The Keynesian Nightmare Continues...

#301
#301
utgibbs said:
A graph seems more clear than just wild, incoherent statements, IMHO.

As your graph helped elucidate.
Click to expand...

And your graph that pointed Carter's fault you seem to dodge. Amazing how this drastic drop occurs under Carter is just completely ignored while you put all blame on Reagan who wasn't even in office at that time.
 
#302
#302
BigPapaVol said:
Your silly little games regarding coherence are absurd. If you knew remotely what you're talking about regarding econ, you'd plainly see all the linkages. You don't, so it appears Venusian and it's tough for you to go to some other site and hunt down answers to questions that don't fit into to your Utopian silliness.

I get it.

Now that we've settled that you wouldn't know the money multiplier from a pair of pliers, let's move on.
Click to expand...

By 1973 monetarist policies were becoming entrenched.

You must be having a laugh comparing US inflation to South American inflation. Don't forget, almost all of South America was ruled by Junta who had PIONEERED the monetarist policies of "the Chicago Boys." They were the vanguard, the laboratory so to speak. Didn't that work out well? They call the time "The Lost Decade."

Chile, Argentina, Brazil call it a lot worse actually, and I believe all have convened Truth and Reconciliation Committees to deal with the pain of the genocides.

When it comes to both your knowledge of economics and history, I'm not yet sure you know which way the Demand Curve goes, BPV.

I'm actually not doing any Googling. Working off memory. If I need a graph, I can get it from the Hoover Institute without too much trouble.
 
#303
#303
CSpindizzy said:
And your graph that pointed Carter's fault you seem to dodge. Amazing how this drastic drop occurs under Carter is just completely ignored while you put all blame on Reagan who wasn't even in office at that time.
Click to expand...

If you want to say it started at Carter, I'm fine. Why did the trend accelerate under Reagan?

I'm ignoring no one. I'm simply stating the stagnation of real wages began when monetarist policy began. That's what the data said. Obviously, Reagan amplified these policies as we well know.
 
#304
#304
BigPapaVol said:
Have you ever looked into the failures of actual privatization? Some have failed. Know why?
Click to expand...

Whether Pinochet had to renationalize or not, :dunno:

He did renationalize though.

Chile was the laboratory though for "the Chicago Boys" and it ended in abject failure and resulted in a genocide.....

History has cast its judgment.
 
#305
#305
utgibbs said:
By 1973 monetarist policies were becoming entrenched.

Well that doesn't jibe in the least with all of the graph inflection silliness you've espoused since posting them. Odd.

You must be having a laugh comparing US inflation to South American inflation. Don't forget, almost all of South America was ruled by Junta who had PIONEERED the monetarist policies of "the Chicago Boys." They were the vanguard, the laboratory so to speak. Didn't that work out well? They call the time "The Lost Decade."

again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Presumably, you're about to go into a fixed basis for all currency rant again. Cool part of that is that you have no idea how that or the current system work. It's just words to you.

Chile, Argentina, Brazil call it a lot worse actually, and I believe all have convened Truth and Reconciliation Committees to deal with the pain of the genocides.

monetarist policy caused the Tulip bubble depression and ensuing suicides / genocides I presume?

When it comes to both your knowledge of economics and history, I'm not yet sure you know which way the Demand Curve goes, BPV.

clearly, the things you are unsure of would fill libraries. Those you are sure of, while voluminous, would fill the fiction section.

I'm actually not doing any Googling. Working off memory. If I need a graph, I can get it from the Hoover Institute without too much trouble.
Click to expand...
Question is, amidst all your econ babble, could you generate a graph or move us through a supply / demand shift. That would be enlightening.
 
#306
#306
utgibbs said:
If you want to say it started at Carter, I'm fine. Why did the trend accelerate under Reagan?

I'm ignoring no one. I'm simply stating the stagnation of real wages began when monetarist policy began. That's what the data said. Obviously, Reagan amplified these policies as we well know.
Click to expand...

whhhaaaaa????????? Reagan's presidency resulted in the greatest growth of real wages of any first world country in the world for the next 20 years. break out the comparisons to your beloved france.
 
#307
#307
utgibbs said:
Whether Pinochet had to renationalize or not, :dunno:

He did renationalize though.
Click to expand...

don't pretend a despot was reasonable or presume that they were poised to privatize. Presumption that privatization was enacted appropriately is silly. Having done a decent bit of graduate work on several privatizations, I'll assure you it's the right thing for all social economies, but can be disastrous when timed poorly or executed incorrectly. Can't just open the floodgates. I'd delve into a bit of detail, but it's long and you'd have no clue as to the actual economics.

Sounds like you've spent way too long in a social sciences department and avoided the actual science side of the building.
 
#308
#308
utgibbs said:
Got to try some yak butter!
Click to expand...

Do you understand the process by which America 'monetizes the debt?'

That happens to be the greatest monopoly on Earth and quite in line with the London school of economics controlled by the Fabian society which is the world's leading promoter of the Keneysian model.

Your arguments are so quixotic that I'm afraid LG is going to have to surrender his bed pan helmet to you!

BTW, Zinn was a member of the communist party and no where near as many of his crappy people's history are in circulation as chairman Mao's little red book!
 
#309
#309
61570_427465187284_591777284_5111786_5643895_n.jpg
 
#310
#310
gsvol said:
Do you understand the process by which America 'monetizes the debt?'

That happens to be the greatest monopoly on Earth and quite in line with the London school of economics controlled by the Fabian society which is the world's leading promoter of the Keneysian model.

Your arguments are so quixotic that I'm afraid LG is going to have to surrender his bed pan helmet to you!

BTW, Zinn was a member of the communist party and no where near as many of his crappy people's history are in circulation as chairman Mao's little red book!
Click to expand...

Fabian's were socialists.

You mean the Commies outsold everyone? How ironic!
 
Last edited:
#312
#312
Does anyone besides me that people like gibbs cling to such a hopelessly failed ideology with the kind of religious fervor that would make the JW's or Hamas proud?

I mean seriously. Here we stand on the precipice of a real, catastrophic economic collapse. Our knees are buckling under the weight of gov't debt and gov't induced inefficiencies in the economy. But he keeps the faith. It does not matter that central economic planning has never worked even on a small scale... not even on a company scale bigger than a sole proprietorship... he insists that today's liberals are smart enough to make it work even in a system as complex as the US economy.

How does this happen? Are professors really that convincing now? If so, Goebbels would be impressed.
 
#313
#313
gibbs' pedantic regurgitation of inanities like "Third way baby" may work in whatever ivory tower he hides in, but there are too many people here that live in the real world that realize, every day, the failures of central economic planning.
 
#314
#314
utgibbs said:
They didn't lose textiles. They planned and targeted textiles and light industries first, and then targeted and planned the next phase into heavy industry / electronics.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You do understand the capital investment involved in textiles, don't you? Textiles is NOT light industry.

You really, really have no clue, do you? You are just making things up because they sound good.

I remember my father losing a business in the early 70's because Nixon's Keynesian polices exacerbated and extended a recession. I remember stagflation and what it did to family budgets. I remember the economic recovery and prosperity of the 80's and 90's when devotion to Keynes waned somewhat. AND... I see NOW what a renewal of Keynesian policies is doing to an economy that on several occasions has almost broken out.

The Demand Side model looks good on paper... but it DOES NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD. It can't because it depends on people behaving in ways that are conflicted with their personal interests.
 
#315
#315
utgibbs said:
I meant early part of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I meant in history. Name any sustained monopoly (ALCOA is the only one I know of) that didn't have government backing. It's nearly impossible. The free market won't support it because competition destroys monopolies. The only way a corporation can achieve monopoly status is through government protection.
 
Last edited:
#316
#316
utgibbs said:
You think it is wrong to increase wealth, wages, health, and prosperity? Your first paragraph seems to be going there.
Click to expand...

To artificially increase the wealth of some at the expense of others in a zero-sum game is wrong. Yes I believe that. Labor unions are cartels and they collude to set prices above natural levels. Sure the steel-workers are happy when their un-skilled labor is paid $30/hr. Who pays for it? Everybody who buys steel products. In other words, every American. The price of American steel and steel products goes up. Then we can't compete in the world market. So then the steel industry lobbies for trade protection. Then China who was shipping steel to us imposes tariffs on our products in retaliation. So then American producers can't sell (as much or any) to China. All those people whose jobs depended on that market are now in jeopardy. But hey, the steel-workers are happy.

To illustrate this example in the most simple terms...if artificial wage increases are good, how come we don't make minimum wage = $100/hr?

This is completely disregarding the fact that labor unions were founded to protect white American jobs against competition from cheaper labor from minorities and immigrants. It works like this. They work for $2/hr, whites work for $4/hr because they are slightly more skilled (may be untrue, but was perception). If a union can negotiate a minimum wage at $4/hr, then nobody will hire the minorities and immigrants. There is historical correlation between minimum wage increases and unemployment among black males.
 
Last edited:
#317
#317
nbakerld said:
I meant in history. Name any sustained monopoly (ALCOA is the only one I know of) that didn't have government backing. It's nearly impossible. The free market won't support it because competition destroys monopolies. The only way a corporation can achieve monopoly status is through government protection.
Click to expand...

Or violence... or bribery.
 
#318
#318
nbakerld said:
To artificially increase the wealth of some at the expense of others in a zero-sum game is wrong. Yes I believe that. Labor unions are cartels and they collude to set prices above natural levels. Sure the steel-workers are happy when their un-skilled labor is paid $30/hr. Who pays for it? Everybody who buys steel products. In other words, every American. The price of American steel and steel products goes up. Then we can't compete in the world market. So then the steel industry lobbies for trade protection. Then China who was shipping steel to us imposes tariffs on our products in retaliation. So then American producers can't sell (as much or any) to China. All those people whose jobs depended on that market are now in jeopardy. But hey, the steel-workers are happy.
.
Click to expand...

.... and you didn't even include how labor unions have prevented production innovations and modernization by refusing to let some low skill jobs go to be replaced by high tech, more economically beneficial and productive jobs.
 
#319
#319
sjt18 said:
Or violence... or bribery.
Click to expand...

What monopolies were achieved through violence without government backing? I know of no examples. Bribery is government backing. You bribe the man and he protects your monopoly status. You can't do it without government.
 
#320
#320
Gov't in some cases need only look the other way... you can call that backing if you want.
 
#322
#322
sjt18 said:
.... and you didn't even include how labor unions have prevented production innovations and modernization by refusing to let some low skill jobs go to be replaced by high tech, more economically beneficial and productive jobs.
Click to expand...

Great point. India banned sewing machines (sadly led by Ghandi) and it ensured that their economy remained stagnant. The best minds in India come here. Thanks Ghandi.
 
#323
#323
Not to mention the fact that bribery and violence are illegal. If that's the only way monopolies are achieved you don't have to make monopolies illegal, you just need to enforce laws against bribery and violence.
 
#324
#324
nbakerld said:
To artificially increase the wealth of some at the expense of others in a zero-sum game is wrong. Yes I believe that. Labor unions are cartels and they collude to set prices above natural levels. Sure the steel-workers are happy when their un-skilled labor is paid $30/hr. Who pays for it? Everybody who buys steel products. In other words, every American. The price of American steel and steel products goes up. Then we can't compete in the world market. So then the steel industry lobbies for trade protection. Then China who was shipping steel to us imposes tariffs on our products in retaliation. So then American producers can't sell (as much or any) to China. All those people whose jobs depended on that market are now in jeopardy. But hey, the steel-workers are happy.

To illustrate this example in the most simple terms...if artificial wage increases are good, how come we don't make minimum wage = $100/hr?

This is completely disregarding the fact that labor unions were founded to protect white American jobs against competition from cheaper labor from minorities and immigrants. It works like this. They work for $2/hr, whites work for $4/hr because they are slightly more skilled (may be untrue, but was perception). If a union can negotiate a minimum wage at $4/hr, then nobody will hire the minorities and immigrants. There is historical correlation between minimum wage increases and unemployment among black males.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is a zero-sum game. It takes losers to make winners. In addition, it's currently running at $500trillion + in "derivative" economy vs $50trillion in actual goods and services.

I think that's the definition of zero-sum game.

I think this "cartel" notion of labor unions is hogwash. Eight hour work day, suspension of child labor, health and safety laws, etc don't allow the "natural" conditions to be set low. Unions had a lot to do with all of this and more.

As for $100 / hour - I would rather guarantee a minimum income to every citizen.

PS - should have complimented you on Chile knowledge.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top