You guys have the American experience in World War II and the German experience after Hitler took control (say 1933-36) in mind. You have to narrow it down to maybe two historical times and places, and you have to use zen thought control to eternally ignore the confounding factors, in order to stay Keynesian true believers. If you ever check the less extraordinary examples you will find that fiscal stimulus packages throw people out of work immediately and directly.
The Australian economics profession has been divided up strategically into two camps in order to carry on a level of vandalisation akin to randomised nuclear war. The Keynesians never see public debt they don't love and the Neo-classicals never see private debt they aren't happy about. Of course both of these are damaging the culture and economy much worse than the black plague, since at least the pandemic had positive Malthusian effects. Take Sinclair for example. Cannot see bad private debt ever. Must be nice to get around with that special kind of blindness.
This is why the libertarian ideology must be put on the ash-heap of history even though about 95% of everything they say might be right. Because they have been twisted into a hobgoblin of their former self and now are almost exclusively only there to support oligarchy and fractional reserve usury. Its hard to escape the idea that there may be an ethnic component to all this misinformation and brainwashing. I mean you guys are grown adults and you are still buying into the idea that red ink, fiscal incontinence, and failure of budgetary prioritisation as containing some sort of magic to it. Some sort of macromancy. This eternal foolishness is not by accident. And in fact they teach it to the kiddies very early on.
Suppose you went back to the 19th century and you told Rothschild that conjuring ponzi-money then lending it to two governments in an adversarial relationship to each-other was helping the economy and citizens of both? I'm sure he'd be delighted that he'd been magically converted from exploiter to benefactor, and so you can see the seeds of the Keynesian revolution right there.
loopy President, Loopy supporters
ReplyDeleteYes of course. He's completely correct. Red ink ALWAYS causes economic destitution. It causes unemployment directly and immediately and every time.
ReplyDeleteYou guys have the American experience in World War II and the German experience after Hitler took control (say 1933-36) in mind. You have to narrow it down to maybe two historical times and places, and you have to use zen thought control to eternally ignore the confounding factors, in order to stay Keynesian true believers. If you ever check the less extraordinary examples you will find that fiscal stimulus packages throw people out of work immediately and directly.
ReplyDeleteThe Australian economics profession has been divided up strategically into two camps in order to carry on a level of vandalisation akin to randomised nuclear war. The Keynesians never see public debt they don't love and the Neo-classicals never see private debt they aren't happy about. Of course both of these are damaging the culture and economy much worse than the black plague, since at least the pandemic had positive Malthusian effects. Take Sinclair for example. Cannot see bad private debt ever. Must be nice to get around with that special kind of blindness.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the libertarian ideology must be put on the ash-heap of history even though about 95% of everything they say might be right. Because they have been twisted into a hobgoblin of their former self and now are almost exclusively only there to support oligarchy and fractional reserve usury. Its hard to escape the idea that there may be an ethnic component to all this misinformation and brainwashing. I mean you guys are grown adults and you are still buying into the idea that red ink, fiscal incontinence, and failure of budgetary prioritisation as containing some sort of magic to it. Some sort of macromancy. This eternal foolishness is not by accident. And in fact they teach it to the kiddies very early on.
Suppose you went back to the 19th century and you told Rothschild that conjuring ponzi-money then lending it to two governments in an adversarial relationship to each-other was helping the economy and citizens of both? I'm sure he'd be delighted that he'd been magically converted from exploiter to benefactor, and so you can see the seeds of the Keynesian revolution right there.