Jump to content
Science Forums

Keynesian Economics Is Right


charles brough

Recommended Posts

Where are you getting 3% US inflation from? If we use seasonally adjusted M1 only it's ~10% annually (~1% monthly), for the last 2 years. Considering the US population growth rate is ~1% this is a factor of 10 higher than even that proposed by a monetarist theory.

 

This is one of the problems with limiting this type of discussion to a strict Keynesian principle like JM seems to suggest as even though the topic is about fiscal policy the main discussion should be monetary policy as after they inflate to offset depression they continue to inflate to force growth. So whether it's Keynesian or monetarist or a combination of the two, based on, usually, a boards idea, seems moot to me. It's all monetary policy, or, in my opinion, to word it more accurately, an ongoing inflationary policy, which therefore leads me once again to my question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hal_jackolantern:

Slightly off-topic correction first.

madison's bill of rights further limits government. if those specified rights are already implied generally as the anti-federalists charge(d), then why such a squabble over spelling them out?

 

I may be wrong, but the anti-federalists were generally opposed to the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, and they favored amending the Articles of Confederation instead. The Bill of Rights was drafted to win their support for the Constitution. The sentiment you describe, that the Bill of Rights are superfluous and possibly dangerous, was famously expressed by Hamilton in Federalist Number 84...

 

sidebar| mmm...i failed to either post or save the reference that i paraphrased there. :loser: my bad. :kick: in looking for it however, i did find a letter from madison to jefferson which he opens by saying,

My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I suppose it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. ...

The Question of a Bill of Rights, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788 @ constitution.org

 

so leaving that not fully settled & while i have your ear, have you ever read the radicalism of the american revolution by gordon wood? here's a blip from a study guide to whet the edge. i no longer have the book, but i read it when it came out. as i recall, wood quotes letters from jefferson expressing his dismay at all the cobblers, blacksmiths, merchants and other such vulgar folk showing up to see their interests served by this new union. :read:

 

The Radicalism of the American Revolution @ enotes.com

..The patriot leaders envisioned the new American republic as a nation of freeholders governed by gentlemen of disinterested virtue whose leisure and independence from petty commercial concerns elevated them above the corruptions of self interest. Instead, artisans and mechanics took to heart the rhetoric of equality and elected men of the middling ranks who promised to champion local interests. As a result, America became the first modern society to bring ordinary people into government as rulers as well as voters—a bloodless transition to democracy that the Founding Fathers had neither anticipated nor desired. ...

 

il n'y a pas de hors-texte; there is nothing outside the text. :yeahthat: i yield the board. :coffee_n_pc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patriot leaders envisioned the new American republic as a nation of freeholders governed by gentlemen of disinterested virtue whose leisure and independence from petty commercial concerns elevated them above the corruptions of self interest. Instead, artisans and mechanics took to heart the rhetoric of equality and elected men of the middling ranks who promised to champion local interests. As a result, America became the first modern society to bring ordinary people into government as rulers as well as voters—a bloodless transition to democracy that the Founding Fathers had neither anticipated nor desired.

 

right, exactly. the founding fathers wanted a government of vituous men disinterested in commerce. they shouldn't promise to improve things outside the realm of freedom. it is a sentiment i whole heartly agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Radicalism of the American Revolution @ enotes.com
..The patriot leaders envisioned the new American republic as a nation of freeholders governed by gentlemen of disinterested virtue whose leisure and independence from petty commercial concerns elevated them above the corruptions of self interest. Instead, artisans and mechanics took to heart the rhetoric of equality and elected men of the middling ranks who promised to champion local interests. As a result, America became the first modern society to bring ordinary people into government as rulers as well as voters—a bloodless transition to democracy that the Founding Fathers had neither anticipated nor desired. ...

 

right, exactly. the founding fathers wanted a government of vituous men disinterested in commerce. they shouldn't promise to improve things outside the realm of freedom. it is a sentiment i whole heartly agree with.

