Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (103547)	2/8/2009 9:58:41 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542010

<<<More than a few cheap shots.>>> January 30, 2009, 4:44 pm Saving, investment, Keynes, evolution If there was one essential element in the work of John Maynard Keynes, it was the demolition of Say’s Law — the assertion that supply necessarily creates demand. Keynes showed that the fact that spending equals income, or equivalently that saving equals investment, does not imply that there’s always enough spending to fully employ the economy’s resources, that there’s always enough investment to make use of the saving the economy would have had it it were at full employment. Getting to that realization was an awesome intellectual achievement. That’s why it’s deeply depressing to find, not that people like Eugene Fama disagree with Keynes’s conclusions — that’s OK, no theory is sacred — but that they’re obviously completely unaware of the whole argument. One of Brad DeLong’s commentators compares what’s going on to the discovery that some eminent biologists are creationists, but it’s actually worse than that: it’s like discovering that some eminent biologists have never heard of the theory of evolution and the concept of natural selection. How did we get to this point? Perhaps a more balanced view: 13. January 30, 2009 7:13 pm Rather than comparing Say’s law to creationism, might it be more accurate to think of the difference between Say and Keynes akin to the difference between Newton and Einstein; the earlier a limited and idealized case (that yet contains some truths) and the latter bringing newer insights to bear. We should be careful not to be historically arrogant given that Say lived about 300 years ago. Will anyone be discussing “Krugman’s law” (whatever that might be) in 2300?

To: JohnM who wrote (103547)	2/9/2009 12:24:00 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542010

I don't have enough expertise in economics to comment substantively. I just wanted to present an alternative view of Krugman since he is the subject of much debate between you & Steve. I am of the view one can find an economist to support just about any governmental budgetary approach one designs.

To: JohnM who wrote (103547)	2/9/2009 8:49:14 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542010

After sleeping on it I've decided to come clean. I wanted to do more than simply present an alternate view of Krugman. If I understand the way you are using Krugman, it is to buttress the argument that Obama's financing plans in the social safety net area are OK. Like Steve, I disagree with the idea that we ought to be lumping safety net programs into the mix with job creation. I think those programs ought to be debated separately because I happen to believe (rightly or wrongly) that we are in the process of making ever limitless demands on limited resources. Therefore, I wish to undercut your's and Krugmans arguments that we can afford to do economically. Barro is saying, if I understand it correctly, that Krugman is arguing in an area he hasn't done any work in. That is a shot alright, but cheap? Only if untrue. Anyway my intent is/was to diminish Krugman's stature as an authority for the argument that we can afford to do this.

To: JohnM who wrote (103547)	2/9/2009 10:43:14 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542010

John; I know education spending is important to you. For now (this might change) I think the Senate Bill takes out 25 billion spending for higher education and school building spending. Seems that when the centrist in the Senate wanted to come on board but wanted a smaller bill, that Reid came back and said okay we take the education spending out. This according to discussion this morning on CSPAN. This is the ugliness of politics - and it was why I was pissed at the democrats for putting into the stimulus bill such things as unemployment, food stamps and family planning. Since much of the middle doesn't care about the welfare stuff, republicans were able to grab the headlines and the rest is history as they say. Guy on CSPAN said the bill was now up to 40% tax cuts or tax rebates! Now the public is confused and good spending on jobs (professors and builders of schools) are lost in the complexity of the bill. Obama messed that up. He should have came out with a strait message that the country could understand; that should have been jobs? But because he didn't, the democrats in over reaching and throwing in the kitchen sink messed up the message and now it is all garbled. The stimulus plan belongs to them and I'm saddened by that. Obama has an ugly mess to try to get us out of - he shouldn't have to be fighting democrats right now. steve