3/3/2015 Another San Francisco Smash and grab

"That statement was simply a result from looking at income disparities and then combing through and collating data and lo! Better lifestyles, higher standards of living, lower crime rates, lower abortion rates, less mental illnesses, better health outcomes and better education were all present in the countries with the least income inequality. There was nothing general about it."

Nothing is that simple.

"What other have stated about simply creating more jobs IS the answer. Keynsian macroeconomics has and still works, if you let it. Our economic situation is not a natural occurrence but one of policy, and policy can change if we (or they) want it to. Sometimes I get the impression that some here enjoy the suffering of others."

I don't want to come across as mean here, but that's ridiculous. An economy based on Keynesian principles can't work. If you think I'm wrong on this, fine. Give me some examples of successful implementation. I can't think of any.

Keynesian economics brought us out of the great depression and gave rise to the "Golden Age of Capitalism". It was the oil shock of the 70s that gave folk pause and had us scrambling for answers but there will always be something out of left field that comes across as a form of shock. Adjustments are always made.

Marxists didn't like it for fear it would lead to totalitarianism (which it doesn't) and right wingers hate it because it calls for government to step in and stimulate during recessions (which would prove them wrong). It's still in the main and even it's present day detractors come up every now and then with a remodeled version that suits their purposes, only to be exposed.

Paul Krugman details this and many other points on a regular basis. He can come across as snarky but the right wing nut jobs out there just tire the whole argument. How long can their arguments be shot down only to resurface and be shot down again?

A cursory look at it's history and present day use would render your perspective as disingenuous so I chose to think you just don't really know.

All the best,
Nonoise

"A cursory look at it's history and present day use would render your perspective as disingenuous so I chose to think you just don't really know."

You can think whatever you like, but if I'm the one who doesn't know, how come you can't answer a simple question? Since you know this system works as a statement of fact, give me an example of a country where this is in place and successfully working? I don't want to hear someones theory on the matter. Everyone has a theory on something. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is guessing.

"Keynesian economics brought us out of the great depression and gave rise to the "Golden Age of Capitalism"."

Just because our involvement in WW2 helped bring us out of the great depression, doesn't mean our entire country changed over to a Keynesian system. It just means that the war was a catalyst.

At this point, I think we should just leave this topic alone. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and unless you can show me some actual proof, I see no reason to alter my opinion.

Zd542,
You are making by far the most logical and intelligent arguement here. How anyone can support Keyseian policies at this point in time given it failures is just drinking the leftist sour Koolaid. I had to endure this type of indoctrination in college. The realities of life have taught me otherwise. Spend some time watching MSNBC, just pure nonsense.

Anti Keynesianism is ripe and rampant on the right wing blogosphere and has been for quite some time. Government investment in our economy after the Great Depression and after WWII gave us a foot up and eventually the greatest middle class in history. That was due to Keynes. Even Nixon proclaimed he was "now a Keynesian".

Supply side economics took over after the oil shock of the 70s and how good did that work for you? Give huge tax breaks to the ubber wealthy and they'll piss what's left over on the rest of us. Trickle down? Right.

To categorize Keynes as leftist shows what a remarkably closed mind one has. He was far from being a leftie. Just because FDR adopted his policies and it worked better than anyone expected is no reason to write it off as leftist.

To say that WWII was the stimulus is a bit naive as it, by itself, is not responsible for it. What we did, economically was the answer, and that was government spending on infrastructure, education, housing and business which helped jump start the economy. If we had chosen to not invest there would have been no growth. I just love revisionists.

Why did we start turning back to Keynes in '07? Why is he getting more and more credit in economic circles. Why are his models being tried again? Why is Krugman making the rounds, globally, lending his expertise to help change the ridiculous course of austerity? Why is it having a positive effect when heeded?

You have Laffer and Moore, on the right, as your gurus and they're always reframing their arguments after being discredited. Add Rand and Ryan for your political equivalents. You can set your clock by them. They're right wing hacks. Paid carnival barkers for right wing think tanks. Now there's an oxymoron.

I'll just keep on following Krugman, Piketty, Stiglitz, Mankiw and others who have a more thoroughly nuanced understanding of the man. I'll keep reading up on those who don't conflate economics with political leanings and on just what works.

All the best,
Nonoise