Protecting the rentier class

Quote from Brass:

Could be because I went to the gym after my market's RTH.

As for debating you, thanks but no thanks. I've seen your "debate" style. You reframe every valid argument to suit your underlying narrative. I don't find that to be particularly honest. I'm not even convinced you could identify Keynesian economics in a lineup, so we wouldn't even have a legitimate starting point. As you may or may not know, I have already said all I have to say about my economic views, and I have no interest in either repeating myself, adding to it or wrestling with an eel. I've done it before with other posters and found that it's just not worth my time. But thanks for asking. Just recognize that your views are considered to be on the fringe by the majority of those who have devoted their professional lives to the subject matter.

Ok, I kinda figured you'd cop out. But denner is correct. There are a lot of well known economists who do not subscribe to your so-called "majority". In fact, there are more each day as they realize what a failure the current system is.

At least you bow out definitively, and don't melt away like Ricter when he loses the argument. Of course, the excuse about "seeing how I debate" supposedly scaring you off when you get into dozens of far more viscous flame wars a day here is a rather flimsy one. Do I scare you all that much?
 
Quote from Brass:

The political Right clearly favors supply side. The political Center and Left recognizes the virtues of Keynesian economics, at least when properly applied on both sides of the equation rather than only the politically expedient portion. Whereas supply side is all about political expediency and nothing but.

Except for one thing... Keynes was the original supply sider...
Why do I have to keep showing you the same info... and you act like you never saw it.

" When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied...
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. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss."
 
Quote from Brass:

There you go with your false equivalency. Just like there were "scientists" who disputed the link between smoking and disease, who are now disputing climate change against a large majority of legitimate scientists who know it to be true. Perhaps similarly, there are those who oppose Keynesian economics. However, supply-side has proven itself to be nothing more than an excuse rather than a legitimate economic theory, and it would be pointless to "debate" obvious facts with single-minded ideologues.

But thank you for confirming my earlier point.

There are a plethora of topics besides the supply-side one. If you're not open to debate, I'm sure we all understand why.
 
Quote from Brass:

Just recognize that your views are considered to be on the fringe by the majority of those who have devoted their professional lives to the subject matter.
That's too funny Keynesian's are to economics as alchemists are to chemistry.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's too funny Keynesian's are to economics as alchemists are to chemistry.

These guys are wholly invested in Krugman...kind of a religion, really.
 
The virtues of Keynesian economics in total.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

Quote from denner:

These guys are wholly invested in Krugman...kind of a religion, really.

Which is why they behave the way they do when challenged to a debate.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EX55BH97quk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You don't have to watch the whole thing, but...

For 15 minutes of both education and entertainment - this is as good as it gets...

Starting from around 35:00 the Spanish professor praises and criticizes in a thoughtful and gentle tone
At around 39:00, he addresses the demand-side description of the world
Krugman's less-than-happy response (which sparks quite a rowdy argument) begins around 48:20

Krugman behaves and speaks like everyone on this forum who defends him.

Forget Ali - Frazier; ignore Santelli - Liesman; dismiss Yankees - Red Sox; never mind Silva - Sonnen; the new undisputed standard by which all showdowns will be judged happened in Spain over the weekend. During a debate on Europe's crisis, Pedro Schwartz (a mild-mannered Spanish 'Austrian' economics professor) took on the heavyweight Paul 'I coulda been a Fed Chair contender' Krugman, and - in our humble opinion - wiped the floor with his Keynesian philosophy. From the medicinal use of more debt to fix too much debt, to the Japanization of world economies and the demand-side bias of every- and any-thing - interested only in the short-term economic growth; the gentlemanly Spaniard notes, with regard to the European crisis, the fact that "Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess". Humble and generous in his praise - though definitively serious with his criticism - Schwartz opines: "Often Nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the specialty in which they have excelled," noting "the mantle of authority whereby what ever they say - whether sensible or not - is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others." Krugman's red-faced anger is evident at the conclusion as he even refused to shake Schwartz's hand after the debate.
 
Quote from jem:

Except for one thing... Keynes was the original supply sider...
You see? This is the kind of stuff I don't want getting stuck on the bottom of my shoes. Jem, I commend you for your ability to pervert economic thought as well as all manner of scientific inquiry. You do your side proud.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Which is why they behave the way they do when challenged to a debate...
Cutting and pasting is not "debate." I don't present myself as an expert. I've heard both sides of the argument and have made my choice based on reasoned judgment. You don't have any more special information or knowledge than the sources you regularly cite. So there is no real debate, there is at best reference made to arguments already presented. And even that leads to nowhere because of what you guys are capable of: calling Keynes a supply-sider. Just like when jem reads more into Dawkins off-handed comment that the universe "appears" designed. It's just not a rabbit hole worth taking.

The thing about ET is that the fringe gets far more air time here than in the real world. There's that false equivalency thing again, eh?
 
Quote from Brass:

Cutting and pasting is not "debate." I don't present myself as an expert. I've heard both sides of the argument and have made my choice based on reasoned judgment. You don't have any more special information or knowledge than the sources you regularly cite. So there is no real debate, there is at best reference made to arguments already presented. And even that leads to nowhere because of what you guys are capable of: calling Keynes a supply-sider. Just like when jem reads more into Dawkins off-handed comment that the universe "appears" designed. It's just not a rabbit hole worth taking.

The thing about ET is that the fringe gets far more air time here than in the real world. There's that false equivalency thing again, eh?
You do know the sole reason Keynesian economics has any standing whatsoever is it's popularity with "kick the can down the road , get me elected now politicians" don't you.



I mean c'mon it's the equivalent of adults legitimizing /worshiping the "tooth fairy".
 
Back
Top