The "Denial" of the Root of the Economic Turmoil

inlet13

Let's switch a few words from a different thread around:

In various threads here on AMT I keep reading posts denying that our current economic collapse as caused by Keynesian economics and even more baffling, the denial that the current economic collapse in general, may not have been government generated. Why is this? Denial of what is feared would be my guess. I don't know that any of us here will convince Keynesian apologists that what they (and their touted economic policies) have done is real and is anthropocentric in nature but I'm willing to keep trying because I believe this is the most important issue we as a species will have to deal with over the next several years. If any of you that have doubts about Keynesian economics, let's start an intelligent conversation about it. In a number of AMT threads, I've listed several excellent sources of information on the subject. I'll compile a list of books and resources for anyone interested. Of course, any one here has the right to disagree with the Keynesian economics caused the financial mess, but if you do, at least let your arguments be somewhat intelligent. Derailing threads on the economy to focus in on global warming may not qualify as an intelligent argument. (I'm not setting any rules here- that's not my job- I would just like to encourage rational, intelligent conversation.)

Also, those of you who are convinced Keynesian Economics and the problems associated are real, lets share ideas about how to slow down the process.

gimmesometruth27

i don't understand the point of taking someone else's post and switching some words around and starting a new thread. based on your condescending reply to his post in the other thread, this just comes off as baiting for one thing, and it comes off as lazy since you didn't use your own words to compose the original post.

if you wanted serious conversation on this issue, why model your original post after someone else's in another thread?

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't understand the point of taking someone else's post and switching some words around and starting a new thread. based on your condescending reply to his post in the other thread, this just comes off as baiting for one thing, and it comes off as lazy since you didn't use your own words to compose the original post.

if you wanted serious conversation on this issue, why model your original post after someone else's in another thread?

First, this is an issue where I feel a lot of you here (since the majority is certainly not pro-free market) could learn something.

Second, read both thread titles. The term denial is pretty condescending in and of itself to those who may disagree or not agree in total.

Third, I did it quickly and it shows how idiotic some posts/threads here are. This place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

Fourth, this is a more important issue than global warming in my opinion, and in fact, I'd say the U.S. at large's opinion. So, why not have a thread on it. This was an easy way to do that and make a point.

BinauralJam

Math is hard

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Third, I did it quickly and it shows how idiotic some posts/threads here are. This place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

i would at least hope you include yourself in there ... haha ...

hey ... we get it ... keynesian economics is the cause of all the world's ills ... there is probably some truth to it ... i for one am open to it at least partially ... i think there's a lot more to it but feel free to prove your point ...

just realize that you exude the same attitude in your posts that you apparently are against ...

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't understand the point of taking someone else's post and switching some words around and starting a new thread. based on your condescending reply to his post in the other thread, this just comes off as baiting for one thing, and it comes off as lazy since you didn't use your own words to compose the original post.

if you wanted serious conversation on this issue, why model your original post after someone else's in another thread?

First, this is an issue where I feel a lot of you here (since the majority is certainly not pro-free market) could learn something.

Second, read both thread titles. The term denial is pretty condescending in and of itself to those who may disagree or not agree in total.

Third, I did it quickly and it shows how idiotic some posts/threads here are. This place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

Fourth, this is a more important issue than global warming in my opinion, and in fact, I'd say the U.S. at large's opinion. So, why not have a thread on it. This was an easy way to do that and make a point.

What you seem to do though, is argue against Keynesian with theory, but talk as though your theory of economics is 'right', and Keynesian economics is 'wrong' and the cause of the economic turmoil. Your theory is just that, a theory, but you speak like it's the truth. I've seen you deny free market factors that played a role in the current recession, maybe because you seem so driven by the fact that everything is the problem of Keynesian economics.

Please show me where your economic theory has played out fully in reality, because otherwise you're in your theoretical fantasy-land.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Third, I did it quickly and it shows how idiotic some posts/threads here are. This place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

i would at least hope you include yourself in there ... haha ...

hey ... we get it ... keynesian economics is the cause of all the world's ills ... there is probably some truth to it ... i for one am open to it at least partially ... i think there's a lot more to it but feel free to prove your point ...

just realize that you exude the same attitude in your posts that you apparently are against ...

