I was referring to your tabloid references to his alleged sexual proclivities. Don't mistake your lack of understanding for duplicitousness on Keynes' part. He was crystal clear that deficit spending should be avoided during strong economic conditions. Taxes too low and spending too high refers to conditions that led to significant deficits during the Bush years when the economy was relatively strong. If Bush had followed Kenyes' philosphy we would not be in the mess that we are in.
Keynes was a homosexual, that isn't tabloid discussion it is a historical fact. As my first statement on this reads, it isn't his homosexuality that bothers me...it is his rejection of morality in general that is a troublesome epistemology for somebody as influential Keynes. I only mentioned Keynes homosexuality to preface that I wasn't referring to it, when I describe him as an immoralist. He was a nihilist, and he openly admits to it in his collected writings.
You are obfuscating, if I ask a physicist why a baseball player didn't hit a home run, he won't say "he hit the ball too soft". /"too low" or "too high" are non-quantifiable and therefore not testable.
Whatever Keynes personal beliefs were, they in no way detract from his economic theories. You are dancing about trying to make excuses for your ad hominem.
In this case too low and too high are prefectly quantifiable. If the tax rate is too low to bring in enough revenue to offset spending during a decent economy, then taxes are too low and/or spending is too high, because the goal is to, at minimum, not run deficits during a robust economy. Bush ran up $5 trillion in deficits, ergo....
Define "decent" or "robust", or better yet...I want to know where Keynes used those terms and how he quantified them. I also want to know where Keynes advocates for a balanced budget through taxation during specifically defined "robust" times. Is it in The General Theory? If so, what page and paragraph?
Keynes generally quantified it in terms of full employment, i.e. when there is full employment government should not engage in deficit spending. When unemployment rises then government may engage in deficit spending -- which he called investment (in education, R&D, infrastructure) to boost aggregate demand and set the stage for a return to full employment. It is in the General Theory but I couldn't give you a page number right now. It's been a long time since I read it.
There wasn't full employment under Bush. How much more debt (beyond the $5 Trillion) should Bush have spent to get us there, according to Keynes? According to you earlier, Bush should have raised taxes and balanced the debt because the economy was "decent", now that you've proven yourself wrong by bending your own argument over and breech-loading it, how much more debt should Bush have run up?
Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment. :lol:
Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.
Im pretty sure static/transitional unemployment is always considered to be under 5%. 7% seems way to high to be accurate. I kind of remember reading 4.5% as the number but its been a number of years since I took macro or micro.
Many economists have estimated the amount of frictional unemployment, with the number ranging from 2-7% of the labor force.
Read more: Full Employment Definition | Investopedia
Um, full employment doesn't mean 100% employment. :lol:
Opinions vary, but economists generally consider full employment to be 4-7%. We were in that range for most of Bush's presidency.
Oh, you two! Just like Keynes and Duncan Grant! :3oops:
What you lovebirds failed to mention about those "many" economists and "economists generally" is that they are neoclassical. I suggest googeling NAIRU, and read who in particular developed it. Keynes then--just as Tobin does now--argued for a zero unemployment rate.
You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
You are full of crap. Keynes specifically said that zero unemployment is an impossibility, simply as a matter of frictional unemployment (people between jobs, etc.).
I don't always agree with Mr T but on this one I have to. Full employment is ually considered in the 3-4% range.
Like Marx, who was too busy describing the evils of capitalism to describe how socialism would actually work, leaving it to Stalin and Mao to work out the details. Keynes never defines full employment, which is why every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. Astrologists such as yourself can throw your bones and decipher the arbitrary predictions in any way that pleases your preconceived notions, because those predictions are vague and undefined.
It follows from this definition that the equality of the real wage to the marginal disutility of employment presupposed by the second postulate, realistically interpreted, corresponds to the absence of 'involuntary' unemployment. This state of affairs we shall describe as 'full' employment, both 'frictional' and 'voluntary' unemployment being consistent with 'full' employment thus defined.
...
Apparent unemployment must, therefore, be the result either of temporary loss of work of the 'between jobs' type or of intermittent demand for highly specialized resources or of the effect of a trade union 'closed shop' on the employment of free labor.
--J.M. Keynes, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money"
every Keynesian economist spent every second of the Bush tenure calling for more spending to create more jobs. .
Again, you are flat-out wrong:
Where do you find support for such an absurd claim?
Keynes once called socialists such as yourself "deranged Methodists". :lol: He wasn't all bad.
We can accept accept the desirability and even the necessity of [economic] planning without being a Communist, a Socialist, or a Fascist.--Keynes, BBC Broadcast (March 14, 1932)
As to your lazy question, you can easily google a random Keynesian economist to find out what they called for during the Bush years. There are no Kulaks around to do your bidding komrade.
Again, this is vague. Frictional unemployment has been determined to be as low as 2% and as high as 13% by various economists. When you don't provide a number or a reasonable range in your definition, you astrologists have lots of wiggle room to say 'he shoulda' and 'I woulda' as you squirm away from the unfalsifiability of your prognostications. In the The Economics of John Maynard Keynes: The Theory of a Monetary Economy Dillard claims it's 3% (on page 21). Well below Bush era unemployment.
OR (in other words)
"I 'know' what I wrote is true, so why bother to provide proof to those who disagree with me."
oh yeah, and I did do the Google thing - which is why I asked for your supporting 'facts' for your statement
Or (in other words)
"It is not my job to educate lazy tyrannical socialists."
If your Bourgeoisie Google tool gives you evidence a Keynesian economist called for austerity measures because we were at "full employment" under Bush, then I'd be happy to see it. If you fail, then I'm sure it's due to corporate greed, or the "ultimate synthesis" of the Hegelian Dialectic process having yet to unfold or something. Right komrade? Nice text color choice...red...you should do all your posts in red.
I can't imagine any real economist claiming that frictional unemployment could be as high as 13%. Do you have a cite for that?opcorn2:
In any case, as the quote above indicates, Keynes defines full employment as frictional unemployment + voluntary unemployment -- not just frictional unemployment. I'm quite sure that Keynes would not have approved of massive spending and tax cuts with unemployment in the 4-5% range. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. All those tax cuts and all that spending did NOT bring down unemployment. All it did was jack up the debt and fuel a galactic asset bubble.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?