Dont the Lib's keep telling us that tax increases are good for the economy?

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
What you gave was a statement that had nothing to do with my point.
are you slow? eat lead paint as a kid or something?

i gave a direct counterexample that showed how full of shit you are.

that you are too dumb to even acknowledge this is your problem in life.

I was telling you how things could be better for your messiah if he came to the middle.
ohhhh, messiah. did you learn that one from hannity, or did you overhear it at your local klan meeting?

so unoriginal and pathetic, even for a sock puppet of your minimal mental faculties.

Obviously, when either party has complete control there is a spend frenzy.
go on spouting bullshit that has no basis in reality, that's probably your best hope.

when republicans held congress and the presidency, they skyrocketed the deficit even during good economic times.

when democrats held congress and the presidency, they cut the deficit dramatically even during poor economic times.

if you don't want to be called a blithering fucktard, you should probably stop repeating demonstrable lies like a blithering fucktard.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Come on schuylaar, quit being so dishonest. You know darn well the wealthy pay way more than any other class. maybe it's time for the 50% who pay little to nothing in income taxes to pay their fair share.
I'd love to have an honest debate, minus the left wing talking points.
is "tax the poor" something that you think your savior jesus christ would agree with, beenthere?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
how unfair of me to use Facts
random retarded capitalization aside, you are not using facts.

unless you are trying to state that "step 3: ????" is a fact.

i've put forth a lot of corrections and asked you to explain how keynesian economics works even on a personal level, or to explain why every capitalist company has a line of credit for their business.

what did you do? put me on ignore, continue lhying endlessly, and declare victory.

you are a pathetic little shit of a man-child.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
so still no refutation of my assertions on Keynesian Economic Theory hmm?

let's take a look at your "Facts" with a capital F, and review some of your assertions:

here's the keynesian theory in the broad strokes:

1: spend every dime
2: spend more on credit
3: ???
4: Endless Prosperity
funny, i don't see a single Fact in there, not even a fact.

just a retarded caricature.

you are a steming pile of bullshit. a real hot mess of racism, stupidity, and helplessness.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
endless repetition of the same specious claims doesnt prove anything except that you are Ignorant.
lol, endless repetition of specious claims?

that sounds exactly like dr kynes.

"rushton is a respected academic"

"here's how keynesian economics works....{insert retarded caricature here}"

"bwana obama is a marxist usurper! no i'm not racist"

it is hilarious that you put me on ignore rather than deal with the posts i make simply asking you to explain how keynesian economics actually works, or why businesses have lines of credit.

you are a cowardly little pussy, and your choice to use the ignore function rather than use that massive intellect of yours proves it.
 

insidagain

Well-Known Member
are you slow? eat lead paint as a kid or something?

i gave a direct counterexample that showed how full of shit you are.

that you are too dumb to even acknowledge this is your problem in life.



ohhhh, messiah. did you learn that one from hannity, or did you overhear it at your local klan meeting?

so unoriginal and pathetic, even for a sock puppet of your minimal mental faculties.



go on spouting bullshit that has no basis in reality, that's probably your best hope.

when republicans held congress and the presidency, they skyrocketed the deficit even during good economic times.

when democrats held congress and the presidency, they cut the deficit dramatically even during poor economic times.

if you don't want to be called a blithering fucktard, you should probably stop repeating demonstrable lies like a blithering fucktard.
Ahhh, was widdle bucky boo upset all day wit a sore widdle bottom.images(56).jpeg images(58).jpeg
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
nice attempt at deflection, steve.

but that jesus tattoo on your arm, "sons of the lord" cigar club, and "tax the poor" do not exactly go hand in hand.
Deflection, it's the truth.
You were part of the Occupy Portland progressive movement and it failed miserably.
Just like your investigations.:oops:
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
keynesian economics is based on the foolish ideas of a rich a-hole from the aristocracy who laid out several false premises:

1: Saving is BAD, everyone should spend everything they got to increase "aggregate demand", and if they dont, then the govt should tax them sufficiently to take away their surplus unspent monies.
2: the govt can then spend those taxed monies on pretty much anything, no matter how pointless, to keep that money moving through the economy non-stop
3: when the govt taxes you, and spends your money some mysterious arcane sorcery "multiplies" those monies creating more prosperity
4: repeat for endless prosperity
"Prior to the publication of Keynes's General Theory, mainstream economic thought held that a state of general equilibrium existed in the economy: because the needs of consumers are always greater than the capacity of the producers to satisfy those needs, everything that is produced will eventually be consumed once the appropriate price is found for it. This perception is reflected in Say's Law and in the writing of David Ricardo, which state that individuals produce so that they can either consume what they have manufactured or sell their output so that they can buy someone else's output. This argument rests upon the assumption that if a surplus of goods or services exists, they would naturally drop in price to the point where they would be consumed.

Keynes's theory overturned the mainstream thought of the time and brought about a greater awareness of structural inadequacies: problems such as unemployment, for example, are not viewed as a result of moral deficiencies like laziness, but rather result from imbalances in demand and whether the economy was expanding or contracting. Keynes argued that because there was no guarantee that the goods that individuals produce would be met with demand, unemployment was a natural consequence especially in the instance of an economy undergoing contraction.

He saw the economy as unable to maintain itself at full employment and believed that it was necessary for the government to step in and put under-utilised savings to work through government spending. Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate.

Prior to Keynes, a situation in which aggregate demand for goods and services did not meet supply was referred to by classical economists as a general glut, although there was disagreement among them as to whether a general glut was possible. Keynes argued that when a glut occurred, it was the over-reaction of producers and the laying off of workers that led to a fall in demand and perpetuated the problem. Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

"New Keynesian economics is a school of contemporary macroeconomics that strives to provide microeconomic foundations for Keynesian economics. It developed partly as a response to criticisms of Keynesian macroeconomics by adherents of New Classical macroeconomics.

Two main assumptions define the New Keynesian approach to macroeconomics. Like the New Classical approach, New Keynesian macroeconomic analysis usually assumes that households and firms have rational expectations. But the two schools differ in that New Keynesian analysis usually assumes a variety of market failures. In particular, New Keynesians assume that there is imperfect competition in price and wage setting to help explain why prices and wages can become "sticky", which means they do not adjust instantaneously to changes in economic conditions.

Wage and price stickiness, and the other market failures present in New Keynesian models, imply that the economy may fail to attain full employment. Therefore, New Keynesians argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy would.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

1. "Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate."

2. Keynesian theory says nothing about "spend those taxed monies on pretty much anything, no matter how pointless", it allows for people to make those decisions. People are not perfect, but your statement assumes all people working in government are corrupt, which you probably actually believe but fortunately isn't the case in reality. Which is ironic considering we know what corporations do without regulation, buy politicians and federal elections thereby effectively lowering all their own taxes, and increasing economic inequality. That's what happens every time, and that's what you support.

3. "Keynes's theory overturned the mainstream thought of the time and brought about a greater awareness of structural inadequacies: problems such as unemployment, for example, are not viewed as a result of moral deficiencies like laziness, but rather result from imbalances in demand and whether the economy was expanding or contracting. Keynes argued that because there was no guarantee that the goods that individuals produce would be met with demand, unemployment was a natural consequence especially in the instance of an economy undergoing contraction.

He saw the economy as unable to maintain itself at full employment and believed that it was necessary for the government to step in and put under-utilised savings to work through government spending. "

4. "Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate."


the entire scheme ensures that those who dont have a stash of capital built up will NEVER be able to create a capital base for themselves since they must spend it, or the govt will take it.
"To Keynes, excessive saving, i.e. saving beyond planned investment, was a serious problem, encouraging recession or even depression. Excessive saving results if investment falls, perhaps due to falling consumer demand, over-investment in earlier years, or pessimistic business expectations, and if saving does not immediately fall in step, the economy would decline."

declaring that i am wrong because the rich got richer over any particular time frame is specious, since the rich have ALWAYS gotten richer, even during financial collapses
You're ignoring the rate at which the rich have gotten richer. You assume coincidence when I've provided valid evidence and rational arguments some of the smartest economists alive today have demonstrated effectively. There's a reason New Keynesian economics is resurging, because it's a rational way to effectively stabilize the economy the same way we did after WW2. It doesn't steal money from citizens, it suggests changing fiscal and monetary policy to deal with unpredictable problems.

the US has been using keynesian economics for over 100 years now, and yet the "inequality" you so despise remains in full effect.
Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936, and was used effectively to grow our economy out of the Great Depression and enjoy economic growth throughout the 1950's-1970's until Herbert Stein, economic advisor to Nixon, mentioned supply side economics in 1976.

your silly charts and graphs, videos from frenchy and kruggo, and endless repetition of the same specious claims doesnt prove anything except that you are Ignorant.
Sure, I'm the one that's ignorant..
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
"Prior to the publication of Keynes's General Theory, mainstream economic thought held that a state of general equilibrium existed in the economy: because the needs of consumers are always greater than the capacity of the producers to satisfy those needs, everything that is produced will eventually be consumed once the appropriate price is found for it. This perception is reflected in Say's Law and in the writing of David Ricardo, which state that individuals produce so that they can either consume what they have manufactured or sell their output so that they can buy someone else's output. This argument rests upon the assumption that if a surplus of goods or services exists, they would naturally drop in price to the point where they would be consumed.

Keynes's theory overturned the mainstream thought of the time and brought about a greater awareness of structural inadequacies: problems such as unemployment, for example, are not viewed as a result of moral deficiencies like laziness, but rather result from imbalances in demand and whether the economy was expanding or contracting. Keynes argued that because there was no guarantee that the goods that individuals produce would be met with demand, unemployment was a natural consequence especially in the instance of an economy undergoing contraction.

He saw the economy as unable to maintain itself at full employment and believed that it was necessary for the government to step in and put under-utilised savings to work through government spending. Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate.

Prior to Keynes, a situation in which aggregate demand for goods and services did not meet supply was referred to by classical economists as a general glut, although there was disagreement among them as to whether a general glut was possible. Keynes argued that when a glut occurred, it was the over-reaction of producers and the laying off of workers that led to a fall in demand and perpetuated the problem. Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

"New Keynesian economics is a school of contemporary macroeconomics that strives to provide microeconomic foundations for Keynesian economics. It developed partly as a response to criticisms of Keynesian macroeconomics by adherents of New Classical macroeconomics.

Two main assumptions define the New Keynesian approach to macroeconomics. Like the New Classical approach, New Keynesian macroeconomic analysis usually assumes that households and firms have rational expectations. But the two schools differ in that New Keynesian analysis usually assumes a variety of market failures. In particular, New Keynesians assume that there is imperfect competition in price and wage setting to help explain why prices and wages can become "sticky", which means they do not adjust instantaneously to changes in economic conditions.

Wage and price stickiness, and the other market failures present in New Keynesian models, imply that the economy may fail to attain full employment. Therefore, New Keynesians argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy would.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

1. "Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate."

2. Keynesian theory says nothing about "spend those taxed monies on pretty much anything, no matter how pointless", it allows for people to make those decisions. People are not perfect, but your statement assumes all people working in government are corrupt, which you probably actually believe but fortunately isn't the case in reality. Which is ironic considering we know what corporations do without regulation, buy politicians and federal elections thereby effectively lowering all their own taxes, and increasing economic inequality. That's what happens every time, and that's what you support.

3. "Keynes's theory overturned the mainstream thought of the time and brought about a greater awareness of structural inadequacies: problems such as unemployment, for example, are not viewed as a result of moral deficiencies like laziness, but rather result from imbalances in demand and whether the economy was expanding or contracting. Keynes argued that because there was no guarantee that the goods that individuals produce would be met with demand, unemployment was a natural consequence especially in the instance of an economy undergoing contraction.

He saw the economy as unable to maintain itself at full employment and believed that it was necessary for the government to step in and put under-utilised savings to work through government spending. "

4. "Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate."




"To Keynes, excessive saving, i.e. saving beyond planned investment, was a serious problem, encouraging recession or even depression. Excessive saving results if investment falls, perhaps due to falling consumer demand, over-investment in earlier years, or pessimistic business expectations, and if saving does not immediately fall in step, the economy would decline."



You're ignoring the rate at which the rich have gotten richer. You assume coincidence when I've provided valid evidence and rational arguments some of the smartest economists alive today have demonstrated effectively. There's a reason New Keynesian economics is resurging, because it's a rational way to effectively stabilize the economy the same way we did after WW2. It doesn't steal money from citizens, it suggests changing fiscal policy and monetary policy.



Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936, and was used effectively to grow our economy out of the Great Depression and enjoy economic growth throughout the 1950's-1970's until Herbert Stein, economic advisor to Nixon, mentioned supply side economics in 1976.



Sure, I'm the one that's ignorant..
copy/paste boogaloo!
from wikipedia even!!

TLDR version:

my assessment was 100% accurate.

keynes and his minions do insist that:

1: "aggregate demand"!!!1!one!!uno!!1
2: saving is bad, so any money you have in excess of what they deem to be "Profitably Invested" should be taxed away
3: inflation is good, cuz it drives people to spend rather than save, knowing their dollar will only be worth 95 cents by the end of the month
4: Govt CAN spend on pretty much anything, and "aggregate demand" will spin straw into gold
5: if the economy is big enough, magical forces come into play that cannot be explained rationally making the system work, somehow.
7: there is an arcane mysterious force that "multiplies" monies taken from the people by govt (i imagine it looks something like this:


8: you have no idea what all those words you copy/pasted actually mean.
9: lulz.

 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
copy/paste boogaloo!
from wikipedia even!!

TLDR version:

my assessment was 100% accurate.

keynes and his minions do insist that:

1: "aggregate demand"!!!1!one!!uno!!1
2: saving is bad, so any money you have in excess of what they deem to be "Profitably Invested" should be taxed away
3: inflation is good, cuz it drives people to spend rather than save, knowing their dollar will only be worth 95 cents by the end of the month
4: Govt CAN spend on pretty much anything, and "aggregate demand" will spin straw into gold
5: if the economy is big enough, magical forces come into play that cannot be explained rationally making the system work, somehow.
7: there is an arcane mysterious force that "multiplies" monies taken from the people by govt (i imagine it looks something like this:

8: you have no idea what all those words you copy/pasted actually mean.
9: lulz.
Discussing anything with people like you is a waste of time
Thank you for proving my point
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Deflection, it's the truth.
You were part of the Occupy Portland progressive movement and it failed miserably.
Just like your investigations.:oops:
besides being completely false, beenthere, it was also a deflection from the subject at hand.

funny how you can spend hours a day denying who you are for our amusement, but not a single minute to take a picture that shows you to be right.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
copy/paste boogaloo!
from wikipedia even!!

TLDR version:

my assessment was 100% accurate.

keynes and his minions do insist that:

1: "aggregate demand"!!!1!one!!uno!!1
2: saving is bad, so any money you have in excess of what they deem to be "Profitably Invested" should be taxed away
3: inflation is good, cuz it drives people to spend rather than save, knowing their dollar will only be worth 95 cents by the end of the month
4: Govt CAN spend on pretty much anything, and "aggregate demand" will spin straw into gold
5: if the economy is big enough, magical forces come into play that cannot be explained rationally making the system work, somehow.
7: there is an arcane mysterious force that "multiplies" monies taken from the people by govt (i imagine it looks something like this:


8: you have no idea what all those words you copy/pasted actually mean.
9: lulz.
5% monthly inflation?

yep, you are literally retarded.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
besides being completely false, beenthere, it was also a deflection from the subject at hand.

funny how you can spend hours a day denying who you are for our amusement, but not a single minute to take a picture that shows you to be right.
Oh, are you now denying you were a participant in Occupy Portland, really?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
read what you copy/pasted again (for the very first time) numbnuts.

they put lipstick on that pig, then zipped it into a party dress and duct taped on a blonde wig with weasel words, but it's the exact swine i described in my posts regarding keyenesian economics.

you just cant see it from the distorted perspective of Your Side (which you claim to not have)

everybody else sees it though.

moar lulz.

the guy whose descriptions of keynesian economics include "step 3: ????" and 5% monthly inflation is accusing others of using "weasel words" to disguise meaning.

that's about as completely backwards as his conspiracy theory of multiculuralism being a thuper thecret ruse towards monoculturalism and "a singular mindset".

100% retarded.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Oh, are you now denying you were a participant in Occupy Portland, really?
i sit at home and grow pot, beenthere. i have no interest in occupy whatsoever.

show me one single post of mine even supporting the movement and i will stop pointing out that you are beenthere, and insufferably racist.

ball is in your court, princess.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
read what you copy/pasted again (for the very first time) numbnuts.

they put lipstick on that pig, then zipped it into a party dress and duct taped on a blonde wig with weasel words, but it's the exact swine i described in my posts regarding keyenesian economics.

you just cant see it from the distorted perspective of Your Side (which you claim to not have)

everybody else sees it though.

moar lulz.
Just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean the rest of us are. You don't understand economics. You support a failed economic policy that leads to increased economic inequality. You believe in a caricature of what you think Keynesian economics actually is and argue with that.

Like I said in the beginning, it's a waste of my time to talk to people like you about complex issues like these. If you were a logical, rational person, you would already believe in things like anthropogenic climate change, the theory of evolution, civil rights, etc. But you don't believe in any of those things, so what kind of logical argument would change the mind of someone who doesn't value logic in the first place?

The good thing is we're at another schism of economic thought because of the recession the same way Americans were after the Great Depression. So I expect about another decade, decade and a half to be in a similar economic climate as we are now, slow growth, changes in policy, then finally as new advances in technology and medicine and science takes place, economic recovery will start to happen again. You and your trickle-down ideas will be long gone by then, I'll be about your age now. The support for change has never been stronger and it's only going to keep getting stronger until we enact a 28th amendment to reverse the damage a failed economic policy has done for nearly 4 decades.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean the rest of us are. You don't understand economics. You support a failed economic policy that leads to increased economic inequality. You believe in a caricature of what you think Keynesian economics actually is and argue with that.

Like I said in the beginning, it's a waste of my time to talk to people like you about complex issues like these. If you were a logical, rational person, you would already believe in things like anthropogenic climate change, the theory of evolution, civil rights, etc. But you don't believe in any of those things, so what kind of logical argument would change the mind of someone who doesn't value logic in the first place?

The good thing is we're at another schism of economic thought because of the recession the same way Americans were after the Great Depression. So I expect about another decade, decade and a half to be in a similar economic climate as we are now, slow growth, changes in policy, then finally as new advances in technology and medicine and science takes place, economic recovery will start to happen again. You and your trickle-down ideas will be long gone by then, I'll be about your age now. The support for change has never been stronger and it's only going to keep getting stronger until we enact a 28th amendment to reverse the damage a failed economic policy has done for nearly 4 decades.
wow, you explained keynesian theory so well, i am ready to convert...


how much of my dick do i have to chop off to join this crazy religion of yours?

cuz judaism is only asking for ~8% off the top...

 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
i sit at home and grow pot, beenthere. i have no interest in occupy whatsoever.

show me one single post of mine even supporting the movement and i will stop pointing out that you are beenthere, and insufferably racist.

ball is in your court, princess.
he has called 81% of americans "brainwashed", made bigoted statements about muslims that fly in the face of the constitution, and has recently said "if you don't have a job and are not rich, blame yourself" in regards to the occupy wall street protests.

i can't WAIT to see how those messages play on the campaign trail.
Now lets see if you are a man of your word, or try to weasel out of it.
 
Top