Replies

Dear waspie I am no Keynesian. Merely because I actually have read his Magnum Opus doesnt make me a Keynesian any more than reading Das Kapital makes me a Marxist. Or Ricardo a Ricardian.

Dear bendoverandshakeit, merely reading does not make a follower as you point out. However, reading and praising the work while claiming to not be a follower further cements you as the fraud you are.

I am a Hamiltonian, however.

From your praise of his policies of large, life appointed, centralized government theory there really is no doubt.

Apparently you are not aware what conservative means either.

Yes, I am very aware of the literal definitions of both of those words. I am also aware of the political reality that was set forth in the 60's and 70's. In America, the "conservatives" are the "old guard" that want to preserve liberty, freedom, and the rights of the States over the creeping Socialistic tendencies that we see today. The "liberals" are the ex-hippies and closet communists that want to take us away from our founding principles. To suggest otherwise is to use the liberal tactic of redefining words. By Mr. Zak's own definition, you and he are on the wrong forum.

But what can be expected from one who kisses Slaver Traitor butt?

Oooohhhh! Aren't you clever! Did you think that cute little cheapshot up all by yourself? Should I expect better from someone who preaches Republican but posts like a New Deal Democrat?

Most of those who blabber about the Evils of Keynesianism have neither read his work nor understand what it was about. Keynes, like many Englishmen, was a marvelous writer and there is little that is NOT orthodox in his early writings. He was one who tried to explain economic activity (or lack) when Classical Theory could not. Keynes was essentially a Classical Economist. I can praise many works without being a fraud or a follower. Even Das Kapital has things of value in it.

When Hamilton was in the government IT WAS TINY (government revenues were about $5 per American.) About the only part he wanted to grow was the Military. Only those with no knowledge of the man or his policies could claim he was for BIG government. He was definitely for a government strong enough to protect the Union from enemies foreign and domestic. State governments were the BIG governments and, in the South, totally devoted to maintaining the Reign of Terror of the Slavers.

Nor was he for "life appointments," except for judges, though he would have liked Washington to serve for life. Even you can't claim he wished Adams or Jefferson to serve for life. It is obvious you know NOTHING about Hamilton's beliefs. Why don't you read Hendrickson, Morris, Mitchell, Scractner, Lodge, MacDonald, or even Flexner, Brookheiser or Alexander's biographies of him before you continue to embarrass yourself?

Conservatives have nothing to do with "states' rights" that was the concern of reactionary racists, not conservatives. A conservative does not want to change things, those since Reagan have wanted to change MANY things. It is the "liberals" of today who want to see the status quo maintained and who are afraid of change not conservatives. Our Founding Fathers were NOT conservatives they sided with England. I refuse to accept the labels the RATmedia has placed upon me.