PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Keynesian Job Program / Stimulus Plan


Taco John
02-03-2012, 09:27 PM
http://i.imgur.com/h1vyv.gif

banyon
02-03-2012, 11:52 PM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg

Dave Lane
02-03-2012, 11:54 PM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg

Personally I think thats optimistic.

Taco John
02-04-2012, 12:17 AM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg


Zucotti park doesn't look the same as it used to...

wazu
02-04-2012, 12:44 AM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

Yeah. Zero income tax. I can only imagine the lack of consumer spending and overall poverty. Not sure how we would get by without government spending all of our money for us.

Taco John
02-04-2012, 12:51 AM
Yeah. Zero income tax. I can only imagine the lack of consumer spending and overall poverty. Not sure how we would get by without government spending all of our money for us.

Before the income tax, Americans were all living in grass huts and eating rats to survive.

banyon
02-04-2012, 07:54 AM
Before the income tax, Americans were all living in grass huts and eating rats to survive.

Yes and the equal absurdity of course is that the TVA, WPA projects, our current highway system, and everything else, were all just wastes of time equivalent to some silly cartoon you found.

Oh, and of course, Keynes advocated spending money on completely useless enterprises! I'm sure if you read The General Theory you'll find it in there somewhere... Right?

Taco John
02-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Oh, and of course, Keynes advocated spending money on completely useless enterprises! I'm sure if you read The General Theory you'll find it in there somewhere... Right?


Keynes followers say it doesn't matter so long as the money is spent. Ask Krugman. Or better yet, take a look at the legislation. The latest stimulus poured a bunch of money in the most expensive census in American history.

Brainiac
02-04-2012, 10:44 AM
I've said in the past on this site that Keynes is undoubtedly spinning in his grave in horror at how his economic philosophy has been twisted and distorted by the current gang in Washington. Keynes proposed intentionally running surpluses in good times and deficits during economic downturns. He didn't propose running trillion dollar deficits every freaking year and having the government provide everything from the cradle to the grave.

Referring to Obamanomics as Keynesian is akin to saying that Scott Pioli is running the Chiefs just like the New England Patriots.




.

banyon
02-04-2012, 11:06 AM
Keynes followers say it doesn't matter so long as the money is spent. Ask Krugman.

No, they don't.

Or better yet, take a look at the legislation. The latest stimulus poured a bunch of money in the most expensive census in American history.

You're bitching about the census?

Really?

It's not legislation, it Constitutionally mandated.

And of course it costs more, we're in a bigger country counting more people, and more than ever aren't "officially" here. Was there waste? Probably. Enough to lower the cost to make it less than past efforts? I doubt it.

But Keynes didn't advocate holding a census to stimulate the economy.

banyon
02-04-2012, 11:07 AM
Referring to Obamanomics as Keynesian is akin to saying that Scott Pioli is running the Chiefs just like the New England Patriots.




.

Pretty good analogy.

Dave Lane
02-04-2012, 11:16 AM
Before the income tax, Americans were all living in grass huts and eating rats to survive.

Technically you are correct. There is no comparison in the strength and leadership the US has taken since the income tax. Period end of discussion.

Calcountry
02-04-2012, 01:49 PM
Keynes proposed intentionally running surpluses in good times and deficits during economic downturns. He didn't propose running trillion dollar deficits every freaking year and having the government provide everything from the cradle to the grave.No, that would be Marx.

RaiderH8r
02-05-2012, 10:31 AM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg

Actually that is the Green vision of American life with their draconian push to destroy the American economy in the name of glaciers.

Taco John
02-05-2012, 10:33 AM
Actually that is the Green vision of American life with their draconian push to destroy the American economy in the name of glaciers.

I'm sure they've got a small carbon footprint...

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 11:05 AM
Yeah. Zero income tax. I can only imagine the lack of consumer spending and overall poverty. Not sure how we would get by without government spending all of our money for us.

He prefers a Zimbabwe stimulus plan.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 11:07 AM
I've said in the past on this site that Keynes is undoubtedly spinning in his grave in horror at how his economic philosophy has been twisted and distorted by the current gang in Washington. Keynes proposed intentionally running surpluses in good times and deficits during economic downturns. He didn't propose running trillion dollar deficits every freaking year and having the government provide everything from the cradle to the grave.

Referring to Obamanomics as Keynesian is akin to saying that Scott Pioli is running the Chiefs just like the New England Patriots.




.

Well, this here shows just how stoopid Keynes was. He failed by putting his faith in politicians. That's why his theory looks good on paper but fails in the real world. Human nature and human action by politicians is where it falls down.

Yes, Obamanomics is Keynesianism but in the extreme.

Chiefshrink
02-05-2012, 11:09 AM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg

This is where OMarxist wants to take America not RP !!!:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 11:10 AM
No, that would be Marx. [/COLOR]

Keynes was socialist too.

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." ~ Keynes

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”~ Vladimir Lenin

Chiefshrink
02-05-2012, 11:28 AM
Well, this here shows just how stoopid Keynes was. He failed by putting his faith in politicians. That's why his theory looks good on paper but fails in the real world. Human nature and human action by politicians is where it falls down.

Yes, Obamanomics is Keynesianism but in the extreme.

BINGO!!

Precisely, and why our Founding Fathers knew how the human being was wired. Wired for self-independent freedom in order to thrive socially,culturally and monetarily yet also wired for SELF ONLY(a la SIN -power hungry greed) which required a delicate construction of "checks and balances"(a la The Constitution) to be able to provide true independence within a framework of just law thus providing true liberty and freedom of the individual person.

banyon
02-05-2012, 11:37 AM
Keynes was socialist too.

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." ~ Keynes

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”~ Vladimir Lenin

How dishonest whatever sketchy website you pulled that from out of context. He was explaining the dangers of inflation, not endorsing it as a maniacal conspiratorial policy. He was actually quoting Lenin to show how wrong it was. Good God.

Is this selective, inaccurate snipping of quotes what they teach over there in the Austrian school of kookery? I guess that's why Ron Paul did it too with the Reagan quote.



ACTUAL QUOTE

Excerpts from The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keynes, 1919. pp. 235-248

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

In the latter stages of the war all the belligerent governments practiced, from necessity or incompetence, what a Bolshevist might have done from design. Even now, when the war is over, most of them continue out of weakness the same malpractices. But further, the governments of Europe, being many of them at this moment reckless in their methods as well as weak, seek to direct on to a class known as "profiteers" the popular indignation against the more obvious consequences of their vicious methods.

These "profiteers" are, broadly speaking, the entrepreneur class of capitalists, that is to say, the active and constructive element in the whole capitalist society, who in a period of rapidly rising prices cannot but get rich quick whether they wish it or desire it or not. If prices are continually rising, every trader who has purchased for stock or owns property and plant inevitably makes profits. By directing hatred against this class, therefore, the European governments are carrying a step further the fatal process which the subtle mind of Lenin had consciously conceived. The profiteers are a consequence and not a cause of rising prices. By combining a popular hatred of the class of entrepreneurs with the blow already given to social security by the violent and arbitrary disturbance of contract and of the established equilibrium of wealth which is the inevitable result of inflation, these governments are fast rendering impossible a continuance of the social and economic order of the 19th century. But they have no plan for replacing it....

The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent governments, unable or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance. In Russia and Austria-Hungary this process has reached a point where for the purposes of foreign trade the
currency is practically valueless. The Polish mark can be bought for about [three cents] and the Austrian crown for less than [two cents], but they cannot be sold at all. The German mark is worth less than [four cents] on the exchanges....

But while these currencies enjoy a precarious value abroad, they have never entirely lost, not even in Russia, their purchasing power at home. A sentiment of trust in the legal money of the state is so deeply implanted in the citizens of all countries that they cannot but believe that some day this money must recover a part at least of its former value.... They do not apprehend that the real wealth, which this money might have stood for has been dissipated once and for all. This sentiment is supported by the various legal regulations with which the governments endeavor to control internal prices, and so to preserve some purchasing power for their legal tender....

The preservation of a spurious value for the currency, by the force of law expressed in the regulation of prices, contains in itself, however, the seeds of final economic decay, and soon dries up the sources of ultimate supply. If a man is compelled to exchange the fruits of his labors for paper which, as experience soon teaches him, he cannot use to purchase what he requires at a price comparable to that which he has received for his own products, he will keep his produce for himself, dispose of it to his friends and neighbors as a favor, or relax his efforts in producing it.

A system of compelling the exchange of commodities at what is not their real relative value not only relaxes production, but [also] leads finally to the waste and inefficiency of barter. If, however, a government refrains from regulation and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer.

The effect on foreign trade of price-regulation and profiteer-hunting as cures for inflation is even worse. Whatever may be the case at home, the currency must soon reach its real level abroad, with the result that prices inside and outside the country lose their normal adjustment. The price of imported commodities, when converted at the current rate of exchange, is far in excess of the local price, so that many essential goods will not be imported at all by private agency, and must be provided by the government, which, in re-selling the goods below cost price, plunges thereby a little further into insolvency....

The note circulation of Germany is about 10 times what it was before the war. The value of the mark in terms of gold is about one-eighth of its former value....

It is a hazardous enterprise for a merchant or a manufacturer to purchase with a foreign credit material for which, when he has imported it or manufactured it, he will receive mark currency of a quite uncertain and possibly unrealizable value....

It may be the case, therefore, that a German merchant, careful of his future credit and reputation, who is actually offered a short-period credit in terms of sterling or dollars, may be reluctant and doubtful whether to accept it. He will owe sterling or dollars, but he will sell his product for marks, and his power, when the time comes, to turn these marks into the currency in which he has to repay his debt is entirely problematic. Business loses its genuine character and becomes no better than a speculation in the exchanges, the fluctuations in which entirely obliterate the normal profits of commerce....

Thus the menace of inflationism described above is not merely a product of the war, of which peace begins the cure. It is a continuing phenomenon of which the end is not yet in sight....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_inflation.html

Keynes was a capitalist, through and through. His only goal was to ameliorate the wild fluctuations of money and the business cycle which were endemic in the 1920s and 30s. He just wasn't one of these binary-thinking far right Austrian "Libertee!" ideologues who think macroeconomic trends and history can be summed up in a couple of cartoons or bumper stickers and have no consideration for the practical consequences of bluntly-applied, blinders-on, extreme policies.

Chiefshrink
02-05-2012, 11:41 AM
How dishonest whatever sketchy website you pulled that from out of context. He was explaining the dangers of inflation, not endorsing it as a maniacal conspiratorial policy. He was actually quoting Lenin to show how wrong it was. Good God.

Is this selective, inaccurate snipping of quotes what they teach over there in the Austrian school of kookery? I guess that's why Ron Paul did it too with the Reagan quote.



ACTUAL QUOTE

Excerpts from The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keynes, 1919. pp. 235-248

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

In the latter stages of the war all the belligerent governments practiced, from necessity or incompetence, what a Bolshevist might have done from design. Even now, when the war is over, most of them continue out of weakness the same malpractices. But further, the governments of Europe, being many of them at this moment reckless in their methods as well as weak, seek to direct on to a class known as "profiteers" the popular indignation against the more obvious consequences of their vicious methods.

These "profiteers" are, broadly speaking, the entrepreneur class of capitalists, that is to say, the active and constructive element in the whole capitalist society, who in a period of rapidly rising prices cannot but get rich quick whether they wish it or desire it or not. If prices are continually rising, every trader who has purchased for stock or owns property and plant inevitably makes profits. By directing hatred against this class, therefore, the European governments are carrying a step further the fatal process which the subtle mind of Lenin had consciously conceived. The profiteers are a consequence and not a cause of rising prices. By combining a popular hatred of the class of entrepreneurs with the blow already given to social security by the violent and arbitrary disturbance of contract and of the established equilibrium of wealth which is the inevitable result of inflation, these governments are fast rendering impossible a continuance of the social and economic order of the 19th century. But they have no plan for replacing it....

The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent governments, unable or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance. In Russia and Austria-Hungary this process has reached a point where for the purposes of foreign trade the
currency is practically valueless. The Polish mark can be bought for about [three cents] and the Austrian crown for less than [two cents], but they cannot be sold at all. The German mark is worth less than [four cents] on the exchanges....

But while these currencies enjoy a precarious value abroad, they have never entirely lost, not even in Russia, their purchasing power at home. A sentiment of trust in the legal money of the state is so deeply implanted in the citizens of all countries that they cannot but believe that some day this money must recover a part at least of its former value.... They do not apprehend that the real wealth, which this money might have stood for has been dissipated once and for all. This sentiment is supported by the various legal regulations with which the governments endeavor to control internal prices, and so to preserve some purchasing power for their legal tender....

The preservation of a spurious value for the currency, by the force of law expressed in the regulation of prices, contains in itself, however, the seeds of final economic decay, and soon dries up the sources of ultimate supply. If a man is compelled to exchange the fruits of his labors for paper which, as experience soon teaches him, he cannot use to purchase what he requires at a price comparable to that which he has received for his own products, he will keep his produce for himself, dispose of it to his friends and neighbors as a favor, or relax his efforts in producing it.

A system of compelling the exchange of commodities at what is not their real relative value not only relaxes production, but [also] leads finally to the waste and inefficiency of barter. If, however, a government refrains from regulation and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer.

The effect on foreign trade of price-regulation and profiteer-hunting as cures for inflation is even worse. Whatever may be the case at home, the currency must soon reach its real level abroad, with the result that prices inside and outside the country lose their normal adjustment. The price of imported commodities, when converted at the current rate of exchange, is far in excess of the local price, so that many essential goods will not be imported at all by private agency, and must be provided by the government, which, in re-selling the goods below cost price, plunges thereby a little further into insolvency....

The note circulation of Germany is about 10 times what it was before the war. The value of the mark in terms of gold is about one-eighth of its former value....

It is a hazardous enterprise for a merchant or a manufacturer to purchase with a foreign credit material for which, when he has imported it or manufactured it, he will receive mark currency of a quite uncertain and possibly unrealizable value....

It may be the case, therefore, that a German merchant, careful of his future credit and reputation, who is actually offered a short-period credit in terms of sterling or dollars, may be reluctant and doubtful whether to accept it. He will owe sterling or dollars, but he will sell his product for marks, and his power, when the time comes, to turn these marks into the currency in which he has to repay his debt is entirely problematic. Business loses its genuine character and becomes no better than a speculation in the exchanges, the fluctuations in which entirely obliterate the normal profits of commerce....

Thus the menace of inflationism described above is not merely a product of the war, of which peace begins the cure. It is a continuing phenomenon of which the end is not yet in sight....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_inflation.html

So govt. is the answer for most everything in your world?

banyon
02-05-2012, 11:42 AM
So govt. is the answer for most everything in your world?

Yeah! HRRRRRRRRRR! It can only be one extreme or the other, right?

:shake::shake::shake:

Your nuanced thinking continues to impress, Sportsshrink.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 11:50 AM
Lol could see the quote. That was just on Brainy Quote.

Quotes are always distilled. Keynes still did that, still underestimated politicians and that is still the end result of his ideas.
Kinda like how you on the left have used that quote on those who desire security but don't deserve it, which was actually about gun control in its full context.

banyon
02-05-2012, 11:58 AM
Lol could see the quote. That was just on Brainy Quote.

Quotes are always distilled. Keynes still said that, still underestimated politicians and that is still the end result of his ideas.
Kinda like how you on the left have used that quote on those who desire security but don't deserve it, which was actually about gun control in its full context.

No, Keynes didn't say that. He was quoting someone else to talk about how they were wrong. It wasn't "distilled", it was disingenuously shortened. That's the opposite. If you admitted when you were mistaken at least a few times, you might have a bit more credibility.

Frankly, if you actually understood Keynes remotely, you would have known the quote was suspect to begin with.

Chiefshrink
02-05-2012, 12:01 PM
Yeah! HRRRRRRRRRR! It can only be one extreme or the other, right?

:shake::shake::shake:

Your nuanced thinking continues to impress, Sportsshrink.

Better look in the mirror when defining extreme:shrug:

You Libs approach to governing thinking "utopia" will occur by forcing the individual to piss,shit and how much at what time of the day never ceases to amaze me! :rolleyes:

Now that is truly EXTREME, banyon!:eek:

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 12:03 PM
The EVIDENCE

http://keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch04.html


As an undergraduate at Cambridge, John Maynard Keynes banded together with a group of radicals who were destined to become the outstanding Socialist leaders of Great Britain. At the age of 19 his associates included such Fabian Socialists as Bertrand Russell, Leonard Woolf and Ruppert Brooke. At the age of 20 (1903) Keynes became a member of a Fabian group at Cambridge which was headed by G.L. Dickinson, a prominent Fabian Socialist. Dickinson taught history and political subjects at the University. As an undergraduate, Keynes, imitating his father, expressed strong opposition to the principle of private enterprise (Laissez-Faire)...(5)

Professor A.C. Pigou privately coached Keynes on economics. Pigou, although posturing as a classic economist, has also been identified as a Fabian Socialist.(10)...

By 1913 Keynes was installed as Secretary of the Royal Economic Society itself. There he joined hands with the Fabian chief, Sidney Webb, along with Pigou and Marshall to exploit the prestige and respectability of the Royal Economic Society for the benefit of socialism...

Keynes did not keep his Socialist convictions to himself in those days. His opposition to the private enterprise system was well known to London society. Clarence W. Barron, then publisher of the Wall Street Journal, while in London in 1918, made the following observation: “Saw Professor Keynes of the British Treasury . . . Lady Cunard says Keynes is a kind of Socialist and my judgment is that he is a Socialist of the type that does not believe in the family.”(17)...

The Fabian Society made private arrangements with Keynes to publish a special edition of his book for exclusive distribution among radicals throughout the British Empire.(20)

During this same period Keynes’ old Fabian Socialist teacher at Cambridge, G.L. Dickinson, supported Keynes with a radical “front” called the Union of Democratic Control “which opposed retaliatory measures against Germany and reparations.”(21)

In the United States, Fabian Socialists Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippmann arranged to have The Economic Consequences of the Peace published in a special American edition. Frankfurter brought the manuscript over from England after consultation with Keynes. Graham Wallas, one of the pioneers of the Fabian Socialist movement, consulted with Frankfurter and pronounced the Keynes manuscript a “great work.”(22) Both Wallas and Frankfurter had been instructors at Harvard. Walter Lippmann, who had joined the Fabian Society in 1909, had been one of Wallas’ students at Harvard.(23)

The Economic Consequences became a main prop in the arsenal of Socialist propaganda in the United States. The League for Industrial Democracy and the Rand School for Social Science both urged the Keynes book on their extremist following along with Bolshevik literature such as Lenin’s State and Revolution and Trotsky’s In Defense of Terrorism. As has been noted before, the L.I.D. and the Rand School were American Fabian entities.

As a corollary to the Bolshevik phase of Socialist movement Keynes went through an interesting development. On February 22nd, 1918, Keynes wrote to his mother:

Oh! you’ll be amused to hear that I was offered a Russian Decoration yesterday, a belated one just arrived from the Provisional Government. Being a Bolshevik, however, I thought it more proper to refuse.(24)

It was a common condition during that period for left-wingers to seize on the Bolshevik example as a harbinger of the “new order.” Keynes emotionally fell into the same pattern. At that time he was a high official of the British Treasury and advisor to David Lloyd George on economic policies. Curiously, those of the Provisional Russian Government (Kerensky) were themselves Socialists, but of the non-Bolshevik variety. Like many other socialistic-minded young men, Keynes considered the Kerensky Socialists “reactionaries” and the Bolsheviks “progressives.”...

Keynes proceeded to expound, in clear-cut terms, that private enterprise, as a general rule, was historically finished and that socialized forms were a natural and progressive development of society....

Keynes’ attitude toward the free enterprise system was in all essentials the same as that of the Fabian Socialists. The Fabian Socialist project of allowing private enterprise to operate while gradually chipping away at its foundation until the government takes over all functions was identical with the Keynesian concept. In End of Laissez-Faire Keynes advances the following preliminary softening-up stage as a basis for a future socialism...

Keynes’ disagreement with what he calls “doctrinaire State Socialism” is not one of principle but one of tactics. What he means by doctrinaire Socialism is the Socialism of Marxist groups.(29) These expressions have been used to try to give Keynes an anti-socialist coloring, in order to sell Keynes to non-leftists....

In this same work Keynes showed an early bias (1924) against savings and investments as economic virtues. [Austrian School virtues] From virtues he transformed them into evils:...

My second example relates to Savings and Investment. I believe that some co-ordinated act of intelligent judgment is required as to the scale on which it is desirable that the community as a whole should save, the scale on which these savings should go abroad in the form of foreign investments, and whether the present organization of the investment market distributes savings along the most nationally productive channels. I do not think that these matters should be left entirely to the chances of private judgment and private profits, as they are at present.(31)

Fabian Socialists have long considered those who saved and invested as a stumbling block against the march of Socialism.

Keynes’ concept of controlling society extends beyond political and economic matters. He even advocates social control of the number of children per family:...

Somewhat appalled by the mass terror and the extermination of millions of people, he nevertheless refused to drop his belief in the Socialist goal. ...

American Socialist elements began to see in the economic crisis an opportunity to put across some of their planning devices. The fact that the Republicans were in power under Herbert Hoover was no deterrent to the left-wing. Under the pretense of “economic emergency,” pressure was being brought to bear by leftists, in respectable guise, for building of strong executive powers and creation of special agencies which could act as nuclei for future Socialist operations....

When Roosevelt went off the gold standard Keynes wrote an article in the London Daily Mail (June 1933). The headline declared, “President Roosevelt is Magnificently Right.” Keynes was exultant in his belief that the Roosevelt policies “lead to the managed currency of the future.”(44)...

For years it had been a point of Socialist strategy that complete government control of currency and all money and currency values is a chief lever in moving society toward redistribution of wealth and complete Socialism....


FACT: Keynes was a SOCIALIST and Keynesian Economics is SOCIALIST!

Chiefshrink
02-05-2012, 12:04 PM
No, Keynes didn't say that. He was quoting someone else to talk about how they were wrong. It wasn't "distilled", it was disingenuously shortened. That's the opposite. If you admitted when you were mistaken at least a few times, you might have a bit more credibility.

Frankly, if you actually understood Keynes remotely, you would have known the quote was suspect to begin with.

Admitting your are in denial is the first step to reality banyon;)

But then again "truth and reality" are a 'no-no' in the Libs world.

banyon
02-05-2012, 12:05 PM
Better look in the mirror when defining extreme:shrug:

You Libs approach to governing thinking "utopia" will occur by forcing the individual to piss,shit and how much at what time of the day never ceases to amaze me! :rolleyes:

Now that is truly EXTREME, banyon!:eek:

Yeah, I remember where I said that. :rolleyes:

But keep imagining anyone who disagrees with you as some cartoonish strawman that is easy for you to knock down if it makes you feel better.

The rest of the adults will continue to discuss matters that aren't all in black-or-white thinking that fits neatly into two sentence angry shouts. You can remain at the kids' table shouting whatever bumper sticker or talk radio sound byte you want to yell.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 12:09 PM
I am NOT mistaken. Keynes was a SOCIALIST

I will admit I am wrong when I think I am wrong. I have done so in the past.
I am not wrong on this! Your allegation and accusations are FALSE!