Sure, in some ways I do include myself. I'm here aren't I? This is the way it's done here, unfortunately. Otherwise, for those of you who have been here for years, you'd realize that you've created a small community in which the majority on the board (who has an equally important view as yours) hates coming in here. They have political opinions, yet they make fun of people in here elsewhere. It's because of this my shit smells better because I drive hybrid cars or I know better because I'm an economist type nonsense. I admit I've joined in. This isn't a place to discuss things, it's a place to rant and pretend to be an intellectual.

I do it too. It's done throughout AMT. The sad thing is, this part of the board would be so cool if everyone engaged, discussed, and just shared opinions, showed respect, than backed off for a bit.

I sincerely wonder how many of here have taken real breaks from this place. I sincerely think some here believe because they are in the majority at a left-leaning rock band's message board, this is the case outside of here. In that sense, if that is true, some here could easily be considered delusional. As I'm sure you know, this computer screen you stare at is kinda virtual... the real world is out the window. This is not a representative sample of normal people, me included.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't understand the point of taking someone else's post and switching some words around and starting a new thread. based on your condescending reply to his post in the other thread, this just comes off as baiting for one thing, and it comes off as lazy since you didn't use your own words to compose the original post.

if you wanted serious conversation on this issue, why model your original post after someone else's in another thread?

First, this is an issue where I feel a lot of you here (since the majority is certainly not pro-free market) could learn something.

Second, read both thread titles. The term denial is pretty condescending in and of itself to those who may disagree or not agree in total.

Third, I did it quickly and it shows how idiotic some posts/threads here are. This place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

Fourth, this is a more important issue than global warming in my opinion, and in fact, I'd say the U.S. at large's opinion. So, why not have a thread on it. This was an easy way to do that and make a point.

What you seem to do though, is argue against Keynesian with theory, but talk as though your theory of economics is 'right', and Keynesian economics is 'wrong' and the cause of the economic turmoil. Your theory is just that, a theory, but you speak like it's the truth. I've seen you deny free market factors that played a role in the current recession, maybe because you seem so driven by the fact that everything is the problem of Keynesian economics.

Please show me where your economic theory has played out fully in reality, because otherwise you're in your theoretical fantasy-land.

I don't necessarily do that. But, I suppose at times I have. There are plenty of empirical examples to highlight my points. Just look at any Austrian economists empirical work. There's plenty to read and digest.

Moreover, your points here highlight the underlying point of this thread. You say my thoughts are theory. For arguments' sake, let's just say you're right. I would be mimicking what's done on here repetitively. In fact, the thread in which this one was based on was saying that those who disagree (for one reason or another) were "deniers". ha ha. It's laughable. Hence, why this thread was created. There are also "deniers" who disagree with me.

I guess we all have deniers who disagree with our OPINIONS.

Smellyman

you rarely post without Keynesian economics being in them as root of all evil.

blueandwhite

inlet13 wrote:

his place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

That runs both ways. AMT is not a place for debate; it's an opportunity to start a diatribe and scream at anybody who disagrees with you. Anybody who doesn't play that game will inevitably be ignored. Most people here are hardliners, so it's not like there is going to be any meaningful discussion on issues like this. It's too bad that this sort of stubbornness permeates throughout society. If pinpointing the exact causes of the global economic downturn was as easy as most hardliners make it we wouldn't have any issues to begin with. Government certainly played its part in this problem, but then again so did the market. I can't say that I openly trust either side here.

Your rant is just the opposite side of the same coin to me.

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't understand the point of taking someone else's post and switching some words around and starting a new thread. based on your condescending reply to his post in the other thread, this just comes off as baiting for one thing, and it comes off as lazy since you didn't use your own words to compose the original post.

if you wanted serious conversation on this issue, why model your original post after someone else's in another thread?

Inlet is basically plagiarizing my thread on global warming. You're absolutely right, gimme, this is more about bating than being interested in engaging in intelligent discussion. Personally I'm not interested in playing that game with him and I don't fall for bating so it's all good.

JT214511

Keynesianism has not worked, and it can't. In fact, two UCLA economists (hardly Austrians or Monetarists as far as I know) recently found that FDRs Keynesian inspired policies contributed to the prolonging of the Great Depression.

See here: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD ... -5409.aspx

As far as Austrian economic theory goes, I haven't found a better explanation of the causes of the business cycle. Manipulation of currencies and interest rates leads to misallocations of resources. On top of this, contributing to the latest bubble, there were multiple moral hazards in the form of the government-sponsored institutions Fanny and Freddie buying up mortgages on the secondary market, thereby decreasing lending risk for primary lending institutions. There was also a well-established history of bailouts for corporate cronies. Finally, the repeal of only half of Glass-Steagal led to another moral hazard: deposits were insured, but there was no regulation (government regulation OR market regulation) as to how the banks could use those deposits.

There is, of course, the far simpler explanation that we had some kind of free-market (even if one thinks Keynesianist policies are the answer I don't see how anyone could honestly say we had a free-market) and the corporations ran wild because of lack of regulation, but I really don't think this explanation takes into consideration the role that government institutions like the Fed and Fanny and Freddie played in contributing to the crisis.

In the end, private corporations did act in ways that contributed to the crisis. However, I don't see how anyone can argue that the government didn't act as enabler and ultimate cause of the whole mess (and not because there wasn't enough regulation, but because there was too much intervention in the economy contributing to reducing risk for the private sector).

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Sure, in some ways I do include myself. I'm here aren't I? This is the way it's done here, unfortunately. Otherwise, for those of you who have been here for years, you'd realize that you've created a small community in which the majority on the board (who has an equally important view as yours) hates coming in here. They have political opinions, yet they make fun of people in here elsewhere. It's because of this my shit smells better because I drive hybrid cars or I know better because I'm an economist type nonsense. I admit I've joined in. This isn't a place to discuss things, it's a place to rant and pretend to be an intellectual.

I do it too. It's done throughout AMT. The sad thing is, this part of the board would be so cool if everyone engaged, discussed, and just shared opinions, showed respect, than backed off for a bit.

I sincerely wonder how many of here have taken real breaks from this place. I sincerely think some here believe because they are in the majority at a left-leaning rock band's message board, this is the case outside of here. In that sense, if that is true, some here could easily be considered delusional. As I'm sure you know, this computer screen you stare at is kinda virtual... the real world is out the window. This is not a representative sample of normal people, me included.

honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing ... most people that post here are active in other sections of the board as well ... and just because people "make fun" of this section of the board is their own thing ...

this forum IS very good at hearing viewpoints and engaging people ... unfortunately, i think you have a perception of the members of this board that simply isn't true ... no one here for a moment thinks their viewpoint is reflective of the "real world" - if you know of anyone who has said anything to suggest that ... feel free to prove me wrong ...

although i am very much a socialist ... i can appreciate other viewpoints ... i basically posted that everyone should vote for ron paul ... not because i agree with everything he believes in but he is the best choice ... and that is because of the postings of many people here ... minds can be changed or at the very least be opened ... but you have to have to be open to the possibility that you are wrong ...

inlet13

blueandwhite wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

his place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

That runs both ways. AMT is not a place for debate; it's an opportunity to start a diatribe and scream at anybody who disagrees with you. Anybody who doesn't play that game will inevitably be ignored. Most people here are hardliners, so it's not like there is going to be any meaningful discussion on issues like this. It's too bad that this sort of stubbornness permeates throughout society. If pinpointing the exact causes of the global economic downturn was as easy as most hardliners make it we wouldn't have any issues to begin with. Government certainly played its part in this problem, but then again so did the market. I can't say that I openly trust either side here.

I agree that AMT is "not a place for debate and is instead an opportunity to start a diatribe and scream at anyone who disagrees with you".

blueandwhite wrote:

Your rant is just the opposite side of the same coin to me.

The point of this thread was not only to point out my opinion, but to try to state it like it's fact, it was tongue in cheek. Also, the point was to present the "opposite side of the coin" to what typically goes on in here.

That said, I believe the title to be true, but understand that many respected economists are Keynesians. I mean, if they weren't why would we have been practicing Keynesian economics for at least the last 30 years?

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing ... most people that post here are active in other sections of the board as well ... and just because people "make fun" of this section of the board is their own thing ...

Just cause you'd have a beer with people, doesn't make this place a good place for discussion. If you can't look at this place and say that it has problems, I'm sorry but I think you're kidding yourself.

polaris_x wrote:

this forum IS very good at hearing viewpoints and engaging people ... unfortunately, i think you have a perception of the members of this board that simply isn't true ... no one here for a moment thinks their viewpoint is reflective of the "real world" - if you know of anyone who has said anything to suggest that ... feel free to prove me wrong ...

This forums is good at engaging people, but that's because people get so fired up trying to prove they were right. My perception is the perception of most people on this forum.

polaris_x wrote:

although i am very much a socialist ... i can appreciate other viewpoints ... i basically posted that everyone should vote for ron paul ... not because i agree with everything he believes in but he is the best choice ... and that is because of the postings of many people here ... minds can be changed or at the very least be opened ... but you have to have to be open to the possibility that you are wrong ...

[/quote]

I don't necessarily think you do not appreciate other viewpoints. In fact, I believe most here do. Without them, they wouldn't be able to have endless debates and arguments.

Aside: I'm glad you said people should vote for ron paul, but I'm not sure you'd say that in a general election... that's for another thread.

This place is a game to the people who post all the time. Yet, there's no winner. That's why some come in here so often. They are relentless in trying to prove they are right, yet the reality is... they never will.

polaris_x

honestly, i think this is a great forum ... it's not for everyone ... but what is? ... every forum has its issues ...

the issues we often talk about have significant consequences ... people should be fired up and passionate about it ... apathy never got us anywhere ... it's a matter of not taking that passion as a personal affront every time ...

i will say it again ... general election, primary ... whatever ... based on the list of candidates and prospective candidates - everyone should vote for ron paul ...

and lastly ... i disagree in that it isn't about winning or losing ... beyond the regular posters here, there are many lurkers ... if we could open someone's mind to a discussion and share multiple view points ... that is always a good thing ...

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

First, this is an issue where I feel a lot of you here (since the majority is certainly not pro-free market) could learn something.

Second, read both thread titles. The term denial is pretty condescending in and of itself to those who may disagree or not agree in total.

Third, I did it quickly and it shows how idiotic some posts/threads here are. This place has a very "my way or the highway" type attitude. I didn't create that, and I'm sure you didn't either, but it runs rampant here. There's so many psuedo-intellectuals, with no real credentials here it could make one barf. If someone comes in with a different viewpoint from the majority, the majority here typically feels they can convince them by saying words like "denial". It's elementary and I felt this was one way to point that out and perhaps actually get a worthwhile thread out of it.

Fourth, this is a more important issue than global warming in my opinion, and in fact, I'd say the U.S. at large's opinion. So, why not have a thread on it. This was an easy way to do that and make a point.

What you seem to do though, is argue against Keynesian with theory, but talk as though your theory of economics is 'right', and Keynesian economics is 'wrong' and the cause of the economic turmoil. Your theory is just that, a theory, but you speak like it's the truth. I've seen you deny free market factors that played a role in the current recession, maybe because you seem so driven by the fact that everything is the problem of Keynesian economics.

Please show me where your economic theory has played out fully in reality, because otherwise you're in your theoretical fantasy-land.

I don't necessarily do that. But, I suppose at times I have. There are plenty of empirical examples to highlight my points. Just look at any Austrian economists empirical work. There's plenty to read and digest.

Moreover, your points here highlight the underlying point of this thread. You say my thoughts are theory. For arguments' sake, let's just say you're right. I would be mimicking what's done on here repetitively. In fact, the thread in which this one was based on was saying that those who disagree (for one reason or another) were "deniers". ha ha. It's laughable. Hence, why this thread was created. There are also "deniers" who disagree with me.

I guess we all have deniers who disagree with our OPINIONS.

There can examples that support your theory, but you still seem driven by the idea that Keynesian economics is our ruin and then you look for ways to support your conclusion, in a sense going in reverse.

