| ShinmenTakezo said: I will respond to this just because you are very condescending and I feel you need to be told so. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I haven't done any research or haven't read. Your oppinion is not fact. I also didn't copy your link. I had no clue you posted any links because you didn't post any in response to me. I have no clue about Karl Marx because I have never studied him or his ideologies, so that is my fault for assuming something that differed from your intentional meaning. But why would I want to read you post all the way through when you are trying to belittle me the whole time? All said and done your just a pompous ass. --- User was warned for this post. ~tads12 |
If you would have done some reasearch. I feel like you would have said you had done so.
I'm not belittling you. It's a legitamite call to actually read Keynes work. Because it's interesting and different from what people say.
Much like Frued, who's own personal analzyation gets treated much more as an absolute as he put it...
and Marx. Who would pretty decry all marxists and socalists of today as deluded fools who were more complcit in the system then campalists because they worked as a mitigater of proletariat anger. (That is, if he wasn't heartened by worker conditions.)
Just think about it this way though. Now a days, a lot of Keynsians latch on to World War 2 as a sign that Keynsianism works right? We got out of the great depression during WW2.
Personal Consumption was down during World War 2. If Keynsianism was soley about the average consumer spending to increase the multiplier... then the one example people consider a success story... wasn't.
They never think to reconcile this. Keynes multiplier was about employment. He says it himself, if that thing you posted. It mentions it in both what you read and the general theory. Spending is spending, and enough spending will cause full employment to happen. If full employment already exists, stimulus spending won't matter.
