Actual Keynesians in 2008 wiping the floor with Obama's supposed "Keynesianism".

[Thorn777]

Yes, these people. And you think Ron Paul is kept fringe...

Really starts at 25:00. Many predictions there being totally on point.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/...er_and_michael

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF40uon-Gu0


So, do you really think we live in an Keynesian era again? That throwing money at banks to lend it on to states who then spend it on highways is Keynsianism?


That we now have to look at Paul and that line of thought to bring "change"? Since "Keynesianism failed"?

Its something completely new stemming from our neo-liberal era. A set of tools representing that era, and meant to maintain the status-quo of that era, as skewed as that era is.

What do you think?

[Matthias]

I think we are still continuing supply-side economics of the Reagan era, a completely failed idea, more than anything else.

Basically, we've been running conservative economic policies going on forty years now, with many of the regulations of earlier eras being repealed and many more still under attack.

[Mr. Scott]

I think we are still continuing supply-side economics of the Reagan era, a completely failed idea, more than anything else.

Basically, we've been running conservative economic policies going on forty years now, with many of the regulations of earlier eras being repealed and many more still under attack.

The problem isn't supply-side economics in itself, it how we're doing it.

Keeping income tax low, but corporate and business tax high does NOT make jobs or money. If you're going to have any tax be low, let it be business tax.

Supply-side economics has much merit. We're just doing it horribly wrong.

[Dr. Croccer]

The problem isn't supply-side economics in itself, it how we're doing it.

It always is, apparantly.

I don't get why some people can't just accept that a certain policy doesn't work and that we need to come up with something that is actually adapted to our current needs, rather than trying to keep an outdated and flawed idea alive for ideological reasons.

[Nikitn]

It always is, apparantly.

I don't get why some people can't just accept that a certain policy doesn't work and that we need to come up with something that is actually adapted to our current needs, rather than trying to keep an outdated and flawed idea alive for ideological reasons.

SIGH this forum is starting to annoy me again, there are a dozen posts like these in the thread whining and comparing Keynesian to communists.

No, Keynesian economics is without a doubt the best economic theory we have. And no, the US have NOT followed Keynes' ideas. The core of idea Keynesian line of thought (along with a solid regulation of the economy and encouraging consumption) is that the government should spend little during favourable times and allot during recessions, to create employment. Guess where the US has failed?

[MathiasOfAthens]

It always is, apparantly.

I don't get why some people can't just accept that a certain policy doesn't work and that we need to come up with something that is actually adapted to our current needs, rather than trying to keep an outdated and flawed idea alive for ideological reasons.

SIGH this forum is starting to annoy me again, there are a dozen posts like these in the thread whining and comparing Keynesian to communists.

No, Keynesian economics is without a doubt the best economic theory we have. And no, the US have NOT followed Keynes' ideas. The core of idea Keynesian line of thought (along with a solid regulation of the economy and encouraging consumption) is that the government should spend little during favourable times and allot during recessions, to create employment. Guess where the US has failed?

I cant believe I missed this by Croccer. Surely Croccer wasnt saying Keynes ideas were applied in Soviet Russia... anyway still Germany, France and Scandinavia are all examples of social market systems where keynes ideas have worked or have at least been copied to some extent.... All of which are doing much better than the US... and besides Germany and France were destroyed after WW2 or practically destroyed and what got them back on their feet if not massive government intervention ie Marshal Plan?

[Dr. Croccer]

SIGH this forum is starting to annoy me again, there are a dozen posts like these in the thread whining and comparing Keynesian to communists.

No, Keynesian economics is without a doubt the best economic theory we have. And no, the US have NOT followed Keynes' ideas. The core of idea Keynesian line of thought (along with a solid regulation of the economy and encouraging consumption) is that the government should spend little during favourable times and allot during recessions, to create employment. Guess where the US has failed?

You do realize that I support Keynesianism and that I was referring to supply-side in that post, right?

Of course you didn't.

[Matthias]

The problem isn't supply-side economics in itself, it how we're doing it.

Keeping income tax low, but corporate and business tax high does NOT make jobs or money. If you're going to have any tax be low, let it be business tax.

Supply-side economics has much merit. We're just doing it horribly wrong.

It has little to no merit to it. The Laffer curve is laughable. Effective corporate and business taxe rates are not high all. Trickle down does not exist. Supply-side has helped justify and create the huge deficits we currently have as well as the enoromous wealth and income inequality.

It's similar to arguing with a Communist who keeps saying that Communism is really a good idea, it's just never been done "right".

[bushbush]

Keeping income tax low, but corporate and business tax high does NOT make jobs or money. If you're going to have any tax be low, let it be business tax.

You can't just look at tax rates. You have to look at deductions, credits, and taxable income for corporations.

Ex:

For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

So tax rate means nothing here. You have to look at the full picture in taxation. American corporations are not overtaxed.

[Mr. Scott]

It has little to no merit to it. The Laffer curve is laughable. Effective corporate and business taxe rates are not high all. Trickle down does not exist. Supply-side has helped justify and create the huge deficits we currently have as well as the enoromous wealth and income inequality.

It's similar to arguing with a Communist who keeps saying that Communism is really a good idea, it's just never been done "right".

Oh c'mon Matthias. Tax cuts work in the same way as stimulus's, except they're more efficient.

Example: Do I think the Bush tax cuts cut short the dot com recession? Yes.
Do I think the Bush tax cuts should have been reversed once the economy had traction? Yes. Keeping them in place goes against core Keynesian principles regarding economic stimulus.


(Tax Cuts) + (No boost in spending) = (No taxation change) + (Deficit Spending)

You can't just look at tax rates. You have to look at deductions, credits, and taxable income for corporations.

Ex:



So tax rate means nothing here. You have to look at the full picture in taxation. American corporations are not overtaxed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Remember, the vast majority of the US economy is run by smaller businesses that cannot get past these loopholes and deductions as easily.

Slap on the several percent of state taxes and, yes, US business taxes are rather high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora..._United_States

The second your business/firm makes over 100,000$, its new income is already receiving a level of taxation above nearly any other nation's in the world.
If you want to see where business tax is really looking, don't look at GE and Exxon. Look at the small businesses littering towns and suburbs.

I think Matthias of all people would be against excessive corporate growth as a force in our economy. Well, the US business tax structure is promoting the development of just that.

[bushbush]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Remember, the vast majority of the US economy is run by smaller businesses that cannot get past these loopholes and deductions as easily.

Again, that's not the right way to look at a taxation system.

Tax rates apply only to taxable income, which is after all the deductions, including your businesses expenses. Even after you calculate your taxes, there are tax credits which directly reduce the taxes you have to pay.

that's why looking at tax rate is not helpful in understanding a taxation system at all.

Slap on the several percent of state taxes and, yes, US business taxes are rather high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora..._United_States

The second your business/firm makes over 100,000$, its new income is already receiving a level of taxation above nearly any other nation's in the world.
If you want to see where business tax is really looking, don't look at GE and Exxon. Look at the small businesses littering towns and suburbs.

Do you have any evidence showing smaller businesses hiring accountants don't claim all the generous deductions? Small businesses get a lot of tax credits as well. They also get exempted from certain obligations such as under Obamacare.

[Matthias]

Oh c'mon Matthias. Tax cuts work in the same way as stimulus's, except they're more efficient.

If only there was any sort of evidence for this. There is evidence against this. The Bush tax cuts were not efficient at stimulating the economy. They were successful at exploding the deficit though. Even more than they stimulated the economy. The prediction was that they would pay for themselves. That is, the economy would be so stimulated that the new tax revenues would make up for the lower tax rates. That failed horribly.

Example: Do I think the Bush tax cuts cut short the dot com recession? Yes.

In the most inefficient manner possible? And the most debt exploding? Yes. And did it lead to long term growth? No.

Do I think the Bush tax cuts should have been reversed once the economy had traction? Yes. Keeping them in place goes against core Keynesian principles regarding economic stimulus.

At least you're willing to raise taxes in good times. That's a sign of sanity. The problem is that many conservatives never ever will raise taxes no matter what, because they believe in supply-side in an extreme form, where their tax cuts are paid for. But that has been shown not to be the case.

And that's not even getting to a reduction in regulations. The reduction in financial regulations since the 80s allowed for the current crisis to happen. The cost of not having regulation is incredibly high, much higher than having proper regulation. We still have banks that are too big to fail. It is insanity.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Naomi Klein ain't a Keynesian, she's not even an economist for god's sake. But a good article nevertheless Thorn.

[Admiral Piett]

I don't think we are adhering to any particular system here guys. It's become so convoluted that you can't even really recognize the Reagonomics in supply-side or the Keynesianism in demand-side.

There are gaping flaws in both arguments as well things in both that work and its time we recognize what works and what doesn't in the context of reality rather than acting on ideology.

[Thorn777]

^I agree. Its neither. Its all just perfectly catering to the status-quo elites.

While its uses a Keynesian mantra: "stimulus", the stimilus is largely designed in such a way that it benefits only a certain upper segment and does very little for the real economy or any underlying issue.

And dont get me started on their federal interest-rates and the like. Its downright crazy. Its grasping for anything so it doesnt have to go trough hard reform, which will have to be from the top down, and that isnt ideologic at all.

[MathiasOfAthens]

On one hand we always thought the bailouts were not big enough, not enough investment, too much bailout. But on the other hand what could Obama do. The congress was not completely united behind him and the Republicans were against him from day 1 literally. He didnt have the political will to pass anything larger so thats why I do not entirely blame him.

[Admiral Piett]

On one hand we always thought the bailouts were not big enough, not enough investment, too much bailout. But on the other hand what could Obama do. The congress was not completely united behind him and the Republicans were against him from day 1 literally. He didnt have the political will to pass anything larger so thats why I do not entirely blame him.

The Republicans did not control the house during his passage of the bailouts. Obama is just as bought and paid for as the GOP. Only this time its pharmaceuticals and labor union interests instead of energy and defense. Ultimately it has been the former two whom have benefited the most for Obama's term in office. Apart from the money lenders of course. The GOP and Dems are united in their support of them.

[chilon]

The Republicans did not control the house during his passage of the bailouts. Obama is just as bought and paid for as the GOP. Only this time its pharmaceuticals and labor union interests instead of energy and defense.

I don't see Obama any more bought by pharmaceuticals than any other President since Reagan. Not to say that Obama doesn't give them what they want because he did, but so has every President since and including good ole Ronnie.

[Mr. Scott]

On one hand we always thought the bailouts were not big enough, not enough investment, too much bailout. But on the other hand what could Obama do. The congress was not completely united behind him and the Republicans were against him from day 1 literally. He didnt have the political will to pass anything larger so thats why I do not entirely blame him.

He could have done a bailout that was practical, not idealistic. He wanted to boost inefficient industries like "green technology", which is great in the long-run, but when you're in a recession, its the short-term that counts.

I agree Thorn... I have pretty much lost hope for actual reform in the states. Too much special interest and too much opposition to infrastructure investment other than roads. Evertime a city proposes a light rail line there is wide opposition, its a waste, cost too much, we dont need it. But when the city spends millions on widening a road there is no opposition whatsoever...

Romney supports infrastructure development

[Enemy of the State]

Romney supports infrastructure development

Romney says he supports whatever gets him elected.