tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post7253154400598545167..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Neither Structure nor Aggregate DemandWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9917655068621040562012-09-10T15:39:03.683-04:002012-09-10T15:39:03.683-04:00TheRightRadical: What like the FED?
The U.S. Con...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>What like the FED? </i><br /><br />The U.S. Constitution, courts, elections, legislatures, the rule of law. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4351018779052524562012-09-10T15:17:23.001-04:002012-09-10T15:17:23.001-04:00traditional institutions"
What like the FED?...traditional institutions"<br /><br />What like the FED? <br />It's traditional all right; it has been traditionally wrong, and disastrous, and so is Keynesian general theory, as our current world depression has shown. <br /><br />anarchy"<br /><br />You don't mean anarchy. You mean chaos. And in the past hundred years the three most chaotic societies; not surprisingly were the three with the most governmental authority, to embrace central planning. Have been Hitler’s Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Maoist China. <br />All three claimed it's main desire was to help the "common" man, and maintain order. What a Hobbesian view. <br />Oh by the way Zac, since you're all for the state drafting people. Was it right for Hitler and Stalin to draft soldiers? <br /><br />the loss of freedom"<br /> <br />What a hoot. The comtemporary American state claims it has the right not only to detain you indefinitely, but to murder you on it’s whim, without trial. <br />And you have the nerve to call this "freedom"? Even Hitler, and Stalin had show trials. <br /><br />You either are just a blind ideologue, or one of the biggest victims of "Stockholm" syndrome. I have met in quite a while. Hell it's probably both. <br />I have met in quite a whileTheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-66452045674539149632012-09-10T12:53:03.396-04:002012-09-10T12:53:03.396-04:00TheRightRadical: SMASH THE STATE!
We're quit...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>SMASH THE STATE! </i><br /><br />We're quite a bit more conservative than yourself. We see traditional institutions, despite all their flaws, as bulwarks against anarchy and the loss of freedom. Reform can be accompanied by unintended consequences, so careful consideration should be used. <br /><br /><b>Calgacus</b>: <i>But money always & everywhere IS a state intervention.</i><br /><br /><b>Bala</b>: <i>ROFLMFAO. </i><br /><br />"Whose image and inscription is this?"Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-1584854916449894912012-09-10T01:12:58.897-04:002012-09-10T01:12:58.897-04:00"But money always & everywhere IS a state..."But money always & everywhere IS a state intervention. And therefore "free markets" are a state intervention."<br /><br />ROFLMFAO. This is absolutely priceless!!! And WHAT, if I may ask, is the basis of this ASSertion?<br /><br />And the last bit is priceless. A "free market" is by definition a market without violent intervention. So in the words of the GREAT Calcagus, a market with extensive violent intervention is a market without violent intervention. Black is White.<br /><br />Where's Orwell when you need him?????Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-51066410753629466802012-09-09T16:24:51.933-04:002012-09-09T16:24:51.933-04:00I'm listening if you have a better idea than a...I'm listening if you have a better idea than a democratic government democratically deciding""<br /><br />SMASH THE STATE! <br />Is the only economic, political, and cultural policy any civilized person would need.TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-22915285111099108062012-09-09T15:32:30.087-04:002012-09-09T15:32:30.087-04:00Buy War Bonds!"
So we can pay the soldiers ...Buy War Bonds!" <br /><br />So we can pay the soldiers better I say, unlike Zac who would pay them nothing if he could get away with it. Have you no shame? <br /><br />You freakin swamped boat! <br />And a damn intellectual lightweight to boot! <br />I bet at the minimum you have a Master's, and maybe even a PhD, and yet totally outclassed by a proud college dropout! <br /><br />TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-15816225694442568022012-09-09T13:44:25.436-04:002012-09-09T13:44:25.436-04:00TheRightRadical: There was a high amount of saving...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>There was a high amount of savings to be sure, which is available for capital investment, which will spur new production. </i><br /><br />Buy War Bonds! <br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-76122427811562012302012-09-09T12:48:08.545-04:002012-09-09T12:48:08.545-04:00Zac: Do try to keep up. GDP exploded during WWII&q...Zac: Do try to keep up. GDP exploded during WWII"<br />Zac:A lot more than GDP matters." <br /><br />Do you have any more pearls of wisdom?<br /><br />Zac: The result was that at the end of the war, even ordinary people had significant savings"<br /><br />Back to this old canard. There was a high amount of savings to be sure, which is available for capital investment, which will spur new production. Which is what Hayek always said. <br />Unlike Keynes who thinks you can get investment through debt via a government monopolized printing press, and creating demand through a bubble economy. <br />You'd have to be a child to believe your nonsense, which is what Krugman appears to be, and a spoiled, petulant one at that. <br /><br />Zac; Government demand dropped, and individual demand increased to replace it. <br />Apples and Oranges, two totally different things. Government demand dropped hugely, and scarce resources were redirected towards real productive output. Peter Schiff has repeated said this is what needs to happen in current situation, but this is not allowed to happen because of Keynesian trained economists that advise and run our regime, who want to re-inflate the housing bubbles and create new ones in companies like Solyndra. <br /><br /><br />Zac: By the way, you never did answer. So are you saying countries should not have utilized the draft even after being attacked by fascists bent on domination? <br /><br />"A total of 10.1 million men were drafted during World War II. At the beginning of the war, men rushed to enlist, but, from Hershey’s perspective, that ruined orderly conscription. He persuaded President Roosevelt in December 1942 to end voluntary enlistments except for men under 18 and over 38"<br /><br />So what is this saying? <br />It is saying that you couldn't volunteer even you wanted too. <br />So you have no Goddamn idea if the thing was needed or not! <br />Here's what we do know though. The government didn't give up on the Program, and it continued the draft decades after the war<br />It continued to pay those drafted Chinese coolie wages, and between 1965-1972 it sent a conscripted Army to Vietnam where nearly 60,000 were killed, and over 4 million seriously wounded. <br />Also the US military has not updated doctrine since 1865 (the US war for southern independence). We should have, and still should adapt to newer doctrine, of which was developed from 1919 through the 1940s mainly by Rommel, although MacArthur used much of the same doctrine aka "island hopping" in the Pacific. <br />The manpower requirements are smaller in maneuver warfare, when compared to fighting a war of attrition (which has been standard US fighting doctrine since the Civil War, WWI, and all of our current wars since up to and including Iraq, and the AF-Pak war). <br />So in conclusion I believe that a new fighting doctrine, higher pay, and patriotism, would have sufficed in beating the Axis powers, without conscription. <br />It also perhaps would have gone a long way in preventing the Vietnam tragedy. TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16387308268339133842012-09-09T09:38:13.562-04:002012-09-09T09:38:13.562-04:00Calgacus: But money always & everywhere IS a s...<b>Calgacus</b>: <i>But money always & everywhere IS a state intervention. </i><br /><br />"Whose image and inscription is this?"<br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10856267963919456302012-09-09T09:35:08.944-04:002012-09-09T09:35:08.944-04:00TheRightRadical: First you claim that it was peopl...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>First you claim that it was people spending savings (because Keynesians hate personal savings) that caused the boom, then show saving figures that leads one to believe that there was tremendous decline in overall savings. </i><br /><br />Do try to keep up. GDP exploded during WWII, but personal consumption lagged. Instead, the new income was saved because of rationing, patriotism and uncertainty. Incomes rose, but demand was 'pent up'. <br /><br />The result was that at the end of the war, even ordinary people had significant savings, and with the advent of Social Security, less reason to worry about the future. So, people reduced their rate of savings. This caused an explosion in personal consumption. Per your own citation, nearly $300 billion (2012) dollars in a single year in a much smaller economy. The demand was 'unpent'. <br /><br /><b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>Or are you now going back to the old Keynes canard that "demand" drives the economic bus? </i><br /><br />Government demand dropped, and individual demand increased to replace it. <br /><br /><b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>Demand is infinite of course (even in famines). </i><br /><br />You must mean "demand".<br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Air_Quotes.jpg/250px-Air_Quotes.jpg<br /><br />Even then, desire is not infinite, but decreases with supply until you reach a point where you can't give it away. <br /><br /><b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>You subscribe to the view that there must be state invention to direct scarce resources (centrally plan) in order to achieve some goals your side has, which are never defined. </i><br /><br />Actually, we're discussing the utility of countercyclical policy, not investment, ...<br /><br />... other than the importance of fighting WWII. By the way, you never did answer. So are you saying countries should not have utilized the draft even after being attacked by fascists bent on domination? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5301873467257730342012-09-09T04:34:54.899-04:002012-09-09T04:34:54.899-04:00One side believes that the best way to do this is ...<i>One side believes that the best way to do this is be as free as possible. I subscribe to this view. <br />You subscribe to the view that there must be state intervention to direct scarce resources (centrally plan) in order to achieve some goals your side has, which are never defined.</i><br /><br />Actually, genuine Keynesian/Institutional/MMT economists largely agree with this. Economies "should" be as free as possible. <br /><br />But money always & everywhere IS a state intervention. And therefore "free markets" are a state intervention. So the state has a responsibility to return unemployment - the demand for money in return for work - to its natural rate of zero, by spending enough of the money it demands in taxes and prices for things the government sells (e.g. gold, if there is a gold standard). <br /><br />I'm listening if you have a better idea than a democratic government democratically deciding what to spend - an informed, rational democratic government would at the very least give the governed a Job Guarantee at a fixed wage, as the government certainly guarantees taxation and the prices which are driven by it. Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2118174633231634972012-09-08T23:22:13.959-04:002012-09-08T23:22:13.959-04:00Zachriel: There was a great deal of pent up demand...Zachriel: There was a great deal of pent up demand due to rationing during the war. Even ordinary people had significant savings, which helped maintain demand when the war ended<br />Zac: Gross personal savings:<br />1944 $54.3 billion<br />1948 $ 7.3 billion<br /><br />These are your statements no? <br />You're a terrible debater taking all sides of an issue. First you claim that it was people spending savings (because Keynesians hate personal savings) that caused the boom, then show saving figures that leads one to believe that there was tremendous decline in overall savings. <br />A person with some integrity would have stated:<br />"The Gross Savings per year were:<br />1944 $54.3 billion<br />1948 $ 7.3 billion <br />I really don't know what your points are because Higgs says it wasn't "pent up" based on spending savings (capital) it was a redirect of disposal income. Which I guess you agree with now?<br />Or are you now going back to the old Keynes canard that "demand" drives the economic bus? <br /> <br />Demand is infinite of course (even in famines). <br />The whole idea of economy is to fill as many as demands as possible with the scarce resources on hand. <br />One side believes that the best way to do this is be as free as possible. I subscribe to this view. <br />You subscribe to the view that there must be state invention to direct scarce resources (centrally plan) in order to achieve some goals your side has, which are never defined. <br />We argue that your way creates inefficiencies, undermines freedom, and undermines peace. <br />We have the historical facts, as well as the future on our side.<br />Your ideology is in a richly deserved long descent into the ashcan of history. <br />Enjoy the ride. <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br />TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16117376669269952002012-09-08T09:39:09.809-04:002012-09-08T09:39:09.809-04:00TheRightRadical: The stunt you are trying to pull ...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>The stunt you are trying to pull here: is saying the gross savings was less then 50 bucks per capita in 1948. To support these numbers there would have to be a stunningly negitive savings rate, which I can find no where. </i><br /><br />Um, that is the gross personal savings rate. Per capita GDP exploded during WWII, but consumption was limited by the war, hence the savings rate rose. When the war ended, the increased income became available for consumption, so savings fell. The increase in consumption was equivalent to several hundred billion dollars per year in today's dollars. <br /><br />Your own citation says the same thing. "Between 1945 and 1946, when personal consumption spending increased by $23.7 billion ..." In today's dollars that would be an increase of nearly $300 billion in consumption in just one year, a huge stimulus. Even then, it wasn't sufficient to forestall a recession, which was deep, but short-lived. Truman, following the greatest demobilization in history, could rightly say "As the year 1947 begins, the state of our national economy presents great opportunities for all. We have virtually full employment. Our national production of goods and services is 50 percent higher than in any year prior to the war emergency. The national income in 1946 was higher than in any peacetime year. Our food production is greater than it has ever been. During the last 5 years our productive facilities have been expanded in almost every field. The American standard of living is higher now than ever before, and when the housing shortage can be overcome it will be even higher."<br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-88659822783597067132012-09-07T16:35:12.018-04:002012-09-07T16:35:12.018-04:00Gross personal savings:
1944 $54.3 billion
1948 $...Gross personal savings:<br /><br />1944 $54.3 billion<br />1948 $ 7.3 billion<br /><br />I don't know what you're trying to pull here Zac, but I think you're lying again about the facts. The stunt you are trying to pull here: is saying the gross savings was less then 50 bucks per capita in 1948. To support these numbers there would have to be a stunningly negitive savings rate, which I can find no where. <br />So try again. <br />While I cannot find the numbers on line that Dr. Higgs (but I am trying to contact him for his source material) uses I will take the word of a esteemed college professor of over 40 years, with several books to his credit. <br />Vice a shallow, flip-flopping thinker(s), that is a believer in the economics of death and destruction that has brought us from the Age of Affluence to economic rocks, because of the harebrained schemes of crackpot Keynesian economists, who advised the national government for over seventy years.TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-61344742475950418852012-09-07T07:29:20.553-04:002012-09-07T07:29:20.553-04:00Gross personal savings:
1944 $54.3 billion
1948 $...Gross personal savings:<br /><br />1944 $54.3 billion<br />1948 $ 7.3 billion<br /><br />Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970; Sources and Uses of Gross Saving: 1929 to 1970; Bureau of the Census, United States, Congress House. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-39312637888872768492012-09-07T07:19:23.750-04:002012-09-07T07:19:23.750-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18302405162530379702012-09-07T07:15:03.408-04:002012-09-07T07:15:03.408-04:00TheRightRadical: I answered ALL and am victorious....<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>I answered ALL and am victorious. </i><br /><br />Okay. Just a sanity check. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-38470267258481668772012-09-06T23:18:10.469-04:002012-09-06T23:18:10.469-04:00Zac said:
"You won't even answer simple ...Zac said:<br /><br />"You won't even answer simple questions so we can understand your position."<br /><br />Those in glass houses Zac....<br /><br />For the 8th time. What do you do for a living?Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-88320759510386785812012-09-06T21:20:00.918-04:002012-09-06T21:20:00.918-04:00F you I answered ALL and am victorious. You got NO...F you I answered ALL and am victorious. You got NOTHING and guess what I flunked out of college, you limp wristed, lilly livered creep! <br />Of course I found another one of your Keynesian lies!!!! <br /><br />http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/the-myth-of-pent-up-demand-and-the-successful-reconversion-after-world-war-ii/TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-32553590518310848192012-09-06T21:06:01.618-04:002012-09-06T21:06:01.618-04:00TheRightRadical: Since you haven't made any cl...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>Since you haven't made any claim to counter my argument </i><br /><br />What argument? You won't even answer simple questions so we can understand your position. <br /><br /><b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>you have no problem paying a guy on a government contact, union scale far above minimum wage, and much higher then non union workers for tasks like landscaping,painting or installing green energy. In the name of Stimulus. </i><br /><br />Huh? The question was "Are you suggesting the government should have raised salaries sufficient to attract enough paid labor to fight WWII?"<br /><br /><b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>While saying it's OK to draft, and FORCE a soldier to take much less, when he is risking life and limb. </i><br /><br />So you are saying countries should not have utilized the draft even after being attacked by fascists bent on domination? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-29691432116614984012012-09-06T21:01:56.165-04:002012-09-06T21:01:56.165-04:00The fight against fascism in WWII was hardly a par...The fight against fascism in WWII was hardly a partisan issue. "<br /><br /><br />Since you haven't made any claim to counter my argument and insist on changing your argument with pooh, poohed claims of patriotism, that any old Neocon would use. I will take it that I win the argument. <br />Furthermore, to imply that the Roosevelt Admin. wasn't Keynesian is just flat out retarded. <br /><br /><br />That's what we said concerning draftees. Are you suggesting the government should have raised salaries sufficient to attract enough paid labor to fight WWII?"<br /><br />No I am saying you're an asshole because you have no problem paying a guy on a government contact, union scale far above minimum wage, and much higher then non union workers for tasks like landscaping,painting or installing green energy. In the name of Stimulus. <br />While saying it's OK to draft, and FORCE a soldier to take much less, when he is risking life and limb. <br />Face it dude, you're a creep. Unlike me who would have paid them market rates for their labor, even if I had to draft them. TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-46919643557715856492012-09-06T16:46:11.733-04:002012-09-06T16:46:11.733-04:00TheRightRadical: If they are running off to save t...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>If they are running off to save the World, and endanger their lives. The least you Keynesians could do, is pay them half decently. </i><br /><br />The fight against fascism in WWII was hardly a partisan issue. <br /><br /><b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>you are being counterfactual, for if they have to be drafted (legally enslaved) then obvisiously the pay is not enough to entice them to join voluntarily. </i><br /><br />That's what we said concerning draftees. Are you suggesting the government should have raised salaries sufficient to attract enough paid labor to fight WWII? <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-60868860032906301262012-09-06T15:02:20.074-04:002012-09-06T15:02:20.074-04:00Yes Zac
If they are running off to save the World...Yes Zac<br /><br />If they are running off to save the World, and endanger their lives. The least you Keynesians could do, is pay them half decently. <br />Jesus, you guys are fucked up, when recession fighter Krugman wants to spend trillions, money is no object. But let a guy fight in the greatest public works program of all time, and you want to short change him. What a piker!<br /> <br />Besides like all Keynesian arguments, you are being counterfactual, for if they have to be drafted (legally enslaved) then obvisiously the pay is not enough to entice them to join voluntarily. <br />So in essence, you are saying because we have decided we have the right to draft you. We also reserve the right to pay you Chinese coolie wages. <br />That is so fair, so right, so compassionate. (which is what I always thought limp wristed lefties were all about) <br />You're some humanitarian Zac. <br /><br />As far as the ones that joined voluntarily. I guess it's OK to force things like minimum wage, and union scale on private firms, but apparently government doesn't have to follow those same laws they lay down on the public. Even if one is fighting to the death to save the world. <br />You're a callous hypocrite with a heart of stone.TheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6500101205726048572012-09-06T12:36:06.641-04:002012-09-06T12:36:06.641-04:00TheRightRadical: 1)WWII servicemen were underpaid ...<b>TheRightRadical</b>: <i>1)WWII servicemen were underpaid at the then market rates for labor, hence </i><br /><br />A lot of people volunteered, so they must have thought the compensation was sufficient, room, board, uniform, gun, chance to travel, save the world, etc. As for those who were drafted, the U.S. was already running extremely high deficits. Many people wouldn't have endangered their lives for any price. Are you suggesting the government should have raised salaries sufficient to attract enough paid labor to fight WWII? <br /><br />Seriously? You don't think the danger sufficient to compel service? Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83632581639035379292012-09-06T12:10:12.113-04:002012-09-06T12:10:12.113-04:00Correction
1) Had they been paid at the then mark...Correction<br /><br />1) Had they been paid at the then market rates of labor, <br />2)they would have not needed the GI BillTheRightRadicalnoreply@blogger.com