As far as academic macroeconomists are concerned, there is absolutely no consensus on this issue, much less enough to refer to "laws". Up until the early 1970s, it is true that the then dominate school of macroeconomics was Keynesian which would have agreed with your post. Even when I was a undergratuate student, most undergrad macroeconomics courses still focused almost totally on the Keynesian and monetarist models, leaving the newer stuff for graduate school. However, those days are long past. Now we spend very little time teaching the monetarist model and split most of the time between new Keynesian and new Classical economics. It would be hard for any of current student of macroeconomics to have the misconception that the old Keynesian policy recommendations come close to being "laws".
Corporate Cash Con
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
The insanity is that while he argues that we should borrow money from China to fund more public sector jobs he's against corporations repatriating cash for free to create private sector investment (and jobs).... you said it, well educated idiot.
OTB
I know you don't understand it but you could fill the Pacific with the things you don't understand.
OTB
I would rather fill the USA with those millions of jobs you globalist goofballs promised Globalism would create here but NEVER delivered bottie! All you fuzzy numbers guys did was create jobs for those commies you pal around with in RED China.....while the USA implodes into Default courtesy of the GOP, who are still working for failure!...
Can't believe you can't see that?
Are you really that stupid of is it all just an act???
As long as there are people like Woody around there will be an audience for people Like Krugman. Let's hope Woody's wife controls the household finances because he thinks cash and taxes are voodoo economics.
That would make you an equally well educated idiot that argues for the US to borrow money from China to fund the military (sort of public, ain't it).
I think we should be cutting military spending, starting first with Europe, Japan and South Korea..... so no, I think you missed both the point and the mark.
OTB
I agree with much of what you say. For many years I was a very strict monetarist and a student of follower of Milton Friedman. What I found in experience and outside of academia is that you cannot simply apply theory to reality and that not all recessions are alike. While there is no doubt a critical role to be played by monetary policy the government and the Fed have essentially played all of those cards. The problem today is not interest rates or taxes it is a lack of consumer demand and that flows form the lack of employment. You cannot lower interest rates anymore. QE3will be a non-starter politically. Blanket statements about raising taxes sound good but they ignore reality. Raising taxes on the rich or closing loopholes will not effect demand for goods and services. Raising taxes on the lower or middle class will. The extension of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy was absurd. Lowering taxes for the rich will not make the owner of a shoe store hire people if no one is buying shoes. That is true across the board. The idea that a country can fight 2 wars (at the time) and lower taxes was and is ridiculous. the only tool the government has left is some kind of stimulus which is a long winded way of saying that in the circumstances existing today the Keynesian approach is likely the one that will either work best or at least least badly.
You forgot to include those 2 useless Wars your boi Dubya and his DICK started! Or do you want to go on funding those 2 corrupt regimes they created when they were 'nation building'? They are NOT much different than the Diem regime created years ago in NAM and will most likely suffer the same fate....
Right, because you too have a Nobel prize economics, and clearly best placed to pass judgement on Krugman's opinion on economics. But you're right--nobody is interest in the opinions of a Nobel prize wining economist, only people like Woody would really care to hear what a world recognized expert has to say, so I guess no-one will want to listen to you either--I guess you should just throw your Nobel prize in the garbage, they're plainly worthless.
It's his political writing that makes him look like an idiot...... almost as consistently as Pekkkr's posts.
OTB
This reads like expert economics opinion rather than political commentary: Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending.
You delude your OxyContinized addled posts are better?....
YOU never did report back on where are all those millions of
JOBS are being created in the USA you claimed your Globalism would produce. Was that all concocted while in an OxyContin stupor also???
Cash, like idle hands, finds work. US firms are sitting on cash because the uncertainty of the new Health Care law and the class warfare Dems tax saber rattling have created a wait and see environment. Although, to be balanced, the threat of Euro sovereign debt demise is having an impact.
OTB
So why hasn't it? Krugman in several of his LSE lecture series, which is available online, gave pretty good reasons why cash doesn't always find work. I think I'll take his expert, Nobel prize winning economic opinion over yours, if that's OK with you.
So perhaps what we're facing is a debt driven liquidity trap? Wait, I think I heard someone talk about that once, at an LSE economics lecture once. Oh wait, yeah, that was Krugman.
They are sitting on cash because there is no demand for the products and/or services the make and/or provide.
