I think both Inlet and Drifting make good points. Do we take the poison pill now, fall into a coma, and hope we learn to talk and walk again in five years? Or do we let the cancer grow untreated and pray it doesn't go stage 4 when we least expect it.
:think:
This is pretty much it. I wouldn't use those words exactly, but it's close.
Austrian economics vs. Keynesian economics.
My problem is - we should have realized this during the first "recession". Cause here comes another...
I think Drifting already addressed this, but this debate is not keynes vs austrian. I can't think of a post from Drifting that was keynesian; though I could be wrong, certainly his posts here are not JMK-inspired. I think he recognizes the rotten core but isn't sure this is the way to fix it.
Anyhow, inlet, I generally agree with your economic viewpoint on things, but I kinda think you're being a bit too "professional economist" on this one. You keep talking about free markets and apple sales on secluded islands...but that isn't the world we live in. You're using the economist's favorite tool, at least implicitly, of assuming away the messiness of reality. The fact is our economy does function in a political context and exposing the rotten core of this house of cards may cause more pain than we're able to stand in the short term.
To be clear: audit the Fed. I'm afraid, but it will be for the best.
I think Drifting already addressed this, but this debate is not keynes vs austrian. I can't think of a post from Drifting that was keynesian; though I could be wrong, certainly his posts here are not JMK-inspired. I think he recognizes the rotten core but isn't sure this is the way to fix it.
I don't think he did address it. And I'm sorry but you're very wrong about it NOT being a debate between Keynesian ideology and Austrian ideology. That's exactly what it is.
Certain individuals may not like to be labeled Keynesian. I get that. But, when they back Keynesian policies, they are in fact backing Keynesian policies (which lumps them in that camp, at least temporarily). Backing the bailouts, which an individual like Drifting does... makes them back Keynesian policies. Backing QE, which an individual like Drifting does - I think... makes them back Keynesian policies.
John Maynard Keynes wasn't quite as bad of a guy as people, like me, make him out to be. When he originally put forth his stance on issues, he believed government could be used to push us out of recessions. However, he frequently acknowledged the problems with his approach - like debt and creating new issues in the long run, for instance. I'd say certain individuals fall into the early-Keynesian viewpoint - maybe someone like Drifting at times. Then there's idiots like Krugman and new Keynesians. These individuals broadened the original Keynesian viewpoint and hijacked Monetary and Fiscal policy to use it to the utmost degree. I don't agree with Keynes at all then or now because I believe his viewpoint alone created the neo-Keynesians. But, long story short, I acknowledge that there are different degrees of Keynesianism. I'm not 100% certain where Keynes would side on this issue if he were alive today. To me, the problem with Keynes was his viewpoint was hijacked and extended.
Anyhow, inlet, I generally agree with your economic viewpoint on things, but I kinda think you're being a bit too "professional economist" on this one. You keep talking about free markets and apple sales on secluded islands...but that isn't the world we live in. You're using the economist's favorite tool, at least implicitly, of assuming away the messiness of reality. The fact is our economy does function in a political context and exposing the rotten core of this house of cards may cause more pain than we're able to stand in the short term.
To be clear: audit the Fed. I'm afraid, but it will be for the best.
I don't understand the "professional economist" line, academic maybe since the apple on island example... but, professional economist? Most "professional economists" probably fall into the Keynesian camp since they are forecasters. Anywho, to bring this back into line, I was responding to a post where someone said "our markets continue to function ONLY because of sleight of hand and the smoke and mirrors of the fed" (Drifting - on the first page of this thread).
Re-read that quote. I responded saying ummm... no. They don't. What is written there is factually false. I explained what "markets are" using perhaps an example you don't like. Markets are not a function of the Fed. Anyone who says otherwise is misguided.
As far as whether the heavy majority of markets exist in a political reality right now - I don't disagree. I think they do exist in a political reality where government can't get it's meddling hands involved. I mean - that's really the entire issue here. Central banks, and government in general, involving itself in market transactions. That's the debate.
However, I think one should be careful when "believing" that the government is NECESSARY for markets to function. That is completely and totally false. A casual reader may not know that. I know Drifting knows that, that's why I was correcting him from misleading anyone.
