Originally posted by finnegan He was economic adviser to Pinochet in Chile, no friend to democratic freedoms. Whatever economic gains were achieved there were achieved at the expense of huge rises in unemployment and poverty. Both the US and the UK attempted to adopt monetary targets as a basis for policies to defeat inflation, with similarly disastrous consequences in the real economi ...[text shortened]... fails.
This seems to be a friendly account: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110882
Not so much an 'excellent excuse' more an excellent reason.
Originally posted by finnegan He was economic adviser to Pinochet in Chile, no friend to democratic freedoms. Whatever economic gains were achieved there were achieved at the expense of huge rises in unemployment and poverty. Both the US and the UK attempted to adopt monetary targets as a basis for policies to defeat inflation, with similarly disastrous consequences in the real economi ...[text shortened]... fails.
This seems to be a friendly account: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110882
But following Keynesian policies citizens consistently slide towards unemployment and poverty.
So would you say that Keynes is superior to Friedman because the descent towards poverty and slavery is more gradual?
I know that Keynes himself was impressed with Hitler before Hitler started the war. He was quoted as saying that dictatorships are ideal for implementing his policies than a free market. Keynes joked that Hitler proved that his economic policies worked before he was done writing them. So if Keynes is the only game in town, then should we think about embracing a dictatorship to finally make it all work the way it should?
If embracing a dictatorship means fighting off poverty and unemployment, would it be preferable in your opinion?
Originally posted by whodey But following Keynesian policies citizens consistently slide towards unemployment and poverty.
So would you say that Keynes is superior to Friedman because the descent towards poverty and slavery is more gradual?
I know that Keynes himself was impressed with Hitler before Hitler started the war. He was quoted as saying that dictatorships are ideal for ...[text shortened]... ictatorship means fighting off poverty and unemployment, would it be preferable in your opinion?
Can you cite a study showing the link between "Keynesian policies" and "unemployment and poverty"?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Can you cite a study showing the link between "Keynesian policies" and "unemployment and poverty"?
You dolt, just look at the rising unemployment rate in the US and rising poverty and the shrinking middle class. It hs a never ending cycle under both parties.
Originally posted by whodey You dolt, just look at the rising unemployment rate in the US and rising poverty and the shrinking middle class. It hs a never ending cycle under both parties.
Originally posted by whodey But following Keynesian policies citizens consistently slide towards unemployment and poverty.
So would you say that Keynes is superior to Friedman because the descent towards poverty and slavery is more gradual?
I know that Keynes himself was impressed with Hitler before Hitler started the war. He was quoted as saying that dictatorships are ideal for ...[text shortened]... ictatorship means fighting off poverty and unemployment, would it be preferable in your opinion?
Pinochet showed that you can have both a dictatorship and poverty & unemployment so your choice is a false one.
I am not interested in playing around with historical remarks, least of all jokes, out of context.
I explained my initial comment and you are just distracting from the thread, presumably because you are not getting the responses you hoped for. Boring.
Originally posted by Wajoma Not so much an 'excellent excuse' more an excellent reason.
When Chile, the USA and the UK have all separately tried to base policy on Friedman's economic prescription and all found them a flop, that does not lead me to imagine that yet another attempt (perhaps by the Central African Republic?) would be any more successful.
Originally posted by finnegan Pinochet showed that you can have both a dictatorship and poverty & unemployment so your choice is a false one.
I am not interested in playing around with historical remarks, least of all jokes, out of context.
I explained my initial comment and you are just distracting from the thread, presumably because you are not getting the responses you hoped for. Boring.
Economics amuses me. Centralized governments, like the US, use certain theories that are conducive to their plans. In the case of Keynes, they are free to print and spend money out their arse with the knowledge that Keynes is viewed as a reputable economist that endorses such behavoir.
All they really care about is to appear to have a thread of legitimacy in their endevours verses really being sold on his economic theory as "working". In the end, centralized planners will use all manner of coercion and artificial means to make their system work. The only question becomes, how long can they artificially micromanage the deleterious consequences of their economic policies? Most people recognize that the US economy will fall apart at some point, but when is the question?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra A "never ending cycle", really? Since Keynes?
It's been an evolution of sorts to fully transition into Keynesian economics. For example, once LBJ passed his massive entitlements and then waged war in Vietnam, it became clear that to continue such fiscal wrecklessness the US would have to adopt a fiat system of currency. It helped enable the centralized planners the ability to not pay for what they could not afford. So President Nixon abandoned the gold standard in favor of Keynesian monopoly money. Once this happened the clock was set for self destruction.
Originally posted by whodey It's been an evolution of sorts to fully transition into Keynesian economics. For example, once LBJ passed his massive entitlements and then waged war in Vietnam, it became clear that to continue such fiscal wrecklessness the US would have to adopt a fiat system of currency. It helped enable the centralized planners the ability to not pay for what they coul ...[text shortened]... n favor of Keynesian monopoly money. Once this happened the clock was set for self destruction.
Originally posted by whodey It's been an evolution of sorts to fully transition into Keynesian economics. For example, once LBJ passed his massive entitlements and then waged war in Vietnam, it became clear that to continue such fiscal wrecklessness the US would have to adopt a fiat system of currency. It helped enable the centralized planners the ability to not pay for what they coul ...[text shortened]... n favor of Keynesian monopoly money. Once this happened the clock was set for self destruction.
John Maynard Keynes argued against resuming the gold standard and proposed putting the power to print money in the hands of the privately owned Bank of England. Keynes warned about inflation, saying, "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
So President Nixon abandoned the gold standard in favor of Keynesian monopoly money.
Whodey
I would have thought there was something in what Keynes said that resembles something Whodey might have said. Complex topic of course which i hardly make sense of to be honest. (Whodey, Keynes, both.)
Originally posted by whodey In this day and age of rampant never ending collectivism, these ideas are important to bring up. I sense we are slipping back into the Dark Ages.
The only thing "dark" about the current age of politics in the US is the unbelivable control huge wealthy corporations and their leaders have over forming government policy and they way the US is turning into a plutocracy with only the haves and the have nots. The Middle Class is disappearing.
Originally posted by finnegan [quote]John Maynard Keynes argued against resuming the gold standard and proposed putting the power to print money in the hands of the privately owned Bank of England. Keynes warned about inflation, saying, "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this m ...[text shortened]... said. Complex topic of course which i hardly make sense of to be honest. (Whodey, Keynes, both.)
Like I said, they could care nothing about Keynes, other than taking certain aspects of his theory and applying them to make it appear that they have legitimacy.
So if you agree with Keynes in regards to government inflating money so as to steal our wealth, then why do you support the nanny state? This is just another angle to promote their theft.
Milton Friedman quote
08 Dec '13 12:26
Back to Top