What happens in amt a lot, and I see it more with conservatives, is that they state an opinion like it's a fact, and then talk themselves in a corner with more opinions, generalities, and personal comments on people who disagree with them. They give little direct response to facts used by others who disagree with them. At that point they bail on the thread (often one they started), saying how unreasonable the liberals in here are.

I think the personal attacks are kept to a minimum in here, and people over-blow the frequency of it. It's not like there aren't any zingers flying in the porch.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

There can examples that support your theory, but you still seem driven by the idea that Keynesian economics is our ruin and then you look for ways to support your conclusion, in a sense going in reverse.

What happens in amt a lot, and I see it more with conservatives, is that they state an opinion like it's a fact, and then talk themselves in a corner with more opinions, generalities, and personal comments on people who disagree with them. They give little direct response to facts used by others who disagree with them. At that point they bail on the thread (often one they started), saying how unreasonable the liberals in here are.

I think the personal attacks are kept to a minimum in here, and people over-blow the frequency of it. It's not like there aren't any zingers flying in the porch.

You seem to think Keynesian economics is good. Explain why. Don't use any theory in your explanation.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

honestly, i think this is a great forum ... it's not for everyone ... but what is? ... every forum has its issues ...

It could be, but isn't in my opinion.

polaris_x wrote:

the issues we often talk about have significant consequences ... people should be fired up and passionate about it ... apathy never got us anywhere ... it's a matter of not taking that passion as a personal affront every time ...

People aren't going to do much if anything, themselves. People here are trying to sway other people and doing so with the guise of a pseudo-intellectual. The irony is that this is a rock band's message board, not an academic institution or anywhere else where this sort of ivory tower sort of speak typically occurs. Not saying academia is a better place either, just saying that ivory tower speak is rarely relevant to the real world, here or there.

polaris_x wrote:

i will say it again ... general election, primary ... whatever ... based on the list of candidates and prospective candidates - everyone should vote for ron paul ...

Great, agreed.

polaris_x wrote:

and lastly ... i disagree in that it isn't about winning or losing ... beyond the regular posters here, there are many lurkers ... if we could open someone's mind to a discussion and share multiple view points ... that is always a good thing ...

I think this place is dominated by a handful of people who like to hear themselves type. I'm not trying to be mean, or get anyone agitated, that's how I feel. I have been here for a bit now, so it appears I'm becoming one of those people or have been one. My point is to simply get a few people to also look in the mirror too. I think that would be really constructive for this place. In my opinion, this place is not civil and is certainly not really an exchange of ideas, it's more a "listen to me type" place, I'll then "let you type", and I'll respond to why you're wrong or if you're on my side, I might say good work. In my opinion, some people spend so much time focusing in and trying to win ground on political issues that they become unrelateable, this happens on both sides of the aisle. Just my two cents.

polaris_x

sorry ... the multiple quote thing is too much ... haha

all i can say is that i've learnt a lot on this forum and am very grateful for it ... i don't think people here think they are necessarily better than others ... maybe they do maybe they don't ... but i can guarantee you that every regular poster on here has at some point admitted they were wrong about something ...

i think the thing for you is that your viewpoint is definitely a minority on this part of the board ... if you don't take things personally nor make it personal ... you will often get great engagement ... focus on the issue and leave the extracurricular comments to a minimum ... something we should all aspire too (myself included) ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

sorry ... the multiple quote thing is too much ... haha

all i can say is that i've learnt a lot on this forum and am very grateful for it ... i don't think people here think they are necessarily better than others ... maybe they do maybe they don't ... but i can guarantee you that every regular poster on here has at some point admitted they were wrong about something ...

i think the thing for you is that your viewpoint is definitely a minority on this part of the board ... if you don't take things personally nor make it personal ... you will often get great engagement ... focus on the issue and leave the extracurricular comments to a minimum ... something we should all aspire too (myself included) ...

