or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Keynesian Dead End
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Keynesian Dead End - Page 2

post #16 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Keynes is dead. His policies even more so in the intelligent world.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...319857618.html

Socialism is dead. But they ruined us on their agony.

Friedman is alive.
post #17 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Didn't I already blow up the idea of using CBO or Moody's estimates for jobs created? They just multiply money spent by the estimates made pre-Stimulus from large aggregates of historical data. They have nothing to do with actual job creation. Even they admit that. It is garbage, no discussion necessary.
Then discuss Mark Zandi's opinion of the stimulus. Ignore the CBO, if you want. Edit:'Tis a bit long though. btw I never conceded you being correct in that discussion, just that there isnt really an alternative.
post #18 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astan View Post
Then discuss Mark Zandi's opinion of the stimulus. Ignore the CBO, if you want.
Zandi is CEO of Moody's Economy.com. He uses the same model. Even brags about doing so. Look, the only strong opinions for the stimulus working are going to be from these sorts of models. That doesn't mean it hasn't worked, there just isn't enough hard data or time to know. All these guys are saying is "if I was right before, I am right now."
post #19 of 127
I don't know. Keynesian says we stimulated the hell out of census workers. If we could just hire new census workers, about 100k every month, this economy would be smoking!
post #20 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Zandi is CEO of Moody's Economy.com. He uses the same model. Even brags about doing so.

Look, the only strong opinions for the stimulus working are going to be from these sorts of models. That doesn't mean it hasn't worked, there just isn't enough hard data or time to know. All these guys are saying is "if I was right before, I am right now."

Oh boy, lets not have this argument again.
post #21 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astan View Post
Oh boy, lets not have this argument again.
It's not up for argument. Really, it is just a statement of fact. I am not giving an opinion one way or another. Just to clarify, whether the stimulus has been effective is certainly up for argument. What these models say and how they are run, and therefore whether their results are noteworthy is a matter of fact.
post #22 of 127
The cencus thing is getting old... Recently, namely the Obama administration, it seems like the gov't has good intentions when they try to get involved. There is much lacking in their execution though, ie health care reform. I guess I agree with the idea of gov't intervention, but I would prefer if it went to credits to different areas; areas where there is a lot of growth potential and maybe even eco friendly (where it may not be optimal for corporations to fund) On a tangent from above, I think a reactionary stimulus package, like our most recent, is never going to be great in the long run.
post #23 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by phreak View Post
The cencus thing is getting old...

Recently, namely the Obama administration, it seems like the gov't has good intentions when they try to get involved. There is much lacking in their execution though, ie health care reform. I guess I agree with the idea of gov't intervention, but I would prefer if it went to credits to different areas; areas where there is a lot of growth potential and maybe even eco friendly (where it may not be optimal for corporations to fund)

On a tangent from above, I think a reactionary stimulus package, like our most recent, is never going to be great in the long run.

That's the truly important thing though, isn't it? I mean, results, consequences, etc. are not really important, it's the good intentions.
post #24 of 127
I never said that... I was implying that I somewhat agree with with their invention, but disagree with the details. That is all
post #25 of 127
Keynesianism only works effectively if it's a massive proportional expenditure AND the government isn't already running massive deficit spending.
post #26 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by montecristo#4 View Post
Keynesianism only works effectively if it's a massive proportional expenditure AND the government isn't already running massive deficit spending.

AND if the govt has the balls to cut taxes and spending proportionately when economic times are good.

God I get sick of people who treat macro-economics as a team sport and then say the Keynsians are rubbish. These same people generally have not real any Keynes and have only a caricature understanding. Same goes for the other side's view of Friedman. Yawn.
post #27 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinW View Post
AND if the govt has the balls to cut taxes and spending proportionately when economic times are good.

God I get sick of people who treat macro-economics as a team sport and then say the Keynsians are rubbish. These same people generally have not real any Keynes and have only a caricature understanding. Same goes for the other side's view of Friedman. Yawn.

I think you mean raise taxes and cut spending. Right? Anyway, would that anybody were smart and omniscient enough to know when to cut, when to raise, by how much etc. Keynes felt the same thing, btw, towards the end. It is the fundamental problem.
post #28 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I think you mean raise taxes and cut spending. Right? Anyway, would that anybody were smart and omniscient enough to know when to cut, when to raise, by how much etc. Keynes felt the same thing, btw, towards the end. It is the fundamental problem.

You're right - I did mean raising taxes in that part of the cycle. During the recession you would, as a pure Keynsian, cut taxes - but foreshadow raising takes in better times to pay for the additional spending. In good times you would raise taxes while promising that the long-term plan is to reduce these taxes once the debt is paid. This will always be one of the problems with a pure Keynsian approaches, imo - people spend and make economic decisions based on an awareness of future possibilities, like taxes. There was some interesting work done on this in the 70s looking at workers' growing awareness of inflation during wage negotiations.

Agreed on your other point as well. I think Keynes made a huge contribution to our understanding of economics and there is still much of value we can apply today. But getting too gung-ho with that sort of approach is tempting fate too much - get it wrong and it all goes wrong very badly.
post #29 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinW View Post
You're right - I did mean raising taxes in that part of the cycle. During the recession you would, as a pure Keynsian, cut taxes - but foreshadow raising takes in better times to pay for the additional spending. In good times you would raise taxes while promising that the long-term plan is to reduce these taxes once the debt is paid. This will always be one of the problems with a pure Keynsian approaches, imo - people spend and make economic decisions based on an awareness of future possibilities, like taxes. There was some interesting work done on this in the 70s looking at workers' growing awareness of inflation during wage negotiations.

Agreed on your other point as well. I think Keynes made a huge contribution to our understanding of economics and there is still much of value we can apply today. But getting too gung-ho with that sort of approach is tempting fate too much - get it wrong and it all goes wrong very badly.
I agree with all of this. A lot of good work has been done by the new Keynesians which tries to deal with the problems of expectations, but models using these assumptions don't show the stunning results of the more vulgar Keynesian ones used by administrations and op-ed writers. Before Etienne says something, I know "IT IS ALL ABOUT ZERO BOUND!!!"
post #30 of 127
Does anyone not believe 95-99% of the populace make the vast majority of their economic decisions on there here and now and that 99.9999% of all politicians do not make economic decisions based on re-election calculus? Or am I just being my usual cynical bastard self?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Keynesian Dead End