Basic question for Keynesian economists on inequality
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2014, 10:21 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2014 10:26 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: Basic question for Keynesian economists on inequality
(28-02-2014 10:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Nixon basically said "fuck you, we're keeping your gold suckas.


I also especially liked the other post which told people to just find a new job or move, which I predicted was the typical response for these types of topics.

Alright, this is now a punked thread or for people that really believe in get rich scams like monopoly money or ponzi schemes. I already said everything.

Good luck to you, and to whatever government assistance that you require. Because when something with no protection or oversight or compensation (like the largest "Bitcoin" exchange that stole peoples monopoly money, and real money in the millions), kicks you in the ass, you're going to need help.

Remember, modest reform is in preference to "anarchic wonderland".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 04:51 AM
RE: Basic question for Keynesian economists on inequality
(28-02-2014 12:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In fact, remember what happened in Germany after WWI when they used this system you defend? It led to a complete economic collapse with the masses destitute, all the wealth concentrated around the [Jewish] bankers who controlled the fiat money supply, and eventually became one of the most infamous tragedies in human history.

A good book to read is 'When Money dies'

The reasons for hyperinflation in the Weimar republic are not what you described. The authorities were scared of communism taking root and therefore wanted to give everyone jobs so they started printing money to pay for it. The merciless repatriations driven by France due to historical grievances did not help the situation.

Austria and Hungary also suffered from hyperinflation at the same time but it was not as prolonged as with Germany.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: Basic question for Keynesian economists on inequality
(27-02-2014 09:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  CathyM,

A few points.

1. From the very beginning I figured out you were a Keynesian economist. You repeatedly denied this, even talking about studying of Friedman. Then in a recent post you said the "most important economist... is the brilliant Paul Samuelson". Who, by the way, is also known as the father of Keynesian economics, since Keynes himself died young and Samuelson was the one behind it. So, your comment proves that, while you may not like to admit it, yes, you are a Keynesian economist, and I had you nailed from the beginning.

2. As always, anytime some fact is uncomfortable, you simply ignore it and refuse to comment. The fact is that Samuelson and Friedman both analyzed the various economic systems and Samuelson predicted the Soviet Union had the best system and would become the world's dominant economy, Friedman predicted it would collapse and the strongest economies would be market-driven, not centrally planned. Samuelson was, in fact, so completely ignorant that even right up to the Soviet collapse when the whole world could see it was unequivocally a dismal failure, Samuelson STILL insisted it was the best system and the communist economy would take over the world. Today, the only country on the planet that actually still has the type of economy Samuelson advocated is North Korea. Even Cuba is now allowing private ownership of the means of production because Samuelson's centrally planned economy was SUCH a miserable failure. So, how's that working out for the people of North Korea? If Samuelson understood economics then certainly the one country that's following his preferred system must be doing pretty well, huh? Your response to all this was, predictably, to ignore it. Cover your ears, scream "I'm not listening", and still believe that Samuelson was the most brilliant economist.

3. Predictably you were unable to answer the question in this OP. You can see that it wasn't a ridiculous question like you said, since there has been intelligent debate. It's just that YOU could not answer it without either (a) betraying your beliefs, or (b) looking like an idiot. So, you chose to bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

This shows how Keynesian economics is a faith-based religion, not a science.

When you've stopped actually talking to people and started talking only to caricatures of them which live inside your head, the discussion is over.


... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
01-03-2014, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 09:51 AM by frankksj.)
RE: Basic question for Keynesian economists on inequality
(28-02-2014 10:21 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Remember, modest reform is in preference to "anarchic wonderland".

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Remember we discussed how one of the most disastrous examples of money printing was the Weimar Republic. They debased their currency so much, it took billions of Papiermarks just to buy a loaf of bread. Runaway hyper-inflation destroyed their economy and contributed to a path that would lead to horrific tragedies.

And what finally stopped the chaos? It was when the people switched to a new, stable currency, the Rentenmark, which was backed by hard assets and wasn't devalued.

Who issued the worthless, fraudulent Papiermarks? Oh yeah, the government. And what criminal punishment did the issuers face. None.

Who issued the stable Rentenmark that allowed the economy to function again? Oh yeah, a private corporation. They could not just print trillions of Rentenmarks because, unlike the issuers of the government Papiermark, as private citizens, the issuers of Rentenmarks were required to honor their contractual obligations and would have thrown in jail for fraud. Unlike the government agents who can break every contract, defraud everyone they want with absolute impunity. If you think things have changed today, just open your eyes. If James Clapper, head of the NSA, were a private citizen who perjured himself under oath during congressional testimony he'd be rotting in jail. But, as head of a government agency, he didn't have to worry about it. He could perjure himself all he wanted knowing he was immune from punishment.

So please reconcile the historic facts with your statement that: "Government currencies are regulated, and backed. There's trust in them because they're well established, and if there's any fraud they'll be severally punished and reformed" and that allowing issuance of private currency would be "apocalyptic".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: