tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post4805778097695354642..comments2023-10-17T07:13:00.480-07:00Comments on My Tea Party Chronicle: Keynes For DummiesCheryl Passhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894307477506374497noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-6612549074910155222011-08-28T20:37:42.155-07:002011-08-28T20:37:42.155-07:00Mr. Humbles, thank you very much for stopping by a...Mr. Humbles, thank you very much for stopping by and commenting here.<br /><br />I have two more quotes for you from Galbraith:<br />"Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his system. His influence extended to those who least supposed they were subject to it."<br />"In the assumption that power belongs as a matter of course to capital, all economists are Marxians.<br /><br />So much for Galbraith.<br />As for FDR: He was without apology a Fabian Socialist. And if you would study what Fabian Socialists actually thought of humanity, you might reconsider your opinion of how "beneficial" he was. I could not disagree with you more.<br /><br />I have absolutely no problem with hospitals being run for profit. In fact they already do run on astronomical profits, but cloak them under the guise of non-profit status. As for transportation, why not for profit? I don't believe in subsidized transportation, frankly. Competition would necessarily drive the costs and fare prices down and there would not be a reason to subsidize transportation. As it is, a light rail ride costs the taxpayers some 11.5 times what the rider is paying. And of course, it is a monopoly run by government. http://hamptonroads.com/2011/08/charlotte-vs-norfolk-lightrail-lines-same-track "Since LYNX opened, he said ridership has declined, costs have escalated, and the sales tax to pay for it has shrunk: "There are very serious issues going forward." "He found it had minimal impact on road congestion, diverting about 4 percent of peak-hour travel, and that the actual cost per trip is $6.90 when factoring in construction and operating costs, of which riders pay about 60 cents."<br /><br />Defense of the nation through military is a completely different thing entirely. Of course the monetary support for the military is and should be a taxpayer obligation. But since nearly 50% of the population is not paying taxes, those people are being defended on the backs of everyone else. <br /><br />My children and grandchildren are inheriting a disaster brought on by economic insanity by our federal government. No I do not think Keynes' policies of "stimulus" spending and bailing out banks and corporations are in the least viable. When the government creates policies that damage the economic viability of the nation, it is the citizens who pay the price. The voters have had little to say on this, being ignored for the most part for decades at least, if not longer.<br /><br />So...no not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Wrong analogy. Trying to save the Constitution from Fabian Socialists, Crony Corporatists, Fascists, and all other traitors America.Cheryl Passhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894307477506374497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215147935611201277.post-48952130855727008182011-08-28T12:57:46.038-07:002011-08-28T12:57:46.038-07:00Dear Cheryl,
Lovely site! Congratulations on all...Dear Cheryl, <br /><br />Lovely site! Congratulations on all your kids and kids kids!<br /><br />I would agree on some negatives about Keynes' followers; K has been misinterpreted to mean 'spend at all times' rather than what he meant, namely 'spend during a recession' (see What do you know about Keynesianism? - http://www.moneyizor.com/category/john-maynard-keynes/). <br /><br />Present-day military funding by the govt is Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism) and I hope the Tea Party unilaterally condemns it.<br /><br />John Kenneth Galbraith said about the rebound of the economy from wartime spending (WWII), "one could not have had a better demonstration of the Keynesian ideas".<br /><br />I see a little tossing out the baby w the bathwater tho - the statistics for the great depression in this video are a little misleading b/c averaged out over the entire decade: the New Deal in 1933 marked the end of the GDP's downward direction and the roosevelt years before the war only showed steady recovery in the GDP and an unemployment decrease of 25%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal). Keynesianism too.<br /><br />Interesting point of view, though.<br /><br />I think abs no govt spending is of course no solution either (that could be called 'Asocialism') - hospitals and public transportation shouldn't be run for profit, should they?mr humbleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13145757192894357132noreply@blogger.com