Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Conspiring isn't really necessary for a set of people grouped by a major common feature (absurd amounts of money and/or influence) to have similar motivations which place themselves at odds with everyone else who does not share that feature.

I agree. I have argued this in the past elsewhere.

Of course, a counterpoint is that such a situation provides fertile ground for a conspiracy proper.

[Zrk2]

Ah, Keynesian economics, making the government say corporations can fuck you before they do.

I don't see the connection.  Please explain this, lest I suspect you view the term merely as a buzzword and bogeyman.

OK, perhaps that was a poorly thought out post, but what I meant was that when the government and corporations work together they can fuck the little guy even harder than if they are separated because the corporate assholery suddenly becomes legal.

[Aqizzar]

Fair enough, but that has literally nothing to do with Keynesian economics.  It really has nothing to do with economics at all.

[Zrk2]

Keynesian economics call for government intervention in the economy, which is sort of exactly what this is.

[Phmcw]

Yeah but then again you miss what most libertarian miss : the control of the government on the economy and the control of the corporation on the government are not linked.

[Leafsnail]

Keynesian economics call for government intervention in the economy, which is sort of exactly what this is.

Again, wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.  Possible starting points include "Keynesian economics involves nationalising companies and cutting their profit margins by offering consumers lower prices" and "freemarket capitalists aren't above complete corruption".

[Zrk2]

Keynesian economics call for government intervention in the economy, which is sort of exactly what this is.

Again, wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.  Possible starting points include A"Keynesian economics involves nationalising companies and cutting their profit margins by offering consumers lower prices" and B"freemarket capitalists aren't above complete corruption".

A. Amongst other things.

B. No shit.

Anyway, we should probably return to the topic at hand, and in the future I will try to avoid derailing topics with shots at economic systems I am not a fan of.

[Aqizzar]

Anyway, we should probably return to the topic at hand, and in the future I will try to avoid derailing topics with shots at economic systems I am not a fan of.

This being my thread, I'm going to request that you acknowledge that it's not just not being a fan, but not knowing what you're talking about.  You don't have to, but I'm still requesting it.

For that matter, the only definition of Keynesian economics I've ever heard from any economist is: when the economy declines, government spending should increase to make up the loss of private spending.  Nothing to do with control of any kind on any thing.

All that being said, yeah, how about we drop this.

[Earthquake Damage]

For that matter, the only definition of Keynesian economics I've ever heard from any economist is: when the economy declines, government spending should increase to make up the loss of private spending.  Nothing to do with control of any kind on any thing.

IIRC more generally it's demand-side economics i.e. using policy to affect aggregate demand.  Its counterpart is supply-side economics.  As I understand it, supply-side economists typically take as given the claim that demand-side economics doesn't work.  Not doesn't work well, but the mechanisms literally don't function (because, they say, the short-run aggregate supply curve is vertical i.e. completely unresponsive to aggregate demand).

My economics-fu is weak, but I think that's the gist of it.  But yeah, you're more or less right.  You just left out the contractionary policy version, where decreasing spending helps curb expansion as a means of fighting inflation.

[Zrk2]

Anyway, we should probably return to the topic at hand, and in the future I will try to avoid derailing topics with shots at economic systems I am not a fan of.

This being my thread, I'm going to request that you acknowledge that it's not just not being a fan, but not knowing what you're talking about.  You don't have to, but I'm still requesting it.

I hereby acknowledge that I am not well versed in economics, I apologize for the derail and my poorly thought out comments, please, may we return to the matter at hand?

[Aqizzar]

Gladly.  ...Any news?

I was going to mention a while ago that Scott Walker had appointed the son of a rail-industry lobbyist (who helped bankroll his campaign) to head of the state's environmental agency, whilst rejecting federal funding for rail projects but paying for the same lobbyist's personal projects entirely with state funding.  But the guy either resigned or was fired a couple weeks ago, so it's all water under the bridge now.  I suppose.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Sometimes I want to leave the country and live somewhere less fucked up. And then I realize everywhere else is just as fucked.

[Nadaka]

Sometimes I want to leave the country and live somewhere less fucked up. And then I realize everywhere else is just as fucked.

I am a pretty hardcore patriot and even I have considered leaving the country.

[PTTG??]

A town near where I live once seceded for several months. They eventually rejoined the US because they wanted to celebrate the 4th of July.

Good 'ol Rough and Ready.

[Zrk2]

A town near where I live once seceded for several months. They eventually rejoined the US because they wanted to celebrate the 4th of July.

WTF? If it doesn't bother you, may I ask which town this was?