Keynsian economics is dead

Here is a question for the keynesians. If the government made a 'fiscal package' producing $1T worth of golf carts would this be 'good' for the economy?The industrial production and the employment this would generate it would surely make the economic numbers look better, but would this help the economy in the long-run?

Now I dont trust the clowns in congress to allocate a big sum of capital efficiently when the private market itself is saying its time to pullback, so I believe it would be better to give a tax cut even if most of it will be saved.

This could change if the capital allocators were experts in investments like Buffett or others. But 'infrastructure, highways, things the US need' is political propaganda, who knows how much of it will be "wasted" in pork, handouts and useless works, thats the government spending version of the "they will save" problem of tax cuts

 

I am not aware of any national economy that has ever employed it in full as it was originally prescribed. They may have called it that for the sake of expediency, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Beware of false labels.

 

How about roads and a crumbling infrastructure? How about hospitals? How about that levy in New Orleans? Again, I'm not that big on economic theory, but let's not load the dice here, eh? At least keep it intellectually honest.

 

Economists have made keynsian economics far more complicated than it really is. It really comes down to basic premise, that has to be executed with honest prudence, that cant be 'loopholed away'

Any entity, from a single young adult, to a large nation, and everything in between, may at times need to use debt, to handle a problem. There are situations were it may be more harmfull to avoid debt than to use it.

But, if debt becomes a habit, or if it isnt used sparingly and carefully, poverty will result

It's really that simple - in the incredible volumes on this subject, nobody's ever really said more than that

people have throughout history, looked for 'ways around this' and all they ever found was poverty

 

"Here is a question for the keynesians. If the government made a 'fiscal package' producing $1T worth of golf carts would this be 'good' for the economy?The industrial production and the employment this would generate it would surely make the economic numbers look better, but would this help the economy in the long-run?"

well, according to Keynes, burying money in holes and employing people to dig it up would have the desired effect, despite being completely unproductive. That's why wars are generally good for the economy, even though all the production is literally blown up right after it is built. Building golf carts, burying money in holes or manufacturing munitions would all have about the same effect.

""If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are poltiical and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing. - Keynes"

so obviously, if you are taking on long-term debt to finance a project, you want to kill two birds with one stone, and build something useful that will have a long term positive effect on productivity. That's why infrastructure is generally recommended - like the electrification of the south, the autobahn etc. Things that make your businesses more competitive, don't crowd out existing businesses, employ a lot of people and only last for a finite period of time. If you build something productive like a hydro damn I think it is certain that you will come out ahead.

 

I guess you trust nancy pelosi. Carry that logic further, whats wrong with letting government run 100% of GDP?Unless you thought the Soviet Union worked, you would agree that the government doesn't know how to use capital efficiently most of the time. Now there are situations where the capital needs are so obvious that even the government gets it right(recapping the banks)
But if you give $500b for congress to spend get ready for a lot of pork, waste,etc.

The 'crumbling infrastructure' has a lot of propaganda tone to it, its an argument made by politicians that I wouldn't trust if I were getting paid for it. Just where is all the evidence(provided by non government entities) that all this 'necessary' work amounts to $600b and not to $10b?

 

Your use of multiple non sequiturs is befuddling. I yield to your masterful obfuscation. Sorry, but some of you guys have more of an axe to grind than a point to convey.

 

Brilliant!


Austrian Economics FTW!!!

 

Don't worry. As deflation happens, the money printed and spent in the economy will be much less than the amount of debt money created by the banks before the crisis started. Whatever happens to the money unless taken out of the country will stay in circulation and increase consumption. No inflation will take place and this is evident in longer term interest rates. The economy will not go into a depression spiral as many hope for their own reasons, ideological or opportunistic. Everything will work out fine provided nobody let's the Austrian Schools of propaganda kill the US economy.

Don't worry..and don't listen to journalists

 

Hello stock_turder. Bravo, your new clever alias kept you hidden for a little while but your astounding idiocy eventually gave you away.