If you have not heard him speak, you should.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

You seem to be confusing Keynesian economics for socialism. Keynesian economics does work and is why countries like Australia and Canada are absolutely kicking azz, even in the worst GLOBAL recession since the depression. Rush and co conveniently like to look at Europe for examples but fail to mention either of these nations. Not to mention China, who are communist yet have amassed $2.4 trillion USD in liquid cash.

Your misunderstanding me. Keynesian economics will and does work.(but) It will create more problems if the private sector does not grow to pay the bill. The new deal costs were paid by private sector growth resulting from ww2.

[Ali G. 37]

Your misunderstanding me. Keynesian economics will and does work.(but) It will create more problems if the private sector does not grow to pay the bill. The new deal costs were paid by private sector growth resulting from ww2.

Government involvement is about getting the ball rolling again, its about investing in its people, which will return a multitude of rewards for all. Companies have now been put on some sort of legal pedestal in America. Under the constitution, a corporation has no bill of right or even any guarantee that it will make a profit.

As I said before about the government, it should be operated like a business, with all of the projects the government invests in tendered to the private sector; unless the government can do it cheaper of course. Where I have a huge ideological rift with Repubs is that they assume the private sector alone should be left to decide whether we build a school or road or not. To me that is ridiculous, as the private sector is only interested in one thing, a profit for their shareholders period. The condition of the country, state or city means nothing to them. As doesn't the quality of life or the poverty that plagues the South to the Midwest. If they can save a dime per hour using foreign labor in order to deliver bigger dividends for their shareholders, they will and have shipped jobs off to foreign countries, with many being placed in countries that ironically and laughably have a system of government that repubs detest the most. Guess who lost out the most? The Midwest to the South.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Government involvement is about getting the ball rolling again, its about investing in its people, which will return a multitude of rewards for all. Companies have now been put on some sort of legal pedestal in America. Under the constitution, a corporation has no bill of right or even any guarantee that it will make a profit.

As I said before about the government, it should be operated like a business, with all of the projects the government invests in tendered to the private sector; unless the government can do it cheaper of course. Where I have a huge ideological rift with Repubs is that they assume the private sector alone should be left to decide whether we build a school or road or not. To me that is ridiculous, as the private sector is only interested in one thing, a profit for their shareholders period. The condition of the country, state or city means nothing to them. As doesn't the quality of life or the poverty that plagues the South to the Midwest. If they can save a dime per hour using foreign labor in order to deliver bigger dividends for their shareholders, they will and have shipped jobs off to foreign countries, with many being placed in countries that ironically and laughably have a system of government that repubs detest the most. Guess who lost out the most? The Midwest to the South.

Republicans and democrats (alike) have employed keynes ideas. Richard Nixon was quoted as saying "We are all Keynesians now". The real issue is timing. Shortly after Nixons' comment economic environment changed. High unemployment and energy costs followed by skyrocketing inflation. Stagflation brought in the era of supply-side economics. I agree with you that Keynesian Theory can be effective but is now the right time? Should America just print more money (and) continue borrowing to spend what we don't have? or is it now time to follow our grandparents advice...don't play if you can't pay..? Obama states that the stimulus (as you put it) "got the ball rolling". The deficit keeps growing and growing...what now?

(and)Are you assuming I am a republican?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Republicans and democrats (alike) have employed keynes ideas. Richard Nixon was quoted as saying "We are all Keynesians now". The real issue is timing. Shortly after Nixons' comment economic environment changed. High unemployment and energy costs followed by skyrocketing inflation. Stagflation brought in the era of supply-side economics. I agree with you that Keynesian Theory can be effective but is now the right time? Should America just print more money (and) continue borrowing to spend what we don't have? or is it now time to follow our grandparents advice...don't play if you can't pay..? Obama states that the stimulus (as you put it) "got the ball rolling". The deficit keeps growing and growing...what now?

(and)Are you assuming I am a republican?

For the answer to your question, why not look to the prominent voices out there - the top economists, nonpartisan think tanks? My understanding of Keynesian economics is that this is exactly the time to be spending money and if you read what most of the well respected economists around the world say, they're saying that too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From October 2008:

U.S. economists strongly support a new economic stimulus bill that could include tax reductions and spending on infrastructure, a recent survey said. The USA Today survey of 43 economists found 32 indicating support for a new stimulus package. Ideas for the bill included tax cuts, spending to create jobs and extensions of unemployment benefits, the newspaper said.

"It won't keep us from going into recession," PMI Group chief economist David Berson told the newspaper. "But it may make the difference in preventing a worse recession," he said.

Nearly a third of the economists indicated tax cuts would be the most effective strategy for boosting the economy, the newspaper said.

Extending government assistance programs would put money into circulation quickly. Infrastructure projects that create jobs would also put money quickly into a spending cycle. Economists also suggested giving homebuyers a tax break to help them stimulate the housing market, USA Today said.

