Republidertarianazi shows off his thinking skills

[theVOID]

Really? I said I supported Keynesian economic policies? Even when I told you in the same post that I didnt? Or to be specific I do not COMPLETELY support it. Some things are necesary to give monetary help to, but most others who received the stimulus merely shoved the cash into their pockets.

That equation describes general output (Y) for any economic system for which government spending (G) can be increased to account for a decrease in investment (I) and/or consumption ©, it is at the very core of GDP, of which stimulus spending seeks to increase/sustain. Anyone who supports any kind of stimulus and who also thinks these equations are bullshit is contradicting themselves.

Also, whether or not G should go to roads/schools or banks isn't an issue of keynesianism vs non-keynesianism, it's (given that you're going to spend the money anyway) good policy vs bad policy. Some of the more prominent keynesians like Krugman have scoffed at some of Obama's spending for that very reason, not because giving money to banks is non-keynesian but because he believes there are many other better investments.

So far as I can tell from your posts what you advocate is very much Keynesian, you simply disagree with the implementation that certain policymakers have taken, but perhaps we will learn more from the following questions;

Do you support the notion that;

1. "When there is nothing else to spend money on, spending money digging ditches and filling them up again is fundamentally good as it will increase the value Y"?

2. "If increases in G do not sustain/increase Y the best solution is to further increase G"?

I support the stimulus going to government programs, creating new jobs and social systems...not giving billions of our tax dollars to fat cats at the top for private use.

And via what mechanisms will you create jobs? You need to create something that has a return on investment that is better than the interest you will need to pay on the new debt as it matures, given that your current administration has completely failed at this so far the consideration is more like "is this actually more cost effective than paying people unemployment?". When you consider the investments such as roads or "social systems" have no great return on investment borrowing substantial amounts of money to fund them is going to leave you in a bigger hole than when you started - roads may pay off in the very long term and if you can push the debt out 40+ years investments in education may eventually yield a return greater than the interest payments, thought the interest paid on a 40 year debt is going to be substantial - But, hey, GDP will be up! Big fucking deal, right? You could raise GDP by mass producing fart-spray and giving it away, the only problem is you'll end up with an unsustainable debt that is going to lead to the need to cut public spending... Yeah, we all know how well that goes down

In reality the best bet is to invest in production, borrow money so businesses can produce something of material wealth by taking resources and adding value to them, you do need to invest some of the money in areas that are going to pay down debt fast, one way to do that is to lend the banks liquidity so they can lend to private enterprise, allow the banks to manage proposals to see which proposals for businesses are lowest-risk highest reward, providing entrepreneurs with a chance to start new businesses, another thing you could do is build government-owned factories provided you can find a market for your products... But really, none of it is that easy and the "bullshit equations" and economic forecasts are pretty much all you have to work with, and you just have to take one look at the "forecasts" for the stimulus spending, unemployment and the like to see how fucking abysmal projections were compared to reality.

But none of it is easy, anyone who says "we should create jobs" without a further explanation hasn't got a fucking clue.

And YES..almost all economic equations are bullshit...sure, some of them work better than others, but there are so many variables that there is no way anyone could calculate them all. Of corse, you are just going to laugh at me and then claim wrongly again that I support 100% keynesian economics.

I only laughed because you contradicted the very notion of stimulus spending, though I suspect now that you simply didn't realise, it was still funny at the time.

Tell me, if you believe these equations are so bad why on earth do you advocate so much centralised spending? Even after you take away spending needed to provide that which is deemed by you a necessary expense, such as healthcare, social security, roads, schools etc do you still advocate more government spending in an effort to improve the economy?

That to me seems plainly inconsistent with your lack of confidence in the mathematics used by the very people trusted to bring about these improvements at the cost of deficit spending and long-term interest on the debt... Your attitude towards economists and their formulae for strategic spending is more akin to the cynicism/skepticism of the Austrians, yet your policies are the exact opposite in being very mainstream...

Let me give you a hint..scroll down into my signature and click on the link that says "mixed economy" so you will stop beating down a strawman and start beating me down instead.

By the way, mixed economy is not perfect, nor is it something that is set in stone.

Like I said before, Mixed Economy isn't a meaningful term other than conveying the idea that the economy isn't 100% public or 100% private... You'll have to explain what you mean by "mixed economy" in terms of theory and strategy, because I can't ascertain anything beyond you have the general policies of keynesians while being skeptical of keynesian functions...

Perhaps you are an agnostic keynesian

Yup, I agree..they are greedy sons of bitches as well.

Well, Bernanke is certainly a bit of an ass/idiot/chrony, Krugman seems like a decent fella though despite my disagreements with him, he's a proponent of Keynesian theory and a writer mainly, I'd hardly say he ever has been nor is in the position to be overly greedy, I just don't think his economics make a lot of sense in any pragmatic context, sure it works all well when you plug the numbers into the spreadsheet but nobody knows the numbers and governments around the world have consistently proved themselves incapable of reliably ascertaining them.

What? You thought I agreed with them assholes?

With Krugman, mostly. With Bernanke, not so much. But that wasn't my point in bringing them up, you asked me to account for greed in the equations, I was simply trying to say "these ain't my equations".

You really dont know what economic stance I have, and that is okay, because mixed economics is not something exactly written in stone.

It's not even written on the back of a napkin at some back-water diner... it's about as vague as any label can be.

About the only thing consistantly held by those who subscribe to mixed economics is Labor standards, environmental protection, welfare, and MAINTENANCE of competition. Thats it. Everything else is up for grabs.

That's not really an economic theory... that's just a list of things that are important to you. What are the strategies, methodologies, monetary policy etc that you would use in various situations given that these are your goals? Also, I assume you include "price controls" somewhere on that list? After all you don't like the idea of people choosing how much to sell their own matches for

If Stalin had a good idea for an economic section, I would include it into my views. If I founf out later it didnt work I would dump it. If Void had some good economic ideas, I would embrace them with the rest. If I found out they didnt work then I would dump them.

That's not so cut-and-dry, the solutions to some economic problems are the bane of others. Low interest rates for example might help increase consumption but at the cost of debt, they also tell businesses to invest for future product lines given that credit is cheap, but people might want to consume now... With a myriad of mixed messages coming from various economic signals it's not so easy to take an ultra-pragmatic stance.

I advocate AE because I believe markets, millions of people individually pursuing their own goals, creates an overall much more effective allocation of resources than any micromanagement. It might be true that stalin's policy x is effective for solving problem y, but when implemented on a large scale by economists and policymakers the patchwork style will likely cause problem z which will be solved by a which will later cause problem b etc etc, leading to a cascade of boom and bust cycles as seen throughout history.

Nope..it isnt useless terminology. It is merely a simple name for a complex and very custom made economy that changes with the times. And I agree to a point..everyone is a mixed economist is some shade of gray...but how does that make it less relevant? Shouldnt that make it more relevant? That at some level all humans are willing to compromise on economics because of this?

The idea of "a complex and very custom made economy that changes with the times" is not unique or very descriptive of the inner workings, strategies or implementations, it does't really describe any ideas... A free market is just as much "a complex and custom made economy that changes with the times", the difference being it is made by the actors in the economy, not the overlords.

Call me wishy washy..of COURSE I am wishy washy when it comes to economics. I hold mixed views on it. That means I am capable of bending with the flow. I may think an economic idea is fine, but a few months later, after thinking about it very hard, decide I need to dump it.

You may think it is a weakness..I consider it a strength.

I call it confused if anything... It's a non-position.

Let me give you an example: Can you think of ANY time were I said my economic views were more superior than yours? Nope. I cant say it even if I wanted to. My economic views slightly change here and there as time goes by.

My economic views would change if I was persuaded that some macroeconomic strategist could do a better job of managing resources than the individuals in the economy pursuing their own goals. As long as I believe that is false I'll be for free markets.

Our economic debates have been about me finding many parts of Libertarian economic views to be vile, like this "free market" lie that keeps going around, or the idea that slavery is fine "as long as it is voluntary" (yeah, like that will be enforced).

What exactly is this "Free market lie"?

And what do you mean by "slave"? Slavery is necessarily involuntary by it's very definition.