ShinmenTakezo said:
Kasz216 said:
ShinmenTakezo said:
Kasz216 said:
ShinmenTakezo said:
I think Keynes would have said the stimulus wasn't large enough. He would have also detested the way it was implemented. I don't think he would have rejected it though. He would have championed it (as long as it was real stimulus, not pork). He would have wanted it to go to infrastructure, which he believed fueled economic growth. That was the basis of his theory. It has also been proven correct. If it weren't for the stimulus, the country more than likely would have gone into a deppression. Though I will never be able to prove it. Though the fact is, things have been slowly getting better. I personally think we as a country need to get rid of the tried but completely untrue and failed trickle down economics and policies we employ. We need to realize that investing in our children and our selves is the best answer to our problems. Not making sure our CEO's have golden parachutes for when they eventually run their corporation into the ground.
|
I feel like you haven't read much Keynes.... read the above keynes primary sources.
According to Keynes "pork" works just fine.
According to Keynes "trickle down" economics work.
According to Keynes, stimulus will be useless if their is sufficent leakage in the form of trade deficit
|
I feel like you have no clue who Keynes was or what his economic theories were about. He definitely didn't believe in pork or trickle down economics. He was against those very things. He believed workers created demand, and when you put more money in workers hands, everyone wins. That is the total opposite of trickle down economics. He was for a free market with government regulation. He was for government intervention during economic crisis'. He also thought that some defecit was good. Keynes believed Stimulus was good as long as it was implemented properly. Keynes was a liberal.
|
In this thread i've cited directly from Keynes work and posted specifically two essays written directly by Keynes.
Would you care to post directly cited quotes from Keynes work that mention that pork doesn't work and that he was against tax cuts for the wealthy?
For I specifically posted works and quotes where he supported both.
To Keynes ANY Stimulus spending worked so long as it was financed by debt. Being pork was irrelevent since it still had the same multipliers if financed by debt. It was the same when it came to trickle down economics. Tax cuts for the rich were defacto stimulus spending since it increased the Rich's buying power at thet expense of the debt.
The only things Keynes was against were Trade Deficits, Excessive Trade surplusses (as they would cause war) and a raising of taxes/cutting of spending... when in times of depression and trade suprluses.
To him all debt= equally good stimulus.
|
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/keynes-means/keynes-means-00-h.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
There you go. He was very much against trickle down economics. He was criticized for this very position during his life. He belived the wealthy sitting on their money created a stagnant economy. He was a pretty liberal thinker. Do you know even know what pork is? If you did, you would know that he was definitely against it. He also didn't believe in tax cuts during reccession. He though it was counter productive to raise taxes during a reccession. I have no clue where you are getting your assumptions, but they are wrong. Those links prove you wrong.
|
Question. Have you actually read those books?
"Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."
Reagonomics or Keynes?
Pork is excessive spending given out to various politcians to give to their consituants. So for example, a Bridge to nowhere for a constuction company for example.
What did keynes think about useless spending
"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."
In otherwords. Spending is spending. As long as we get the debt, we'll get out of the economic troubles. Pork is better then no spending. Sure it'd be nice to have houses or whatever... but that is of secondary importance.
If you read Keynes. What fixes the economy is full employmet. Having houses, useful bridges etc, is nice... but doesn't help the economy.... because....
"If the resources of the country were already fully employed, these additional purchases would be mainly reflected in higher prices and increased imports."
If for example, we were to take a big stock market hit, but unemployment was unchanged. Keynes would warn against stimulus.
it's uncertain how he would feel about his theory today for the same reason. Today imports are the CHEAP items. He doesn't have to worry about people buying fancy dutch chocolates and German cars. He has to worry about the average person buying Korean made lightbulbs.
Question, how did Keynes suggest to lower a trade imbalance? If you know and read keynes... you should know this. By the way... i mean for an individual nation. Not the Bancour. (Which was based on the gold standard. Domestic economics and international economis were a lot like Physics nd Quantum Physics for him).
If I had to guess... i would think Keynes main "poison" for stimulus would be to give loans to approved buisness investments that would produce durable goods. As such a think would hit both of his main talking points. It would lower employment, because there would be factories that would need to be made, and then products to be made in them... and a trade balance decreased either due to domestic consumption or imports. (Getting the rich to invest in durable goods was the answer to the above question.)
Keynes is a lot like Sigmund Frued. If all you do is rely on textbooks and summaries of their theory, you aren't really going to understand it. You need to read the actual matieral.