Others advocated for the federal government to give money to state and local governments.

"It would help keep them providing basic services and help keep people on their payrolls," Mission Residential chief economist Richard Moody said.

link

[scandal 951]

All part of the Kenesian Theory applied in the new deal.

Scandal suggests that GW disposed of the new deal without explanation. Listen to the rest of the speech for explanation.

The message delivered by GW; It is not the new deal that bailed out the economy but private sector growth and reduction of state.

GW explained his perspective on the debate.

Let me transcribe directly the passage I refer to. You can find it at the 5min 10sec mark of clip #1.

"We are beginning to replicate many mistakes of the New Deal.

Intelligent men and women of good will differ as to WHY the New Deal failed,

but no one doubts that the New Deal failed at its primary objective which was

to put America back to work. Yet we're replicating its techniques..."

No one doubts that? I do. Many do.

There is still to this very day ongoing debate on this question. For Will to dismiss its failure as "universally agreed" is sanctimonious.

We know what the historical unemployment rates were during 1934-36, and they were bad - mid-to high teens.

We DO NOT KNOW, and WILL NEVER KNOW what they would have been but for the WPA, the TVA, and other New Deal programs. Could we have hit 20% national unemployment in 1936? 22%? 25%? Possibly. Many would say likely. On that basis, the WPA, TVA etc. did what they were designed to do. Get desperately unemployed workers rapidly back to work, earning a paycheck. Not everyone got back to work. But a heck of a lot more were working as a direct result of the New Deal, than Herbert Hoover would have helped.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

For the answer to your question, why not look to the prominent voices out there - the top economists, nonpartisan think tanks? My understanding of Keynesian economics is that this is exactly the time to be spending money and if you read what most of the well respected economists around the world say, they're saying that too.

"around the world"....Yes. Like the tail of a comet the global economy often follows the US. What about right here, USA? Combine the stimulus with all of the bail-outs. Consider (the results) latest unemployment numbers and projections. Both are improving. Add in the slight uptick of gdp and sporadic housing increases. The good news that GM is considering repaying at a faster pace. All signs that the spending is working. Now we have to pay the bill or just keep kiting checks (print more money) and refinance debt (print more money) with the hope that payday comes soon. The spending will come back to bite us in the azz if our electeds don't follow history and incent growth in the private sector. Study the govt. fiscal policies 1970's (76 is a good starting point) to early 80's. Tightened the money supply and took the choke collars off (deregulated) the private sector to stimulate core growth (more jobs).

Time to pause the spending and let the economy catch up. Btw...You do realize it's our money they spend right? I want a break please, need to catch my breath!

From October 2008:

link

Dude...with all respect, thats from 2008! this is 2010.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"around the world"....Yes. Like the tail of a comet the global economy often follows the US. What about right here, USA? Combine the stimulus with all of the bail-outs. Consider (the results) latest unemployment numbers and projections. Both are improving. Add in the slight uptick of gdp and sporadic housing increases. The good news that GM is considering repaying at a faster pace. All signs that the spending is working. Now we have to pay the bill or just keep kiting checks (print more money) and refinance debt (print more money) with the hope that payday comes soon. The spending will come back to bite us in the azz if our electeds don't follow history and incent growth in the private sector. Study the govt. fiscal policies 1970's (76 is a good starting point) to early 80's. Tightened the money supply and took the choke collars off (deregulated) the private sector to stimulate core growth (more jobs).

Time to pause the spending and let the economy catch up. Btw...You do realize it's our money they spend right? I want a break please, need to catch my breath!

Regarding deregulation...do you recall the S&L debacle?

We need a job stimulus bill to get more people working. I can find plenty of prominent, well respected economists right here in the U.S. that are saying essentially just that. In fact, many of them are saying that trying to reduce the deficit right now could cause the lingering high unemployment to drag out even longer.

Dude...with all respect, thats from 2008! this is 2010.

I was purposely showing that back in 2008, economists overwhelmingly supported stimulus spending. I'm not sure what specific spending you want to curtail right, given that much of the stimulus money has yet to have been spent.

[Danno 1,228]

Where I have a huge ideological rift with Repubs is that they assume the private sector alone should be left to decide whether we build a school or road or not. To me that is ridiculous, as the private sector is only interested in one thing, a profit for their shareholders period.

By you have delivered up this line on countless occasions here at VJ but you have yet to source it.

I don't know of anyone suggesting that Government is not responsible for publics works projects.

As for Schools, if the Private sector cannot meet the education needs, the Government should be.

The problem we have right now is .... it is the Privately run schools which far out perform Public schools with a fraction of the resources.

You are fairly right about one thing, Private enterprise is motivated by the Dollar.

I only wish the Government bureaucrat were motivated by something more noble but as we see at exactly 5 PM when he is off the clock, he is no where to be found.

At least with Sears or Alltel or lowes I can get service long into the evening.... why do you think that is?

Competition my friend, something sorely lacking in the Gov't. Which is why Lowes is open on Sunday and the IRS is not.

Again, Gov't is a necessary entity but limited.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Scandal...I still think you are taking the 1 statement out of context and (anyway) I am willing to debate wether the new deal met it's primary objective (without intervention).

Galt...I do remember the s&l scandal...as a young man, I shared some single malt scotch with 2 of the local culprits a few weeks prior to their incarceration. I'm just demonstrating that spending is not always the right fix.

Sorry guys but I can't play right now coz my sister inlaw is comming online to chat with my wife... (and if asawa ko is happy then every1 is happy). Asawa ko wants the laptop! see you at the monkey bars later.

Edited February 21, 2010 by ~happyndinlove~

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Scandal...I still think you are taking the 1 statement out of context and (anyway) I am willing to debate wether the new deal met it's primary objective (without intervention).

Galt...I do remember the s&l scandal...as a young man, I shared some single malt scotch with 2 of the local culprits a few weeks prior to their incarceration. I'm just demonstrating that spending is not always the right fix.

Sorry guys but I can't play right now coz my sister inlaw is comming online to chat with my wife... (and if asawa ko is happy then every1 is happy). Asawa ko wants the laptop! see you at the monkey bars later.

Good discussion. Come back here when you can!

[Danno 1,228]

Let me transcribe directly the passage I refer to. You can find it at the 5min 10sec mark of clip #1.

No one doubts that? I do. Many do.

There is still to this very day ongoing debate on this question. For Will to dismiss its failure as "universally agreed" is sanctimonious.

We know what the historical unemployment rates were during 1934-36, and they were bad - mid-to high teens.

We DO NOT KNOW, and WILL NEVER KNOW what they would have been but for the WPA, the TVA, and other New Deal programs. Could we have hit 20% national unemployment in 1936? 22%? 25%? Possibly. Many would say likely. On that basis, the WPA, TVA etc. did what they were designed to do. Get desperately unemployed workers rapidly back to work, earning a paycheck. Not everyone got back to work. But a heck of a lot more were working as a direct result of the New Deal, than Herbert Hoover would have helped.

Perhaps when he was speaking of "no one doubts" he should have added "in this room".

Now I know you give FDR a passing grade the massive growth of the federal and the few jobs it created, but the bottom line for me is...

after 7 years in office and all spending beyond anyones imagination we still had DOUBT DIGIT unemployment.

Even with the

TVA

pwA

CCC

AAA

FDIC

Securities and exchange Commission

Expanding the Reconstruction finance Org.

Social security

The list of outright jobs programs or new federal programs which required staffing is mind boggling!

After all this it took the induction of millions of people into the service and the jobs that supplied both Russia and Britain's military needs to bring down the Unemployment rate... not his spending.

Now it would be lame of me not to point out the fact that Old FDR did cut spending in those pre war years.

HE CUT THE MILITARY BUDGET

AND HE CUT VETERANS BENEFITS BY 40% AND CUT half a million veterans and widows OFF ALL TOGETHER. (hard to believe but true)

Now thats even lower than when he confiscated all privately held gold BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.

I will admit for those few people who got Gov't jobs life was better for them but this was such a small fraction of the overall economy that the effect was but a ripple.

[Marzy 1]

Is like being married without prenuptial...community property.

[mRx 16]

A government should be a business. Like any business, it needs to generate revenue (taxes) and use it to invest in itself to grow their business. What is their business? The country, its state, its city and its community. Much like any business, the government should constantly reduce costs (wastage), while delivering the best value to their customers (we the people). In order to grow their business, they invest in schools, roads, infrastructure, and their people; which in return generates more revenue.

A government can never be like a business because there is no profit/loss mechanism. They cannot allocate resources based on desperately needed demand, nor can they remove resources from sinking-sand mistakes... Economic calculations are impossible for "government-as-business" to make.

Of course, they can make such decisions based on friendships and coffers, which they do.

You may hide behind the "successful wealthy man" avatar on VJ, Booyah, but you're an idiot, and it shines through the virtual wealth you ostentate.

This is something both Australia and Canada understand first hand, hence both their huge internationally recognized success. The opposite approach of course, is Matt's zero government approach, which has lead to the third world.

Prove that zero government has lead to the third world.

[mawilson 2,133]

Melbourne a city of 3.8 million lost $3 billion in productivity last year due to traffic, therefore, one can only imagine what the US would lose, considering traffic is much worse here.

Probably not much, considering the US is ranked #1 in productivity in the world.

Edited to add: I think we rank #2 now but I couldn't find a more recent link

Edited February 22, 2010 by mawilson