- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
They should have bought more jetskis, yachts and houseboats.
Very clever.
They should have bought more jetskis, yachts and houseboats.
Part of the trouble coming here is the the push back that might come because of the voter fraud that took place with all the illegal who are free to vote in California no questions allowed to be asked.
I find it hilarious how some of those who advocate redistribution of income and parasitic government activity are so livid about the tea party movement.
you really have a hangup about how everyone is envious of you, don't you? you can't be THAT cute.assinine [sic]-whining about the wealthy and demanding they pay more and more so you can feel better about yourself?
trust government has sent 100Million people to early graves
Wait, isn't CA part of the U.S.? So doesn't that mean that its economy matters to the whole?
That is the core of the problem with larger government. Replacing a greedy capitalist monopoly with a corrupt bureaucratic government monopoly is merely going from the frying pan to the fire, and hardly represents progress for the ordinary citizen. In fact it is worse, because overthrowing a government is generally a very bloody process.Keynesian theory, doesn't take into account the corruptability of men; the very men who control the flow of the money. In theory, and on paper Keynesian theory works, and works quite well, in practice however, it fails miserably.
That is the core of the problem with larger government. Replacing a greedy capitalist monopoly with a corrupt bureaucratic government monopoly is merely going from the frying pan to the fire, and hardly represents progress for the ordinary citizen. In fact it is worse, because overthrowing a government is generally a very bloody process.
The better solution for consumers is always open competition and free markets.
parasitic government? well, perhaps, but the parasite i invite is better welcome than the one that attaches itself to me against my will. I VOTE for the folks in government... i don't vote for swine that mistake greed for sense of self entitlement. like ****, folks like that just happen
you really have a hangup about how everyone is envious of you, don't you? you can't be THAT cute.
you do realize that you are simply reinforcing the stereotype of the rich white guy that cannot see value in anything BUT money and cannot understand that others do, doncha? i feel pretty good about myself without your money and without your approval.
in order to generate more money for rich white guys.
geo.
Hell, if California can survive the governorship of the gipper and the the largest tax increase in California history or any other state (up to that time) it can survive this blip. :2wave:
lets hope not
So you hate california? Is it the same as hating france?
They need to be punished for the idiocy of...
Just a general lesson:
Keynesian theory, in a nut shell, and despite what Wiki says about it, is really quite simple, and the idea has validity if practiced properly, but it is not what most people think it is. or I should really say, that the root of Keynesian theory is in the application of the economic model.
Essentially, Keynesian theory states that govenment should play a larger role in the economy, but unlike current western style "free-market" economies, where Government set monetary policy, provides inefficient supply and demand models, produce a not for profit "good or service", Keynesian theory suggests that, if managed correctly, Governemnt can act as a corporation, and the private sector would be an essential subsidiary to the parent company. What it all means is that, Government should, according to Keynesian theory, take sole ownership of certain segments within the structure of the national economy, and run them for profit. The root idea being that, certain segments once monopolized, would institutionalize supply and demand, but, would not interfer with the macro economic progress of the private sector.
If successful, the theory is that, the portion wholly controlled by government would be profitable enough to fund all necessary government endevours. Things like welfare, medicare, medicaid, SS, roads, bridges, and military. The net result is that, the individual is taxed less, has more money to spend, and the economy boons. As things go by, and with politicians in control, more things get added to the list of entitlements, and we all know where that leads too.
Off the top of my head, a few nations ahve tried it, Singapore comes to mind, China is doing a form of it now, and various other nations in the past.
The problem with Keynesian theory is that, politicians control the flow of money. Workers, are allowed to unite (Eventually), and form unions within the government controlled sectors - net result is that the government as a corporation becomes inefficient, stagnent, corruptable, and eventually the people in control at one point lose control, and those that gain control, are left with a mess that is hard to undo. So, the new handlers think they can do it better, and the scenario repeats itself.
Keynesian theory, doesn't take into account the corruptability of men; the very men who control the flow of the money. In theory, and on paper Keynesian theory works, and works quite well, in practice however, it fails miserably.
To the poster that said Keynesian theory isn't socialism, I beg to differ. The very idea is socialist to its core. I will grant you though, that, in theory it could work. Perhaps that's why people keep trying it.
Tim-
Keynesian economics (Keynesianism) describes the economics theories from famous economist John Maynard Keynes.
Keynes believed that capitalism was a good economic system, but sometimes, when the economy becomes bad, the government should step in and do something about it.
When the economy is bad, people tend to save their money instead of spend it, and in result there is less economic activity.
Keynes believed that the government should spend a lot of money (even if it has to borrow the money and go into debt) to create jobs for unemployed people, and then those people would spend their money, which would create more jobs and get the economy's motor running again.
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression was an example of Keynesian economics.
Some people such as conservatives, libertarians, and people who believe in Austrian economics are against Keynesian economics because they believe the economy can recover on its own without government intervention.
During the late 1970's Keynesian economics became less popular because inflation was high.
When a big recession happened in 2007, Keynesian economics became more popular. Leaders around the world (including Barack Obama) created stimulus packages which would allow their government to spend a lot money to create jobs.
Many economists such as Paul Krugman believe in Keynesian economics.
They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.
Keynesian in simple English.
What you have just described is a tenant of fascism.
Incorrect.
Keynesianism is based on the concept of nominal wage rigidity (sticky wages). It is a means of protecting markets from productivity traps. Think of a productivity trap as a phenomenon where people who were productive before a very long bout of unemployment are no longer capable of producing at their previous levels due to diminished skills.
What you have just described is a tenant of fascism.
They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.
They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.