Illogical. Keynesian policy now would be combining tax cuts at the consumer level, and government spending, to return consumer demand to trend. He did advocate austerity during the boom part of the business cycle, something we also do not practice. We are not practicing Keynesianism.
Pick your poison, social unrest, or...
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
I was speaking from the investment side, yes.
there are still plenty of good places to invest, but first you must pay the government bribe. I wonder how much they had to bribe to get the contract to dump black plastic balls in a reservoir in California?
But Max's business shutting down, less jobs argument is Main Street, not Wall Street.
We are a lot closer to Keyensianism than anything else. There's a ton of government spending, and the money supply has been (up until recently) vastly increasing.
I was on the phone when I was typing earlier. so I will repeat what I tried to say earlier.
Increasing benefits to the poor does not need to be accompanied by an increase in taxes.
a. you could just increase benefits for the poor and have a bigger deficit.
i. as a sovereign the u.s. does not need to borrow more or pay interest on what it borrows.
see, Kennedy and Lincoln for when the Govt made its own money instead of having the private Banks like the Federal Reserve print create all the money
b. printing more does not does not necessarily mean more inflation...
i. if you balance that spending with less printing for its private accounts by the Fed. or
ii. . you could see a little more an inflation but with all the inflation we have anyway why do we need to tax more? taxing more, may destroy the economy and jobs.
c. the govt could just change is spending priorities and cut out waste. We saw that the sequester did not hurt anyone but the cronies.
d. until we know how much money the Federal Reserve prints for its private accounts we have no reason to increase taxes as we have no idea how much money is actually being created.
Increasing benefits to the poor does not need to be accompanied by an increase in taxes.
a. you could just increase benefits for the poor and have a bigger deficit.
i. as a sovereign the u.s. does not need to borrow more or pay interest on what it borrows.
see, Kennedy and Lincoln for when the Govt made its own money instead of having the private Banks like the Federal Reserve print create all the money
b. printing more does not does not necessarily mean more inflation...
i. if you balance that spending with less printing for its private accounts by the Fed. or
ii. . you could see a little more an inflation but with all the inflation we have anyway why do we need to tax more? taxing more, may destroy the economy and jobs.
c. the govt could just change is spending priorities and cut out waste. We saw that the sequester did not hurt anyone but the cronies.
d. until we know how much money the Federal Reserve prints for its private accounts we have no reason to increase taxes as we have no idea how much money is actually being created.
Last edited:
Businesses on Main Street will not be shutting down because the owner(s) pay more taxes on the top tier or two of their income (assuming they reach it). They will shut down if their customers are broke, i.e. they can't make sales.
And it's not "regulations!", either. The history of American business growth has been accompanied by a growth of regulation! Not because of, but in spite of. And lately, regulations have increased on primarily... food imports and pharmaceuticals. Is your local grocery store or pharmacy closed?
With strong sales I can overcome everything else the economy throws at me (so long as I don't blow it in admin and marketing).
That's a substantial leap of logic you've just attempted. There are a lot of smaller businesses that won't be able to tolerate higher taxes at the, say $250,000 level.
It depends on the regulation. Just for example (and because I'm directly involved in it right now) there is a new attempted regulation to change labeling on products to identify ingredients that have genetically modified characteristics. If it passes, food companies are looking at millions of dollars in increased costs. Where do you think that cost is going to go?
Strong sales does make a lot of things easier, but it certainly doesn't breed efficiency. Lots of hidden things are ignored when sales are strong. But unfortunately, they're just not strong. Taxing the upper income folks isn't going to make sales strong.
Well tell me when the government EVER practices full keynesianim, isnt that the whole point? Keynesianism has failed mostly because no president, and no unelected beurecrat want to put a slow down on the economy during good times, so that there is lots of ammo during the bad times.
When was the last time you heard a politician say "We should leave this surplus in place in order to save money for when times are bad" No politician is ever going to say that, so all we have is a race to the bottom, where we dont try to take the winds out of any strong economies sails, but every time the economy is down we lower interest rates and spend money we dont have, and then on top of it the populist lefties, try to soak the rich at these times, further screwing any chance we had at an economic recovery.
So then what happened with France? What is happening in places like Seattle, where owners are layinf people off? Why isnt California booming, but Texas is(was)? Why is it that the jobs, and job creators are constantly flocking to the places that are most conducive to them? Demand is created when EVERYONE is flush with cash, it doesnt come out of thin air just because you are crushing everyone at the top.
Last edited: