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.
Sorry, I forgot this is a right-wing forum where occasionally leaving the country is "elitist" and obviously, un-patriotic. LOL. Don't worry, stay home; the big, bad world out there doesn't concern you.
Don't worry, if globalism prevails then you will have no need to leave the country because there will be nothing to experience. Every country will pretty much have the same crappy chain restaurants serving the same crappy GMO food.
I never said it was, but yes you're right...the way they are related is the subject of seen vs. unseen costs. They're also both "demand side" focused.
Either way, kind of a minor detail.
Keynesian economics is not "demand side" focused either. It merely appears that way because of the errant notion of Ricardian finical theory ignored the idea of involuntary demand barriers entirely, especially with regard to finance. I think it is safe to say that if the dollar disappeared entirely , apparent demand for real goods and services would fall. That has nothing to do with the idea of da guberment intervention. I use Keynesian economic principles to predict financial flows in the US , just like I use endogenous money theory to get an idea of private financial flows. It hardly means I want to give loans to every bum on the street. You have simply taken the Democratic lefty's word for it that they are "Keynesian" . Keynes is merely a label on the concept anyway. Its quite clear that the Federal budget impacts the economy in many ways both in what it consumes and where its buying power flows. Even a big da guberment Keynesian would have objected to what was going on in early 2000s. Large deficits with 3% unemployment is bloatamous economics.
Keynesian economics is not "demand side" focused either. It merely appears that way because of the errant notion of Ricardian finical theory ignored the idea of involuntary demand barriers entirely, especially with regard to finance. I think it is safe to say that if the dollar disappeared entirely , apparent demand for real goods and services would fall. That has nothing to do with the idea of da guberment intervention. I use Keynesian economic principles to predict financial flows in the US , just like I use endogenous money theory to get an idea of private financial flows. It hardly means I want to give loans to every bum on the street. You have simply taken the Democratic lefty's word for it that they are "Keynesian" . Keynes is merely a label on the concept anyway. Its quite clear that the Federal budget impacts the economy in many ways both in what it consumes and where its buying power flows. Even a big da guberment Keynesian would have objected to what was going on in early 2000s. Large deficits with 3% unemployment is bloatamous economics.
I understand Keynesians as people who believes in things like aggregate demand, and who feel that you can only stimualte the economy with consumer side economics. The idea that more money pumped into the economy would create economic growth. Because of this assumptions, keynesians work closely with the government, and it's hard to have keynesian economics that aren't centrally planned. From what I understand the Chicago school and Austrians don't believe in the FED nor any measure of centrally planned economic economy. I would definitely say Paul Krugman is the poster boy for Keynesian economics, and most conservatives are generally not in this school of economic thought. Though you can definitely see "Keynesian influence" in many Republicans, but I would argue that they're not real conservatives.
I'm an alt-right Nationalist. (I really don't know what alt-right means but it pisses off the lefties so I claim it)
and here is Trump voter 101 summed up perfectly...I don't know facts of a situation/idea/event but the people I don't like don't like it, so therefore it's good.....
I see the difference as an economy with reasonable limits on investor greed compared to an economy dominated by speculative boom and bust where the lead speculators never suffer the consequences of the bust part of the cycle. I prefer a system where the gains are made by the proletariat through government spending based on very progressive tax policies and the losses are suffered by the speculators.
Sorry, I forgot this is a right-wing forum where occasionally leaving the country is "elitist" and obviously, un-patriotic. LOL. Don't worry, stay home; the big, bad world out there doesn't concern you.
Lefties think going to France makes them worldly. Meanwhile kids in the bible belt actually end up in the third world routinely.
I understand Keynesians as people who believes in things like aggregate demand, and who feel that you can only stimualte the economy with consumer side economics.
Please point me to where Keynes states this absurdity.
Quote:
The idea that more money pumped into the economy would create economic growth. Because of this assumptions, keynesians work closely with the government, and it's hard to have keynesian economics that aren't centrally planned. From what I understand the Chicago school and Austrians don't believe in the FED nor any measure of centrally planned economic economy. I would definitely say Paul Krugman is the poster boy for Keynesian economics, and most conservatives are generally not in this school of economic thought. Though you can definitely see "Keynesian influence" in many Republicans, but I would argue that they're not real conservatives.
I think Keynes is the only real Keynesian. When I want to make a claim on his theory, I typically use his writings as a reference.
Oddly you mention Austrians and Chicago school as if they are opposites to Keynes. In fact the Austrian school and the Keynesian school agree that fiance impact the economy whereas the Chicago school tends to think finance is a mere reflection of economic activity. Austrians and Keynesian agree on the financial model.
They just disagree on the solution. I tend to contextually agree with both of them . I am perfectly willing to agree with Austrians that da guberment should not intervene with finance , as in bailing out bad credit. However when da guberment is the cause of the problem , then I tend to agree with da guberment intervention in rescuing the parties that they screwed over. For example when da guberment allowed liar loans to bloat the economy, there is no reason to allow the the value to destabilize catastrophically for those not involved in wrecking the credit system.
and here is Trump voter 101 summed up perfectly...I don't know facts of a situation/idea/event but the people I don't like don't like it, so therefore it's good.....
And here is a regressive lefty, perfectly. They hunt for a single instance out of the masses and claim that its representative.
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.
