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.
Would you be willing ask Dr. Munger if he'd consider sharing a little of his time with us by posting his arguments on this forum or engaging in a moderated debate over on the Great Debates forum?
I will definitely check with him next time I see him.
He's much more busy than I am, as he's PoliSci department chair. We'll see.
What ever stimulus bill is passed I will figure our some way to personally benefit. Isn't that the entrapeneurial spirit?
Agreed!
That's the spirit that will get us out of this mess, good people working hard and taking advantage of the opportunities that will arise from this mess.
It's particularly satisfying to see Keynesian retards squirm trying to debunk the department chair of a tier 1 university.
Sorta like how we enjoy watching the wingnuts try to debunk a Nobel Prize laureate!
Actually, though, reading the excerpt that was posted, it appears Munger is saying the following: a) the stimulus program won't produce stimulus, because... well, there is no "because;" bc) he thinks that government's knowledge of when to intervene in the economy is at the level of 1820's science; c) folks are economically illiterate; and d) Fannie and Freedie Mae were a primary cause for the securitization mess.
I really don't see a particularly strong anti-stimulus argument here, beyond the response that we're stealing from our children's generation. I have seen some good ones; this isn't an example.
It's particularly satisfying to see Keynesian retards squirm trying to debunk the department chair of a tier 1 university.
Well, he's the poli sci department chair. Not the economics department chair. Moreover, the academic setting is far from monolithic on any topic. There are many, many economists just as distinguished who could be described as Keynesians or New Keynesians.
These debates are nothing new. The only new thing is that we're all hearing about them. They've been going on in academic journals and panel discussions and over pints for decades and decades and decades.
Sorta like how we enjoy watching the wingnuts try to debunk a Nobel Prize laureate!
I don't debunk Krugman for winning the prize, based on trade theory. I debunk Krugman and the Krugmanite Keynesian Klan retards for associating that prize with any legitimacy towards business cycle theory.
Quote:
I really don't see a particularly strong anti-stimulus argument here, beyond the response that we're stealing from our children's generation. I have seen some good ones; this isn't an example.
Blowing your wad, fiscally speaking, on a unproven theory is all the evidence one needs to support the "no stimulus" argument.
When the federal government spends money it can get it through four sources: direct taxation, indirect taxation (resulting in higher prices or lost wages), borrowing, or printing of money. Our government is doing all four. The borrowing portion requires that the Treasury float hundreds of billions in new bonds. Investors generally sell US stocks to buy US treasury notes, which simply moves billions from the private sector to the public sector. Every recession since WWII has been accompanied or preceded by a rapid runup in government spending.
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.