Chiefshrink
02-05-2012, 12:18 PM
But keep imagining anyone who disagrees with you as some cartoonish strawman that is easy for you to knock down if it makes you feel better.

Which is precisely what OMarxist and the Mainstream Marxist Media do EVERYDAY especially in this campaign season:thumb:

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 12:21 PM
I just looked up where Keynes criticizes debauching the currency which is from The Economic Consequences of the Peace at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. That was his earlier view that it was bad. Keynes still said it and it originally comes from Lenin. Keyne's policies have resulted in what Lenin said. Two peas-in-a-pod.

banyon
02-05-2012, 12:30 PM
I just looked up where Keynes criticizes debauching the currency which is from The Economic Consequences of the Peace at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. That was his earlier view that it was bad. Keynes still said it and it originally comes from Lenin. Keyne's policies have resulted in what Lenin said. Two peas-in-a-pod.

Really?

Ok, BEP's quote standards:


"BEP said the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

You're a closet socialist? OMG who would have thunk it? Now it makes perfect sense. Why else would you promote such ridiculously poor critical thinking skills, unless it was a double-agent plot to make the Austrian School look silly? It all fits together now!

You still said it!

How transparently ridiculous. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 12:34 PM
Keynes was a SOCIALIST! His ideas have resulted in SOCIALISM!

banyon
02-05-2012, 12:42 PM
Keynes was a SOCIALIST! His ideas have resulted in SOCIALISM!

Really? Society own the means of production in this country?

When did that happen? When did Keynes advocate elimination of private ownership and public ownership of the means of production? (Hint: It didn't happen).

I guess we can close up the NYSE, as there are no more profits to be made.

Mitt Romney's obviously lying about having made money as a private entrepreneur, because he didn't even own the means of production. All of his profits went to society! Who knew?

But, put it in big, bold letters. It won't change the deceptive nature of your distorted quote.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 12:44 PM
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.2.213

According to this .pdf Lenin didn't exactly say it either; that Keynes gleaned it from an interview of Lenin.

So, banyon, you need to visit the grave of Keynes and pin a correction on him. That is after you write to Brainy Quote.

banyon
02-05-2012, 12:53 PM
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.2.213

According to this .pdf Lenin didn't exactly say it either; that Keynes gleaned it from an interview of Lenin.

So, banyon, you need to visit the grave of Keynes and pin a correction on him. That is after you write to Brainy Quote.

Uh, did you read any of the article? Because it just echoes exactly what I said. Keynes was quoting Lenin to take issue with him, not as a secret handshake socialist.

It simply explores the question of whether or not Keynes was accurately quoting him, NOT whether Keynes himself was secretly advocating for debauching the currency.

FROM YOUR ARTICLE:

Keynes was, however, a vehement supporter of the increases in interest rates the Bank of England implemented in November 1919 and April 1920 (Moggridge, 1992, pp. 354–60). Indeed, when consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in February 1920, Keynes (1920 [1977], p. 184) argued for an even tighter monetary policy, on the ground that continuing high inflation would “strike at the whole basis of contract, of security, and of the capitalist system generally.”

Also, I'm unable to debunk your kooky "Keynes at Harvard" Austrian book due to the fact that all of his citations are from the same out-of-print book (The Life of John Maynard Keynes by Roy Harrod), but I wager if I had that book, I could show each and every one of them were a distortion. Exclusively doing a biography from one other source is not exactly the hallmark of rigorous academic writing. But the fact that it couldn't get published except by some fringe group in pamphlet form tells me what I need to know. No one who has seriously studied Keynes thinks he is a socialist.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 12:54 PM
The Disaster of Keynesian Economics
www.goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/keynes.pdf

Keynes knew where his ideas would lead, in fact, wanted it to lead.

The necessity of inflation in Keynesism is missed by many. In theory, loans made in bad times are repaid in good times, but Keynes was plenty shrewd enough to realize that the impulse of politicians to pander to the electorate would prove insurmountable, and on-going inflation to pay the debt unavoidable. This is, in fact, what has happened.


What Keynesian apologists never talk about is that the goal was not economic equilibrium in a condition of freedom, but an economic equilibrium that was in effect under the complete control of the government:

The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume, partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways [such as?]. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment. . .
It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. Moreover, the necessary measures of socialization can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society. (General Theory, 378)

What is he saying here? That if the State controls how companies get money, how much profit they make, and how much their employees earn, then it doesn’t have to actually OWN them. Further, that his system enables a gradual transition in that direction, without setting off any alarm bells.

This is socialism, plain and simple, of the Fabian variety.

To be clear, for a true Liberal, the role of government is to protect us from one another. For Keynes, it is to foster full employment at the expense of economic and—inevitably—political freedom. The two go hand in hand.

Don't give me any of this crap that the Federal Reserve isn't the state. It's an appendage of the state as a hybrid institution and is not as independent as claimed. It is the nation's central bank.

Lol he refers to taxation as a "scheme."

JohnnyV13
02-05-2012, 01:04 PM
Banyon,

I would have thought you knew better than to argue against someone's religious beliefs.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2012, 01:07 PM
Keynesianism = religion

Freedom = what the Revolution was fought for

If the latter is a religion, then I'll have me some of that as opposed to a religion of the state.

banyon
02-05-2012, 01:08 PM
The Disaster of Keynesian Economics
www.goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/keynes.pdf

Keynes knew where his ideas would lead, in fact, wanted it to lead.






Don't give me any of this crap that the Federal Reserve isn't the state. It's an appendage of the state as a hybrid institution and is not as independent as claimed. It is the nation's central bank.

Lol he refers to taxation as a "scheme."

Good God, your quotation truncation knows no shame. You do know how easy it is to look up the actual quote in widely published materials, don't you? :

BEP's Quote:


The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume, partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways [such as?]. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment. . .

ACTUAL QUOTE

In some other respects the foregoing theory is moderately conservative in its implications. For whilst it indicates the vital importance of establishing certain central controls in matters which are now left in the main to individual initiative, there are wide fields of activity which are unaffected. The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. Moreover, the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society.

BEP's QUOTE:

It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. Moreover, the necessary measures of socialization can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society.

END OF PAGE ACTUAL QUOTE

Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism. I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.

For if effective demand is deficient, not only is the public scandal of wasted resources intolerable, but the individual enterpriser who seeks to bring these resources into action is operating with the odds loaded against him. The game of hazard which he plays is furnished with many zeros, so that the players as a whole will lose if they have the energy and hope to deal all the cards. Hitherto the increment of the world’s wealth has fallen short of the aggregate of positive individual savings; and the difference has been made up by the losses of those whose courage and initiative have not been supplemented by exceptional skill or unusual good fortune. But if effective demand is adequate, average skill and average good fortune will be enough.

The authoritarian state systems of today seem to solve the problem of unemployment at the expense of efficiency and of freedom. It is certain that the world will not much longer tolerate the unemployment which, apart from brief intervals of excitement, is associated and in my opinion, inevitably associated with present-day capitalistic individualism. But it may be possible by a right analysis of the problem to cure the disease whilst preserving efficiency and freedom.

banyon
02-05-2012, 01:10 PM
Banyon,

I would have thought you knew better than to argue against someone's religious beliefs.

You are right, but I just couldn't let the blatantly dishonest quote just lie there like it was somehow accurate.

I guess the rigorousness of my academic knowledge on economics went beyond the 2 week course at the Vienna Upstairs school of kookery where they read mostly from brainyquote.com.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:57 AM
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.2.213

According to this .pdf Lenin didn't exactly say it either; that Keynes gleaned it from an interview of Lenin.

So, banyon, you need to visit the grave of Keynes and pin a correction on him. That is after you write to Brainy Quote.

From this .pdf

Fetter doubted, however, that Keynes was really quoting Lenin. After extensive inquiries, Fetter reported that no such statement could be found in Lenin’s published writings and that the “first attribution in English, and probably in any language,” was by Keynes. Fetter suggested that Keynes had heard the story at the Paris peace conference of 1919, convened by the World War I Allies to address the main issues arising from their victory. Having arrived in Paris in January as the principal Treasury representative in the British delegation, Keynes had resigned by early June in despair over the hard measures the Allies were prepared to impose on Germany.

Fetter and other writers were unable to trace the quotation because they sought the source in Lenin’s collected published writings. It is now possible to show that Keynes based his remark on a report of an interview with Lenin published by London and New York newspapers in April 1919. Keynes’ discussion of inflation in the Economic Consequences can then be read as an extended commentary on the remarks attributed to Lenin in the interview.


Keynes’ phrase “Lenin is said to have declared” may have been an acknowledgement that the author of the article and the source for the interview were anonymous. However, the congruence of the language and the arguments indicate that the article was Keynes’s source for the digression in Chapter 6 of The Economic Consequences of the Peace. The article quoted Lenin as using the word “debauch” with regard to government financial policies and, like Keynes, Lenin noted the destabilizing effects high inflation had on confidence, as profiteers gained at the expense of the rest of the population. Indeed, much of Keynes’s digression reads as a commentary on Lenin’s statements. [If this was Keyne's commentary or own digression based on what Lenin was claimed to have said, then that makes these the words of Keyne's. This has been done in a clever but deceiving manner.]

Lenin (1920 [1966], pp. 220, 227) approved of Keynes’s proposals for settling intergovernmental debt, sardonically suggesting that they were equivalent to the Soviet government’s: “As you know . . . these [Russian] debts do not disturb us, because we followed Keynes’s excellent advice just a little before his book appeared—we annulled all our debts (Stormy applause.)”

[Lenin also said regarding Keynes:]
“He has arrived at conclusions which are more weighty, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could draw, because they are the conclusions of a well– known bourgeois and implacable enemy of Bolshevism, which he, like the British philistine he is, imagines as something monstrous, ferocious, and bestial.”



The context of Keynes’s statement in The Economic Consequences of the Peace was he immediate danger of postwar hyperinflations in Europe.
the immediate danger of postwar hyperinflations in Europe.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 10:18 AM
Keynes at Harvard (http://keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch10.html)

The first thing Keynes did was to disclaim any connection with marxism. This was an elementary Fabian socialist diversionary move to distract the public from noting Karl Marx’s projection of a “mixed economy” in the Communist Manifesto of 1847.

In spite of his public record as a socialist, Keynes was appointed as an aid to Prime Minister David Lloyd George during the Paris peace talks with Germany in 1919. During this period he was asked by the Fabian socialists to head their London School of Economics.(11) As mentioned previously, Keynes quit the peace conference along with Walter Lippmann because their leftist proposals were not accepted.

At the end of 1919, Keynes wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace of which a special edition was published bearing the imprint of the British Fabian Society. This special edition was distributed among socialists both in England and the United States. It was at this time that the Fabian socialists began to pass off Keynes as a “capitalist economist.” At the same time the identical process was applied to Frankfurter and Lippmann in America.

[Privately Keynes wrote to his mother:]
" Well, the only course open to me is to be bouyantly bolshevik;"


The plan to refashion Keynes as a capitalist authority who would play the role of ‘admitting’ the dastardly deeds of his ‘class’ was not confined to the socialists in England. The Bolsheviks pursued the same line. In 1919 Nicolai Lenin issued a wildly enthusiastic panegyric on Keynes book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. He declared, “Nowhere has the Versailles Treaty been described so well as in the book by Keynes.”(14) The fat was in the fire and Keynes’ pro-bolshevism was in danger of being publicly established. Keynes as a covert leftist partisan posing as a defender of capitalism was in jeopardy.

Lenin later manipulated one of his adroit propaganda side-steps by quoting Keynes and utilizing his material and at the same time damning him as, “a ruthless opponent of Bolshevism.” This saved Keynes for the role as an anti-bolshevik figure among influential circles in Great Britain. It was a brilliant deception and indicated a skillful close-order drill in left-wing political cover-up. Lenin, of course, was well apprised of Keynes bolshevik sympathies. The red cells at Cambridge University were in close contact with the Fabians and a full dossier on Keynes was available to the Soviet leaders.

Lenin managed to exploit Keynes’ leftist slant in the Fabian Society’s edition of the Economic Consequences and at the same time sufficiently damn him so as to safeguard his role as a ‘plant’ in conservative economic circles.

Lenin formalized this Keynesian posture at the Second Congress of the Communist International addressing red delegates from every country in the world on July 19, 1920 with the declaration; “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences of the Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois, a ruthless opponent of Bolshevism, which he, like an English philistine, pictures to himself in a monstrous, savage and brutal form. Keynes arrived at the conclusion that Europe and the whole world, with the Versailles Peace, is heading for bankruptcy. Keynes resigned; he threw his book in the face of the government and said: ‘You are committing acts of madness.’ ”(15)

In this case when Lenin engaged in name calling he obviously furnished Keynes with political defenses that could be employed to further infiltrate the more respectable British institutions. This was and is a common Bolshevik device to cover their ‘respectable’ agents.

This “ruthless opponent of Bolshevism” was allowed to move freely throughout the Soviet Union in 1925 and again in 1928 with his Russian born wife. If Lenin’s accusation had any serious intent then Keynes and his wife would have naturally been barred at the red frontier. Otherwise they would have been shot since these were the years of the Red Terror where even menshevik socialists were being executed by the thousands.(16) Keynes had to be a pro-bolshevik in order to receive these special privileges. Keynes was not the only one since thousands of so-called reform socialists were flitting in and out of communist organizations at that time. In the United States the Fabians even applied to the Russian Bolsheviks for admission into the Communist International, with headquarters in Moscow.(17)

In 1926 Keynes emphasized his pro-bolshevik position by writing that he was on the “extreme left” as compared to Sidney Webb the head of the Fabian socialists in Britain.(18) Keynes’ subsequent organization of the International Monetary Fund in cooperation with Soviet representatives and American Soviet spies (1945-46) demonstrates his continuing Soviet associations even towards the end of his life.

JohnnyV13
02-06-2012, 01:56 PM
Keynesianism = religion

Freedom = what the Revolution was fought for

If the latter is a religion, then I'll have me some of that as opposed to a religion of the state.

You are such a pathetic loser for neg repping me because I pointed out what is so obviously true. Something that is ENTIRELY obvious if you read Rothbard, Mises, Mises.org and LewRockwell.com

1) Rothbard, as you well know, brags about how he has fused ethics, economics, sociology and poly-sci into a unified discipline. THe mises site also lauds Rothbard as a intellectual pioneer for this "achievement".

2) Multiple Austrian writers also brag about their "a priori" method as the only intellectually sound method for economic analysis. The keystone of "a priori" analysis are initial premises that are indisputibly true...e.g Mises' concept of "Human Action" premised with "Man Acts" as its point of departure.

If your school of thought includes both ethics and a priori analysis, you have a religion.

That is why talking to an Austrian is like talking to someone who believes in Papal Infallibility. Whatever they say is simply not falsifiable by any method.

That is why Keynsianism is a social science while Austrian economics is a religion. Keynesianism is at least (theoretically) falsifiable because it uses statistical analysis. In practice, given the limitations on social experimentation, data collection, and the difficulty of economic modelling, Keynsians CAN almost justify any of their theories with existing data (even to the point where their theories lack falsifiability. But, at least they recognize the possibility that they could be wrong).

Yet, Austrian analysis crosses the line because once someone accepts an indisputably true premise, you cannot argue with them. Their arguments are simply a matter of faith. This reality is buttressed by an Austrian's absolute insistence that economic data does not matter with respect to the truth of their analysis (unless, of course, the data validates their analysis, in which case it becomes wonderful data). When push comes to shove, an Austrian will discount the data if it challenges one of their infallible truths.

