Won't Trump go All Out Keynesian? (Putin, Iraq, companies, dictator)
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.
Hey, I have a BA in economics too. I earned it while Keynes was still alive, so I''m a little rusty. I'll stand back and watch you two fight it out.
LOL. Come on, join in!
Read the first post, and let me know if you think its Keynesian spending. IE what Keynes would say. If enough people with degrees in economics tell me that yeah Trump is going full on Keynesian, I shall retire from the argument.
Besides which the link whogo just provided is a slow slog to read (and interesting).
I find your argument that you have a undergraduate degree in economics to be implausible. You defined Keynesian COMPLETELY wrong in your initial post in regards to the title of it. And many of your arguments are what I would expect from someone who does not in fact have a degree on this topic.
I have taken both macro and micro economics at a college level. I enjoyed them quite a bit actually, I think I got a A in one class, and a B in the other (keep in mind a B isnt bad-it was higher then the average grade, and I did it while raising 8 kids with my wifes help, and working full time. Its been a while. I do NOT have a degree in economics.
I have read your link. It is attempting to discuss one side of a complex topic. For example-If we raised taxes, and then spent on infrastructure thats one thing. Thats not the plan. And your link goes on and on about reaching "full employment". News flash-we are basically there. And have been for a while. Witness the rise in median income finally. Thats not going up out of the goodness of their hearts you know?
Calling me a liar. I consider the source.
Any person with one course in macroeconomics should know that few people agree exactly at what point Keynesian stimulus spending should begin or end. I think you are lying. You don't know Smith from Galbraith.
I have stated that Trump may well go full blown Keynesian and that is from his own words. I suggest ya get his book if you do not believe me.
This economy still has many that underemployed and wage inflation has only slightly begun to pickup. Hardly anyone is seriously considering "paying back" the deficit.
The fact is all ya have to do is google "Trump Keynesian stimulus" since I do not expect ya to buy his book where in Chapter 12 he proposes to do just that.
My God, arguing with simpletons is exhausting.
The 1st post was a simple three line introduction. Deficit spending is key to Keynesian fiscal policy to stimulate the economy,.
Read the first post, and let me know if you think its Keynesian spending. IE what Keynes would say. If enough people with degrees in economics tell me that yeah Trump is going full on Keynesian, I shall retire from the argument.
Besides which the link whogo just provided is a slow slog to read (and interesting).
Another thing you seem to be to slow to understand is Trump ain't President yet.
Can't read. No knowledge of economics. Bet ya supported Sanders.
Deficit spending is key to Keynesian fiscal policy to stimulate the economy,.
Right, but Keynes never advocated a permanent deficit -- the deficit spending was supposed to be massive but temporary to increase aggregate demand and jolt the economy back to health.
The last many years of deficit spending isn't Keynesian, it's just a cowardly reluctance to collect enough taxes to balance the budget. Coincidentally, the US has the world's reserve currency so we can get away with it.
Right, but Keynes never advocated a permanent deficit -- the deficit spending was supposed to be massive but temporary to increase aggregate demand and jolt the economy back to health.
The last many years of deficit spending isn't Keynesian, it's just a cowardly reluctance to collect enough taxes to balance the budget. Coincidentally, the US has the world's reserve currency so we can get away with it.
We are talking about Trump and his next term and how he plans to stimulate the economy. You are correct that our current massive deficits are not the result of any intentional attempt to stimulate the economy. Though to try to balance the budget within a short time period would be disastrous.
If you read what DeLong and Krugman contend in that article is that as long as interest rates are so low additional fiscal stimulus is needed in order to get rates up to the point where monetary policy can be utilized in the next recession. Yellen disagrees and I tend to agree with her.
Krugman:
Quote:
What I mean is that because interest rates are still near zero, a bout of economic weakness can’t be met with strong monetary expansion; and discretionary fiscal stimulus is politically hard, especially given who’ll be running things. This strongly suggests that you want to build up some momentum, get further away from a lee shore, pick your metaphor; that means letting the economy build strength, inflation rise modestly. So as I said, I believe the Fed made a mistake, and would welcome a modest (1 or 2 point? maybe more?) rise in budget deficits, especially if it involved infrastructure spending.
On Delong:
Quote:
No, obviously, he doesn't like Trump's version of expanding the deficit but then we're not going to find PK praising anything from that direction. Brad Delong makes much the same point:
If the Federal Reserve wants to have the ammunition to fight the next recession when it happens, it needs the short-term safe nominal interest rate to be 5% or more when the recession hits. I believe that is very unlikely to happen without substantial fiscal expansion. No, at least in the world that Janet Yellen sees, "fiscal policy is not needed to provide stimulus to get us back to full employment." But fiscal policy stimulus is needed to create a situation in which full employment can be maintained
Where Trump definitely parts from Keynes is where the stimulus goes. Keynes would definitely want more of the stimulus going to those with a higher propensity to consume.
is the question, does Trump want to juice the economy? Or, will Congress let him? I believe he does, but I think there will be resistance from Fiscal Conservatives. Should be interesting to see how this plays out politically.
is the question, does Trump want to juice the economy? Or, will Congress let him? I believe he does, but I think there will be resistance from Fiscal Conservatives. Should be interesting to see how this plays out politically.
I think he will do it with bipartisan support. I mean Obama been crying to spend on infrastructure for years. Not sure how he gets by Ryan who I see as the most likely chief opponent considering his role.
Hard to vote against tax cuts even if the wealthy getting most of it.
I think he will do it with bipartisan support. I mean Obama been crying to spend on infrastructure for years. Not sure how he gets by Ryan who I see as the most likely chief opponent considering his role.
Hard to vote against tax cuts even if the wealthy getting most of it.
A definite maybe on all counts I can see him cutting an infrastructure deal with Schumer, but I can also see him having trouble with the GOP. Especially in the Senate. This will be interesting!
A definite maybe on all counts I can see him cutting an infrastructure deal with Schumer, but I can also see him having trouble with the GOP. Especially in the Senate. This will be interesting!
I want to see how the deficit hawks in the GOP react too. It will be interesting.
I basically agree. The problem we have is our primary system. No significant compromise can be made without hyper partisans on both sides of the aisle raising hell and setting up a challenger in the next primary.
Independents and moderates need to vote in the primaries.
The problem is they don't want to tell the American voters that any solution will require them to experience pain, that would be a sure fire way not to be reelected. I also blame voters for thinking that there are simple solutions to complex problems and they vote people back into office that maintain the status quo, which is to do nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The best long-term plan is to increase the FICA and HI Payroll Taxes, which have been the same since 1990.
The Silent Generation was slammed with a 520% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.
The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.
If Generation X-Box and Generation Whine can't handle a 44.6% increase to make sure Social Security still exists for them, then my recommendation is Wilkinson Bonded or Gillette Silver Blues.
Every year that goes by without addressing social security makes the solution more difficult, they should have raised payroll taxes long ago to compensate for an aging population or lowered payout. They have completely ignored the aging population, the system is upside down with a few paying in for many yet nothing has changed.
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.
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.
, so I''m a little rusty. I'll stand back and watch you two fight it out.