seems to me the forum is more like having beer with friends you may or may not have met yet and getting fired up and talking politics, religion .
Rock band forum or not doesn't seem to matter to me...I like it because there are plenty of people here I disagree with that teach me something, and many that I do agree with for the most part (Vinny, Inlet, a few others) have taught me much as well.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

seems to me the forum is more like having beer with friends you may or may not have met yet and getting fired up and talking politics, religion .
Rock band forum or not doesn't seem to matter to me...I like it because there are plenty of people here I disagree with that teach me something, and many that I do agree with for the most part (Vinny, Inlet, a few others) have taught me much as well.

yeah ... and sure things get heated every now and then but has anyone been on the phillies thread on the AMT!? ...

my main point is if you jump into this forum guns ablazing with a staunch viewpoint - it's not likely going to be pretty ...haha

Bant

polaris_x wrote:

i will say it again ... general election, primary ... whatever ... based on the list of candidates and prospective candidates - everyone should vote for ron paul ...

:thumbup:

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

There can examples that support your theory, but you still seem driven by the idea that Keynesian economics is our ruin and then you look for ways to support your conclusion, in a sense going in reverse.

What happens in amt a lot, and I see it more with conservatives, is that they state an opinion like it's a fact, and then talk themselves in a corner with more opinions, generalities, and personal comments on people who disagree with them. They give little direct response to facts used by others who disagree with them. At that point they bail on the thread (often one they started), saying how unreasonable the liberals in here are.

I think the personal attacks are kept to a minimum in here, and people over-blow the frequency of it. It's not like there aren't any zingers flying in the porch.

You seem to think Keynesian economics is good. Explain why. Don't use any theory in your explanation.

I'm not saying good or bad either way, just more disagreeing with your process and style of debate and presentation of your argument. But I'll go along with the question. Shouldn't Keynesian economics get credit for the tremendous economic growth in the 20th century by way of correlation, since it is so bad, according to you, by correlating it with the boom-bust cycle?

JT214511

polaris_x wrote:

honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing .

I like what you've said here. Although I come from a consequentialist libertarian side, I often argue the same thing: that most people have the same goals (a long, healthy, prosperous life and the chance to live in a thriving, prosperous, and peaceful society). If we could all realize that we have similar goals, then we could engage in relaxed, informative dialogue, rather than screaming matches and hatred. We would no longer question each other's motives and character (which not always possible to do anyway, as many people, including myself, don't always know their own motives) and instead focus on the validity of our arguments. Policy proposals such as ending the Federal Reserve, or instituting universal government healthcare would no longer be looked at as inherently evil, but evaluated as to whether or not it was a suitable method to achieving the goals most of us share. Discussion of ends (values and goals, in and of themselves) is a harder discussion to have, but the means to an end should be relatively easy once people agree on what goals they have in common.

polaris_x

JT214511 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing .

I like what you've said here. Although I come from a consequentialist libertarian side, I often argue the same thing: that most people have the same goals (a long, healthy, prosperous life and the chance to live in a thriving, prosperous, and peaceful society). If we could all realize that we have similar goals, then we could engage in relaxed, informative dialogue, rather than screaming matches and hatred. We would no longer question each other's motives and character (which not always possible to do anyway, as many people, including myself, don't always know their own motives) and instead focus on the validity of our arguments. Policy proposals such as ending the Federal Reserve, or instituting universal government healthcare would no longer be looked at as inherently evil, but evaluated as to whether or not it was a suitable method to achieving the goals most of us share. Discussion of ends (values and goals, in and of themselves) is a harder discussion to have, but the means to an end should be relatively easy once people agree on what goals they have in common.

exactly ...

unsung

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, of why I will vote for Ron Paul is his push to audit and possibly end the Federal Reserve.

ONCE DEVIDED

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

inlet13

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

The economy is important so that people live longer, healthier lives, with more prosperity and learn how to spell correctly.

jimc3

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

so societies with poor economies are better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

A Society is its economy

shitty economy = shitty society

thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.

you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.

you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?

think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?

how did those beds and houses come into existence?

that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.

or would you prefer this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 7.5.2l14l0

Go Beavers

jimc3 wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

so societies with poor economies are better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

A Society is its economy

shitty economy = shitty society

thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.

you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.

you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?

think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?

how did those beds and houses come into existence?

that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.

or would you prefer this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 7.5.2l14l0

And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?