Utopia Talk / Politics / Why are people describing Keynesian as

roland Member	Tue Jun 02 10:54:35 socialism?
President Bush Member	Tue Jun 02 10:58:50 Its the far right neo-nonsense of the US making up what words mean again.
President Bush Member	Tue Jun 02 11:05:00 The way it goes is keynes advocated governmental regulation and balances in some areas of the economy, which to joe the dumber plumber means socialism = communist revolution to end all privatization and send people to gulags.
ehcks Member	Tue Jun 02 11:06:20 Anything but absolute laissez-faire is instantly tyrannical communism.
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 11:53:43 Which is absurd, since all evidence to date shows the neo-con economic concepts to be false. The Laffer curve has failed in every respect to deliver its promises, deregulated economies have destroyed as much wealth as they have gained leading to stagnation. The list goes on. Frankly, more socialized economics seems much more sane then the current alternatives the Republicans are touting.
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 11:57:03 And its not communism either. Its government doing what government is supposed to do. Restraining human individual and destructive actions. In this case its not murder or theft, but greed. Of course, to these people greed is a force for good, so any effort to restrain it must be evil. Yet this recession we are in a direct result of uncontrolled greed on an economy wide scale.
Borthas Member	Tue Jun 02 12:00:15 Absolute laissez-faire is fascism. The underclass are only a bunch of serfs that need to serve their lords if they want to have food on their table.
habebe Member	Tue Jun 02 12:25:12 Keynes was proven false with the "Monetary history of the US"_M. Friedman/A. Schwartz " Keynes was to spearhead a revolution in economic thinking overturning the older ideas which held that free markets would certainly allow full employment for all workers who agreed to lower their demands for higher wages. Shortly before the end of the Great Depression his ideas were wholeheartedly put into practice by leading Western economies. During the 1950s and 60s, the success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the globe utilized its policies. President Nixon went as far as to declare "We are all Keynesians now".[1] Keynes's ideas became less influential in the 1970s, after attacks from Milton Friedman and other economists who were less optimistic than Keynes about the potential for interventionist government policy to complement the free market. But in 2008 Keynes's ideas enjoyed a revival, with Keynesian thinking being behind the plans of President Barack Obama and other global leaders to rescue America's treasury and economy.[2][3]" Keynes's ideas were very similar to Socialist (European, not commie socialism) ideas With Obama as Keynesian these arguments will be more talked about. Nixon btw was a Socialist.We all seen how well that worked. I do not advocate LF capitalism. I advocate Monetarism.
roland Member	Tue Jun 02 12:38:32 "Keynes's ideas were very similar to Socialist (European, not commie socialism) ideas " No, Keynes's ideas has nothing to do with providing some sort of economical equality in different social classes. Nothing about social safety net, nothing about state planning economy. Which part of it is socialist. And didn't some of the posters have mention about the statement you just made. What is this similar to socialist european, not commie socialism. You basically abuse the term to mean something that is completely something else.
roland Member	Tue Jun 02 12:39:37 "Keynes was proven false with the "Monetary history of the US"_M. Friedman/A. Schwartz " For example?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 02 12:41:02 Whick Keynesean ideas that were proven false has Obama administration employed?
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 13:23:10 Keynes himself stated that his economic theories are most ideally implemented under a totalitarian State. From his book "In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" (1936): "The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire."
roland Member	Tue Jun 02 13:32:14 And Bush said it will be a lot easier for him to implement his policy if he is a dictator. Your point?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 02 13:32:30 "Keynes himself stated that his economic theories are most ideally implemented under a totalitarian State." Most ideally, sure. The last sentence is missing. "This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory."
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 13:34:34 "Whick Keynesean ideas that were proven false has Obama administration employed? " Well, how about the theory that government - or any man for that matter - possesses the knowledge needed to manage the economy? Here's Tim Geithner: "..this president is going to do what is necessary to get us through this..with the most effective, most carefully defined, most thoughtfully conceived programs that are available to us as a country."
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 13:36:01 "And Bush said it will be a lot easier for him to implement his policy if he is a dictator. Your point? " - The point, dumbshit, is that this can provide insight into why some people might consider his theories as 'socialist'.
