The TEA Party Was Caused By The Hiss Case, Really?

[Schneibster]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please start quoting the truth.

[Diogenes]

The reason the TEA Party exists is that the surrender of the GOP to FDR and his ilk has left us with 200 to 220 trillion in unfunded liabilities in this country.

Lochner was correctly decided, Filburn was a SCOTUS screwup.

Keynes was a fool, Bastiat and the Austrian Economists (who speak German, unlike what the Won thought while in the 57th state), they have economics correct.

I hate finding myself in the position of having to take up for Keynes, but his economic theory supported the idea of relying on government borrowing and spending to get us through rough economic periods, but it is my understanding that he did not see it as an ongoing activity. When economic activity went back to normal, the idea was to scale back the spending and go back to saving.


Yes, most of the irresponsible economic crap this nation has done is blamed on Keynes, but Keynes doesn't really deserve it. It's not his fault that his proponents ignore the part of his theory which requires them to stop spending. And who are we kidding? They don't CARE about anything but spending. It's what they want to do, and so they are going to keep doing it while finding justification for it anywhere they can.

[Jccarlton]

Of course the more you dig into history the more you find out how sold out the US has been by the left:http://spectator.org/.../25/lillian-hel ... s-history/

[choff]

The fatal flaw with Keynes is that the money he wants to spend is borrowed at interest. You can never expand the economy faster than the debt plus interest growth, eventually the economic growth is choked off by government debt servicing costs.

[TDPerk]

Diogenes is correct as far as he goes, but it isn't a defense of Keynes. Keynes so valued getting money moving that he thought that government accomplishing the spending was more important than the resources it was spending going into work with an acceptable return.

" You can never expand the economy faster than the debt plus interest growth, eventually the economic growth is choked off by government debt servicing costs."

The private sector has a history of 2% real growth over long time periods, interest notwithstanding. Government not at all.

Government spends money primarily for political reasons, so it generates a primarily political return.

[Teahive]

The private sector has a history of 2% real growth over long time periods, interest notwithstanding. Government not at all.

Not saying you're wrong, but how do you separate the impact of that part of government spending which is investment to grow the (private sector) economy?

[Schneibster]

The fatal flaw with Keynes is that the money he wants to spend is borrowed at interest. You can never expand the economy faster than the debt plus interest growth, eventually the economic growth is choked off by government debt servicing costs.

That's why there's neo-Keynesian economics.

Of course you can't grow the economy just with government money; that's never been the goal. If you don't know more economics than that you're not even worth talking to about it.

You've forgotten the velocity of money again.

[Schneibster]

Diogenes is correct as far as he goes, but it isn't a defense of Keynes. Keynes so valued getting money moving that he thought that government accomplishing the spending was more important than the resources it was spending going into work with an acceptable return.

Well, at least you know some economics. You're referring to the velocity of money.

"Keynesian economics (/ˈkeɪnziən/ KAYN-zee-ən; or Keynesianism) is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy; instead, it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment, and inflation."

That's the intro paragraph from Wikipedia, and it's good enough if pretty brief.

Problems were discovered with Keynesian economics in the 1970s, and again in the late '00s. The problem in the 1970s was stagflation; this challenged the Keynesian-classical synthesis called "neo-Keynesianism." The response to this was monetarism, but that died in 2008 in the zero-bound interest rate liquidity trap for which monetarism has no answer. During the '80s and '90s New Keynesianism was developed; it has recommended, but the governments won't listen, so we continue in the Great Recession. Eventually they'll realize Krugman, DeLong, and the rest of the New Keynesians are right. Until then, enjoy your recession.

Bear in mind that the mainstream of economics is New Keynesianism. The Chicago idiots are pretty much discredited by the ongoing recession.

The question now is how to get out of the liquidity trap.

And just a clue where my preferences lie, hoarders are executed in emergencies on discovery. Summarily, no trial, no questions. Stand over there, smoke this, bangbangbang see ya.

Government spends money primarily for political reasons, so it generates a primarily political return.

Actually, a government is a non-profit insurance company with an army. And you get to vote for the executives.

[horsewithnonick]

But see when all the money is in the ultra rich's bank accounts or the banks' reserve accounts, then what's the velocity of money?

Banks can make nothing by just holding on to money - so they loan the money out at interest to be spent or invested, and its velocity is less impacted by savings than you suggest. But not even the Fed can print borrowers. The velocity of money can be negatively impacted when it appears to prospective entrepreneurs to be too difficult or risky to go into debt to invest at a profit. That has been happening over the last several years; private debt has decreased, and the government has been picking up the slack. But since the government makes a poor entrepreneur, this borrowing, after a certain point, does less to stimulate the economy than it drains from the economy in increased interest liabilities. Then the only question is how many times we can circle the drain.

[Schneibster]

But they're not lending it.

And that's holding the velocity of money down.

And the reason they're not lending it is there's not enough economic activity to justify it.

And the reason there's not enough economic activity to justify it is because there's not enough money.

And the reason there's not enough money is the rich people and banksters are all holding onto it instead of spending or investing it.

And the reason they're holding onto it is because the government opened up too many easy ways to steal when they repealed Glass-Steagall. And those ways have been used. And they started all the rich hoarding.

The first thing to do is break up insurance, commercial (i.e. ordinary depositor and small/medium company) banking, and investment (i.e. stock and bond services for the ultra rich) banking, and create a new division, retirement banking, heavily regulated to prevent theft and protect the personal safety net folks are supposed to have above the social one. I'm not even sure insurance should be for-profit; in fact, I'm absolutely certain health insurance shouldn't be, it's unethical on its face, due to the conflict of interest.

Then things will be back to before 2008, and 2008 can't happen again, now that we know it was caused by repealing Glass-Steagall and all the greedy banksters crowding around the trough with the excuse everyone else was doing it.

Simple as that.

[TDPerk]

But they're not lending it.

And that's holding the velocity of money down.

And the reason they're not lending it is there's not enough economic activity to justify it.

If there was a decent shot at profiting by it, they'd lend the money, thereby producing non-necessarily inflationary economic activity.

And the reason there's not enough economic activity to justify it is because there's not enough money.

And the reason there's not enough money is the rich people and banksters are all holding onto it instead of spending or investing it.

Because what ever they do with it, Obama if he has his way will penalize them past the point of it being non-economic for them to risk the money. Obama's the facist ass who claims they didn;t build that--and he'll take it if they do--so they aren't trying.

And the reason they're holding onto it is because the government opened up too many easy ways to steal when they repealed Glass-Steagall. And those ways have been used. And they started all the rich hoarding

.

Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with it, it is entirely the effort of the Democrats to force banks into lending irrespnsibly.

The first thing to do is break up insurance, commercial (i.e. ordinary depositor and small/medium company) banking, and investment (i.e. stock and bond services for the ultra rich) banking, and create a new division, retirement banking, heavily regulated to prevent theft and protect the personal safety net folks are supposed to have above the social one. I'm not even sure insurance should be for-profit; in fact, I'm absolutely certain health insurance shouldn't be, it's unethical on its face, due to the conflict of interest.

Of course insurance should be for profit, it's the only way to keep the people running it honest. Without that, they aren't any more "honest" than the actuaries who are predicitng public pension gains.

Then things will be back to before 2008, and 2008 can't happen again, now that we know it was caused by repealing Glass-Steagall and all the greedy banksters crowding around the trough with the excuse everyone else was doing it.

Simple as that.

No persons are individually more responsible than Democrat Party Senators Dodd and Frank for 2008. Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with it.

[Schneibster]

If there was a decent shot at profiting by it, they'd lend the money, thereby producing non-necessarily inflationary economic activity.

But without the protection of Glass-Steagall the rich will just sop it all up through the banksters. Why would they risk it? Wait for the governments to figure it out and pass laws. Until then, if a few million starve, no biggie, right?

Because what ever they do with it, Obama if he has his way will penalize them past the point of it being non-economic for them to risk the money. Obama's the facist ass who claims they didn;t build that--and he'll take it if they do--so they aren't trying.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall and penalize the insurance cheats and the investment bankers and pay off the national debt with it.

Nationalize the health insurance industry and put all the executives in prison for murder and theft. Take their money and put it into special tax relief for everyone who has been bankrupted by medical bills in the last three decades.

Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with it, it is entirely the effort of the Democrats to force banks into lending irrespnsibly.

That's just more paranoid psychotic delusion.

The problem isn't the banks. It's the investment and insurance thieves.

Of course insurance should be for profit, it's the only way to keep the people running it honest. Without that, they aren't any more "honest" than the actuaries who are predicitng public pension gains.

I assert moral hazard from making a profit on letting patients die. And although doctors can experience this as well, they are bound by their Hippocratic Oath. No such binds insurance company executives.

No persons are individually more responsible than Democrat Party Senators Dodd and Frank for 2008. Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with it.

But the repeal of Glass-Steagall has led to two, not just one (you guys always deny that 2000 ever happened) recessions, within ten years, when we hadn't had anything that big since the Great Depression.

And all you have to say is to try to blame someone other than your political party, for political gain.

[choff]

I actually believe Glass-Steagall should be restored, I know of people in Britian who would like to see the same law there.

To actually fix the U.S. economy will require reforms in multiple interlocking areas, not just banking. Tort reform, real healthcare reform, insurance and banking reform, immigration, foreign policy, drug enforcement, they all interact with each other, and you can't fix one in isolation from the others, impossible.

I watch Americans debate these issues all the time and they always tackle the issues in complete isolation from each other. You have to look at how every sector interacts, you can't compare how other countries deal with each sector without looking at how the different sectors interact in those countries.

For example, the U.S. spends 17.6% GDP on health and an employer has to worry about getting sued by employees more than anywhere else in the world. Wall street is investing all that Keynesian stimulus, unfortuneately they're doing it in China as a result of healthcare and legal costs. No foreign company would want to set up in the present U.S. business environment.

The other distortion is that Wall street is taking all that Keynesian stimulus and blowing up derivative bubbles, when they pop its gone. Should derivatives even be allowed to exist under law in the first place. Both hypothecation and rehypothecation are illegal in Canada, allowed one and two thrids times in the U.S., and bypassed by funneling through the City of London where there's no limit.

[Schneibster]

That's a prescription for doing nothing.

What we do is fix what we can. Then we talk about what next. There is, unfortunately, no better way. Churchill said, "There's no form of government worse than democracy, other than all those others that have been tried from time to time."

[Schneibster]

And BTW keep in mind that the last time the conditions were as I describe was the longest period of increase in prosperity in the history of the world. The '90s. Right up until they repealed Glass-Steagall and the banksters stole seven trillion dollars in 2000. And it's been crap ever since.

My old man sold everything he had in the stock market in July of 1999. I wasn't in the stock market so it didn't matter to me. Anybody who was there remembers the end of 1999.

I got mine in 2007 when I got out of the housing market in March, in Seattle. Then I watched them steal all of y'all's money. Another seven trillion dollars. Same thing as they did with the S&Ls during Reagan, same thing as the 2000 "dot com crash." Steal all the money and pretend it's a recession. Meanwhile listening to y'all whining while they secured the boodle so you couldn't get it back.

Then I built an addition on my vacation house with the proceeds, and a raised-floor house-built shed and an observatory. And moved to it.

My mortgage was last negotiated at just over 4%. And it's for about 10% of the sale value of my house right now. And I've been paying on it a long, long, long time. Almost none of the money I pay each month is interest; it's almost all principal. That's the nice thing about amortization.

But I'm encouraging them to fix all of y'all's ripoff underwater mortgages, by taking the banksters' ill-gotten gains away from them to fund it. Never fear. Gee, sure hope O listens. Oh well. I do all I can. Even though you insult me and yell at me and pretend it's my fault.