Idea to fix the economy

[Enemy of the State]

Alright, I'll admit it, Austrian economics is . I see the light now, Keynes is the man. I found this brilliant Keynesian economist with an idea to turn the economy around. We're talking about a 56,000x increase in the GDP overnight. How? Build a ing death star that's how.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/modest...ial-death-star

Cost of building a death star? 852 ing quadrillion. That is 852 quadrillion added to the GDP, and we all know that higher GDP equals more wealth don't we? Now that is what I call stimulus. After we're done, we can use it to blow up. Creating even more stimulus. I wonder how much blowing up Earth would stimulate the economy?

[Vizsla]

We need to find some friendly aliens and sell them some timeshares, tiger balm and guaranteed-not-to-default repackaged mortgage debts. Maybe work in a couple of pyramid schemes. We could do them a great deal on Greek government debt.

I’m confused about Keynesianism.
If it doesn’t work then you aren’t doing it right and you need to do it more.
If the economy gets better then it was the spending that did it. It would never have got better on its own.
In the light of this logic I have a cure for the common cold I’d like to try on some economists. It involves ‘special’ water.

[Thorn777]

Maybe if people wouldnt equate Keynesianism with lots of spending at some random end with the system changing set of coexisting policies Keynes & Co enacted, then we would have base of discussion.

Till that point its just allot of lambasting to carry forward their own many times debunked economic ideologies. Or just trolling...

[Vizsla]

Maybe if people wouldnt equate Keynesianism with lots of spending at some random end with the system changing set of coexisting policies Keynes & Co enacted.

Oh really, which policies did Keynes enact?

[Thorn777]

Oh really, which policies did Keynes enact?

How about Glass-Steagall, Bretton-Woods, massive employment policies, high taxes on unearned incomes...etc

[Claudius Gothicus]

If you are looking for an ''economics flamewar'' you've just failed. What economies need right now is to take down the regressive tax system and replace it with a more progressive one, serious regulation on international finance transactions and of course a revamp of labour productivity to battle China's and India's cheap slave-wages.

[molonthegreat]

If you are looking for an ''economics flamewar'' you've just failed. What economies need right now is to take down the regressive tax system and replace it with a more progressive one, serious regulation on international finance transactions and of course a revamp of labour productivity to battle China's and India's cheap slave-wages.

Oh, brilliant that you want to screw over the economy even more with policies that will lead to capital flight and make it even harder for banks and rich people.

[Enemy of the State]

Oh, brilliant that you want to screw over the economy even more with policies that will lead to capital flight and make it even harder for banks and rich people.

Capital actually needs to "flee", in the sense that reallocates to productive sectors of the economy.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Oh, brilliant that you want to screw over the economy even more with policies that will lead to capital flight and make it even harder for banks and rich people.

Make it hard for rich people? are you kidding me? The American top 10% has been receiving tax cuts for at least 12 years now. If anything socil mobility in America stopped a long time ago.

Capital actually needs to "flee", in the sense that reallocates to productive sectors of the economy.

Making money =/= productive. It's a necessary condition but not a sufficient sign of productivity.

[molonthegreat]

Capital actually needs to "flee", in the sense that reallocates to productive sectors of the economy.

Well I was talking about capital flight abroad which usually happen when taxes are raised.

Make it hard for rich people? are you kidding me? The American top 10% has been receiving tax cuts for at least 12 years now. If anything socil mobility in America stopped a long time ago..

Why would you want to make it harder for the people who actually create jobs? If there's anything that's wrong it's the fact that the middle class people pay more taxes than wealthy but that can easily be fixed by giving them tax cuts as well, furthermore it's simply bollocks that social mobility in America has stopped.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Why would you want to make it harder for the people who actually create jobs?

They don't create jobs, if you cut down their taxes they will throw that money on the financial gamble. It happens, end of story.

If there's anything that's wrong it's the fact that the middle class people pay more taxes than wealthy but that can easily be fixed by giving them tax cuts as well,

And that way make the State bankrupt. I wonder how many will want ''tax-breaks'' when the ''poor'' literally overrun middle and higher class neighborhoods due to an ineffective police force.

Or how many will want ''tax-breaks'' when travelling from the suburbs to the Town Center contemplates possible death on the road or a never ending traffic jam due to a definanced State.

furthermore it's simply bollocks that social mobility in America has stopped.

It's simply bollocks to believe that the ability to reach the middle class from the lower classes is actually doable. Not to mention getting a good education(best way to advance the social strata besides corruption, crime or luck) is near-impossible if you come from a poor hood.

Also, look at US's Gini Coefficient over the decades:
0.316-- 0.337-- 0.348-- 0.361-- 0.357-- 0.380-- 0.378
70's-- 80's-- Early to Late 90's-- 00's-- late 00's

http://www.economicmobility.org/asse...m%20Report.pdf

[Mythos]

Why would you want to make it harder for the people who actually create jobs? If there's anything that's wrong it's the fact that the middle class people pay more taxes than wealthy but that can easily be fixed by giving them tax cuts as well, furthermore it's simply bollocks that social mobility in America has stopped.

Who creates jobs? The same people which relocate whole business divisions to China?

[numerosdecimus]

Making money =/= productive. It's a necessary condition but not a sufficient sign of productivity.

"Money" does not imply "Capital" directly, it could indirectly, but certainly not directly. It is because of this that there is an alocation of resources to more productive sectors.

What I mean with this is, money is only a representation of capital, ultimately if money represents increasingly less and less capital then it is going through a process of devalutation/inflation. Should such a death star be built the sheer amount of money created without any capital correspondence would make any money circulating in all markets value less and less. This is why GDP isn't a viable representation, for it only represents "the amount of menoy in circulation within a market/country", it does not say a thing about the value of that money, and thus it's comparison with the value outside currencies (resulting in higher prices when importing any product from an external market).

Should paper money become useless do to it's relative insignificant value, the market will switch to tangible goods or "commodities" for they represent a certain fluctuable value (how much it flutuates depends on the commodity) in comparison with a commodity that is practical to compare, and the main criteria for this is that this comparable commodity or capital (since anything under the laws of offer and demand is capital) needs to normally fluctuate over long periods of time as little as possible, but nevertheless it will fluctuate.

Once the current universalized method of capital representation (paper money) becomes worthless another standard will be used. Obviously that the society involved become severely decapitalized and thus it needs to switch as urgently as possible to the most needed type of capital needed, in this case food perhaps, followed by an ever increasingly more complex manufacturnig industry. The order of these development is normaly determined by the major needs of the market/population/country, once a needs becomes covered (in other words, the prices of such a product are acessible to most) the market will switch to more complex capital that is dependable on the existance of previous capital to exist at all, this new capital must of course be under an acessible price barrier, which is why there are no "leaps" or "jumps" over most stages of this ramified sequence.

Military Keynesianism(the manifest support for a ''theory of defense spending'' as a way of solving economical problems) is a myth.

You are right, in the sence that wars or overblunt military spending does not solve any economical problems.

[Salem1]

Oh, brilliant that you want to screw over the economy even more with policies that will lead to capital flight and make it even harder for banks and rich people.

lol your post is the day's joke man, banks and rich people having it hard? is this actually supposed to be true and it's just your warped reality or is it some kind of exaggeration, you're actually saying that the privileged have it hard? I don't to start a flame war but this just sounds ridiculous.

[Col. Tartleton]

Good ole fashioned blue collar 'Merica!

[Enemy of the State]

Making money =/= productive. It's a necessary condition but not a sufficient sign of productivity.

What is productive to you?

[Claudius Gothicus]

What is productive to you?

The quality of that which produces, or in other words, generates an output from the interaction of factors and materials. I would attribute said characteristic to socioeconomic units which provide individuals with goods or services no financial gamblers.

[dogukan]

What is productive to you?

Lets say you have a large farm where workers work with wages. The commitment of the worker to production is low, he is just there to make money. While the overall production might be big, the efficieny on worker's end can be low.

Now give this man some land, and he will try to maximize it's production making it as efficient as possible.
-
For a long time, this was seen as one of the major issues in solving economy problems. It's still very credible but every condition has unique outcomes.



Also I dont see how this is related to Keynesianism.

[Phier]

Also I dont see how this is related to Keynesianism.

Government spending to stimulate the economy.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Government spending to stimulate the economy.

Keynesians dont argue for increased defense spending or war spending to stimulate the economy. We argue for infrastructure development.