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 13:40:37 The Economy is a man made invention PPS. I cannot understand the mentality that views "the market" like it is some sort of omniscient god thing that thinks for itself. At the end of the day, economics is about money being transferred and made by PEOPLE. And People make mistakes and do self destructive things by their own nature. That is why we created government in the first place, as an advanced form of authority to control our own self destructive impulses that inevitably make civilization impossible to work. Government regulation of economics is nothing new. In fact, if you go throughout history, it is very, very rare to find periods where there was not some form of government control of economics to varying degrees. I think 4,000 years of human civilization trumps 50 years of greed inspired laissez fair nonsense.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 02 13:41:48 "Well, how about the theory that government - or any man for that matter - possesses the knowledge needed to manage the economy? " What knowledge? "As N. Gregory Mankiw said of a stimulus package back in 2003, when he was President George W. Bush's chief economic advisor, this is not rocket science. Deficit spending in a recession, he said, "help[s] maintain the aggregate demand for goods and services. There is nothing novel about this. It is very conventional short-run stabilization policy: you can find it in all of the leading textbooks..."
roland Member	Tue Jun 02 13:47:05 "- The point, dumbshit, is that this can provide insight into why some people might consider his theories as 'socialist'. " They are confusing cause and effect then, smartshxt. Any planned system would implement better under a controlled environment, you can't put it under the same banner of socialism, just because it is easier to implement.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 14:00:03 CR - are you trying to use Bush's economic policies to justify Obama's? Or do you somehow think I agree with Bush's policies? Because you are wrong on both accounts. "They are confusing cause and effect then, smartshxt. Any planned system would implement better under a controlled environment, you can't put it under the same banner of socialism, just because it is easier to implement. " - No shit. That's why I could give fuck if Keynesian theory is considered socialist or fascist - the fact that it demands a government controlled system for implementation *sheds light on why people might consider it socialist*. In other words, retard, I answered the fucking question to your post.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 14:04:16 Aeros thinks there was a 50 year period if laissez fair economics?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 02 14:06:24 "CR - are you trying to use Bush's economic policies to justify Obama's? " No, no, the fact that the guy saying it is a GWB's adviser is accidental. The quote is what matters. The idea of deficit governement spending boosting aggregate demand is not revolutionary, not a rocket science. So I did not understand your question about government having "knowledge" of how to run the economy.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Jun 02 14:06:43 Of course there was. In the 17th century, when most of the world was either enslaved or dirt farmers.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 14:12:26 CR - oh, ok. I suppose I agree with you - I don't think much of what Keynes did was revolutionary to begin with. It really served as a justification for economic policies that government's had taken long before he theories were ever published. One wonders if this could be a reason for his popularity.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 02 14:14:16 ok then
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 14:29:50 I'm saying that really only the past few decades have seen such a major shift towards deregulation PPS, with disastrous consequences. We went through the same things in the 1920's with a similar outcome. A completely deregulated economy does not work. Its like taking the brakes off a car. Its stupid, plain and simple.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 15:51:14 "I'm saying that really only the past few decades have seen such a major shift towards deregulation PPS, with disastrous consequences." - When did the term 'deregulation' come into the conversation exactly? I don't consider 'deregulation'(as we know it) a free market principle by any means - for it is typically a shifting or rewriting (most often loosening) of regulatory polices that already exist. In short - deregulation is, in a sense, a form of market intervention. It's not a wonder to me that, when in a regulated economic structure, deregulation can have undesirable consequences. "We went through the same things in the 1920's with a similar outcome. A completely deregulated economy does not work. Its like taking the brakes off a car. Its stupid, plain and simple." - I trust you aren't trying to say we had a completely deregulated economy during the 1920's that resulted in the GD. To me, there is a major difference between deregulation and complete deregulation - one is as I described above and the other is a free-market. What you are currently arguing against is not a free-market economy, rather pre-existing regulatory policies that were at some point in history changed, and those changes happened to be for the worse. Consider this bit from Paul Krugman's latest article on deregulation during the Reagan era: "The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry â?? whose deposits were federally insured â?? a license to gamble with taxpayersâ?? money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst." Notice how he squarely places the reason for gambling taxpayer dollars strictly on deregulation. Unlike Krugman, I would (in addition to the deregulation) also point toward the fact that the deposits were federally insured as a market intervention that contributed to the crisis. Krugman, even though it is right there in his own writings, fails to see it as a negative factor. We can go on and on about our current crisis as well - there was indeed deregulation that occurred and led to terrible consequences - yet the presence of market intervention is there on a consistent basis as well. GSE's, moral hazards, the 'Greenspan put', etc. I guess to summarize(I know i'm rambling) - there's a huge, HUGE difference between a deregulated economy and deregulation.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Jun 02 15:59:17 So you advocate economic anarchy?
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 16:09:45 If you consider something like supply and demand determining prices instead of bureaucrats and self anointed economists as being 'anarchy', then yes.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Jun 02 16:43:27 Economic without over sight? What are you high?
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 18:05:43 Whoever said anything about interfering with supply and demand PPS? Government regulation does not have to set prices. What it can do is enforce CEO liability by outlawing golden parachutes and tying the CEO's financial future to the success of his company. They can also provide framework for enforcement and investigation to uncover ponzi schemes and so on. The law banning the Ponzi Scheme itself is a Regulation. You are not allowed to get new investors to pay off old investors. That is government intervention into a method of making money. I think your opinion of what "regulation" is, is wildly different to what most sane people think "regulation" is. Just because the government "regulates" certain things, does not mean we are communist and have prices dreamed up in Washington D.C. It means the government enforces rules to ensure things don't get out of hand. Like what just happened recently.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Tue Jun 02 19:24:55 and Marx isn't a Marxist. It doesn't matter what it is now, just the slippery slope started based on their crack pot ideas, is what is blamed.
Hoer Member	Tue Jun 02 19:28:07 See, it DOES matter what it is. For example, Marx WAS a Marxist.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Tue Jun 02 19:36:06 "Whoever said anything about interfering with supply and demand PPS? Government regulation does not have to set prices." But funny - that's exactly what the current government in the US is doing. In the TELECOM industry, they cap price, but don't do anything to deal with expenses, and now the whole industry is fucked. Also, the Medical industry, price is set by Medicare, whether you fucking hippies want to believe it or not. Medicare sets reimbursement rates, and the private insurers follow suit. And funny, it's not enough to cover costs. So the 'poor' get screwed. You can look up and down the industries that have government influence, and it's all half assed regulation, and fucked up meddling that does more damage than good. Meanwhile, you idiots want MORE government control.... fucking unbelievable.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Tue Jun 02 21:29:14 I so longingly invite ANY of you Leftists to dare to try to defend your pathetic opinions in MY thread. You know, the one about how your fucking precious Obama is fucking up MY COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please dare. Please attempt. Please give me the opportunity to show you how ignorant and foolish you were to vote for The One Messiah Obama.
roland Member	Tue Jun 02 21:31:36 We are not talking about what Obama did, we are talking about about why people thinking Keynesian economics is socialist.
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 21:51:39 Socialism is a pejorative in the USA. it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, as long as its "bad".
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Jun 02 23:17:14 No, I'm fairly certain it's understood that more government = socialism in America. Unfortunately, people fail to realize that more government = more government, and from there it can go numerous ways. "I think your opinion of what "regulation" is, is wildly different to what most sane people think "regulation" is." - Yes, judging from what you just said this much is clear. I suggest you try to digest my view of regulation, so you can keep up with the conversation.
habebe Member	Tue Jun 02 23:54:15 "Keynes was proven false with the "Monetary history of the US"_M. Friedman/A. Schwartz " For example?" The cause of inflation. That is the biggest most obvious one. PPS, has answered Cr's q'S Hoer, See, it DOES matter what it is. For example, Marx WAS a Marxist. I think Eikey is reffering to Marx's famous quote (paraphrased) "If what is called Marxism today is Marxism, I am not a Marxist" Or something like that. Aeros, If I'm not mistaken, PPS is a Monetarist. Meaning that we do not dislike ALL forms of regulation, just most. For example generally I support banning monopolies and things that hinder free-fair trade (false information, lemon laws etc.)
