EPTOn November 01 2014 06:30 Sub40APM wrote:
You must be David Grabner's most prolific fan.
You must be David Grabner's most prolific fan.
David Grabner?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1382
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
David Grabner? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 31 2014 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote: "I'll debate you any time you like".... "How about tonight?"... "There's 1000 things I'll do tonight, dinner (debating) you won't be one" Hard to give him points for 'straight talk' when he is saying he would discuss the issue anytime quickly followed by completely blowing off the idea of discussing it. Does this fat guy think he's a badass talking this way to a citizen ? Would be somewhat acceptable if he was not surrounded by body guard. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:02 IgnE wrote: We should have jonny come in and tell us how we can go keep going without growth like this forever and it's not a big deal. "This chart has plenty of space left on the positive Y axis so I don't see why there would be limits to anything..." | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:00 WhiteDog wrote: Does this fat guy think he's a badass talking this way to a citizen ? Would be somewhat acceptable if he was not surrounded by body guard. You're talking about a guy who created a gigantic traffic chaos just to screw over one of his political enemies. Can somebody remind me why the guy is still in office and not doing community service or something like that? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote: translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Not even close. What is your "solution" again? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote: translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Technocrats and bankers just defend the interest of the upper class, and everybody knows that. But I don't understand your point against Keynes. Keynes don't give a fuck about GDP growth, the data was not discussed at all at his time. Growth wasn't even a thing. Keynes cared about employment and his basis argument - putting the macro aside - is that it is more productive for a society to put unemployed to work than not. What's so wrong about that ? What does it have to do with growth ? GDP became a thing in 1944 after Bretton Wood, and was proposed by Kuznets in 1934, two years before Keynes' general theory, and growth became a major economic discussion with Solow in 1956. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21772 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote: You're talking about a guy who created a gigantic traffic chaos just to screw over one of his political enemies. Can somebody remind me why the guy is still in office and not doing community service or something like that? Because he isnt convicted yet? Think thats the only reason he is still able to hold an office. Oh and America likes crazy so he still has followers | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote: Not even close. What is your "solution" again? thinking that one is only allowed to point out a problem when one has a solution is a very, very stupid way to think. The fact that Paul Krugman pretends to have the solution to everything, while I cheerfully admit to having no fucking clue how to get out of the horrible situation we are in, is how you know that I am an honest person and he is a shit-eating fraud. If you were anything other than a cheerleader, I would not have to point this out to you. On November 01 2014 08:18 WhiteDog wrote: Technocrats and bankers just defend the interest of the upper class, and everybody knows that. But I don't understand your point against Keynes. Keynes don't give a fuck about GDP growth, the data was not discussed at all at his time. Growth wasn't even a thing. Keynes cared about employment and his basis argument - putting the macro aside - is that it is more productive for a society to put unemployed to work than not. What's so wrong about that ? What does it have to do with growth ? GDP became a thing in 1944 after Bretton Wood, and was proposed by Kuznets in 1934, two years before Keynes' general theory, and growth became a major economic discussion with Solow in 1956. because I think the relationship between the business cycle and unemployment is not an ahistorical truth, but the product of a specific historical conjuncture which no longer obtains. I think that our problems with unemployment are a structural flaw in our socioeconomic system and not a secular problem that can be fixed by restarting economic growth. We can only ever have jobless recoveries from now on, which means that we need to start thinking in terms other than "recession" and "recovery." If you say "it's good to have more people working than not" that begs all sorts of questions - working doing what? under what conditions? with what relationship to ecology and other physical constraints? why and to what purpose? how long? for whom? These are the questions that nobody is willing to ask and is why mainstream economics is completely intellectually bankrupt. My beef is not with the historical figure Keynes, who basically accomplished the task of sanitizing Marx's most important insights into the functioning of the capitalist system so that they could be used by people who were not willing to accept the full implications of those insights. My beef is with people who think that the basic Keynesian idea of smoothing out the business cycle through government intervention of some variety is still a valid paradigm within which to shape our political economic policy, which it very clearly is not (any longer). The problem is not how to get to full employment, the problem is how to think about what a society which did not have or require full employment would look like. And no, I don't have the answer, nor will I pretend to. That's not an excuse for ignoring the problem. (to his credit, the historical Keynes is pretty much in agreement with the stuff I'm saying here. It's the Keynesians I'm opposed to, not Keynes. Keynes is dead, who gives a fuck. If he were alive I highly doubt he'd be a Keynesian) The economic thinking of people like Sub40 and askfjh is basically analagous to a car mechanic who thinks you can fix a broken engine by flooding it with gasoline. oneofthem is a little more sophisticated in his thinking but is basically an emotionless robot and should never be put in charge of anything that matters | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are up the nile without a paddle. le socialist utopia isn't going to develop if you just get rid of central banks. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
but really the way we are going to end up creating jobs is the same way that Hitler did it. That's the real direction we are headed. I just sort of play the game of "what if we don't end up in a fascist dystopia" as a way to while away the hours | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:27 bookwyrm wrote: thinking that one is only allowed to point out a problem when one has a solution is a very, very stupid way to think. The fact that Paul Krugman pretends to have the solution to everything, while I cheerfully admit to having no fucking clue how to get out of the horrible situation we are in, is how you know that I am an honest person and he is a shit-eating fraud. If you were anything other than a cheerleader, I would not have to point this out to you. because I think the relationship between the business cycle and unemployment is not an ahistorical truth, but the product of a specific historical conjuncture which no longer obtains. I think that our problems with unemployment are a structural flaw in our socioeconomic system and not a secular problem that can be fixed by restarting economic growth. We can only ever have jobless recoveries from now on, which means that we need to start thinking in terms other than "recession" and "recovery." If you say "it's good to have more people working than not" that begs all sorts of questions - working doing what? under what conditions? why and to what purpose? how long? for whom? These are the questions that nobody is willing to ask and is why mainstream economics is completely intellectually bankrupt. My beef is not with the historical figure Keynes, who basically accomplished the task of sanitizing Marx's most important insights into the functioning of the capitalist system so that they could be used by people who were not willing to accept the full implications of those insights. My beef is with people who think that the basic Keynesian idea of smoothing out the business cycle through government intervention of some variety is still a valid paradigm within which to shape our political economic policy, which it very clearly is not (any longer). The problem is not how to get to full employment, the problem is how to think about what a society which did not have or require full employment would look like. And no, I don't have the answer, nor will I pretend to. That's not an excuse for ignoring the problem. (to his credit, the historical Keynes is pretty much in agreement with the stuff I'm saying here. It's the Keynesians I'm opposed to, not Keynes. Keynes is dead, who gives a fuck) Your core point is that our technology has come to a point where it does not need that much labor then ? It's not a reasonnable to me : why not simply lower labor time like all countries did (aside the US). For the rest, the end of your response says it all : Keynes' effective demand has more finess than the "aggregate demand" simplification - it's basically marxism in disguise but don't say it. I don't agree at all with the idea that we are condemn to jobless recovery : you'll have jobless recovery if you reach recovery by lowering interest rate and facilitate credit. It's pretty logic (and was foreseen by people like Stiglitz as soon as 2008). You'll have a "jobfull" recovery if you put people to work, through state program or protectionnism, but that is against the dominant ideology (while it was already proposed as a solution by Keynes in various article). The problem is modern keynesianism (Hick's synthesis) forgot their ground and tried to play the "competitive / growth" game, while the core of Keynes' work is the desire to answer the question "how can we prevent the rise of communism ?". Personally I don't care : I'd prefer marxism to come back, they're funnier. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 01 2014 08:02 IgnE wrote: We should have jonny come in and tell us how we can go keep going without growth like this forever and it's not a big deal. Incorrect. You're thinking of the 'capitalism demands constant growth' myth, and my busting of it. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 01 2014 04:51 bookwyrm wrote: So therefore... its okay for governments to finance themselves by printing scrip? That is totally cool and not at all an unstable situation? I dont see your point but dont listen to me, im just the idiot who doesnt realize that everything has changed because of the industrial revolution and modern finance and the problems that have plagued literally every state in human history dont exist anymore because weve figured it all out No, and that's why central banks don't do that. The point of QE and the rest is to stimulate the purchase of long-term assets by lowering interest rates. The only way that monetizing the debt is ever a good idea is if it is the least-bad option among options that are all pretty shitty. | ||
| ||
