doublegunshop.com - home Forums Ken Burn's Teddy R.

You mean discredited among Keynesian economists. It is the growth of government and programs that reward nonproductivity that is the real problem. Ineptocracy is a good term, as displayed on the other thread. I take it that you consider a person voting for a politician to take away another's economic freedom and give it to them via an involuntary exchange of goods and services to be an example of "voting in their own interests"? That's the best example of "partisanship", based upon a mythology of "fairness" and "entitlement". We are suffering, and with no changes, will continue to do so.

Economies can recover if left alone. However, ours is being constantly inflicted on by the government, the comparison with the Great Depression is startling, with government infliction upon infliction. That is not to say that some sectors did not do OK during it, but that the overall conditions were very poor.
Now, we need a politician who does not identify with the government class, who are the real problem.

TARP was created to deal with the previous mess that government intervention itself had created.

The only reason that Keynesian economics has survived for so long in western thinking is not because it works, or even makes any sense, but because it justifies what liberal politicians already want to do � spend with reckless abandon, run bigger and bigger deficits so they don�t have to explicitly pay for it with higher taxes today, and run up the national debt, which will be someone else�s problem later. The truth is, as Fruits and Pozdena explain, �A large and long-standing body of literature finds that increased or higher government spending tends to reduce economic growth rather than increase it.�


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...ong-the-states/

The Progressive MYTH of Keynesian Economics !

But most fundamentally, economic growth is not driven by increasing demand, which is insatiable, but by increased production or output (supply), which is driven by incentives for productive activity. In other words, just as an individual cannot spend himself rich, neither can a nation
Prosperity is determined by production, just as an individual increases his or her income by becoming more productive.


The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry bookkeeping. If the government spends more, where does the money for that increased spending come from? Either from increased borrowing, or increased taxes, which both take an equal amount of resources and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending. So not only can there not be a net increase in aggregate, or total, demand from these policies, the spending is in truth a net drag on growth, as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the government. That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s, as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression, and it hasn�t worked anywhere else since.

We are what we believe, Ken. You believe in spite of all evidence to the opposite that that there are free markets and when they fail, as even mixed economies do cyclically from greed and political mismanagement, the suffering hundreds of millions should take their lumps and wait for free markets to rise again from the ashes.

That's worn-out dogma, a dialectical materialism of I'm-all-right, to-hell-with-the-rest which Christian, social and political traditions forcefully deny. You don't take responsibility for what you've been given by your country's tax system/citizens since the day you arrived. It's rank selfishness, anarchical in nature.

If one needed proof of a call for an absence of government, look at your last sentence: "Now, we need a politician who does not identify with the government class, who are the real problem." Governments in a democratic society are made of political parties competing to form a government with public support for their policies. Politicians are governance, in and out.

Comrade King,

It is you who believe in "worn out mythology and dogma". Ahh, the "greed" code word. As is the word "selfishness". Your insistence on using the sociopathic statist religious lexicon shows how intellectually devoid and vapid you really are. Private sector capitalist profit motive is evil, yet statist religious greed and selfishness via statist Neoslavery is "Righteous and Good". Again, democracy is mob rule. We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic specifically designed to prevent statist religious sociopaths like you from wielding power. We need a politician who believes in constitutional freedom and equality, not your morally bankrupt, soviet-indoctrinated, sociopathic, religious statism.

Keynesian economic failure in charts !
There is only one chart of employment that truly matters: the number of full-time employees relative to the working age population. Full-time employment is what ultimately drives economic growth, pays wages that will support household formation and fuels higher levels of government revenue from taxes. If the economy were truly beginning to recover, we should be witnessing an increasing number of full-time employees. Unfortunately, that has not been the case as this measure, as shown by the chart below, is only slightly off the lows witnessed during the financial crisis.


Wages & Salaries

Given that nearly 70% of economic growth is driven by personal consumption expenditures, the sluggishness of economic growth since the financial crisis can be directly attributed to a fall in personal incomes. According to a recent Federal Reserve survey, median household before-tax incomes have fallen from near $52,000 annually to roughly $47,000 currently.



Financial Security

Another mainstream media theme has been that the surging stock market, driven by the Federal Reserve's monetary interventions, has provided a boost to the overall economy. However, as I have suggested previously, the bulk of the population either does not, or only marginally, participates in the financial markets. The boost from inflated asset prices driven by Federal Reserve interventions has remained concentrated in the upper 10% of the population. The Federal Reserve study breaks the data down in several ways, but the story remains the same. The median value of financial assets for families has fallen sharply since the turn of the century.



Opportunity

The U.S. economy was built on opportunity. However, since 2007, opportunity to "own" a business has plunged to the lowest level since 1989. As discussed, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics adjusts to the employment report upward to account for "new business" start-ups. Since 2009, the "birth/death" adjustment has added 3.5 million jobs to the employment roll. The problem, however, is that the number of families that owned business equity has plummeted during that same period.

Replacement, I do not need a degree in economics or history to understand the historical facts regarding tax cuts and increased revenue to treasury. It's the same result every freaking time - major tax cuts yield more revenue to treasury. The fact you obviously know more about economics than me only yields one conclusion - you would rather lie than admit the truth. The unanswered question is "Why?"

(1) Working within a mixed economy, I not only believe in profit but capital investment should not be subsidized by government as it is everywhere i.e. our landowners' responsibly sustainable forestry program, acclaimed as one of the best in the world, must also be financially sustainable, not subsidized by taxpayers. Compare that to your "free market" corporate welfare.

(2) As to common people gaining power, that's what we do well here. Government has delegated all its its responsibilities to landowners who proved they could do forestry, the cornerstone of our rural economy, more efficiently, environmentally and socially, with no bureaucratic and technological interference from the top. We believe in freedom and equality and make it work.

You call it morally bankrupt and mob rule. I think of it as responsible citizenship. It beats cawing a gobbledegook cacophony in the back 40 because you don't like paying a fair share of taxes that made your great country, and the world isn't as you imagine it should be.

Comrade King,

You miss my point. Now , what really does the piddly-little example of Canada's sustainable forestry program have to to with the unconstitutionally sociopathic statist religious mythology of Keynesism, Neoslavery Vote-buying, and massive government debt?

Now really, do you actually believe that with responses like that you're taken seriously?

We're talking about America here, and what your fellow statist religious sociopaths have done to it.

I wonder how the 'rural' property tax rate say for folks in your neck of the woods, and maybe for the folks in Halifax compares. I wonder if it's 'fair' for the taxpayer to subsidize the vacation, hunting grounds and wink grape farms of the elite playgrounds of the rich. I wonder what would make a lib elite, not you, jump up on a soap box and belittle that taxpaying working poor in your capital city. Why does he have to subsidize the haves, with disproportionate tax rates on a tiny little house on some tiny little lot.

Hey, I wonder if one person's partisan 'poison' might be seen by another as pc cancerous hypocrisy.