 

well, they quickly realized that what they wanted, they weren't going to get. all this wrangling is nothing new insofar as some like to paint this current go-round as somehow worse than any others. the constitution is the compromise; the promise.

the whole of the book that i took the quote from is an in depth well-researched examination of just what the title states; the radicalism of the american revolution. i quoted just a little because quoting too much can violate copyright and forum rules. i can only recommend to read the book, or at least some full reviews, to see the fuller context of the quote. given your interest i think you will enjoy it. :read:

 

thank the constitution, and founders of every ilk, that we have the freedom to here whole heartedly express our sentiment. :soapbox:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US constitution is a joke, no offense. It doesn't work. It never worked. This 'founding fathers' just always sounds like emotional sentiment to me espousing belief in there being some 'objective benefactors and protectors' that we can fall back on to 'tell us what's right'... or maybe that's just my UK cynicism.

 

Absolute power resides in the executive like always. They appoint the legislators, which governs the judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are you getting 3% US inflation from? If we use seasonally adjusted M1 only it's ~10% annually (~1% monthly), for the last 2 years. Considering the US population growth rate is ~1% this is a factor of 10 higher than even that proposed by a monetarist theory.

 

This is one of the problems with limiting this type of discussion to a strict Keynesian principle like JM seems to suggest as even though the topic is about fiscal policy the main discussion should be monetary policy as after they inflate to offset depression they continue to inflate to force growth. So whether it's Keynesian or monetarist or a combination of the two, based on, usually, a boards idea, seems moot to me. It's all monetary policy, or, in my opinion, to word it more accurately, an ongoing inflationary policy, which therefore leads me once again to my question...

I understand the official rate has been about 3% for the last 60 years---even when you factor in what it has been in the last two years.

 

I know that when we have generally inflated to get out and get growth back but never reduce Federal expenses at least enough to pay for the stimulus. However, if we don't inflate to get out of it and instead try to reduce the debt now, we end up with a deflationary collapse in credit and a downward spiral as mfgs fire to reduce costs and more workers become unemployed. More being unemployed, there is even less manufacturing demand leading to still more layoffs.

 

Eventually, we will run into run-way hyper inflation, but we may well have more economic cycles ahead before that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US constitution is a joke, no offense. It doesn't work. It never worked. This 'founding fathers' just always sounds like emotional sentiment to me espousing belief in there being some 'objective benefactors and protectors' that we can fall back on to 'tell us what's right'... or maybe that's just my UK cynicism.

 

Absolute power resides in the executive like always. They appoint the legislators, which governs the judiciary.

Our elected presidental system and two Congress system is certainly working badly now and I am not surprised to hear other people begin to show less religious-like adoration of our Constitutional system. It would appear that the Parlamenty system works better. We have idealizsed the American Consitution all over the world and made it into a sort of Bible to our special form of the Western secular ideological system. Because it now no longer works so well and also because we have bogged down flailing in two wars against Islam and running up huge debts, our whole secular ideological system is, step by step, losing its appeal throughout the world.

 

That's not so good. it means that the only thing holding all this religiously divided and hence mutually antagonistic world together is losing its ability to do that.

 

By the way, when you refer to the "executive" as "they appoint the legislators," I'm not sure what you mean. Is "the executive" the President of the US? He does not appoint legislators. If you are instead referring to business executives, then I agree 100%! Big Business here does "appoint the legislators."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That's not how it is.

 

Just because the US constitution puts checks on the branch's doesn't mean the checks are respected. The old saying that "absolute power cannot be found in a republic" no longer holds. The executive in a republic has the same power as they do in a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the US constitution puts checks on the branch's doesn't mean the checks are respected. The old saying that "absolute power cannot be found in a republic" no longer holds. The executive in a republic has the same power as they do in a democracy.

 

No. That's not how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That's not how it is.

 

That's not an argument mate is it. You're either arguing from the idea that the constitution is enforced or that legislators are elected rather than appointed in the US. Both points are moot due to the constitution being ignored when it suits the executive, just like it is in the UK, and that elections no longer have absolute integrity. The US executive is also responsible for enforcing and implementing the laws written by congress. It appoints the cabinet and agency heads. It also appoints the federal judges, including that of the supreme court.

 

So yes, that is how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Federal government in US is limited to powers given, written. Moreover, each branch of the federal government is limited to powers given, written.

Unlike to the federal government, the powers are not given to the 50 states, states have inherently all powers except those taken away by the state constitution or federal constitution.

 

The US strictly follows this model, since the inception.

 

Therefore, the president or the office of president does not have absolute powers. Nor has a US president ever performed constitutional judicial or legislative function or governed a State while president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...