I read up to page five and as far as economics goes I will probably be considered one of those morons that have been spoken of. But here in my ignorance is the way I see it. If a government is running a surplus (bringing in more than they spend) an economic stimus may be of some limited value if the spending does not excede the surplus... but...If a government is running at a balance or at a loss a stimulus program would only make matters worse. Said government would have to either raise taxes (reducing disposable income) borrow (having to raise taxes later) or print money and therefore reduce the value of the countries currency. Or any combination of tax, borrow, print. You can't get six gallons of water out of a five gallon bucket.
I don't know how much I would like a plan that spent $350K willy nilly, predicting an ROI of $13M (what else would you call Keynesian, aggregate spending in business?). But, I can see where spending $350K the right way, could have huge ROI.
I had Italy in mind not Germany and fascists there had a very detailed economic plan as i described in my previous post
The detail comes from Pareto. That doesn't lead to an economic model. That leads to vague sociology and the fascists filling in the details as they deem fit. Economics by mistake, not design.
Anyone can search for knowledge. Of course it does. It gives the methodology applied, with a consistent econometric methodology that ensures robustness checks and for any one to check validity. Can you refer to an alternative source that disputes the findings? Of course not. All you've got are inconvenient results and therefore the need to stick cheese in your ears. Not a particularly effective research method! Both were fascist, both followed an approach inconsistent with socialism. The right wing stance is more homogeneous and allows for media manipulation, as shown by the Fox News effect. We can of course go further. See, for example, the psychological experiments in the authoritarian personality. That includes characteristics such as blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong, respect for submission to acknowledged authority and need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power. All ingredients for herding! I'm referring to the obvious. A good media source wouldn't create voting bias effects. It would encourage a pluralist outcome where individualism is the outcome. This is simply inconsistent with the history of economic thought. Smith has been deliberately misrepresented, as shown by the continue reference to the invisible hand when he mentioned once in the Wealth of Nations. His focus on moral justice clearly showed that he was much more focused on the helping hand. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see that you think egalitarianism is consistent with American right wing thought. Perhaps they've made some progress? The great defender of capitalism? Certainly not. Liberalism, in terms of the economic spectrum, is not left wing. I didn't create consensus politics. I didn't create consensus politics, nor make the herd blind to it.
I support a post-Hayekian form of market socialism. You want to suggest Stalinism and Maoism is at all similar to that approach? Golly gosh!
To restate my position, being you keep forgetting it. You have said several times that Market Socialism is more productive, but less profitable, than capitalism. I posit that is why Market Socialism hasn't taken root on it's own. For Market Socialism to take root, it needs the power of government. Government, when it has the power required to enforce socialism, becomes the target for psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Not quite. I stated that inefficient economic rents are eliminated. Of course it needs government: i.e. Government to protect property rights. Nonsense as we're referring to less interventionism under market socialism. You'd have to argue that the defence of property rights leads to Hitler, Stalin and Mao. That would be extreme, even for your brand of right wing rhetoric
See, page 5 and he gets it! There is hope for you reviver! Hey if you ever want to check out some great economics lessons made in simple terms and with some humor YouTube "Milton freidman "
Seems you forget your own statements as well. If Market Socialism is superior, why hasn't it replaced capitalism? Government already protects property rights - no mass move to Market Socialism - maybe more intervention is required - much more...... Please prove that property rights is all that is needed. How many totalitarian governments have evolved from Capitalism? How many from the Free Market?
Haven't forgotten anything. I've always maintained labour market coercion generates inefficient economic rents. Because it needs protection of property rights that isn't being pursued. I'd blame liberalism for that. That's false. Government protects some property rights. Marxist analysis into criminology would also refer to how that protection is fluid. It has not eliminated coercion in the labour market. A labour market characterised by exchange would require worker ownership and control, by definition. Totalitarianism is expected in capitalism, given its tendency towards economic crisis. These problems are restricted through the likes of Keynesianism. And the free market? Doesn't exist. Its a myth used to herd gullible right wingers
Non-responsive. Unless, of course, you intend to imply that a true "search for knowledge" will inevitably lead one to leftist political-philosophy views... No, what I have is a "study" whose conclusion is quite congenial to your own worldview; so you gleefully tout its results... Again, Hitler was a Nazi; and the term is short for National Socialist. Or are you asserting that Hitler was not really a Nazi? (Somehow, I have a rather strong feeling that you will ignore this question entirely.) Which is just another way of your asserting that the political right is essentially unthinking, whereas the political left is (supposedly) quite enlightened... Why might you suppose that I (or most other center-right types, for that matter) are of an "authoritarian" nature? Actually, I strongly--very strongly!-- support the nineteenth-century of nullification, as championed by no less of a luminary than John C. Calhoun. This hardly seems like an "authoritarian" impulse to me. Does it to you? Do you really believe that FNC encourages "bias" in voting any more than, say, MSNBC does? Ah, the last refuge of those who have been intellectually defeated: Charge "misrepresent[ation]"... As you well know--I have already mentioned the matter--I am not an egalitarian. More specifically, I believe in equality of opportunity, under the law--not in state-sanctioned equal outcomes.) If you were intellectually honest, you would not attempt to claim that I embrace egalitarian doctrine, when I clearly (and unequivocally) reject it... Please do not conflate classical liberalism (as, for instance, with the belief in liberal democracy), from around 100 years ago, with contemporary liberalism. The latter, clearly, is a part of leftist politics (again, from an American perspective; and that is the only perspective that I value). Neither did I. In any case, that might be relevant...how, exactly?
It will often lead to the rejection of right wing thought (e.g. the authoritarian personality doesn't take too kindly to intellectualism). However, that's not for me to decide. What matters is that the search is undertaken. Fox News watchers just aren't bothering! Peer reviewed econometric analysis doesn't agree with you? I'll cry you a river so I will. You have two choices. First, you can offer a genuine example of its bias. Typically, that will have to refer to the empirical techniques adopted. Second, you can offer an alternative study that disputes the findings. You haven't done either. This tells me that you cannot be particularly interested in the evidence. A shame and all that! Hitler was a fascist. You won't be able to refer to one political economist that suggests he was a socialist. But please have a try! Your choice would be entertaining... The Nazis were fascist. Bit obvious really! You can take it that way if you want. That right wingers are more homogeneous is just a sad matter of fact. That media manipulation effects have been documented you also know to be true. Its a mere reflection of the nature of right wing conservatism. The authoritarian personality is rife. Does a right winger necessarily have to be authoritarian? Of course not. However, why they'd ignore the authoritarianism that surrounds their political philosophy is beyond me. I'd have thought that they would be more pro-active, but hey that's up to them and all that! The evidence shows that to be the case. Statistically significant effects aren't found with other media sources. It was a pretty obvious statement as shown by how everyone knows about the invisible hand, but Smith found it so important that he mentioned it once. We're just back to you tacitly supporting the view that Smith was left wing. The problem is that your argument has been incoherent. Smith's egalitarianism is incompatible with the likes of the Chicago School. Putting him within those narrow minded economic imperialists really was a bad move on your part! Classical liberalism is dead. Keep with the times dear chap! This is just repetition of your party political bias where you ignore American consensus politics in order to huff and puff at American liberals. Keynes was an economic liberal. He was merely rational enough to realise the dangers posed by economic uncertainty. You should be glorifying him, given his role in maintaining capitalism You've certainly ignored the reality of it
It is quite clear that you are utterly frustrated (and embittered!) because most Americans do not agree with your leftist views; so you charge the news source that a majority of Americans prefer with misleading us... It is really quite irrelevant anyway, since your appeal to this "study" is what is known as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority (i.e. argumentum ad verecundiam). And why, exactly, might I wish to confine myself to the musings of "political economist"? As a University of Michigan paper puts it: Oh, here is the link: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rememberingnazism/was_nazi_germany_fascist_ I prefer to take it the way you (obviously) intended it... Again, according to your ipse dixit... This last sentence is akin to the fallacy of the complex question, in that it assumes, within its premise, a predetermined conclusion (i.e., in this case, that authoritarianism "surrounds" conservatism). It is a bit like the plaintive query, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" You mean, the "study" that you cited earlier? How often must someone mention something, in order to prove that he really means what he has said? Although I have mentioned Adam Smith previously, he is really tangential to this discussion. In any case, I do believe--in fact, I know--that egalitarianism is a left-wing doctrine. But Adam Smith's core economic doctrines were very far from being leftist... I find it most instructive that you would consider the late Milton Friedman a "narrow minded economic imperialist." Or that you would consider his economic views to be terribly different from Adam Smith's economic views... Sad, but true. Contemporary American conservatism, however, is the closest (living) thing to it... Now we are getting somewhere...
Nope. I may have a little pity, but I try to keep it to the minimum. Best just to be optimistic and think the knowledge search will be unleashed. Nope, its simple use of the evidence. You may want to hide from the evidence, but that doesn't interest me. Its way too predictable to be interesting. Political economists write about political economy. Bit obvious really! The elements of fascism I mentioned are certainly relevant to Hitler's Germany. The dodgy one is the economic application of corporatism. However, as I said, fascism has no coherent economic model. A little low brow. Undergrads should be given more advanced material methinks! So finds the psychology experimentation. Shame and all that! Whether right wingers are more likely to beat their wives may be a question for you to consider. Its not something I have considered. They're more prone to sexism, but that's a different issue. The peer reviewed econometric analysis that you cannot criticise. Why do you think right wingers are so prone to anti-intellectualism? Someone that finds the invisible hand important will certainly use it repeatedly (given it can hypothetically be used in any economic comment). That its used once is quite telling. Bit obvious really! He isn't, as you well know. Whilst Keynes was focused on stabilising capitalist profit, Smith was focused on moral justice. That you see Smith as right wing, even comparing him with the Chicago School, is useful in understanding where your erroneous comment originates. So that is Smith condemned as a lefty too. Golly! See above! That the Chicago School constructed the 'economic imperialist' approach in economic analysis is just matter of fact. That you don't know that doesn't interest me. Much of Friedman's output was the result of misinterpretation of Keynes, such as the false debate over the vertical Phillips curve. This at least made me laugh! American conservatism has no link to classical liberalism. It merely enables tacit support for corporate profiteering. I've merely repeated myself. I have to do that a lot with you mind!
Strawman! I said nothing whatsoever about "pity." Rather, I noted that you appear to be frustrated and embittered. It is an appeal to authority... Why should I give special consideration to what they claim about Adolf Hitler's political (not "economic") leanings? Not sufficiently advanced for your intellectual tastes? How very...well, elitist of you... With this, we have even more incoherent babbling... When you cannot possibly advance a solid counter-argument, I suppose you can always change the subject, and hope (however fatuously) that no one might notice... Once again, the fallacy of the complex question: In this case, it assumes, within its premise, that "right wingers" are "prone to anti-intellectualism." Just among syndicated political columnists--a very narrow spectrum of people--such names as Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and the late William F. Buckley leap to mind. But perhaps you consider these people to be "anti-intellectual"... Why should a metaphor be repeated, in order to prove that the author really means what he has said? You do have a penchant for triteness, don't you? According to contemporary American standards, Adam Smith would be precisely that... Translation: Any school of economic thought that is inherently uncongenial to egalitarian dogma must be "imperialist"... American conservatism is the (quite natural) heir to classsical liberalism. Presumably, your severe distaste for "corporate profiteering" is steeped in your preference for some socialist economic model...
Keep up, I was detailing my nature for you. Terribly decent of me too. I certainly feel pity for those constrained by knowledge deficiency; typically encouraged through mechanisms such as the Fox News effect. However, I continue to be an optimist. I've seen, for example, fascist realise their error and embrace socialism. Do I expect socialism to automatically be the chosen home of the enlightened? Of course not. However, I'll celebrate any investment in knowledge. Individualism is grand. Repetitive in your error aren't you? Its the economic approach is action. One cannot just assume one is correct, one should always question and test hypothesis. The Fox News effect is supported by the evidence. You cannot dismiss the evidence. You are therefore forced into anti-intellectual comment. To understand political economy, you refer to political economists. It is typically the case that such common sense will be discouraged amongst right wing homogeneity. The pursuit of knowledge automatically leads to questioning of core beliefs. It creates a dissonance. Just matter of fact. Note the difference between our sources. I've given something that adopts an empirical methodology that enables us to check robustness. I've ensured that it has gone through the peer review process. You've given a student source which I've already been able to dismiss, applying Pareto's analysis to the different fascist regimes (the theory of the elites, for example, is just as relevant to Hitler's Germany) Nope, we have reference to the evidence (again). That evidence consistently points to the importance of the authoritarianism personality amongst right wing conservatives. I of course expect you to ignore it. Back to the dissonance aren't we now! You brought up wife beating. You just didn't realise that, through more general analysis into sexism, it further introduced the importance of the authoritarian personality. I don't actually have to debate with you. I simply need to get you to type and you will willingly offer the ammo. Jolly decent of you really! Anti-intellectualism is part of the authoritarian personality. And let us not forget that you've gone for the restriction full pelt on here, as shown by your attempt to dismiss an empirical paper without actually referring to any empirical bias. Because, given the economics coverage made, it can be applied repeatedly. That it wasn't shows its relative unimportance. Mere honesty. His egalitarianism proved you wrong. Again, you show your innocence. Economic imperialism refers to the belief that the core assumptions in orthodox theory (particularly rational economic man) can be used to understand any phenomena. This perceivably leads to standard use of concepts such as equilibrium and efficiency to generate policy conclusion. See, for example, Becker's analysis into topics such as crime and drugs. Seems to me you don't know the Chicago school too well! Bit obvious mind you as you compared it to Smith. Nope. They are simply right wingers with the same authoritarian personality. They're convenient to corporate interests mind you!
Your dismissive (and contemptuous!) attitude toward conservatives is duly noted. You continue to equate conservatism with "authoritarianism," without even a shred of evidence for support. It is quite obvious to me that you consider yourself inellectually gifted, and that you consider conservatives intellectually deficient. (No need, apparently, for you to debate individual matters; rather, you seem quite pleased to merely ensure that you are ensconsed on the leftmost side of just about every issue, as if that were certain to ensure you of being correct.) I will gladly debate the issues with anyone; but I have no need to debate attitudes. And you appear to be quite gleeful in your (almost promiscuous) attitudinizing...
Note that everything I've said is supported by evidence. You might not like that mind you, as shown by the rather predictable dismissal of a paper you didn't even read (or attempt to offer genuine critique over the empirical methods used) The literature on the topic is substantial (often, however, focused on specific issues; such as abortion attitudes). Psychological interest was increased through the work by Altemeyer Nope. I do the obvious, nothing more. Its basic individualism There wouldn't be statistically significant media effects if individualism was apparent. Everything you've said has been about attitudes, rather than the concepts generated through economic reality. Your false comparison of Smith with the Chicago School economic imperialists gave that away somewhat. We're left with one sad result: your attitudes on the likes of Keynes is purely based on not understanding his motivation and/or the subsequent economic modelling his writings spawned.
Keynes, was an intellectual elitist who was trying to preserve a semblance of feudalism where his ilk could keep control. Its cronyism designed to keep power in the hands of lords and their advisers like himself.
The difference is very stark: * Keynesian economics is this. * Socialism is this. And never the twain shall meet. Since socialism does not believe that a market-economy (Supply & Demand that fixes prices) should even exist. For a better treatment of the subject: A Primer on Keynes’ Economics - excerpt: I agree with the supposition in blue above. Keynes was concerned about acute Income Disparity in an economy, but perhaps thought that government intervention should also assist in avoiding the glaring confiscation of Income by low-taxation and its movement into Wealth. That is, I doubt that Keynes even thought that mankind could establish such devious manipulations of Upper-Income Taxation, as exist today in numerous countries, but not quite so blatantly as in the US. View attachment 46645 PS: Keynes had great success in managing investment portfolios ...
wrong of course!!! Our Founders were 100% worried about creeping govt libsocialism and tried to make it illegal!! As Communist Party General Secretary William Z. Foster commented, "The Nazi fascists were especially enthusiastic supporters of Keynes."[65] Former Trotskyite[66] Dobbs recounted that Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter observed that in Nazi Germany, "A work like Keynes General Theory could have appeared unmolestedand did." In the introduction to the 1936 German edition of his treatise, Keynes himself suggested that the total state that the National Socialists were then building was perfectly suited for the implementation of his investment schemes: The theory of aggregate production that is the goal of the following book can be much more easily applied to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given output turned out under the conditions of free competition and a considerable degree of laissez-faire.[67]
redistribution welfare creates moral hazard and the need for ever more redistribution with the govt then gaining more and more power until it is socialist and no longer capitalist. Growing govt is the evil our Constitution was designed to protect. My honor to explain the basics of America to you. Also, Keynes considered himself an apostle, a very elite genius; so he accordingly would have loved to work for Hitler and control an entire economy according to his apostolic genius. Do you understand?
