Posted on 11/09/2011 5:31:12 AM PST by Vintage Freeper
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Every 2012 contender attended college. They all graduated. They went to schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Texas A&M, Morehouse, Penn State and Emory.
But decades have passed since these Presidential candidates first stepped onto campus as freshmen. Is it time for an Econ 101 refresher course?
(Snip)
America's Econ 101 professors say yes. In their view, the candidates continue to offer ideas and policies that wouldn't pass muster in their classes -- populated by 18 year-old college students.
"There are so many economic 'misstatements' being made," said Jonathan Lanning, a professor at Bryn Mawr who is teaching two introductory economics classes this semester. "And it isn't confined to any one candidate."
(Snip)
No dice, say the professors.
(Snip)
Stephen Golub, who is teaching Econ 101 at Swarthmore College this semester, said some of the ideas floated by Presidential candidates would earn a failing grade in his class.
"I think it's grossly irresponsible what they are saying," Golub said. "It's not about economics. It's about getting elected. They are promising things that are impossible to deliver or make little sense."
The rhetoric sounds good on the campaign trail. Not in the classroom.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
There are at least two other schools of economics that have effectively discredited Keynes. See almost anything written by Milton Freidman or even better, see Ludwig von Mises's "Human Action" or George Reisman's "CAPITALISM."
The media and academia have no interest whatsoever in facts, truth, or even the spread or advancement of knowledge. Any denials are easily, but not quickly, provably false. The media and academia are all about advancing a socialistic agenda. In short, the media and academia have become nothing more than propaganda tools.
Keynes knew his socialistic economic theories were false. He understood his theories foster a "live for today" attitude which will be mirrored in the economy. Keynes didn't care because tomorrow "you might die" and the future will no longer matter to you. One of his more famous quotes summarizes this beautifully, "In the end, we are all dead."
The problem with Keynesian economics is that nobody knows when "the end" will actually happen. The odds against it being tomorrow are almost infinitely high. The odds that it is a century from now are still really high. Even the odds that it will be in this millenium or the next are incredibly high. There is evidence that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that man and his close ancestors have been here for at least a hundred thousand years. The economy is probably not going to end soon for our heirs or even the heirs of our heirs. Anybody who gives a hoot about their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren is Machiavellian if they elect to follow Keynsian economics or political leaders who use Keynsian policies. And the same is true for themselves if they think there is a reasonable expectation for surviving even a decade. With a prospect of living for a couple of decades, following Keynesian theories is worse than stupid, at fifty years it becomes borderline suicidal.
Thomas Edison said, "Five percent of people think. Ten percent of people think they think. And the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think." The media probably fall into the eighty-five percent while political leaders and academia fall into the ten percent group. If you believe you are in the five percent, click HERE for a self -test
If I'm not mistaken, his quote was actually "In the long run we are all dead" which was his retort to the classical economic emphasis on long run equilibrium.
The 0bamunists are just looking for how much the government will give them and could care less about the economics behind the handout.
These are Keynesians, whose ideas have been PROVEN by trial to not work. Moreover, they have no understanding of the purpose of a JUST government, and zero interest in coming to understand it.
As a side note, Econ 101 is usually MICRO-economics, which has little or nothing to do with any of the claims or promises of the candidates. Econ 102 is usually the type of Keynesian Brainwashing engaged in by these leftists who "profess" to know everything under the sun.
The potential for wealth creation is essentially infinite
TINSTAAFL
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from it's most productive use and dedicated to a less productive use
All fiat currencies eventually fail
No government can create wealth, but all governments can destroy wealth
Get to work, we'll all be better off.
Finally, if you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it. We subsidize poverty and tax wealth creation.
according to Bob Brinker, the 0bama administration cannot do Keynes right.
Economist Professors acknowledge politicians seem to know very little about economics.
How about some substance and real examples. Why explain why government cannot “create” jobs (beyond hiring guvmnt employees)? How about explaining why taxing corporations is pointless? How about explaining the behavioral affect of supply and demand when taxes and regulation are introduced (pros and cons please)?
I'll tell you why. This was about the ignorance (mostly) of the Republican candidates and they couldn't afford to get to specific or it might shine a light on how seemingly stupid they all are. Either that or it would prove how stupid they think the American people are.
We keep voting for these people, maybe we are that stupid after all.
A better idea would be for these college professors to work a semester or two in a pizza parlor (or other actual business) to learn some real world economics.
There's no analysis in the piece.
It amounts to tossing out random things like Bachmann's "$2 gas" and snickering. It's a waste of time and bandwidth.
We don't even have to guess if they Keynesians. Of course they are.
That’s because the public at large does not understand it, and will not accept a candidate telling them the truth when it does not square with what they personally desire of government.
“FROM EACH ACCRDING TO HIS ABILITY
TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS”
Anything else is a fail grade to the communist university system.
LLS
Here’s another: In the entire history of the world, no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
As opposed to the economic wizbang Nobama.
Where was this article when Nobama was campaigning and promising everything but unicorns and sea horses.
There is an extremely high percentage of college instructors teaching economics who are ardent leftists. I don’t know if the prof quoted in article is one, but I wouldn’t take him too seriously. My stepdaughter had an econ prof who offered a prize to anyone in his class who could “disprove” the Laffer Curve. Not because he himself couldn’t “disprove” it, he just wanted to see if his students were as smart as he was. He was a Keynesian spendaholic. Guess what? My stepdaughter, a very nice person but a flaming lib, won the prize. I had a difficult time suppressing my laughter when my wife told me the story.
If a demonstrable understanding of basic economic principles were a prerequisite for holding public office, then there would be no Democrats in office today.
Of course, because purposefulness of failed economic theories, that sound good in the classroom but fail in the real world, face no serious challenge in the classroom to prove their idea
Informed, intelligent democrats is an oxymoron. A contradiction of logical reality.
It is easily, not quickly, proven that virtually everything that Democrats believe is wrong.
Share this link with any Democrat and ask them to refute it.
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.