To put it in the most simple terms, with Austrianism: Theory --> data --> hypothesis. In social science, you have a 3 step process....Hypothesis --> data collection --> theory


Austrianism is a philosophy. But, I suppose, that is too much self-knowlege for you. However, I should not have expected anything different from a person of low character.

Comrade Crapski
01-31-2013, 11:24 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/zimbabwe-finishes-with-surplus-ahead-of-schedule-t10632.html

Dayze
01-31-2013, 11:29 AM
no I have the Pink Panther theme in my head.

Radar Chief
01-31-2013, 01:19 PM
no I have the Pink Panther theme in my head.

Might as well share then.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7gT4OTYUS-c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

listopencil
01-31-2013, 02:32 PM
Technically you are correct. There is no comparison in the strength and leadership the US has taken since the income tax. Period end of discussion.


Imagine if a consumption tax had been implemented instead of an income tax. The government would be vested in creating legislation that drove economic transactions. Not just trying to decide who to take money from. But actually attempting to benefit our overall economy. Citizens could (if they so chose) save money more easily just by not spending it. The responsible ones would build a nest egg, untouched by taxes, then make purchases befitting their lifestyle of choice.

La literatura
01-31-2013, 02:46 PM
Imagine if a consumption tax had been implemented instead of an income tax. The government would be vested in creating legislation that drove economic transactions. Not just trying to decide who to take money from. But actually attempting to benefit our overall economy. Citizens could (if they so chose) save money more easily just by not spending it. The responsible ones would build a nest egg, untouched by taxes, then make purchases befitting their lifestyle of choice.

We can still do all of that, even with an income tax.

RaiderH8r
01-31-2013, 02:52 PM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg

Also pictured: American way of life in a Cap and Trade economy.

RNR
01-31-2013, 04:09 PM
Ron Paul stimulus/infrastructure plan:

http://www.sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/congo-north-kivu-province-refugee-camp-by-s-schulman-unhcr.jpg

It looks affordable, people keep saying they want to cut costs~

Taco John
01-31-2013, 05:08 PM
We can still do all of that, even with an income tax.

Not really. You'd think you can, but what ends up happening is the creation of loopholes, and the corruption of incentive.

La literatura
01-31-2013, 07:44 PM
Not really. You'd think you can, but what ends up happening is the creation of loopholes, and the corruption of incentive.

Yeah, you can. If you're not, it just means you're spending more than you earn.

Taco John
01-31-2013, 10:09 PM
Yeah, you can.

What example of this would you like to share with us?

La literatura
01-31-2013, 10:23 PM
What example of this would you like to share with us?

Do you put $5000 each year into a Roth IRA? It's tax deductible, can be tax-free when matured, and is a perfect example of a "loophole" that incentivizes people to build a nest egg for their retirement.

Taco John
01-31-2013, 10:53 PM
Do you put $5000 each year into a Roth IRA? It's tax deductible, can be tax-free when matured, and is a perfect example of a "loophole" that incentivizes people to build a nest egg for their retirement.


How many people do you think do that? You're completely missing Listo's point that more people would save if they had more of their own money to save.

La literatura
01-31-2013, 10:55 PM
How many people do you think do that? You're completely missing Listo's point that more people would save if they had more of their own money to save.

Not enough people do it. People just don't save. It's not the government's fault.

Taco John
02-01-2013, 01:49 AM
Not enough people do it. People just don't save. It's not the government's fault.

****ing people. We'd have a utopia if it weren't for them.

Poor defenseless government being castigated on their account. Why won't people just leave the poor government alone?

La literatura
02-01-2013, 08:34 AM
****ing people. We'd have a utopia if it weren't for them.

Poor defenseless government being castigated on their account. Why won't people just leave the poor government alone?

Fucking United States government. We'd have a utopia if it wasn't for that damn thing.

I can meet your hysterical hyperbole all day. What's next?

Taco John
02-01-2013, 09:39 AM
****ing United States government. We'd have a utopia if it wasn't for that damn thing.

I can meet your hysterical hyperbole all day. What's next?


Clearly you can't. Your sauce is weak.

La literatura
02-01-2013, 09:47 AM
Clearly you can't. Your sauce is weak.

Do you put the maximum amount of savings into a Roth IRA each year? Do you know it was raised for 2013?

listopencil
02-01-2013, 11:22 PM
Do you put $5000 each year into a Roth IRA? It's tax deductible, can be tax-free when matured, and is a perfect example of a "loophole" that incentivizes people to build a nest egg for their retirement.

Imagine if you could save as much of your income as you wanted to without being taxed on it. You know, because you're the one who made the money. And then imagine if you could put aside a substantial amount because you knew that you could take it back out without a "penalty" if something unexpected happened, or if you had a large purchase that you wanted to save for.

La literatura
02-02-2013, 01:04 PM
Imagine if you could save as much of your income as you wanted to without being taxed on it. You know, because you're the one who made the money. And then imagine if you could put aside a substantial amount because you knew that you could take it back out without a "penalty" if something unexpected happened, or if you had a large purchase that you wanted to save for.

Do you put $5000 each year into a Roth IRA?

listopencil
02-02-2013, 05:32 PM
Do you put $5000 each year into a Roth IRA?

No, I'd rather not be taxed on money that I put into an IRA.

La literatura
02-02-2013, 08:44 PM
No, I'd rather not be taxed on money that I put into an IRA.

It isn't taxed. Putting $5K into a Roth IRA each year not only gets you a deduction, but it also is untaxed when you withdraw it after you retire.

Comrade Crapski
02-02-2013, 09:01 PM
Do you put the maximum amount of savings into a Roth IRA each year? Do you know it was raised for 2013?

You don't even work.

listopencil
02-02-2013, 09:15 PM
It isn't taxed. Putting $5K into a Roth IRA each year not only gets you a deduction, but it also is untaxed when you withdraw it after you retire.

From what I understand, deposits into a Roth IRA are taxed. Traditional IRA's are taxed upon withdrawal.

petegz28
02-02-2013, 09:17 PM
From what I understand, deposits into a Roth IRA are taxed.

Well, the deposits are made with after-tax $'s, so.....

listopencil
02-02-2013, 09:21 PM
Well, the deposits are made with after-tax $'s, so.....

Imagine if the US had a consumption tax replacing the income tax.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 07:15 AM
We can still do all of that, even with an income tax.

Not true.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 10:11 AM
From what I understand, deposits into a Roth IRA are taxed. Traditional IRA's are taxed upon withdrawal.

So rollover your traditional into a Roth. Here's the point: you don't even do the bare minimum of saving and taking advantage of the tax code's IRA advantages. So spare us the lecture of how if only there was no income tax your life would be so much better. Not really: you would just spend it all.

Comrade Crapski
02-03-2013, 10:18 AM
So rollover your traditional into a Roth. Here's the point: you don't even do the bare minimum of saving and taking advantage of the tax code's IRA advantages. So spare us the lecture of how if only there was no income tax your life would be so much better. Not really: you would just spend it all.

You don't even work so just shut the fuck up.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 10:59 AM
So rollover your traditional into a Roth. Here's the point: you don't even do the bare minimum of saving and taking advantage of the tax code's IRA advantages. So spare us the lecture of how if only there was no income tax your life would be so much better. Not really: you would just spend it all.

It doesn't matter whether listo takes full advantage or not. The point is that he doesn't have that option. None of us do. That's a byproduct of the income tax. It's a bug, not a feature.

Oh, and I'm not sure what your point is about rolling over a traditional into a Roth. No matter which way you do it, you pay taxes on one end or the other. If you start out traditional and then roll to Roth, you pay taxes in the middle. A traditional IRA is the closest approximation to the treatment you'd get from a consumption tax. But it's limited, so it's an inferior approximation.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 01:07 PM
Not true.

Yes it is true. If you put the $5500 each year into a Roth IRA for 40 years, you will have a nice little nest egg when you retire that isn't taxed. That doesn't take into account any additional savings you do on your own or employer savings.

Everyone has that option. Most people choose not to. Whose fault is that?

La literatura
02-03-2013, 01:08 PM
It doesn't matter whether listo takes full advantage or not. The point is that he doesn't have that option.

Why doesn't he have the option of a Roth IRA?

patteeu
02-03-2013, 02:28 PM
Yes it is true. If you put the $5500 each year into a Roth IRA for 40 years, you will have a nice little nest egg when you retire that isn't taxed. That doesn't take into account any additional savings you do on your own or employer savings.

Everyone has that option. Most people choose not to. Whose fault is that?

You're limited on how much you can put into an IRA. Therefore, it's not true that you can "still do all of that, even with an income tax".

La literatura
02-03-2013, 03:11 PM
You're limited on how much you can put into an IRA. Therefore, it's not true that you can "still do all of that, even with an income tax".

So because you can only put $5500 free from tax into an IRA, you can't save a nest egg that isn't taxed after you withdraw it? Listopencil said the income tax prevents him from saving. Here's a method of saving that is actually promoted by the current tax laws. You haven't said anything that has supported his claim.

Comrade Crapski
02-03-2013, 04:07 PM
Get lost, Neckbeard.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 04:14 PM
So because you can only put $5500 free from tax into an IRA, you can't save a nest egg that isn't taxed after you withdraw it? Listopencil said the income tax prevents him from saving. Here's a method of saving that is actually promoted by the current tax laws. You haven't said anything that has supported his claim.

The income tax limits your ability to defer taxes by saving. The consumption tax doesn't. It's as simple as that. If you thought listo was saying something for which your response was accurate, you misread him.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 04:44 PM
The income tax limits your ability to defer taxes by saving. The consumption tax doesn't. It's as simple as that. If you thought listo was saying something for which your response was accurate, you misread him.

Can you build up a nest egg by saving, even with an income tax?

listopencil
02-03-2013, 05:13 PM
The income tax limits your ability to defer taxes by saving. The consumption tax doesn't. It's as simple as that. If you thought listo was saying something for which your response was accurate, you misread him.

Yes, this is exactly what I was pointing out.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:16 PM
Yes, this is exactly what I was pointing out.

Nothing about responsible people saving up a nest egg, which you apparently can't do with an income tax?

listopencil
02-03-2013, 05:20 PM
Nothing about responsible people saving up a nest egg, which you apparently can't do with an income tax?

Do you not understand the idea of a consumption tax as opposed to an income tax?

patteeu
02-03-2013, 05:22 PM
Can you build up a nest egg by saving, even with an income tax?

Not to the same extent that you can with a consumption tax, but sure, you can build up "a nest egg" no matter what tax system you have.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:22 PM
Do you not understand the idea of a consumption tax as opposed to an income tax?

Are you dodging my question?

listopencil
02-03-2013, 05:24 PM
Are you dodging my question?

No, I'm wondering if you understand the difference.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:24 PM
Not to the same extent that you can with a consumption tax, but sure, you can build up "a nest egg" no matter what tax system you have.

So, when I said that you can build up a nest egg and save money, even with an income tax, now you agree that that was correct?

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:26 PM
No, I'm wondering if you understand the difference.

I think so, but you can explain it to me in your own words if you want.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 05:26 PM
So, when I said that you can build up a nest egg and save money, even with an income tax, now you agree that that was correct?

When you said:

We can still do all of that, even with an income tax.

you were wrong.

HonestChieffan
02-03-2013, 05:27 PM
Can you build up a nest egg by saving, even with an income tax?

Sure. But you need to have like a job.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:28 PM
When you said:



you were wrong.

So we can't save up a nest egg, untouched by taxes (the Roth IRA) and then spend befitting our lifestyle?

patteeu
02-03-2013, 05:29 PM
So we can't save up a nest egg, untouched by taxes (the Roth IRA) and then spend befitting our lifestyle?

That's right, we can't. And you continue to misunderstand the Roth IRA, although it's not a huge deal.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:30 PM
Sure. But you need to have like a job.

How can you build up a nest egg with an income tax and not have it touched by taxes?

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:31 PM
That's right, we can't. And you continue to misunderstand the Roth IRA, although it's not a huge deal.

What am I misunderstanding about the Roth IRA? It is untaxed upon distribution is it not?

patteeu
02-03-2013, 05:36 PM
What am I misunderstanding about the Roth IRA? It is untaxed upon distribution is it not?

No, that's the traditional IRA. A Roth IRA is taxed up front and distribution is tax free. If you assume a constant rate of inflation and a constant tax rate, they amount to the same thing mathematically, but the traditional IRA is a closer approximation for a consumption tax than the Roth. Unfortunately, IRAs, whether Roth or traditional, are limited in the size of the contributions and the circumstances under which withdrawals can be made. If you had an income tax that included unlimited traditional IRA contributions with no penalty for early withdrawal, you'd have the equivalent of a consumption tax.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:38 PM
. . . . A Roth IRA is taxed up front and distribution is tax free.

Where did I indicate otherwise? Your Roth IRA is untaxed when it's distributed to you. I've said that throughout this thread. Are you watching the Super Bowl with Kotter?

patteeu
02-03-2013, 05:39 PM
Where did I indicate otherwise?

When you said "it is taxed on distribution is it not", among other places.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 05:41 PM
When you said "it is taxed on distribution is it not", among other places.

Please read more carefully.

listopencil
02-03-2013, 05:55 PM
I think so, but you can explain it to me in your own words if you want.

OK. It's an idea that I stumbled across a few months ago while checking out various POTUS candidates. Right now we have an income tax system that is inherently unfair. So we have "loopholes" in the tax code as a fix. This gives politicians a way to control what citizens do with the money that they earn, and the system can be changed for political gain or to exert very real pressure on various sections of our society. It's also used by politicians to pander to different economic strata, promoting "class warfare" so we stay too divided as a country to create any kind of mandate. The system is broken. A consumption tax kicks in when goods are exchanged or services are rendered. No goofy tax code with the wealthy paying a ridiculously high percentage of their income as the base amount. So no need for them to play some kind of game to avoid giving up half of what they make. No penalty for people who want to save money, so you end up with people who are more likely to do so. People with a chunk of money in the bank also tend to have more confidence in making purchases. The poor pay less taxes because they just don't have the money to consume as much. If you want to help them out even more, remove the consumption tax for persons under a certain yearly income. On the government side, you get politicians honestly trying to create legislation that promotes a strong economy. They have to. That's how they get paid. Not paying lip service to the business sector because they can always just screw with the tax code. Not painting the wealthy as evil fat cats because it's pretty easy to see when they are "paying their share."

HonestChieffan
02-03-2013, 05:57 PM
How can you build up a nest egg with an income tax and not have it touched by taxes?

It all gets touched by taxes. You save anyway. Pay tax before...Roth, pay tax after, 401. Taxes have nothing to do with saving. Pay yourself first.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 06:04 PM
OK. It's an idea that I stumbled across a few months ago while checking out various POTUS candidates. Right now we have an income tax system that is inherently unfair. So we have "loopholes" in the tax code as a fix. This gives politicians a way to control what citizens do with the money that they earn, and the system can be changed for political gain or to exert very real pressure on various sections of our society. It's also used by politicians to pander to different economic strata, promoting "class warfare" so we stay too divided as a country to create any kind of mandate. The system is broken. A consumption tax kicks in when goods are exchanged or services are rendered. No goofy tax code with the wealthy paying a ridiculously high percentage of their income as the base amount. So no need for them to play some kind of game to avoid giving up half of what they make. No penalty for people who want to save money, so you end up with people who are more likely to do so. People with a chunk of money in the bank also tend to have more confidence in making purchases. The poor pay less taxes because they just don't have the money to consume as much. If you want to help them out even more, remove the consumption tax for persons under a certain yearly income. On the government side, you get politicians honestly trying to create legislation that promotes a strong economy. They have to. That's how they get paid. Not paying lip service to the business sector because they can always just screw with the tax code. Not painting the wealthy as evil fat cats because it's pretty easy to see when they are "paying their share."

Thanks for the post. I don't believe that the poor would pay less taxes, however. I actually think they would pay a lot more as a percentage of their income than they do now. Poor people generally spend all the money they get on consumer goods. Even middle class people often live paycheck to paycheck and put just a small amount towards savings, and rely on their employer matching their retirement funds and rely on that.

The people who would benefit from a consumption tax are entirely the rich. They already benefit from the "progressive" (now, it's almost regressive) income tax model right now, and it's created huge wealth inequality.

I think the better solution is to close loopholes and special interests for most of the rich and middle class, but rates at their moment are good.

listopencil
02-03-2013, 06:11 PM
Thanks for the post. I don't believe that the poor would pay less taxes, however. I actually think they would pay a lot more as a percentage of their income than they do now. Poor people generally spend all the money they get on consumer goods. Even middle class people often live paycheck to paycheck and put just a small amount towards savings, and rely on their employer matching their retirement funds and rely on that.

The people who would benefit from a consumption tax are entirely the rich. They already benefit from the "progressive" (now, it's almost regressive) income tax model right now, and it's created huge wealth inequality.

I think the better solution is to close loopholes and special interests for most of the rich and middle class, but rates at their moment are good.

Gonna have to get back to you. Beyonce is on. Good Lord she is hot.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 06:14 PM
Gonna have to get back to you. Beyonce is on. Good Lord she is hot.

I'm liking it.

listopencil
02-03-2013, 06:23 PM
I'm liking it.


Mmmm. The things I would do to that woman.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 06:24 PM
Mmmm. The things I would do to that woman.

I would pay her taxes and Blue Ivey's nanny for two years to hear her fart through the telephone /chiefsplanet

listopencil
02-03-2013, 06:33 PM
Thanks for the post. I don't believe that the poor would pay less taxes, however. I actually think they would pay a lot more as a percentage of their income than they do now. Poor people generally spend all the money they get on consumer goods. Even middle class people often live paycheck to paycheck and put just a small amount towards savings, and rely on their employer matching their retirement funds and rely on that.

The people who would benefit from a consumption tax are entirely the rich. They already benefit from the "progressive" (now, it's almost regressive) income tax model right now, and it's created huge wealth inequality.

I think the better solution is to close loopholes and special interests for most of the rich and middle class, but rates at their moment are good.


That's certainly true. I don't think the poor would pay less taxes mostly because they don't really pay taxes, they just wouldn't be getting that big tax return at the end of the year. The consumption tax I had in mind would be dependent on the amount of the transaction. Similar to sales tax. Certain staples (milk, bread, rent up to a certain amount, etc.) could be exempt from consumption tax if it looks like it's going to end up screwing the poor over. Luxury items (large boats and other high dollar properties, nonessential high-end services, etc.) could entail a higher consumption tax if that proves necessary. Even a combination of a low flat income tax with a consumption tax might work.

listopencil
02-03-2013, 06:39 PM
I would pay her taxes and Blue Ivey's nanny for two years to hear her fart through the telephone /chiefsplanet


Oh shit, the lights just went out at the Super Bowl. For God's sake make sure that Ray Lewis doesn't have a knife.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 06:57 PM
Please read more carefully.

Ok, I misread that. So where are you confused, because a Roth IRA (taxed on front end but not on back end) is the opposite as a consumption tax (untaxed on front end, taxed on back end)? You should be using a traditional IRA for your examples, but even then you aren't dealing with IRA limitations and early withdrawal penalties.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 07:06 PM
Ok, I misread that. So where are you confused, because a Roth IRA (taxed on front end but not on back end) is the opposite as a consumption tax (untaxed on front end, taxed on back end)? You should be using a traditional IRA for your examples, but even then you aren't dealing with IRA limitations and early withdrawal penalties.

I never compared an IRA to a consumption tax. I only said that it's possible (very possible, in fact) to save enough to build a nice little nest egg, even with an income tax. This was my response to a comment which I took to basically say, "We would be able to save a nice little nest egg if we didn't have an income tax, but rather had a consumption tax."

listopencil
02-03-2013, 07:14 PM
I never compared an IRA to a consumption tax. I only said that it's possible (very possible, in fact) to save enough to build a nice little nest egg, even with an income tax. This was my response to a comment which I took to basically say, "We would be able to save a nice little nest egg if we didn't have an income tax, but rather had a consumption tax."

Imagine if you paid no tax on money that you saved, though.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 07:20 PM
I never compared an IRA to a consumption tax. I only said that it's possible (very possible, in fact) to save enough to build a nice little nest egg, even with an income tax. This was my response to a comment which I took to basically say, "We would be able to save a nice little nest egg if we didn't have an income tax, but rather had a consumption tax."

No, as I've already pointed out once before, you said we can "do all of that". The fact is that we can't do all of that. We can only do some of that. You were wrong.

La literatura
02-03-2013, 07:29 PM
Imagine if you paid no tax on money that you saved, though.

So instead of a $5.5K limit, you would want no limit?

listopencil
02-03-2013, 07:37 PM
So instead of a $5.5K limit, you would want no limit?

I want to abolish the income tax system. It's badly broken. I don't want savings to be taxed at all.

Comrade Crapski
02-03-2013, 09:01 PM
Jenson paid no taxes because he doesn't work. Like Sandra Fluke, he'll be a professional student until he's in his thirties.

He'll also still be a virgin (unless getting fucked up the ass counts).

La literatura
02-03-2013, 09:32 PM
Jenson paid no taxes because he doesn't work. Like Sandra Fluke, he'll be a professional student until he's in his thirties.

He'll also still be a virgin (unless getting ****ed up the ass counts).

You've just outlined my 10 year plan.

Comrade Crapski
03-08-2013, 05:25 AM
The picture is unequivocal. During the four years that the U.S. government has dubbed "an economic recovery" the U.S. economy has been losing jobs at the fastest rate in recorded history for every year of this so-called recovery.

Having a background in economics and statistics, I've explained in numerous commentaries precisely how andwhy the concocted "statistics" claiming to show "new jobs" have no basis in reality. The problem is that unless readers themselves have a reasonably sophisticated understanding of the mathematics involved, it may be difficult for them to follow such reasoning.

However, everyone can understand a line going straight down. This is the U.S. labor market, and has been for the past four years: a line going straight down. There is no set of conditions where a line going straight down can translate into "more jobs."

This is the only "unadjusted" labor statistic produced by the U.S. government -- therefore it must represent the truth. What does that make all of the "adjusted" numbers purporting to show the U.S. economy "adding jobs" month after month after month?

That's right: lies.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11862236/1/losing-jobs-and-lying-about-it-opinion.html?kval=dontmiss

http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/Medal_Order_of_Obama_160.gif

patteeu
03-08-2013, 06:01 AM
He makes a nice speech though. That's about the only thing that separates him from Jimmy Carter.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2013, 07:25 AM
I've said in the past on this site that Keynes is undoubtedly spinning in his grave in horror at how his economic philosophy has been twisted and distorted by the current gang in Washington. Keynes proposed intentionally running surpluses in good times and deficits during economic downturns. He didn't propose running trillion dollar deficits every freaking year and having the government provide everything from the cradle to the grave.

Referring to Obamanomics as Keynesian is akin to saying that Scott ***** is running the Chiefs just like the New England Patriots.




.

Here's where Keynes screwed up though: He trusted politicians with money. It's a system that enables politicians to spend. This one point alone makes it fundamentally flawed. Central planning, a plank of socialism, never works. Never.