A fool and his imaginary money are soon parted.
Posted on 04/24/2012 8:02:08 AM PDT by MichaelP
This morning brings news that Europe may finally be beginning to soften on the "austerity" philosophy that has brought it nothing but misery over the past several years.
The "austerity" idea, you'll remember, was that the continent's huge debt and deficit problem had ushered in a "crisis of confidence" and that, once business-people saw that governments were serious about debt reduction, they'd get confident and start spending again.
That hasn't worked.
Story at link
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Mike
Funny...they say “stimulus now and cuts later” is the best solution. Yeah, until you actually have to make those cuts...which would mean austerity. If you don’t cut now you are just making the problem harder to solve down the road.
keynes... lying communist MF’er... just like anyone that believes in it.
LLS
Yeah, he was right:
“By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. “
“the way to implement socialism is to grow debt, print money and inflate the currency in order create inflation in order to steal from the citizens without them knowing their property was being stolen.”
This doesn’t vindicate Keynes. The reason the austerity plan was implenmented in the first place was the complete failure of Keynesian economics and impending bankruptcy. If you cant stop spending even though you have no money then the problems ahead make the issues with austerity look like a walk in the park.
The author claims a “surplus” that was “squandered” which is factually untrue - the US has not run a real surplus for almost 50 years!
Keynes may have been right - but most countries have past a point of no return regarding debt - adding more will not solve the problem as it will be impossible to pay it back / make significant cuts later which do NOT crash the economy.
Liberal logic:
Your house is on fire. You throw some water on the fire. Your house is still on fire. Therefore, water doesn’t put out fires. (Ultralib conclusion: Water causes fires.)
Show me the country that has actually cut spending. Not reduced the rate of increase, but actually cut spending and eliminated deficits y-o-y, and reduced its debt load.
They’re declaring a failure that which they dare not try, a government that ‘lives within its means’ and only spends what is taxes in open taxation.
After WWI the U.S. suffered a severe market crash and unemployment over 12% in the 1920-1 Depression subsequent to the ballooning of credit during the war. But the federal government cut spending, actually reduced the debt load on the citizens, and Harding ignored Hoover’s (then commerce secretary) interventionist pleas, and the Federal Reserve RAISED interest rates, and the economy rebounded in less than a year, with unemployment falling under 4%.
We’ve taken the Hoover-FDR approach this time around, and we’re slow walking into another decade long Depression because the government won’t quit squandering resources and starving the productive side of society of capital.
-—That hasn’t worked.——
This is an example of wishful thinking overwhelming common sense.
Even liberals aren’t this jaw-droppingly stupid... Are they?
addendum to lib logic: not only does water cause fires, pouring gasoline on the fire is an even better way of putting it out.
the only thing which has softened are the brains of their voters
I personally believe that Keynes has brought more harm to the world than Hitler. I’m sure others would disagree, but.....
As he said, he’s certainly not an economist, of any kind. Well, maybe the imaginary kind.
Your house is on fire. You throw some water on the fire. Your house is still on fire. Therefore, water doesn’t put out fires. (Ultralib conclusion: Water causes fires.)
I am so stealing that!
...and, to stay on-topic...Keynes is still wrong...!
Yeah, give an alcoholic more booze to treat his DTs.That's a great plan, not.
I didn’t realize Henry Blodgett was this stupid. Wait, wasn’t he the guy who touted all the dotcoms, and claimed that they should be valued by their “eyeballs” not their earnings? And then fired when the dotcom bubble burst? And then investigated? Well, now I understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.