Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    But let's be honest here, Keynesianism fails so frequently on empirical grounds its barely worth mentioning anymore.

    Fixed
    This ain't hard, dude. I'll paint you a timeline:

    2008: Losing 500k jobs a month
    2008-2010: Stimulus!
    2010: Gaining 100k jobs a month
    Argument: It helped, but it wasn't big enough!
    Consensus: Haha, stop whining hippies!

    2010: Gaining 100k jobs a month
    2010-2011: Deficit reduction!
    2011: Gaining 100k jobs a month
    Argument: Just kidding, we don't actually hold conservatives to the same standards of evidence as anyone else

    Your claims that Keynesian economics (of which your own definition is pretty hazy - I'm presuming you're arguing against simple 70's-era Keynesianism instead of the much more popular Mankiw-style New Keynesian school) have been disproven should probably include something like evidence. You remember evidence, don't you? It's the thing you demand from other people, but never provide yourself?

  2. #262
    Yeah but surprisingly it was good enough to predict the housing crisis and the following recession.
    Everyone saw it coming if they knew what was going on.

    Running around like chicken little doesn't make you a prophet though.


    Your claims that Keynesian economics (of which your own definition is pretty hazy - I'm presuming you're arguing against simple 70's-era Keynesianism instead of the much more popular Mankiw-style New Keynesian school) have been disproven should probably include something like evidence. You remember evidence, don't you? It's the thing you demand from other people, but never provide yourself?
    You might understand in his devotion to a school that hasn't changed significantly since 1920 he might be confused that early Keynesian Economics isn't the same today.

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by absynthe7 View Post
    Because your arguments are identical to those parroted by others who know nothing about economics. Your arguments are the same as those being made when inflation was below 1%, and I'm assuming that you were also making those same arguments against QE1 and QE2 (if this assumption is incorrect, I apologize). Once again, with emphasis: if you do not believe governments are justified in 'printing money' (or crediting accounts, in what we like to refer to as the "real world") under literally any circumstances, you reject every form of Monetarism (and literally every other data-driven economic model) as left-wing nonsense.
    Massive money printing operations simply do not help in the long run. They provide a short boost with a very shot half life. This was evident with the both QE's. This money printing is simply just a stealth tax on the people to finance more government spending.

    I'm not saying the government should never print any money, that's obviously something you can never get away with a fiat currency or any government currency for that matter. I'm just saying massive QE is not desirable.

    And what are you talking about me rejecting monetarism as left-wing nonsense? O_o?

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 08:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Everyone saw it coming if they knew what was going on.
    Running around like chicken little doesn't make you a prophet though.
    You mean everyone saw it coming back in 2001-2002 when Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1%? Wasn't aware of that. Now, I'm not saying all Austrians saw it coming either. The majority of economists had no clue about it at this time.

  4. #264
    Of course stimulus are short term boosts. That's the bloody point. They help the economy get back on track and to a point where it can absorb the cut back when stimulus ends.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by absynthe7 View Post
    This ain't hard, dude. I'll paint you a timeline:
    Ofcourse the stimulus will help in the short run. There's no doubt about that. No one here is arguing that. It's the medium to long term effects that are so disastrous and that prolong recessions.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 08:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Of course stimulus are short term boosts. That's the bloody point. They help the economy get back on track and to a point where it can absorb the cut back when stimulus ends.
    But it's not just a boost that comes without cost. It's like taking some amphetamines and you're good to go in the short run but in the long run the problems you had previously are just going to be amplified.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •