Mr. Keynes told me...

[Bubblehead1980]

Wonder if Obama would get the message behind this, doubt it.Really will never get how supposedly intelligent people believe Keynes's theories would work then or now, they never have and never will.:arrgh!:


http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k281/rjacksonsr105/mrkeynes.jpg

[the_tyrant]

Way to take things out of Context

After all, Mr Clive told me, businesses should conquer countries to gain a sustainable source of income. Mr Smith told me that there is an invisible hand to guide me. Mr Mao told me that we should tear up on textbooks and lynch our teachers. Mr Mussolini tould me that fascism is best since the trains run on time.

[Hottentot]

Mr Smith told me that there is an invisible hand to guide me.

Well duh. It's invisible, you're not supposed to see it, silly.

Mr Mao told me that we should tear up on textbooks and lynch our teachers.Yeah, the one time we listened to something they taught us in the school's history class and then heard complaints about taking it too literally.

Mr Mussolini tould me that fascism is best I since the trains run on time.I have a national railroad company that could use one of those as its head executive, then.

I'm on the other hand wondering: Marx told me the inevitable revolution would make me happy. Lenin told me I shouldn't listen to Marx, because I'm too stupid to understand what happiness is on my own. Stalin told me I shouldn't listen to neither of them. That's pretty much the only thing he told me.

[Sailor Steve]

Mr. Keynes told me...
Mssrs. Reason and Logic told me that you still don't get it.

[Bubblehead1980]

I get it Steve, it is you who do not get it.You take always try to stay "neutral" and not take a side, you feel somehow you are above it all when you are not, you are a cynic who thinks there is no black and white at all in the world, you believe everyone's opinion, vision etc is equally valid when they are not.Stupidity is never valid and keynesian economics is that, STUPID.Even more stupid when it is easy to see that it has never worked, ever. While the collapse was not his fault, as every president before him shared blame for kicking the can down the road on our large, institutional issues such as entitlements and dumb moves such as Clinton's deregulation of the banks in 99 or Bush's failure to address said issues and how he spent money like a liberal, some share more blame than others but Obama's keynesian policies are why we have a stagnant economy and 6 trillion in debt in less than four years.Too many people ignorant of history believe this crap works, it never has, never will, ever.Did not work for FDR as WW II and the wartime economy is what ended the depression.Obama refuses to change course, he thinks more spending will do it, it will not.Especially with the huge tax hikes coming in January.

:arrgh!:

[Tchocky]

I take it this is less about AE = A + mpc(Y) than I'm smarter than my liberal professors

[Buddahaid]

And there are those who only see this.
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x15/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_271.JPG

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I get it Steve, it is you who do not get it.You take always try to stay "neutral" and not take a side, you feel somehow you are above it all when you are not, you are a cynic who thinks there is no black and white at all in the world, you believe everyone's opinion, vision etc is equally valid when they are not.Stupidity is never valid and keynesian economics is that, STUPID.Even more stupid when it is easy to see that it has never worked, ever. While the collapse was not his fault, as every president before him shared blame for kicking the can down the road on our large, institutional issues such as entitlements and dumb moves such as Clinton's deregulation of the banks in 99 or Bush's failure to address said issues and how he spent money like a liberal, some share more blame than others but Obama's keynesian policies are why we have a stagnant economy and 6 trillion in debt in less than four years.Too many people ignorant of history believe this crap works, it never has, never will, ever.Did not work for FDR as WW II and the wartime economy is what ended the depression.Obama refuses to change course, he thinks more spending will do it, it will not.Especially with the huge tax hikes coming in January.

:arrgh!:You have declared your thesis, now its time to prove it. Burden of proof is in you not your listeners. Don't expect that others take what you say at face value.

[vienna]

I take it this is less about AE = A + mpc(Y) than I'm smarter than my liberal professors


I'd be careful about using formulae and algorithms; he probably doesn't know how they work (probably thinks they're a liberal plot)... :)

<o>

[Takeda Shingen]

.Even more stupid when it is easy to see that it has never worked, ever.

Actually, economic theorists would not conclude that. The community is split on the effectiveness of the various Keynsian policies, with many economists actually crediting them with effectively saving capitalism in past times of crisis.

[mookiemookie]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29060920.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

Condescending Wonka is my favorite meme.

[Bubblehead1980]

Actually, economic theorists would not conclude that. The community is split on the effectiveness of the various Keynsian policies, with many economists actually crediting them with effectively saving capitalism in past times of crisis.

Yes, and the half that believe that allow their ideological views to skew their objectivity.How can anyone honestly say keynesian policies have worked? I will be kind and say maybe they stopped the bleeding(actually think the economy bled out as much as it was going to personally, what goes down must come up kind of thing)but his policies have not promoted real growth especially for the cost, 6+ trillion in debt.FDR's policies were keynesian, they did not work for what was spent , WW II and the wartime economy pulled us from the depression, without it, things would have remained not so great, to put it lightly.One could argue it stopped the bleeding but again the economy of the 20's had bottomed out fully, what goes down must come up, but it can only go so far unless proper policies are in place to promote growth and FDR's did not.Unemployment was 14.6% in 1940, no doubt real unemployment was higher as it was today, after years of the so called new deal policies, 1942 it was at 4.8% once wartime economy was kicking in and in 1944 it was 1.8% as wartime economy was running at full steam.Move forward to 2009, really is ignorant of reality to think a 16 trillion dollar economy can be sufficiently stimulated by "stimulus" and bad loans to solyndra, nationalizing industry etc, even in the wild amounts that were spent on stimulus, just not going to help things. Creating an environment friendly to business and investors is what works, more jobs, more pay, more tax revenue comes in, more consumer spending, stronger economy.Really is so simple, only those with an agenda other than a strong economy can honestly promote policies such as those of obama.

Come January thanks to tax hikes such as capital gains going from 15% to 20%(plus 3.8% new tax from obamacare totaling 23.8%) and no longer taxing qualified dividends at the lower rate of long term capital gains with other tax hikes affecting everyone from the investor class to middle class to retirees totaling 494 BILLION, thinks are about to tank again.Reasonable tax increases(not income if possible) would be okay if the economy were strong, it could handle it, could use it to get us to a balanced budget and eventually get debt under 100% of GDP again, as a long term goal.Bottom line is, keynes policies have never really worked, the evidence is there, remove ideology and just looks at what has worked and what has not.For those who forgot, the past four years have taught us what does not work.Assuming Romney wins, the next four should remind everyone what works.



To the snarky "oh he must have just discovered keynes), I have known this for years, it was an economics class that actually turned me away from democrats the most as their economic policies of over tax the business/investor and big government spending, attempted manipulation of the economy etc just does not work.I found the card amusing and posted it.

[Bubblehead1980]

And there are those who only see this.
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x15/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_271.JPG


True, but as everything is not black and white, everything is not in a gray area.There are some things in life that are black and white.For example, one way that works and another does not.Two employees are asked to find a way to reach the same goal by their boss, they both have different ways, but one has the better, more efficient way than the other, it is pretty black and white who you chose.Same with politics, economics etc, one way works, other does not and history as shown that.Now where that gets skewed is a lot of people who vote are too ignorant and do not fully understand things , they fall for rhetoric over reality.

[Sailor Steve]

I get it Steve, it is you who do not get it.You take always try to stay "neutral" and not take a side, you feel somehow you are above it all when you are not, you are a cynic who thinks there is no black and white at all in the world, you believe everyone's opinion, vision etc is equally valid when they are not.
Nope, not a cynic at all. Just someone who looks at all sides of the picture. It keeps going right over your head. It's okay to make a judgement and take a side, but you constantly spout the same rhetoric. For the hundredth time, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Your words betray you every time you write something. Did you notice how this time nobody took you seriously? Every post made fun of you. Every single one. Doesn't that tell you anything?

No, you still dont' get it. You've made yourself a laughingstock here, and every time you try to be serious you just make it worse. Sorry to be harsh, but you just refuse to learn. You are young, and you don't know anything yet. I'm old, and I still don't know anything. The difference is that I've learned that I don't know anything. I've also learned how to tell when someone actually does know something or when he's just repeating what he's been told. Unfortunately it's painfully obvious to everyone but you that you fall into the latter category.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually, economic theorists would not conclude that. The community is split on the effectiveness of the various Keynsian policies, with many economists actually crediting them with effectively saving capitalism in past times of crisis.
You don't know anything either.You're just another stupid liberal college professor, why should we listen to you.

[CCIP]

Oh, speaking of economic theories that never worked...

http://i.imgur.com/YopvY.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, and the half that believe that allow their ideological views to skew their objectivity.

Sounds like someone else I know.

How can anyone honestly say keynesian policies have worked? I will be kind and say maybe they stopped the bleeding(actually think the economy bled out as much as it was going to personally, what goes down must come up kind of thing)but his policies have not promoted real growth especially for the cost, 6+ trillion in debt.FDR's policies were keynesian, they did not work for what was spent , WW II and the wartime economy pulled us from the depression, without it, things would have remained not so great, to put it lightly.One could argue it stopped the bleeding but again the economy of the 20's had bottomed out fully, what goes down must come up, but it can only go so far unless proper policies are in place to promote growth and FDR's did not.Unemployment was 14.6% in 1940, no doubt real unemployment was higher as it was today, after years of the so called new deal policies, 1942 it was at 4.8% once wartime economy was kicking in and in 1944 it was 1.8% as wartime economy was running at full steam.

The crash of 1929 was not a simple case of 'what goes up must come down'. It was the irresponsibility of investors in the so-called speculative boom that precipitated this fall. Sorry, but it was the private sector that drove America off the fiscal cliff. It was government that enacted to end the sort of speculative deals that made the crash possible. While government is ceratinly not always the answer, this sort of ruins your narrative, no?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

The problem with your assumption about the wartime economy is that in 1950 the unemployment rate was 5.3%, down from 5.9% the year before. With the war industry jobs long gone, the Keynsian mesures still in place, and some 10 million Americans looking to get back into the labor force (http://www.sss.gov/induct.htm), one would have expected the rates to return to their pre-war state. It didn't happen. Maybe there is something to that Keynes stuff after all?

Move forward to 2009, really is ignorant of reality to think a 16 trillion dollar economy can be sufficiently stimulated by "stimulus" and bad loans to solyndra, nationalizing industry etc, even in the wild amounts that were spent on stimulus, just not going to help things. Creating an environment friendly to business and investors is what works, more jobs, more pay, more tax revenue comes in, more consumer spending, stronger economy.Really is so simple, only those with an agenda other than a strong economy can honestly promote policies such as those of obama.

That auto bailout put the industry back on it's feet. Like it or not, it worked.

Come January thanks to tax hikes such as capital gains going from 15% to 20%(plus 3.8% new tax from obamacare totaling 23.8%) and no longer taxing qualified dividends at the lower rate of long term capital gains with other tax hikes affecting everyone from the investor class to middle class to retirees totaling 494 BILLION, thinks are about to tank again.Reasonable tax increases(not income if possible) would be okay if the economy were strong, it could handle it, could use it to get us to a balanced budget and eventually get debt under 100% of GDP again, as a long term goal.Bottom line is, keynes policies have never really worked, the evidence is there, remove ideology and just looks at what has worked and what has not.For those who forgot, the past four years have taught us what does not work.Assuming Romney wins, the next four should remind everyone what works.

Now we're not even talking about Keynes anymore. What about Keynes? Looks like Keynes stopped the bleeding again. Seems thematic.

To the snarky "oh he must have just discovered keynes), I have known this for years, it was an economics class that actually turned me away from democrats the most as their economic policies of over tax the business/investor and big government spending, attempted manipulation of the economy etc just does not work.I found the card amusing and posted it.

Well, we've got a young college guy who thinks he knows everything, never mentions Keynes and then suddenly is posting about Keynes all over the forum. You do the math.

You don't know anything either.You're just another stupid liberal college professor, why should we listen to you.

Gah, no!!! The truth of conservatism. It burns! Hisssssssss........

[CCIP]

I should also point out that it's bizarre to talk about Keynsian economics as a policy - I don't think any state or party had ever adopted them wholesale. If we're talking about the idea of deficit spending - well, that's just another tool in the shed of capitalist economies. Like any tool, there's good uses for it, and there's not terribly good uses for it. Same goes for practically anything. Any economic policy based purely on ideology is, by default, stupid. Any economic policy that throws out a tool based on ideology is just as stupid.

[Hottentot]

Hmm, it would appear based on this thread that college isn't nearly as respected as I thought. You guys make it and its students sound like our high school with your comments. :06:

Edit: Oh, and sig line once again.

[Takeda Shingen]

Hmm, it would appear based on this thread that college isn't nearly as respected as I thought. You guys make it and its students sound like our high school with your comments. :06:

Edit: Oh, and sig line once again.

I personally hold college in a great deal of respect. After all, I work at one. What I do see is a great deal of young students that come in and throw around their favorite term of the week, usually which they have just picked up. While this is certainly part of the growing process, it become annoying when it surrounds you all day.

[Sailor Steve]

Now where that gets skewed is a lot of people who vote are too ignorant and do not fully understand things , they fall for rhetoric over reality.
:rotfl2:

I can't believe I missed this earlier. Perfect. Just perfect.

[Hottentot]

I personally hold college in a great deal of respect. After all, I work at one. What I do see is a great deal of young students that come in and throw around their favorite term of the week, usually which they have just picked up. While this is certainly part of the growing process, it become annoying when it surrounds you all day.

Ah, I see. I can't say if it's common here or not, since I'm no teacher and don't meet that many students, but I know what you are talking about. Though my personal experiences still lean on it happening more in high school than the uni (we don't have a "college" per se, if I have understood your system correctly.)

"Term of the week", "magic words", they seem to happen regardless of education.

[Takeda Shingen]

You're right. They're really universities over here as well, as they support their own degree programs, but the term 'college' is often used as an interchangable colloquialism.

[soopaman2]

Let the Ayn Rand folks destroy the country.

They will be shot in the rebellious mop up, hopefully falling victim to the same ruthless greed they do towards people just trying to eat, or earn a fair wage.

[Hottentot]

You're right. They're really universities over here as well, as they support their own degree programs, but the term 'college' is often used as an interchangable colloquialism.

But as I have understood it, it's fairly common in there to quit after the bachelor's degree and you can actually do something with that. Whereas here it doesn't happen, since our universities expect by default that everyone will get a master's degree.

Which leads to us complaining that the universities take too many applicants in (even in history where the amount of passed qualification exams has in all my years been less than 10 % of the applicants), and since they will all become masters, the value of the degree suffers. A professor of pedagogy once called this on a lecture "schoolification" (closest translation I could come up with), and development towards a society where you need higher and higher degrees to get lower and lower ranked employment.

It's no wonder many of our academics are at least seriously considering moving abroad and quite many also do it. It's not fair for the society that pays our education, but neither is it fair for us to study 5 to 7 years and have the society say we are not good enough.

Heck, I didn't mean to write that much simply to say that we could use an improvement in our tertiary education system that supposedly is "one of the best in the world". :doh:

[Takeda Shingen]

Which leads to us complaining that the universities take too many applicants in (even in history where the amount of passed qualification exams has in all my years been less than 10 % of the applicants), and since they will all become masters, the value of the degree suffers. A professor of pedagogy once called this on a lecture "schoolification" (closest translation I could come up with), and development towards a society where you need higher and higher degrees to get lower and lower ranked employment.

We have exactly the same problem stateside. While not required by bacherlor's programs, the overall consensus is that a master's degree is required for basic employment is certain fields. As such, the degree value is lessened as it become more common, and forces people to pursue doctorates or equivalents to maintain a competative edge; akin to an academic arms race.

[TarJak]

The value of an education is only as good as its application.

[Hottentot]

We have exactly the same problem stateside.

Darn it, Takeda! Stop shooting down my rants about the Finnish education system with your stupid facts! Why the facts always seem to have such a liberal bias is completely beyond me!

And how that third sentence relates to the second, I have no idea either.


The value of an education is only as good as its application.

A wonderful principle. One that I fully agree with and try to live by. If only it was that simple.

[kranz]

As such, the degree value is lessened as it become more common, and forces people to pursue doctorates or equivalents to maintain a competative edge; akin to an academic arms race.
same situation in Poland. Soon after 1989 several governments decided to boost Poland's position in European education ratings and to simplify the procedure needed to establish private universities. (until 1989 there was no private sector in any branch of industry, economy etc thus universities could only be public, what is more, being employed was obligatory so people didn't need studies to get jobs).
After 1989 many private universities appeared, at first they were only eligible to confer the Bachelor degree but soon, if they hired enough PhDs, they could give the Master degree.
Public universities have their departments divided into a fairly logical way: Philology Department, History Department etc. People are taught a very specific, narrow set of subjects, which is supposed to make them experts in their discipline - e.g. teachers, economists.
However, the needs of the 1990's were different. Experts were not needed on the market. The market needed "jacks of all trades", people with diplomas in Economy with B1 English, German and French. And here came the private universities which specialized mostly in teaching economy and marketing-related subjects as well as teaching English. People who graduate from such schools sometimes could even teach English if they did a proper specialization during the 3 or 5-year course.
The whole "job market" was flooded with such "Bachelor and Master experts" who knew the basis of economy and foreign languages - a skill that could not be obtained on any public university. (at least not in 5 years).
Got my diploma 3 months ago, still can't find a job. Schools are occupied by Bachelors who see no difference between advise and advice, private companies look for economists with C2 English, Chinese and Portuguese. Having graduated from British and American Cultures and Literatures at a public university doesn't even allow me to sweep pavements.:yeah:

[Hottentot]

Got my diploma 3 months ago, still can't find a job. Schools are occupied by Bachelors who see no difference between advise and advice, private companies look for economists with C2 English, Chinese and Portuguese. Having graduated from British and American Cultures and Literatures at a public university doesn't even allow me to sweep pavements.:yeah:

Case in point of what I was after in my last line above and not something that couldn't happen in here. First getting told that you are not educated enough and then getting told you are too educated. To laugh or to cry?

The problem with many university degrees is that they don't really make you anything. You won't become, say, a carpenter and then get employed as a carpenter. You will become "an expert", as kranz put it. We get fed that stuff too: "Oh sure you can find a job, you can be an expert." An expert on what? Am I going to tell people the historical backgrounds of their drinking habits?

And many buy that. I have plenty of fellow students who study "just something", according to their own words. Combinations of studies that make little sense, because they themselves don't know what they want. A good bunch of them studied Latin because "it's cool to know Latin." :doh:
Some have obviously rolled in to the university because they need 5 to 7 years to decide what they want to do in life. And the university allows that. The academic freedom is a wonderful thing, but also horrible for people who are not ready for it.

"Oh yeah, Hott, and you can do better then, huh?" Well, I hope so. That's why I'm getting, along with my major, two concrete qualifications that are required by the law to work either in a school or in a museum. I'm also acquiring work experience from both of those two fields already during my studies. If they won't work, the university degree still grants me the option to continue into the doctorate program, according to which I have chosen the subject of my master's thesis. Does this guarantee that I'll get work? No, no it doesn't. But I'll sure be more likely to get a job than an "expert" who didn't make even rudimentary plans like these.

Best of luck in finding work, kranz. The above was not meant as criticism to you, as I obviously have no idea how you studied, nor what the system and the work market is like in Poland.

[JU_88]

http://gifsoup.com/view2/2015205/brenda-eating-popcorn-o.gif

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Sometime ago teacher who has quite many contacts to employers said bluntly that there is nothing more useless than Master's degree if you don't have work experince. He said that employers dislike applicants who when receiving their Master's degree still do not have work experience. Many are not willing to take risk as first employer and therefore any work experience wheter as convenience store clerk or street sweeper is better than nothing.

[Hottentot]

Many are not willing to take risk as first employer and therefore any work experience wheter as convenience store clerk or street sweeper is better than nothing.

While that teacher is absolutely right, here is where I'd say partially true. True because any experience is better than no experience: any proof that says you're a good guy is an advantage to you.

But at least in the case of the jobs I'm aiming at, the street sweeping is only marginally good. The museum field in Finland, for example, is so small that building a network is also important. The people working on that field know each other. If you can give them a name they know and they can call that person and ask what you are like, you are in much better position. Likewise in a school the folks don't want to know that you are the best shelf filler ever. They want a proof that you can handle that 25 - 30 adolescent pupils.

Edit: point being that especially while studying it's easy to get stuck in jobs that are not meant for you. Any job that pays your rent feels good at that moment, but if you don't aim somewhere, you probably won't hit anything either.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

While that teacher is absolutely right, here is where I'd say partially true. True because any experience is better than no experience: any proof that says you're a good guy is an advantage to you.

But at least in the case of the jobs I'm aiming at, the street sweeping is only marginally good. The museum field in Finland, for example, is so small that building a network is also important. The people working on that field know each other. If you can give them a name they know and they can call that person and ask what you are like, you are in much better position. Likewise in a school the folks don't want to know that you are the best shelf filler ever. They want a proof that you can handle that 25 - 30 adolescent pupils.Good points. Teacher's focus was more on private sector companies (where most attendees attention was) than in fields of education or - as you mentioned - in museums and other public service institutions. 'Networking' is important in most career paths and that was also way I got my first work.

Edit: point being that especially while studying it's easy to get stuck in jobs that are not meant for you. Any job that pays your rent feels good at that moment, but if you don't aim somewhere, you probably won't hit anything either.Agreed. I current employ one student and I expect that I have to start searching new employee within 3,5 years. She is so ambitious that I doubt that I can keep her interestid of current work and better wages available won't make it any easier. :)

[Bubblehead1980]

Oh, speaking of economic theories that never worked...

http://i.imgur.com/YopvY.jpg

Really? Explain the unprecedented recovery in the 80's? Explain why this point in Reagan's first term, the economy was doing pretty well, Reagan owes his landslide in 84 to this and it is why obama is in such a tough race.A lot of people did well in the 80's thanks to supply side, way better than anyone has ever done with keynes idiotic theories.