Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] frizzi



JC's assertion was that most economists agreed that the conservative approach was wrong. That is a statement without justification, and an untrue statement. If you would like me to explain to you how Keynesian economics has failed in the past, I will let you know privately. It being absurd on its face is definitely an opinion. but since when are opinions prohibited here? We have opinions on everything. No more on this in the forum, and you can respond privately.

Bill

On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:13 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

IMO, the assertion you seem to be taking issue with is not comparable to:

"Keynesian economics has failed every time it's been tried"

I'm not sure whether to put the assertion

"Keynesian economics is absurd at its face, that you can spend your way out of a recession"

in the same category or merely to express my own opinion that it demonstrates an astonishingly weak understanding of Keynesian economic theory.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:01 PM, William Robertson wrote:

Ah, then JC's original assertion without any established fact, which
prompted my reply, did not belong on this list?

Bill




On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:49 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

The most important reason that this post absolutely does not belong
on this list is not that it is political in nature, but that it
makes assertions of personal opinion in the clothing of established
fact, something "science types" rightly abhor.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:09 PM, William Robertson wrote:

As science types, let's not make claims that need qualification, and
not include that qualification. If what you mean by mainstream
economists is Keynesian economists, then your claim is correct.
There
are an equal number of qualified economists who realize that
Keynesian
economics has failed every time it's been tried, and you are not
including those people in your statement. We are in danger of what
has
been called a Keynesian death spiral, in which the government
stimulates the economy ad nauseum. There has to be a rebound when the
funds run out, and then the government has to spend even more money.
The only way out of that is to spend even more money, and eventually,
you have to come out of the hole you have dug. FDR gets much credit
for having saved the country, but there are plenty of economic
scholars who believe that FDR only prolonged the depression with his
massive government spending. There is no way to get out of a
recession
or a depression without pain, but the question is, which way is the
quickest way out? Keynesian economics is absurd at its face, that you
can spend your way out of a recession. That especially applies to
government spending, where waste is commonplace. Why does it make
sense to take one person's money and give it to another, all the
while
taking a massive cut for yourself? That's what the government does.
Better, maybe, to let the transactions take place without the
government being involved?

I know this post doesn't belong on this list, but politics always
seem
to creep in. I've said what I intend to say, and will not post
further
on this.
.
Bill

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l