

 

Humans have been engaged in production and exchange as long as there have been humans. There has never been a time when they have done so in the absence of a complex set of rules and norms that governed the said activities.

 

The idea that all of the rules and norms that govern human interactions owes its existence to a formal rule-making body that imposed them on society in a top down fashion is as ahistorical as it is irrational. Where do you think things like commercial contracts, letters of credit, titles, liens, fractional reserve banking, stocks, bonds, liability, etc came from? Do you really think that they were designed in a room somewhere by a committee of intellectuals who were able to look into the future and determine that they'd be necessary to regulate commerce someday?

 

 

 

[j_b]

Market processes don't require market theories in order to function. This fact seems to be quite disconcerting to a broad class of activists and intellectuals, who do require market theories in order to function.

 

strawman. Nobody claimed market theories were needed for economic interaction to occur.

[billcoe]

From Barak's inaugural address:

 

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. "

 

Have not seen these questions even asked of big government yet. Perhaps they think that all Gov't programs are working, have no bad habits and are spending our money wisely. But we are keeping hope alive.....

[Peter_Puget]

Ah Jay I meant to ask you if you think that perhaps Keynes himself had explained it in the portion of the General Theory that precedes the part you cut and paste above. Sorry for being unclear.