Posted on 06/21/2012 6:49:14 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind
I suspect the essentials of Keynesian economic theory were scribbled as a faculty prank on a monogrammed napkin in the Harvard Business School cafeteria. After a few laughs, the discarded joke was left on the table with empty coffee cups and a half-eaten bagel; only to be discovered minutes later by an opportunistic work-study sophomore clearing the table.
The crumpled napkin was auctioned as the hottest & newest economic pop-theory to a fast-talking tabloid freelancer (who had been to Vegas with his columnist-buddy at The Globe, and had the goods on him). After some hard-nosed and expensive negotiations, the freelancer got his first byline in a major newspaper. He was now a journalist.
From The Globe... to the Times... to The Post... which was left on a conference room table in the US Capitol after a progressive caucus klatch. The rest is history. What began as a joke, became a hot-trendy discovery by a cafeteria worker; morphed an exclusive major news story;
....Then graduated into a smoke-and-mirrors sophistry which has been used to manipulate the American taxpayer and legislative process for decades.
Looking back from the precipice of our present financial disaster--truth be known:
(1) These imaginary principles were never about sound economics.
(2) It was only knee-slapper that grew into a hustle, a few payoffs, and more control..... and....
(3) Keynesian theory is still a joke.
Have a nice day.
Unless and until one can describe the difference between supply and demand and quantity supplied and quantity demanded one does not know economics.
I am sure 100^% of congress, the 1st kardashain and all his advisers — including and especially bernanke — could not pass this test.
You can see the same principal at work in some chemical reactions. While one element represents only a small percentage of the total mixture, adding more can cause a reaction. However when the percentage of that element grows too large, you are no longer able to create a reaction by adding more.
You can see the same principal at work in some chemical reactions. While one element represents only a small percentage of the total mixture, adding more can cause a reaction. However when the percentage of that element grows too large, you are no longer able to create a reaction by adding more.
I don't doubt that you're right about that. To me, as a non-economist, a big part of the economic picture appears to be emotion and ‘gut’ driven. In order for people to engage in commerce and investment they have to have some basic belief in the soundness and stability of the system. Even if tomorrow the administration was able to legitimately tout better numbers, I still think there are many people out there who will remain guarded and on the sidelines because they don't trust in an administration that is ideologically anti-capitalist.
My beef with the Laffer Curve is that it only demonstrates the optimal tax rate, revenue-wise, not that the gub'mint actually needs to extract that amount to function...
It should go without saying Dems are more interested in power than optimizing revenue, hence the emphasis on higher, but much less efficient, not too mention counter-productive and punitive tax rates.
***************
THI-I-I-S-S-S-s-s-s....
....was precisely my point in my little impromptu blurb.
Thanks for your analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.