The Myth of the Great Moderation: Keynes vs Greenspan

[Capt Bringdown]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsXUDQXKuQ

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think the issue is so much having people understand what the video is trying to say. I think the issue is how we are represented from the primary system to parliamentary procedure in Congress to the court ruling conflating money and speech.

[pgardn]

I would like to see some debate on each of those graphs presented.
I am always skeptical with graphs that appear to correlate things that might not be correlated, a cause and effect relationship might be assumed.

I am not an economy guy. Setting up Greenspan against Keynes may not be the proper way to look at things. Designating a Golden Age and an age of moderation, with a big blur in between may be a skewed way to look at a short history of our economy.

Any feedback from conservatives who think Keynes is fundamentally off? Any criticism of each slide and left-right side lists?

[101A]

What are "Full Employment Policies"?
It was first on the list of, "We know what works."

Is raising the minimum wage a "Full Employment Policy"?
How about extending unemployment benefits?
Lowering or rasing taxes?
Which ones?

Nice bullet point, but what does it mean?

[boutons_deux]

full employment was at one time defined as 4% unemployment, but that's totally skewed by govt playing with how it counts unemployed, and not counting people who want work but have given up looking.

4%, IIRC, was the level where wage push inflation ( :lol will we EVER see that again now that the War on Employees is essentially won? ) became significant.

Policies? govt spending on infrastructure, research (not immediate payback in job creation), NOT bailing out the financial sector.

govt spending to be facilitated by increased tax revenue from progressive income taxes, estate tax, and actually make corps pay taxes (vs their avg of about 11% now). Jailing the 1% for tax evasion.

raising the minimum wage for employed people doesn't create jobs, but unemployed/not searching people could pulled into the economy when they see they earn a livable minimum wage, $15/hour or more and inflation and regionally indexed. Raising the minimum wage REDUCES govt spending on public assistance and kicks the employers off govt welfare.

extending unemployment benefits? can't see how that creates job, although every $ of those benefits is spent so that works as govt stimulus.

lowering taxes (trickle down) doesn't create jobs.

raising taxes gives govt enough $Ts to invest in the economy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What are "Full Employment Policies"?
It was first on the list of, "We know what works."

Is raising the minimum wage a "Full Employment Policy"?
How about extending unemployment benefits?
Lowering or rasing taxes?
Which ones?

Nice bullet point, but what does it mean?

LINK (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+employment+policies)

[pgardn]

Macroeconomics has always bothered me.

So many assumptions and so many economists who seem to cherry pick trends depending on their politics.
I really have a difficult time with it.

Who would be a good economists to read that explains what all sides are contending?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see our problems related to Keynes vs Greenspan, as much as a problem with our trade deficit. We simply buy too much from foreign countries and our labor potential is suffering because of it.

[boutons_deux]

I don't see our problems related to Keynes vs Greenspan, as much as a problem with our trade deficit. We simply buy too much from foreign countries and our labor potential is suffering because of it.

your right wingers want a strong (Macho Man!) dollar but you don't want the trade deficit it encourages.

[Wild Cobra]

your right wingers want a strong (Macho Man!) dollar but you don't want the trade deficit it encourages.
What right wing policies encourage the trade deficit? I would challenge your opinion with mine, that most the off shoring of our jobs is because of liberal policies. Not conservative.

[boutons_deux]

What right wing policies encourage the trade deficit? I would challenge your opinion with mine, that most the off shoring of our jobs is because of liberal policies. Not conservative.

dickless Repugs and right-wing STers love strong dollar, because that implies strong, macho, imperial, STRONG BIG DICK America. Then they complain about trade deficits enabled by STRONG DOLLAR that makes importing/reselling cheaper than building, and makes US products less sellable overseas.

also, the VRWC/UCA push for globalization and "free trade" encouraged US mfrs to force US employees to wage-compete against Chinese, etc, and of course US employees lost BIG TIME.

[Wild Cobra]

dickless Repugs and right-wing STers love strong dollar, because that implies strong, macho, imperial, STRONG BIG DICK America. Then they complain about trade deficits enabled by STRONG DOLLAR that makes importing/reselling cheaper than building, and makes US products less sellable overseas.

also, the VRWC/UCA push for globalization and "free trade" encouraged US mfrs to force US employees to wage-compete against Chinese, etc, and of course US employees lost BIG TIME.
Will you do me a favor please...

Give me a step by step of the logic you are using. I don't follow.

[boutons_deux]

Will you do me a favor please...

Give me a step by step of the logic you are using. I don't follow.

:lol

strong $ = US products more expensive to sell overseas

strong $ = foreign products cheaper to import

strong $ enables greater US trade deficits

China suppressing its currency makes its products cheaper to export, while simultaneously dumping a lot of shit on foreign markets at or below cost. result? guess

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

strong $ = US products more expensive to sell overseas

strong $ = foreign products cheaper to import

strong $ enables greater US trade deficits

China suppressing its currency makes its products cheaper to export, while simultaneously dumping a lot of shit on foreign markets at or below cost. result? guess
What you have listed is a means for us to be able to buy what we cannot produce so readily here. It should have never applied to nearly all goods as it does today.

The free trade agreements are the reason we no longer place tariff on these items like in the past. Most of our free trade laws were signed by a liberal president, William Jefferson Clinton.

Tariffs are understood to be important as our founding fathers:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;"

[boutons_deux]

Slick Willy was not liberal, he was neo-liberal (liberating business from regulations). He now admits deregulating finance (he was suckered by Rubin, etc) was a mistake.

Lots of stuff was very important to the FFs and written into the Constituion, nearly all of which the VRWC/Christian supremacists want to destroy as lying "lovers of the Constitution".