Ok, audit the Fed. I am for that, I agree that we need transparency and that this is a first step and perhaps we can begin to fix some of the issues that many of you have mentioned here and in other threads about similar topics. But at the end of the day isn't this a much larger issue that really won't be fixed by transparency at the Fed or even with the end of the Fed? Meaning isn't capitalism a dying system that will not sustain us through the 21st century? Or at least not in its current form? Really, our current capitalist system is based on the theory of globalization (which has created a whole host of other problems IMO) which assumes that we have to continue to find new markets, our corporations will be extremely large (and probably publicly traded which means that the bottom line is profits to pass on to shareholders) and, to me, this all means that at some level the US government (and really any government that is involved in the global economy) has to protect business and monetary policy in order to protect our larger economy. Drifting made mention of something along these lines when he mentioned you'll have similar problems whether it's Fed backed monetary policy or gold backed assets. Again, I realize we have to start somewhere, but can we look at a move towards local economies? Still capitalism, yes? But more regionalized, more cooperative, and maybe more stability? I know this is really off topic but just thinking out loud
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
2. all i am saying is that the "fix" for the situation of being in a DYING KEYNESIAN SYSTEM is quite simply more keynesian rubbish -- inflation, QE-to-infinity, and smoke and mirrors (ie. The Fed continually buying more and more US debt as the market steps back from treasuries) ...
3. I know that this is not THE FIX, which is why i've labeled it "fix" in quotations.
4. There has to be a more sensible approach that minimizes short term economic harm that is not simply, "this system is stupid, lets kick it's legs out and start over from scratch".
5. The ramifications of pulling the plug on The Great Keynesian Experiment in the manner you seem to suggest (going cold turkey) would entail severe deleveraging and debt deflation of a kind never seen in history.
6. I think ultimately some sort of "revaluation" must occur, but I would prefer this revaluation be orderly instead of everyone and their grandmother getting fucked by a plunging dollar.
7. I don't think this makes me Keynesian, it just makes me not short-term suicidal.
8. I MUST CONCEDE YOUR PREVIOUS POINT REGARDING THE AUDIT BILL
-- after having read and reread the bill, YOU ARE CORRECT. In so far as I can see, Bernanke and his lackey Liesman are pulling one helluva spin job, as the language of the bill does not seem to authorize BUT A SINGLE AUDIT (the language refers to "AN AUDIT" not "the authority for recurring audits") and that audit (the report) is on a 6month lag from the implementation of the bill. To this notion, I am actually shocked that Kudlow (who i usually take for a shill even though he claims to be a "free market" guy, but during the GFC did have his own anti-keynesian moments) would admit this.
ANYHOW, on this point, i guess you are correct to call bullshit,
although i would caution that the combined language of the Audit Bill along with the USC31-714 DOES MAKE IT EXPLICIT that the audit can include REVIEW OF "deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;" AS WELL AS "making such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.
So, no. The bill won't hand fiscal policy over to the Congress, but it does allow the Comptroller General to step in, and REVIEW POLICY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY based on that review.
This alone would probably be strong enough language to scare the markets pretty bad. They generally tend to not like when anyone interferes with their "dope line", period. The very fact of this bill passing would be a strange signal to the markets that the loonies are running the asylum, and that seemingly the US Government has essentially lost confidence in itself. Why else would you pass a bill to audit your own financial backbone? (oh yes, i get that there are PLENTY of reasons in reality to do so, but it is a negative statement on your own condition that you would as a government signal to audit your own duly authorized central bank)
Also, just addressing the point over the bailouts,
***no one was screaming louder than me on this board about the impending disaster of the financial collapse well before it initiated in earnest***
my only gripe was, essentially AFTER THE FACT, IN THE MIDST OF TURMOIL people started clamoring to stop the bailouts. This is akin to not heeding fire codes for the last 100 years and allowing shanties to be built and crammed in to a downtown, ignoring all warnings about the possibility of fire, fully authorizing more shanties, and then, WHEN THE FIRE STARTS, saying "oh no. DON'T USE WATER, LET IT BURN". Sure we'd be better off without the shanties, but there are women and children living in those things!
IF you want to argue against keynesian policies do so before the fire breaks out, and use sensible policies to step off the dope ... don't send the patient in to death-inducing withdrawal. That was all i was getting at during the bailout. I was not pro-keynesian. I was just anti-reactionary-stupidity.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Also, what I think you and I disagree is that you believe money supply growth means "real asset growth". I don't. I believe it means nominal asset growth. Right now, if not for QE the stock market would be half what it is. Some may claim that's proof for why QE and the like have worked. I claim that's pure ignorance. The "real" value is the same - actually I argue it would be worse. Inflating it, doesn't making it better. Nor does it make us better off. In fact, it's what every single desperate country does before they collapse.
I have REPEATEDLY ***AGREED*** WITH YOU on this point.
I have made this point myself REPEATEDLY.
The stock market is and has been up since 2008 FOR ONE REASON
QE \ Inflation \ Money Given Directly To Banks To Invest & Support Their Own Self Interested Prior Investment In The Stock Markets.
I've actually gone much farther than that and argued that LONG TERM "GROWTH" In the stock markets is nothing more than an inflation bubble, reflecting little if any REAL growth.
I don't know where you got the crap you threw in my mouth up there, but it is NOT what i said, EVER.
TWO EXPLICIT EXAMPLES OF ME SAYING THIS IN A POST, ONE WITH A FUCKING CHART: post here
You don't think stock market valuations might be representative of some sort of "bubble" formulated around the greatest period of inflation \ monetary debasement in United States History? (Money Supply Soars to All Time High)
2. all i am saying is that the "fix" for the situation of being in a DYING KEYNESIAN SYSTEM is quite simply more keynesian rubbish -- inflation, QE-to-infinity, and smoke and mirrors (ie. The Fed continually buying more and more US debt as the market steps back from treasuries) ...
3. I know that this is not THE FIX, which is why i've labeled it "fix" in quotations.
4. There has to be a more sensible approach that minimizes short term economic harm that is not simply, "this system is stupid, lets kick it's legs out and start over from scratch".
5. The ramifications of pulling the plug on The Great Keynesian Experiment in the manner you seem to suggest (going cold turkey) would entail severe deleveraging and debt deflation of a kind never seen in history.
6. I think ultimately some sort of "revaluation" must occur, but I would prefer this revaluation be orderly instead of everyone and their grandmother getting fucked by a plunging dollar.
7. I don't think this makes me Keynesian, it just makes me not short-term suicidal.
8. I MUST CONCEDE YOUR PREVIOUS POINT REGARDING THE AUDIT BILL
-- after having read and reread the bill, YOU ARE CORRECT. In so far as I can see, Bernanke and his lackey Liesman are pulling one helluva spin job, as the language of the bill does not seem to authorize BUT A SINGLE AUDIT (the language refers to "AN AUDIT" not "the authority for recurring audits") and that audit (the report) is on a 6month lag from the implementation of the bill. To this notion, I am actually shocked that Kudlow (who i usually take for a shill even though he claims to be a "free market" guy, but during the GFC did have his own anti-keynesian moments) would admit this.
ANYHOW, on this point, i guess you are correct to call bullshit,
although i would caution that the combined language of the Audit Bill along with the USC31-714 DOES MAKE IT EXPLICIT that the audit can include REVIEW OF "deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;" AS WELL AS "making such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.
So, no. The bill won't hand fiscal policy over to the Congress, but it does allow the Comptroller General to step in, and REVIEW POLICY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY based on that review.
This alone would probably be strong enough language to scare the markets pretty bad. They generally tend to not like when anyone interferes with their "dope line", period. The very fact of this bill passing would be a strange signal to the markets that the loonies are running the asylum, and that seemingly the US Government has essentially lost confidence in itself. Why else would you pass a bill to audit your own financial backbone? (oh yes, i get that there are PLENTY of reasons in reality to do so, but it is a negative statement on your own condition that you would as a government signal to audit your own duly authorized central bank)
Also, just addressing the point over the bailouts,
***no one was screaming louder than me on this board about the impending disaster of the financial collapse well before it initiated in earnest***
my only gripe was, essentially AFTER THE FACT, IN THE MIDST OF TURMOIL people started clamoring to stop the bailouts. This is akin to not heeding fire codes for the last 100 years and allowing shanties to be built and crammed in to a downtown, ignoring all warnings about the possibility of fire, fully authorizing more shanties, and then, WHEN THE FIRE STARTS, saying "oh no. DON'T USE WATER, LET IT BURN". Sure we'd be better off without the shanties, but there are women and children living in those things!
