U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2010, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,270,370 times
Reputation: 1438

Advertisements

Keynesian economics, that economic theory that is once again running the country, was shown to be a complete sham this past Tuesday by a fifth grade student in small Midwestern town during a routine math assignment. The student’s teacher and school principal were impressed enough to issue a press statement, excerpted below:

Fifth Grader Discredits Keynesians!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:12 PM
 
15,758 posts, read 8,562,356 times
Reputation: 6222
If I go bankrupt because I try to spend my way out of debt, can I use the

"Bammer did it" excuse in my legal proceedings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:15 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,964,233 times
Reputation: 1806
Obviously not written by a 5th grader - but the fan boys will say that doesn't matter.

Why is this guy's blog the only source for this "press statement"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:16 PM
 
8 posts, read 11,279 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
Obviously not written by a 5th grader - but the fan boys will say that doesn't matter.

I was just about to say that.

Also, "mid-west town" nuff said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:22 PM
 
15,758 posts, read 8,562,356 times
Reputation: 6222
I dont care who wrote it.

I just want to know if "Bammer did it" is a legal excuse for me attempting to spend my way outta debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,774 posts, read 6,662,543 times
Reputation: 2856
The main problem with little Johnnie, is that he thinks that the money being taken from his dad's checks are going to the stimulus directly and wholly. Little Johnnie (or whomever actually wrote the article), seems to be under the impression that the economic model does not have ANY other aspects to it other than his daddy, the investment cycle and return to government.

What little johnnie misses are the number of jobs that will be created with each portion (shall we say $100 from everyone), which in turn creates cash flow cycles from formerly unemployed people, which leads to more people STAYING employed at grocery stores, at fast food stores, at video stores, at movie theaters, and also at State jobs, fixing roads, signs, cutting grass, etc. Each continues with it's own cash flow cycle, each making a small but significant deposit into the investment cyle, the household cycle and finally back to the government. Little johnnie instead of doing a direct ROI on the initial monies withdrawn from daddy's check, should concentrate on the larger direct economic impact that instead of keeping 1 person employed and using the small amount of savings they would contribute, they (the gov't.) can spend monies to stimulate business to employee several people who then contribute many small amounts across the cycle.

I think "Little Johnnie", while doing good for attempting to spout supply side economic theory get's a huge FAIL for Macroeconomic and Monetary policy.

And Keynes' as well as Friedman pwns little johnnie....and his dad. Again.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,495,682 times
Reputation: 4104
Hummm, an ultra conservative blog posting something (only them) about a vague 5th grader discrediting an economic theory of some one most people would never of heard of before starting an undergraduate course in economics. Most of the comments are just about the fifth grader being fictitious, which is beyond obvious, or the basic fail of econ 101 even in spinning this tall tale.

This is just made up horsecrap. Seems to happen again and again. What do we say kids? When some one must lie and make up fiction to support their position, it generally has nothing else going for it. I'll live in the factual world, thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:39 PM
 
8 posts, read 11,279 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
Hummm, an ultra conservative blog posting something (only them) about a vague 5th grader discrediting an economic theory of some one most people would never of heard of before starting an undergraduate course in economics. Most of the comments are just about the fifth grader being fictitious, which is beyond obvious, or the basic fail of econ 101 even in spinning this tall tale.

This is just made up horsecrap. Seems to happen again and again. What do we say kids? When some one must lie and make up fiction to support their position, it generally has nothing else going for it. I'll live in the factual world, thank you.
It will soon make its rounds via chain letters too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:48 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,082,292 times
Reputation: 14878
Well I think that this is a great example of why the American educational system in the trash bin, because if a social science teacher actually thought this was a critique of the multiplier affect then the school system is worse off than I would have imagined.

The multiplier isn't an investment formula as this child thinks but rather a formula for increasing aggregate demand. If little Johnny's daddy didn't have to pay his 18% to the government in the form of taxes, Johnny's little dad might just save his 18%, that does not stimulate demand. It the government takes that 18% and spends it on a project, what ever amount of that 18% is then guaranteed to transfer to another party who will then spend some portion of that 18% to purchase capital and or labor to complete that project. In short the money is being forced into the economy and not into someone's mattress.

Economics - The Multiplier Effect Of Money Within The Commonwealth’s Economy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 02:48 PM
 
15,758 posts, read 8,562,356 times
Reputation: 6222
Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130 View Post
The main problem with little Johnnie, is that he thinks that the money being taken from his dad's checks are going to the stimulus directly and wholly. Little Johnnie (or whomever actually wrote the article), seems to be under the impression that the economic model does not have ANY other aspects to it other than his daddy, the investment cycle and return to government.

What little johnnie misses are the number of jobs that will be created with each portion (shall we say $100 from everyone), which in turn creates cash flow cycles from formerly unemployed people, which leads to more people STAYING employed at grocery stores, at fast food stores, at video stores, at movie theaters, and also at State jobs, fixing roads, signs, cutting grass, etc. Each continues with it's own cash flow cycle, each making a small but significant deposit into the investment cyle, the household cycle and finally back to the government. Little johnnie instead of doing a direct ROI on the initial monies withdrawn from daddy's check, should concentrate on the larger direct economic impact that instead of keeping 1 person employed and using the small amount of savings they would contribute, they (the gov't.) can spend monies to stimulate business to employee several people who then contribute many small amounts across the cycle.

I think "Little Johnnie", while doing good for attempting to spout supply side economic theory get's a huge FAIL for Macroeconomic and Monetary policy.

And Keynes' as well as Friedman pwns little johnnie....and his dad. Again.
little Johnny also forgot that most of his daddy’s check is paying interest on money that has been borrowed.

he also neglects that the current round of spending is on borrowed money too. money that little Johnny’s grand children will be paying for.

Johnny's argument is simplistic but your argument above that you think “pwns” (what ever that is) gives short shrift to certain realities that demolish both Keynes and Krugman. ALL of that money spent by government that goes back into the economy must pass thru government filters. Each layer of bureaucracy the money passes thru takes an administrative cut. Each cut reduces the impact of the money being spent.

If little Johnny’s dad gets a tax cut, there are no filters and the money stays in the real economy and is not filtered.

FDR proved the futility of Keynesian economics. Keynes is about as relevant today as Jean-Baptist Colbert
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top