habebe Member	Tue Jun 02 23:55:29 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html Why Government Can't Run a Business Politicians need headlines. Executives need profits. By JOHN STEELE GORDON The Obama administration is bent on becoming a major player in -- if not taking over entirely -- America's health-care, automobile and banking industries. Before that happens, it might be a good idea to look at the government's track record in running economic enterprises. It is terrible. In 1913, for instance, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged. When the plant was finally finished, however -- three years after World War I had ended -- it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen. Or take Medicare. Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees. These examples are not aberrations; they are typical of how governments run enterprises. There are a number of reasons why this is inherently so. Among them are: 1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen. Politicians can only make political decisions, not economic ones. They are, after all, first and foremost in the re-election business. Because of the need to be re-elected, politicians are always likely to have a short-term bias. What looks good right now is more important to politicians than long-term consequences even when those consequences can be easily foreseen. The gathering disaster of Social Security has been obvious for years, but politics has prevented needed reforms. And politicians tend to favor parochial interests over sound economic sense. Consider a thought experiment. There is a national widget crisis and Sen. Wiley Snoot is chairman of the Senate Widget Committee. There are two technologies that are possible solutions to the problem, with Technology A widely thought to be the more promising of the two. But the company that has been developing Technology B is headquartered in Sen. Snoot's state and employs 40,000 workers there. Which technology is Sen. Snoot going to use his vast legislative influence to push? 2) Politicians need headlines. And this means they have a deep need to do something ("Sen. Snoot Moves on Widget Crisis!"), even when doing nothing would be the better option. Markets will always deal efficiently with gluts and shortages, but letting the market work doesn't produce favorable headlines and, indeed, often produces the opposite ("Sen. Snoot Fails to Move on Widget Crisis!"). 3) Governments use other people's money. Corporations play with their own money. They are wealth-creating machines in which various people (investors, managers and labor) come together under a defined set of rules in hopes of creating more wealth collectively than they can create separately. So a labor negotiation in a corporation is a negotiation over how to divide the wealth that is created between stockholders and workers. Each side knows that if they drive too hard a bargain they risk killing the goose that lays golden eggs for both sides. Just ask General Motors and the United Auto Workers. But when, say, a school board sits down to negotiate with a teachers union or decide how many administrators are needed, the goose is the taxpayer. That's why public-service employees now often have much more generous benefits than their private-sector counterparts. And that's why the New York City public school system had an administrator-to-student ratio 10 times as high as the city's Catholic school system, at least until Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a more than competent businessman before he entered politics) took charge of the system. 4) Government does not tolerate competition. The Obama administration is talking about creating a "public option" that would compete in the health-insurance marketplace with profit-seeking companies. But has a government entity ever competed successfully on a level playing field with private companies? I don't know of one. 5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all. But competition is exactly what makes capitalism so successful an economic system. The lack of it has always doomed socialist economies. When the federal government nationalized the phone system in 1917, justifying it as a wartime measure that would lower costs, it turned it over to the Post Office to run. (The process was called "postalization," a word that should send shivers down the back of any believer in free markets.) But despite the promise of lower prices, practically the first thing the Post Office did when it took over was . . . raise prices. Cost cutting is alien to the culture of all bureaucracies. Indeed, when cost cutting is inescapable, bureaucracies often make cuts that will produce maximum public inconvenience, generating political pressure to reverse the cuts. 6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots. The CEO of a corporation has the power to manage effectively. He decides company policy, organizes the corporate structure, and allocates resources pretty much as he thinks best. The board of directors ordinarily does nothing more than ratify his moves (or, of course, fire him). This allows a company to act quickly when needed. But American government was designed by the Founding Fathers to be inefficient, and inefficient it most certainly is. The president is the government's CEO, but except for trivial matters he can't do anything without the permission of two separate, very large committees (the House and Senate) whose members have their own political agendas. Government always has many cooks, which is why the government's broth is so often spoiled. 7) Government is regulated by government. When "postalization" of the nation's phone system appeared imminent in 1917, Theodore Vail, the president of AT&T, admitted that his company was, effectively, a monopoly. But he noted that "all monopolies should be regulated. Government ownership would be an unregulated monopoly." It is government's job to make and enforce the rules that allow a civilized society to flourish. But it has a dismal record of regulating itself. Imagine, for instance, if a corporation, seeking to make its bottom line look better, transferred employee contributions from the company pension fund to its own accounts, replaced the money with general obligation corporate bonds, and called the money it expropriated income. We all know what would happen: The company accountants would refuse to certify the books and management would likely -- and rightly -- end up in jail. But that is exactly what the federal government (which, unlike corporations, decides how to keep its own books) does with Social Security. In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses." Capitalism isn't perfect. Indeed, to paraphrase Winston Churchill's famous description of democracy, it's the worst economic system except for all the others. But the inescapable fact is that only the profit motive and competition keep enterprises lean, efficient, innovative and customer-oriented. Great little article, not too old.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Wed Jun 03 00:04:44 "Or take Medicare. Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees. " A great Coder can get ANYTHING through Medicare. Quick Summary. Socialism = taking from all, to give to a few 'needy'. Keynsian economics = government writing checks to a few 'needy', at the expense of either collecting taxes, or spending someone elses money. How is that not socialism? Keynes is the biggest fuck-up of modern history. If he hadn't gotten lucky and shouted some bullshit, and then a recession hit, and some fucker thought it was a good idea to 'try something new'. He wouldn't even be a footnote of history. His theory = humans doing something that they are incapable of doing. (cutting government spending in good times to pay back your debts in bad times). How much has government cut back in the last 80 years? How many business cycles have occured? it's why Marxist theory has proven a failure. It expects something that humans as a whole (as of now) are absolutely incapable of doing.