IF you want to argue against keynesian policies do so before the fire breaks out, and use sensible policies to step off the dope ... don't send the patient in to death-inducing withdrawal. That was all i was getting at during the bailout. I was not pro-keynesian. I was just anti-reactionary-stupidity.
Bottom line:
A person, regardless of who they are or how they spin, if they support notions that fall into an ideological camp,... it only makes sense that they are occasionally lumped in with that camp.
Keynesianism by definition is supporting more Keynesian policies.You're arguing you're not a Keynesian, but a sentence or two later you once again back Keynesian policies. Keynesianism is a label for an ideology. It's not equivalent to a political party where you sign up for it. You either believe in the mindset or don't, or are mixed.
You confuse the F out of me because you say you're not Keynesian, but then literally back Keynesian policies two sentences later. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
But, regardless, who cares if I say you're falling into the Keynesian camp here. I understand that we agree we're f'd. We disagree how to handle it. You're belief is don't limit the Fed's or governments power to control this. My belief is we should limit it because... they are the f'ing problem (Debt/GDP).
I agree that things aren't all or none, nor should they be. Where you and I part ways is I don't see Keynesian issues dissipating quickly - - - - -ever. We won't just "get off the dope" and the truth is, I think you know this. This "bill" is not getting off the dope at all. It may, however, be the beginning of a weaning process.
The part that bothers me is... I don't think you really want a weaning. When I read what you write, you consistently back what the Fed is doing - but, then toss in back hand comments about how we're F'd anyway. It doesn't make sense. If you think what they are doing is worthy of your support - You must think it could work, right? If so, you're a aligning yourselves with Keynesian policy by definition. It's so hard to argue someone is a (insert ideology here) when (insert ideology here) is based on supporting different notions.
Anyways, Keynesian policy breeds more Keynesian policies. You argue we should have been preaching against Keynesian policy before it was used (I was - at least in regards to bailouts). I argue back I'm happy to have new friends on my side, Keynesian policy has been used repetitively since the at least since the Great Depression. It's not new with the bailouts. And unless we change our desire for it, it will be used again. Now's as good of a time to say... let's try a different approach.
For the time being, I support weaning... This audit is a good first step.
Sigh.
I am NOT PRO-KEYNESIAN.
The lines you are taking out of context as backing keynesian policy and being "pro-keynesian" are intended to convey the notion that THIS (keynesian) SYSTEM IS ***NOT WORKING*** but our EXIT FROM THIS SYSTEM MUST BE ORDERLY, not a panic-inducing cold-turkey switch.
If you need further proof that i am not and have never been inherently pro-keynesian: post
Let us do as Milton Friedman suggested as his ultimate solution and simply abolish the Federal Reserve and END THE PRINTING OF NOTES, thus caping inflation at the base currency level (the dollar) and allowing the markets to create OTHER forms of paper currency to account for any further need to inflate credit.
I thought the last line of that Friedman article in my last post said it best.
I was looking for good nuggets (since its been a while since i read it) and scrolled all the way down real quick, good thing too:
Comments
Anyhow, inlet, I generally agree with your economic viewpoint on things, but I kinda think you're being a bit too "professional economist" on this one. You keep talking about free markets and apple sales on secluded islands...but that isn't the world we live in. You're using the economist's favorite tool, at least implicitly, of assuming away the messiness of reality. The fact is our economy does function in a political context and exposing the rotten core of this house of cards may cause more pain than we're able to stand in the short term.
To be clear: audit the Fed. I'm afraid, but it will be for the best.
I don't think he did address it. And I'm sorry but you're very wrong about it NOT being a debate between Keynesian ideology and Austrian ideology. That's exactly what it is.
Certain individuals may not like to be labeled Keynesian. I get that. But, when they back Keynesian policies, they are in fact backing Keynesian policies (which lumps them in that camp, at least temporarily). Backing the bailouts, which an individual like Drifting does... makes them back Keynesian policies. Backing QE, which an individual like Drifting does - I think... makes them back Keynesian policies.
John Maynard Keynes wasn't quite as bad of a guy as people, like me, make him out to be. When he originally put forth his stance on issues, he believed government could be used to push us out of recessions. However, he frequently acknowledged the problems with his approach - like debt and creating new issues in the long run, for instance. I'd say certain individuals fall into the early-Keynesian viewpoint - maybe someone like Drifting at times. Then there's idiots like Krugman and new Keynesians. These individuals broadened the original Keynesian viewpoint and hijacked Monetary and Fiscal policy to use it to the utmost degree. I don't agree with Keynes at all then or now because I believe his viewpoint alone created the neo-Keynesians. But, long story short, I acknowledge that there are different degrees of Keynesianism. I'm not 100% certain where Keynes would side on this issue if he were alive today. To me, the problem with Keynes was his viewpoint was hijacked and extended.
I don't understand the "professional economist" line, academic maybe since the apple on island example... but, professional economist? Most "professional economists" probably fall into the Keynesian camp since they are forecasters. Anywho, to bring this back into line, I was responding to a post where someone said "our markets continue to function ONLY because of sleight of hand and the smoke and mirrors of the fed" (Drifting - on the first page of this thread).
Re-read that quote. I responded saying ummm... no. They don't. What is written there is factually false. I explained what "markets are" using perhaps an example you don't like. Markets are not a function of the Fed. Anyone who says otherwise is misguided.
As far as whether the heavy majority of markets exist in a political reality right now - I don't disagree. I think they do exist in a political reality where government can't get it's meddling hands involved. I mean - that's really the entire issue here. Central banks, and government in general, involving itself in market transactions. That's the debate.
However, I think one should be careful when "believing" that the government is NECESSARY for markets to function. That is completely and totally false. A casual reader may not know that. I know Drifting knows that, that's why I was correcting him from misleading anyone.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
2. all i am saying is that the "fix" for the situation of being in a DYING KEYNESIAN SYSTEM is quite simply more keynesian rubbish -- inflation, QE-to-infinity, and smoke and mirrors (ie. The Fed continually buying more and more US debt as the market steps back from treasuries) ...
3. I know that this is not THE FIX, which is why i've labeled it "fix" in quotations.
4. There has to be a more sensible approach that minimizes short term economic harm that is not simply, "this system is stupid, lets kick it's legs out and start over from scratch".
5. The ramifications of pulling the plug on The Great Keynesian Experiment in the manner you seem to suggest (going cold turkey) would entail severe deleveraging and debt deflation of a kind never seen in history.
6. I think ultimately some sort of "revaluation" must occur, but I would prefer this revaluation be orderly instead of everyone and their grandmother getting fucked by a plunging dollar.
7. I don't think this makes me Keynesian, it just makes me not short-term suicidal.
8. I MUST CONCEDE YOUR PREVIOUS POINT REGARDING THE AUDIT BILL
-- after having read and reread the bill, YOU ARE CORRECT. In so far as I can see, Bernanke and his lackey Liesman are pulling one helluva spin job, as the language of the bill does not seem to authorize BUT A SINGLE AUDIT (the language refers to "AN AUDIT" not "the authority for recurring audits") and that audit (the report) is on a 6month lag from the implementation of the bill. To this notion, I am actually shocked that Kudlow (who i usually take for a shill even though he claims to be a "free market" guy, but during the GFC did have his own anti-keynesian moments) would admit this.
ANYHOW, on this point, i guess you are correct to call bullshit,
although i would caution that the combined language of the Audit Bill along with the USC31-714 DOES MAKE IT EXPLICIT that the audit can include REVIEW OF "deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;" AS WELL AS "making such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.
So, no. The bill won't hand fiscal policy over to the Congress, but it does allow the Comptroller General to step in, and REVIEW POLICY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY based on that review.
This alone would probably be strong enough language to scare the markets pretty bad. They generally tend to not like when anyone interferes with their "dope line", period. The very fact of this bill passing would be a strange signal to the markets that the loonies are running the asylum, and that seemingly the US Government has essentially lost confidence in itself. Why else would you pass a bill to audit your own financial backbone? (oh yes, i get that there are PLENTY of reasons in reality to do so, but it is a negative statement on your own condition that you would as a government signal to audit your own duly authorized central bank)
Also, just addressing the point over the bailouts,
***no one was screaming louder than me on this board about the impending disaster of the financial collapse well before it initiated in earnest***
my only gripe was, essentially AFTER THE FACT, IN THE MIDST OF TURMOIL people started clamoring to stop the bailouts. This is akin to not heeding fire codes for the last 100 years and allowing shanties to be built and crammed in to a downtown, ignoring all warnings about the possibility of fire, fully authorizing more shanties, and then, WHEN THE FIRE STARTS, saying "oh no. DON'T USE WATER, LET IT BURN". Sure we'd be better off without the shanties, but there are women and children living in those things!
IF you want to argue against keynesian policies do so before the fire breaks out, and use sensible policies to step off the dope ... don't send the patient in to death-inducing withdrawal. That was all i was getting at during the bailout. I was not pro-keynesian. I was just anti-reactionary-stupidity.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I have REPEATEDLY ***AGREED*** WITH YOU on this point.
I have made this point myself REPEATEDLY.
The stock market is and has been up since 2008 FOR ONE REASON
QE \ Inflation \ Money Given Directly To Banks To Invest & Support Their Own Self Interested Prior Investment In The Stock Markets.
I've actually gone much farther than that and argued that LONG TERM "GROWTH" In the stock markets is nothing more than an inflation bubble, reflecting little if any REAL growth.
I don't know where you got the crap you threw in my mouth up there, but it is NOT what i said, EVER.
TWO EXPLICIT EXAMPLES OF ME SAYING THIS IN A POST, ONE WITH A FUCKING CHART:
post here
another post
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Bottom line:
A person, regardless of who they are or how they spin, if they support notions that fall into an ideological camp,... it only makes sense that they are occasionally lumped in with that camp.
Keynesianism by definition is supporting more Keynesian policies.You're arguing you're not a Keynesian, but a sentence or two later you once again back Keynesian policies. Keynesianism is a label for an ideology. It's not equivalent to a political party where you sign up for it. You either believe in the mindset or don't, or are mixed.
You confuse the F out of me because you say you're not Keynesian, but then literally back Keynesian policies two sentences later. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
But, regardless, who cares if I say you're falling into the Keynesian camp here. I understand that we agree we're f'd. We disagree how to handle it. You're belief is don't limit the Fed's or governments power to control this. My belief is we should limit it because... they are the f'ing problem (Debt/GDP).
I agree that things aren't all or none, nor should they be. Where you and I part ways is I don't see Keynesian issues dissipating quickly - - - - -ever. We won't just "get off the dope" and the truth is, I think you know this. This "bill" is not getting off the dope at all. It may, however, be the beginning of a weaning process.
The part that bothers me is... I don't think you really want a weaning. When I read what you write, you consistently back what the Fed is doing - but, then toss in back hand comments about how we're F'd anyway. It doesn't make sense. If you think what they are doing is worthy of your support - You must think it could work, right? If so, you're a aligning yourselves with Keynesian policy by definition. It's so hard to argue someone is a (insert ideology here) when (insert ideology here) is based on supporting different notions.
Anyways, Keynesian policy breeds more Keynesian policies. You argue we should have been preaching against Keynesian policy before it was used (I was - at least in regards to bailouts). I argue back I'm happy to have new friends on my side, Keynesian policy has been used repetitively since the at least since the Great Depression. It's not new with the bailouts. And unless we change our desire for it, it will be used again. Now's as good of a time to say... let's try a different approach.
For the time being, I support weaning... This audit is a good first step.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I am NOT PRO-KEYNESIAN.
The lines you are taking out of context as backing keynesian policy and being "pro-keynesian" are intended to convey the notion that THIS (keynesian) SYSTEM IS ***NOT WORKING*** but our EXIT FROM THIS SYSTEM MUST BE ORDERLY, not a panic-inducing cold-turkey switch.
If you need further proof that i am not and have never been inherently pro-keynesian:
post
and another post about Uncle Milt
and another quote:
???
I just think there has to be SOME ORDERLY WAY OF ARRIVING AT THIS ULTIMATE SOLUTION.
If I opened it now would you not understand?