unemployment up to 9.6%

[droski]

I thought we were talking about the Keynesian period. If you would like to start discussing Hayekmanyears, the unemployment question is pushed into the background championing instead monetarist policies.

how convienent

 

[utgibbs]

Do you have any proof? The increase began while Germany was still under a Keynesian model. I seriously doubt a member of the SPD would have moved to a monetarist model as well. Also, are you saying Schroeder had a monetarist policy?

Proof that the world switched from Keynesian to monetarist policy in the 1970s?

Uh, there is so much evidence, I'm not sure where a brief synopsis might be!

I suppose "The Commanding Heights" by Daniel Yergin would be as good a primer as any (with all my caveats given to MG). I believe PBS still keeps a website with all of the interviews he did for the book live.

Remember, Keynes - motivated by the market failures of the Great Depression - wanted to correct unemployment. Full employment was the key problem after WWII (and obviously the damn). It is worth referencing "Fordism" as well here - mass production could only be achieved from mass consumption. Hence, Ford and his $5 / day work force. Note the growth in real wages / home ownership during this period.

 

[utgibbs]

how convienent

Sorry if you were looking to expand my argument into places it wasn't going.

I'm kinda merging this thread and the "Keynesian Nightmare" thread.

 

[utgibbs]

We must be looking at the same chart. In simple terms the blue goes up BEFORE Carter comes in office. Once Carter is in office the line goes down and begins to level off with Reagan.

Might want to get your ruler out on your computer monitor, methinks.

Clearly going steadily down during the Reagan years though.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Might want to get your ruler out on your computer monitor, methinks.

Clearly going steadily down during the Reagan years though.

You must have a bad ruler. The line goes up PRIOR TO Carter. Carter comes in Jan. '77. in '78 and following, the line goes down. From '78 to Jan '81 Carter was still in office. The sharp drop fades out once Reagan comes in. Notice it begins going up during the Bush years up through '93 as well.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Proof that the world switched from Keynesian to monetarist policy in the 1970s?

Uh, there is so much evidence, I'm not sure where a brief synopsis might be!

I suppose "The Commanding Heights" by Daniel Yergin would be as good a primer as any (with all my caveats given to MG). I believe PBS still keeps a website with all of the interviews he did for the book live.

Remember, Keynes - motivated by the market failures of the Great Depression - wanted to correct unemployment. Full employment was the key problem after WWII (and obviously the damn). It is worth referencing "Fordism" as well here - mass production could only be achieved from mass consumption. Hence, Ford and his $5 / day work force. Note the growth in real wages / home ownership during this period.

Let me simplify this. You tell me for each of the nations we have been discussing when the Keynesian model was in effect and when the monetarist model was in effect. Give years for each country and when the switchover was. Because you still have not explained Germany.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The move away from Keynesian policy of full employment to a monetarist policy. This ushered in the "Age of Hayekman"

Policy driven for full employment switched to monetarist policy. The real results can be seen in the two / three graphs I have provided.

this is boneheaded. The two have never been mutually exclusive. While we now know that full employment drastically overprices labor very quickly and you can't put it back in the bag, we have never moved away from it being a reasonable goal. It should never be THE goal.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Might want to get your ruler out on your computer monitor, methinks.

Clearly going steadily down during the Reagan years though.

do you have any idea why? Even the foggiest freaking idea. Supply and demand issues might help you and the Keynesian induced overpricing of shoddy labor might also help. Reason through those and the time that it might actually take for economic policy to impact charts like these, and people might find the time to stop laughing at you.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It sounds like NYC was too busy inflating jobs numbers rather than focusing on getting their voting machines tested and set up.

Are poll workers being used to inflate employment totals? - NYPOST.com

Bloomberg: Poll Problems ‘A Royal Screw-Up’ CBS New York- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY

 

[sjt18]

it's well known the east germans were among the laziest workers on the planet by the time the wall fell down. West germans among the worlds hardest and most efficient workers. wonder why?

They still have problems because the East Germans have the votes to give themselves raises out of the pockets of the West Germans. The mid-00's a German business executive intimated deep resentment toward the East Germans.

According to the likes of utgibbs... East Germany would be an example of the success of gov't activism and unions.

 

[sjt18]

Again, it's these graphs which make clear the real mission of the "Age of Friedman / Hayek". Its mission has been the restoration of elite class power. It is difficult to call it "wealth creation" when the majority of people have seen no real increase in wealth.

Notice the precipitous decline under Reagan as well. Interesting.

All you've proven is that 50 years of Keynes resulted in a debt load to GDP and GNP that has a REAL effect on REAL people. Reagan did not create ANY of the programs that continued to add debt on an exponential curve through his administration. The bill for years of Keynes began to come due in the economy in the 70's then the gov't in the 80's. It isn't difficult math or politics to figure that the avg citizen would bear the burden and not rich politicians or their benefactors.

utgibbs, you seem young and that usually involves a pretty good degree of naivety. It might be nice if some central authority had the ability and wisdom to make the economy both prosperous and "fair". However, the collective wisdom of the free market has proven to do a much, much better job of not only making the economy prosperous but also benefitting the lower end more.

In the liberal mind, it is terrible if a "poor" person earns $12 per hour (wages and benefits) while a "rich" person brings down $500K per year. Somehow it is "better" for that poor person if the rich person only gets to keep 40% of what they've earned. Conservatives actually don't have a problem with a guy keeps 70% while the poor guy actually makes $14.

Liberals talk enough about the wage gap that we can know they are fixated on it. But how exactly is it better for the "poor" to make the "rich" less rich?

Lower taxes on the rich = greater investment = economic expansion = hiring = qualified labor shortage = higher wages and better benefits. That isn't theory in some book... that is the real world.

 

[Volst53]

I hate how it gets turned into Conservatives hate poor people and Liberals care for the poor people. The fact that makes America great is everyone has the shot at greatness. It's not the fact that every one achieves greatness. The Liberal model takes and penalizes achieving the American Dream. This only causes wealth to leave the country.

 

[utgibbs]

I hate how it gets turned into Conservatives hate poor people and Liberals care for the poor people. The fact that makes America great is everyone has the shot at greatness. It's not the fact that every one achieves greatness. The Liberal model takes and penalizes achieving the American Dream. This only causes wealth to leave the country.

Actually Europe has a higher upward social mobility than the USA. I suppose Europe est plus bon!

(forgive my pigeon French)

PS - I'm almost certain Canada does as well.

 

[utgibbs]

All you've proven is that 50 years of Keynes resulted in a debt load to GDP and GNP that has a REAL effect on REAL people. Reagan did not create ANY of the programs that continued to add debt on an exponential curve through his administration. The bill for years of Keynes began to come due in the economy in the 70's then the gov't in the 80's. It isn't difficult math or politics to figure that the avg citizen would bear the burden and not rich politicians or their benefactors.

utgibbs, you seem young and that usually involves a pretty good degree of naivety. It might be nice if some central authority had the ability and wisdom to make the economy both prosperous and "fair". However, the collective wisdom of the free market has proven to do a much, much better job of not only making the economy prosperous but also benefitting the lower end more.

In the liberal mind, it is terrible if a "poor" person earns $12 per hour (wages and benefits) while a "rich" person brings down $500K per year. Somehow it is "better" for that poor person if the rich person only gets to keep 40% of what they've earned. Conservatives actually don't have a problem with a guy keeps 70% while the poor guy actually makes $14.

Liberals talk enough about the wage gap that we can know they are fixated on it. But how exactly is it better for the "poor" to make the "rich" less rich?

Lower taxes on the rich = greater investment = economic expansion = hiring = qualified labor shortage = higher wages and better benefits. That isn't theory in some book... that is the real world.

Wow, your first paragraph is WAY out there. Let's just look at that homeownership graph (from the Hoover Institute) one more time before you bust out your first sentence.

Your last sentence is, well, dubious. I could give you a lot of worldwide data showing "trickle-down" doesn't work, but I think the graph in the quote tells us that exact story. Saves me some work, which is good.

However, what I really want to discuss is this young-old naive thing. I wish I were as young as you think I am.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Let me simplify this. You tell me for each of the nations we have been discussing when the Keynesian model was in effect and when the monetarist model was in effect. Give years for each country and when the switchover was. Because you still have not explained Germany.

You'll get this from Gibbs.....ask him about Fulmer and letting the SEC catch up to UT after Spurrier left.

I asked him for two weeks and he never gave an answer.

 

[utgibbs]

You must have a bad ruler. The line goes up PRIOR TO Carter. Carter comes in Jan. '77. in '78 and following, the line goes down. From '78 to Jan '81 Carter was still in office. The sharp drop fades out once Reagan comes in. Notice it begins going up during the Bush years up through '93 as well.

Erm, 1982 down, 1987 down. My history might be fuzzy but those are the Reagan years, no?

It's interesting you want to roll like this on this discussion given that real wages increased nearly 100% from 1950 - 1970, and they've remained essentially unchanged over the next 40 years. (well, since "recovering" from the Reagan years).

Hmmmmm, is ideology playing a role? Yes, methinks.

 

[utgibbs]

Let me simplify this. You tell me for each of the nations we have been discussing when the Keynesian model was in effect and when the monetarist model was in effect. Give years for each country and when the switchover was. Because you still have not explained Germany.

I said they had unemployment rates under 1% post WWII. Your graph showed that. There is more to explain? :dunno:

Thanks for your help though!

I believe most guys say Keynes was dominate from 1950 - 1971 give or take a year. Monetarism was phasing in, and I believe consensus is entrenched ca 1975.

I think it would be better if you research it, and tell us what you think.

 

[utgibbs]

You'll get this from Gibbs.....ask him about Fulmer and letting the SEC catch up to UT after Spurrier left.

I asked him for two weeks and he never gave an answer.

I believe you just delivered the worst loss in Neyland in living memory.

I'm still waiting for you to deliver, OE.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Utbiggs = Fulmer is the greatest coach in the history of Tennessee football, but yet cannot over come Mike Hamilton.

Utbiggs = Gov't is the solution to every thing............. just need more of it!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Who am I?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Who am I?

 

[utgibbs]

Utbiggs = Fulmer is the greatest coach in the history of Tennessee football, but yet cannot over come Mike Hamilton.

Utbiggs = Gov't is the solution to every thing............. just need more of it!

No, he is the 2nd greatest coach.

No, but the notion government does nothing well (the current status quo) is equally wrong.

Attack of the JPGs will not deliver. And you are way behind on delivery. Free pizza.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

1.) I believe you just delivered the worst loss in Neyland in living memory.

2.) I'm still waiting for you to deliver, OE.

1.) I believe that would be Fulmer.

2.) Still no idea what you are talking about.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

No, he is the 2nd greatest coach.

No, but the notion government does nothing well (the current status quo) is equally wrong.

Attack of the JPGs will not deliver. And you are way behind on delivery. Free pizza.

1.) In short, you still believe the second greatest coach in Tennessee history could not over come an athletic director, really?

2.) Please name something the gov't does adequate on any level.

3.) What delivery, and with this I am being serious. I still have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[utgibbs]

1.) In short, you still believe the second greatest coach in Tennessee history could not over come an athletic director, really?

2.) Please name something the gov't does adequate on any level.

3.) What delivery, and with this I am being serious. I still have no idea what you are talking about.

You wanted Fulmer gone in order to win championships.

So, you and your coterie have to deliver a championship.

However, I've been lenient, and I've said I will admit defeat if you can deliver an SECCG every three years. And I've given you an extra year to do it.

You wanted it; you got it. Now, you have to deliver the Prize.