habebe Member	Wed Jun 03 00:07:55 The human element is major factor in economics that many seem to forget.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Wed Jun 03 00:15:52 that's why the classical theories are still the ones that are the most relevant today.. They assume that humans as a group, are greedy sons of bitches that unless there is some other reason to act, they will fuck everyone else in the ass to get a nickle...... and what have we here? People that are fucking everything for a nickle... it's like the rich are god damn sweedes, and the current theory thinks we are all tree hugging hippie douchebags. The truth lies somewhere in the middle... that noone wants to ote.
habebe Member	Wed Jun 03 00:18:52 ote?
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Wed Jun 03 00:21:38 vote. I swear i hit the v. I type faster than I care to proofread.
nhill Member	Wed Jun 03 00:27:08 I just wanted to stop by and congratulate roland on the gigantic ownage he just got.
ANDO Member	Wed Jun 03 13:01:16 "They assume that humans as a group, are greedy sons of bitches that unless there is some other reason to act, they will fuck everyone else in the ass to get a nickle......" This is more or less what liberals and socialists think too, its just they happen to believe human behavior can be improved by social institutions. Note that conservatives believe this too, they just disagree on the degree.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Wed Jun 03 13:17:44 "Aeros, If I'm not mistaken, PPS is a Monetarist. Meaning that we do not dislike ALL forms of regulation, just most. For example generally I support banning monopolies and things that hinder free-fair trade (false information, lemon laws etc.)" A monetarist to an extent, sure. Friedman is what got me into economics - then I discovered the Austrian school and I have tended to combine the two concerning certain aspects since then. There's actually alot of similarities between the two, and when compared to Keynesianism their differences are rather nil. There's certainly portions of monetarism I disagree with (like gov. spending during recessions, targeting aggregates instead of interest rates, etc), but sure, I definitely adopt some of their theories.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Wed Jun 03 13:23:06 ^ on the issue of regulation in the form of 'banning' things - often times additional regulation isn't necessary. Could we not just punish actions like false information with pre-existing laws applying to fraud? On the issue of monopolies, research often shows that monopolies tend to arise not in absence of government, but through it's presence.
habebe Member	Thu Jun 04 02:50:54 " Could we not just punish actions like false information with pre-existing laws applying to fraud? On the issue of monopolies, research often shows that monopolies tend to arise not in absence of government, but through it's presence." I agree on both. Esp. monopolies/unfair advantages etc.
habebe Member	Thu Jun 04 02:54:11 I wouldn't say I am 100% Monetarist, but it better represents my thoughts than any other school of thought.But then again who follows any school of thought 100%.
jergul Member	Thu Jun 04 04:19:35 Eikey You can't really falsify Marxism like that. Its pretty much a historical perspective promoting stages of human development. The key point to future projections is that the capitalist stage contains inherent contradictions. One day that system will be replaced by a functioning communist ideal. But the road to that point can take 10 000 generations for all we know. In the meantime socialism of various types will wean us from the need to access tools of oppression to maintain our lifestyles. Failed socialism of course using tools of oppression to an extent that makes a mockery of their name. ============= If you want reform, then you need accountability. So you have to kill off legal entities. Only people having rights in courts of law. And only people then are accountable for what companies do.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: