Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Who wants to be the one to tell China this?

"Public debt isn't as bad as many people believe-it's basically money we owe to ourselves." Paul Krugman

Keynes failed principles of economics was first placed onto the American stage by Hoover when the great depression hit. He was an engineer and attempted to "fix" the economy by playing around with the monetary flow. He raised income taxes, hiked tariffs on imports, and started many new social programs. And best of all he placed taxes on several different transactions, most importantly the tax on writing checks, thus causing people to make a run on the banks so they could pay cash.
And then came FDR, he ran on a platform against Hoovers attempts to "fix" the economy and then when taking office he did the exact opposite of hie campaign promises and EXPANDED on what Hoover started.
Roosevelt looked to John keynes as the solution to the depression. Keyenes rejected Americas principles that had been in place since the founding, of saving and keeping debt paid off. Instead he argued that "the sole objective of all economic activity is consumption" He believed that spending, in massive amounts was the key to digging out of the depression. Most sensible people at the time scratched their heads at the flawed concept that you coulld spend your way out of debt and into prosperity. He preached that "the behavior that that would make a man poor would make a nation wealthy" he argued that "individuals and nations are very different. An individual has to borrow from someone else, where a nation need only borrow from itself." Stuart Chase, a keynesian economist explained it like this: "If the national debt is all internal thenation can hardly go bankrupt. The American people are on both sides of the balance sheet. It's magic."
Former Treasury Secretary offical Bruce Bartlet summed it up. "Thanks to the economics of Lord Keynes, the Democrats could now buy their votes with an absolutely clear conscience. In the genuine belief that deficits were good for the economy. This allowed them to, in effect, have all the goverment programs they wanted and it would not cost a dime, because they were paid for with the deficits rather than taxes"

How has that worked out so far? Maybe we should ask China.

Answer Question
 
Carpy

Asked by Carpy at 9:26 AM on Mar. 13, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
Answers (18)
  • I think China's answer has been to send us all these products, for babies and young kids mind you, with LEAD PAINT on them.
    Raine2001

    Answer by Raine2001 at 9:32 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • Seems to me that Krugman has lost his mind--starting with the AZ shooting!! He USED to be a respectable journalist....now, (IMO) not so much!

    I'm just wondering when China is going to start collecting on all of those IOUs....then what...we become the United States of China?!
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 9:36 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • ! He USED to be a respectable journalist.

    When was that? He has always been a Keynesian economist. He has believed in and promoted a failed economic model from day one.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 9:45 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • I think that any economist that works the system so the economist or only a special group benefits should be questioned. Our gov't operates as a Ponzy scheme. 


    [A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.] I give you for consideration - entitlement programs.  



    [Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?


    With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue.]


    http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 9:53 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • When was that? He has always been a Keynesian economist. He has believed in and promoted a failed economic model from day one.

    ***
    I meant as a liberal journalist....well written pieces...even though they were inherently flawed. As in, "Okay, I'll give you that. You've presented your argument well...even though it's WRONG! KWIM?! :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 10:21 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • Gotcha Lori, but he has been hostile for quite some time before that incident.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 10:47 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • I have no doubt...but I never paid him that much attention (aside from skimming his articles once in a while), since I don't read the NYT that often. It was his "knee jerk" reaction without the facts to the AZ shooting that pissed me off, and from that point forward I stopped giving him ANY credit...even if he comes up with a valid argument. AZ (IMO) was his "jump the shark" moment--along with a number of other journalists AND CM members!! :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 11:04 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • Okay...I don't want to owe myself anymore...can I please have my money back?
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:12 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • Can I get them drunk before I give them the bad news?
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 11:28 AM on Mar. 13, 2011

  • I nominate sending Biden to tell them! He will confuse the hell out of them and they might actually agree. Wait, on second thought, given how he handled the recent meeting in Russia he might have us agreeing with them.



    DSamuels

    Answer by DSamuels at 1:04 PM on Mar. 13, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN