You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NYT - Paul Krugman - 1928 and the Market Crash
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
I have to agree with SA. C+I+biggerG did seem to help get us out of the potentially large recession as the equity bubble unwound. Of course if you liked other theories you might point to the expansion of M as the reason for the softer landing.
While it was hard to say, in that last round the govt spending did not really crowd out private investment. I observed interest rates to be very low even as Bush cut taxes and spent more. So I would say the crowding out was negligble. In fact we were worried about deflation. So Bush followed a Keynesian policy and it worked. It seems to me with new exogenous factors such as the Chinese buying our debt and world labor prices holding down inflation - Keynesian thoughts might become credit worthy again.
Now I have not studied basic econ since the early eighties so I could have mixed a few theories together. But I did stay in a holiday in express last night.
While it was hard to say, in that last round the govt spending did not really crowd out private investment. I observed interest rates to be very low even as Bush cut taxes and spent more. So I would say the crowding out was negligble. In fact we were worried about deflation. So Bush followed a Keynesian policy and it worked. It seems to me with new exogenous factors such as the Chinese buying our debt and world labor prices holding down inflation - Keynesian thoughts might become credit worthy again.
Now I have not studied basic econ since the early eighties so I could have mixed a few theories together. But I did stay in a holiday in express last night.
Quote from mbradley:
Yes; Keynes is discredited.
No; there is no such thing as a fair redistribution of wealth.
Is this a trading board, or the contact list for the Worker Daily?
You may not think it's fair, but there are very practical reasons for it at the very least. We won't need your assent. Sorry.
Oh, by the way, this is Chit Chat. It doesn't have to have anything whatsoever to do with trading. In fact, take a look at the description sometime. Now go QQ.
redistribution of wealth does not work for (among other reasons) wealth is not zero sum. wealth is created by those who (in our system) reap success - iow wealth from their innovation and work
if the wealth creation process is disincentivized by penalizing it with redistribution, there is no longer an incentive to create it in the first place
if the wealth creation process is disincentivized by penalizing it with redistribution, there is no longer an incentive to create it in the first place
Quote from whitster:
redistribution of wealth does not work for (among other reasons) wealth is not zero sum. wealth is created by those who (in our system) reap success - iow wealth from their innovation and work
if the wealth creation process is disincentivized by penalizing it with redistribution, there is no longer an incentive to create it in the first place
What do you mean it "does not work"? The government has been redistributing it for ages now.
The incentives to create wealth are the same they've always been: cold, hunger, etc. We don't need to pick a chapter out of the Devil's book for an additional motive.
We won't need your assent? What do you have little socialists have in mind? Maybe some forced collectivization like the Khmer Rouge?
Your type of thinking has destroyed more wealth and killed more people than all the wars put together. As for my "assent" - you will meet that in my doorway at the point of my 0.50 cal Barrett.
Your type of thinking has destroyed more wealth and killed more people than all the wars put together. As for my "assent" - you will meet that in my doorway at the point of my 0.50 cal Barrett.
Quote from mbradley:
We won't need your assent? What do you have little socialists have in mind? Maybe some forced collectivization like the Khmer Rouge?
Your type of thinking has destroyed more wealth and killed more people than all the wars put together. As for my "assent" - you will meet that in my doorway at the point of my 0.50 cal Barrett.
[yawn]
Quote from Ricter:
What do you mean it "does not work"? The government has been redistributing it for ages now.
The incentives to create wealth are the same they've always been: cold, hunger, etc. We don't need to pick a chapter out of the Devil's book for an additional motive.
It really should be rather obvious that if one were to invest in a high risk venture and the gov't said they would take the majority of the profits if it is profitable, that the incentive to do so would be greatly reduced. You trade and do not realize this? One does not have to invest to eat, they can simply get a job as a union thug. But if everyone is a union thug, who will create the businesses that the union thugs work for?
Quote from mbradley:
We won't need your assent? What do you have little socialists have in mind? Maybe some forced collectivization like the Khmer Rouge?
Your type of thinking has destroyed more wealth and killed more people than all the wars put together. As for my "assent" - you will meet that in my doorway at the point of my 0.50 cal Barrett.
We'll have the drop on ya, sorry.
Downside of successful concentration of wealth over generations is that the army of the have nots outnumbers the haves far more than is necessary to off them. Check your history.