Monday, September 17, 2012

Which of These Keynesian Stimuli Isn't Like The Others-Part 2

In my previous post I asked which of the  three major Keynesian stimuli is NOT like the others.  The three being:

Ronald Reagan

Many answers were tendered AND MANY WERE RIGHT FOR MULTIPLE REASONS, but I recall only one person getting the answer I was personally looking for.

There was a future in two of them, there is no future in the third.

I addressed this before, but I feel I have to address this again because idiots like Bernanke and His Magic Federal Reserve keep hammering away with their impotent tools to get the economy to grow again and so let the lesson begin.

During WWII, forget fighting for our future, we were just fighting to survive.  We did not want the socialist fascist government of the Nazi's nor did we want the religious worship of an emperor as they did in Japan.  We wanted to continue to be America and in fighting this second world war, further defined what it meant to be America and American.  When the troops got back, we were not only victorious, but (unlike Vietnam and to a lesser extend today) the rest of the country were proud of what the troops did and supported them.  In short we were all on the same page and pro-American.  The troops and the rest of society then continued on to build a greater America by investing in businesses, homes and families. 

During Reagan, yes there was an element of a cold-war going on, but the primary reason the Reagan Keynesian stimulus worked is because, once again, there was a future.  Reagan was no doubt pro-America.  More importantly he was pro-production, pro-individualism, pro-freedom, pro-business, pro-economic growth.  The producers of this society knew he was on their side and thusly had faith in the short to medium term future of the country.

Today you may have been able to claim Bush was somewhat pro-America, but the same cannot be said of Obama.  Additionally, you know for a fact Obama is not "pro-Business, "pro-Individualism," or "pro-Entrepreneur."  He comes from a cabal of politicians who hate business, hate success, hate production and the only real "economic" plan he has is "well, all those green jobs will save us" (even though those green jobs aren't economic).  Additionally, the economic stimulus he has pursued hasn't been focusing on tax cuts as much as it has been a galactic pissing away of future generations' money on frivolous social programs and government programs that produce nothing.  Certainly not capital goods that would be used for future production, not even consumer goods that could be used for immediate consumption.  Just initiatives, grants and a free-for-all for his armies of worthless-degreed people-come-social-workers/activities.

So Krugman can call for all the government spending he was.

Bernanke can promise the Fed will genetically engineer job-farting unicorns.

It won't matter.

This "Keynesian stimulus" is nothing more than a money grab and the administration is doing nothing more than criminalizing and destroying the American way of life.

Enjoy the decline!


Anonymous said...

Crony capitalism but with no end in sight for "easing", you can bet hyperinflation is right around the corner. People are calling it stagflation. Uh no. Stagflation will seem like a cakewalk for what's coming. Toss in the MSM who doesn't inform the public on real issues nor is critical of Olamo at all and we're in serious trouble.

BTW, notice that China and Japan are going at it now and today Olamo is calling out China for their cheap auto parts being shipped here.

sth_txs said...

Reagan talked a good line and helped people feel better about the country.

However, government grew significantly under his administration though he did have help in Congress.

I'll never believe Reagan was a conservative or for smaller government.

Unknown said...

Paul Krugman is just another political shill trying to sell his next book or column and will say anything so he can get his next paycheck from The New York Times. It reminds me of how much of a huge hypocrite Michael Moore is for railing against capitalism, yet ignoring all questions where he's asked how he has profited from the same system he's completely against. Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have been known to say outrageous stuff on television yet use said opportunity to flaunt their merchandise and grab ratings. To me, they're all just entertainers with no real opinion on anything that shouldn't be taken seriously no matter how many prestigious college "degrees" they have or don't have.

My intellectual friend Austin somehow still takes Krugman seriously and I can't figure out why. Maybe it's the AP Macroeconomics class he took in high school or the way he incorporates vagaries and holier-than-thou MIT/Yale university double talk in his writings to make himself sound smarter and above every other economist.

sth_txs said...

"Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have been known to say outrageous stuff on television yet use said opportunity to flaunt their merchandise and grab ratings. "

And I truly wonder whether Chris Mathews ever believes his own BS to along with these two.

Yet, people take them seriously all the time.

Anonymous said...

Severino, Krugman has some very good academic papers from the time before he sold out. He plays the talking head to pay the bills.

sth_txs said...

" We did not want the socialist fascist government of the Nazi's nor did we want the religious worship of an emperor as they did in Japan. "

Funny, if you go read up on the Nazi Party's platform, we are not to far off from what they wanted. Ditto for the Communist. Funny that we have become what we supposedly fought against.

Cameron Hoppe said...

LoL. Reagan's stimulus worked because it was a real stimulus. The administration and Congress pushed the deficit as deep as they could. So much, in fact, that the CPI ran above 5%. The wussy stimulus we have now can't even get the CPI above 1.5%. That's why it hasn't worked. The deficit needs to be double what it is to even be in the neighborhood of what it was in the 1980's.

P.S. Pro-America vs not pro-America? I love the sarcasm!

T and A man said...

Open ended answer, nothing wrong with that. However there is one thing I would disagree with...


I would argue he wasn't, by ignorance or design I do not know.

There is one tenant that too many pro-market guys blinded by their ideology fail to reconise. There is nothing.. NOTHING.. that BIG business hates more than competition.

It is the path of good intentions that is the tyranny regulation produces. In virtually all forms of regulation, big business captures the regulatory process. Then the compliance burden becomes so big, that barriers to entry are erected.

Regan promoted big business, not all business. When the landscape promotes all business, recessions are quick as the shit performers are forced to exit the market.

You allude correctly that big business has policy hegemony, and big business, being the welfare sucking entity it is, has the populace bail it out of its own mistakes.

The biggest issue in the U.S., and the western world.. more than peasants obtaining a handful of crumsb via welfare, is the redistribution of wage share vs profit share. Wage share has been undercut by wage arbitrage, with the new wage earners having insufficient purchasing power for existing products.

This started under Reagan. Reagan was not pro-wages that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

Right on!