ADVERTISEMENT

The Serious Election Day Thread

We did Maui in March, a few months before the fires. The whales were incredible. Definitely reserve a sunrise pass for Haleakala, & if you’re fit, hike down into the crater some on the Sliding Sands trail. Snorkeling at Molokini crater was great too. Road to Hana was cool, but we did it backwards & went around the backside of the island in a Jeep which I loved, but cliff side, single lane dirt roads with no guardrails aren’t for everyone. My wife wanted to kill me in spite of breathtaking views with NO ONE around for over an hour of driving. Golf at Wailea, can’t recall if we played Gold or Emerald, but it was beautiful. Wanted to play the Plantation Course at Kapalua where we stayed, but couldn’t justify spending $500+ for my 10 year old’s greens fee + club rental. Used Turo to rent a Jeep & saved @ $500 vs rental. Old Lahaina was really cool, too bad it’s gone.🙁. If you’re going to spend anytime on Maui lemme know if you’re looking for any info. Not an expert, but did a ton of research & had a great trip.
Thank you!
 
Let me try an answer/devil's advocate:

because left unchecked, capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in a very select group, and leave a large gap in between them and the general populace. That gap in and of itself causes social unrest and is bad for society. And if the govt takes it for redistriubtion purposes (which it will, because those politicians want to buy votes from the largest segment of voters they can), it alleviates that stressor.
That’s a bug of fiat based system. You first should ask yourself how does wealth get concentrated? The answer should be they are creating more value to society overall, so who cares because prices are decreasing for all of us. The lower prices benefit all of us, which isn’t happening because the money supply is constantly being increased stealing society’s productivity gains. Also, credit should match savings in a free market.
 
Yes. You said lowering taxes is a nutty myth that doesn’t increase productivity, which means you’re indirectly arguing governments are better at allocating capital than private businesses. I added the names to prove my point on why you’re wrong.
Lol. Sorry bud I won’t engage in this simpletonian exercise. You know I’m not talking about individual congressmen when I talk about government economic actions.
 
No, worries. I’m not giving up on you, though. One day you’ll understand Keynes might have known some things, but economics wasn’t one of them.
That’s fine - but I’d love to see examples of where pure free markets and monetarism rescued the economy from recession or depression.

In reality the best mix is adapted to whatever cycle we’re in, but I much more believe in Friedman principles outside of recessions and Keynes during downturns.
 
That’s a bug of fiat based system. You first should ask yourself how does wealth get concentrated? The answer should be they are creating more value to society overall, so who cares because prices are decreasing for all of us. The lower prices benefit all of us, which isn’t happening because the money supply is constantly being increased stealing society’s productivity gains. Also, credit should match savings in a free market.
People care about the concentration of wealth because people are jealous or don’t think it’s fair. It doesn’t really matter why, just that it happens and leads to uprisings or riots or insurrection and is bad for society.

So I don’t think you’ve explained away the concern, just justified it on a moral level.

I think you have to push back on the notion it is a psychological inevitability.
 
No, worries. I’m not giving up on you, though. One day you’ll understand Keynes might have known some things, but economics wasn’t one of them.

Keynes’ basic idea was fine. Use short-term government stimulus with deficit spending to infuse demand into a contracting economy….with the debts incurred being paid down with the surpluses during expanding economies.

The problem isn’t Keynes’ idea, but the fact that our policymakers have proven wholly incapable of implementing it. They don’t do short-term infusions. They do permanent ones. As such, there never are any surpluses, so the debt always grows.

But for some reason, Keynesian economics is still promoted based on the merits of his theoretical idea, not the practical reality of fiscal policy of the last 100 years or so.

We can’t attract anywhere near the demand for our Treasuries to finance our debt. So we rely on the lender of last resort: the Fed. More than 2/3 of all of our debt is held by the Fed - which buys them with money they create…solely for the purpose of buying the Treasuries.

Folks, this is a recipe for disaster.
 
People care about the concentration of wealth because people are jealous or don’t think it’s fair. It doesn’t really matter why, just that it happens and leads to uprisings or riots or insurrection and is bad for society.

So I don’t think you’ve explained away the concern, just justified it on a moral level.

I think you have to push back on the notion it is a psychological inevitability.
It really depends on the wherewithal of those in the critical middle. Not all inequality is created equal.

I don’t think we can make a great comparison between our situation and the situation in revolution-era France, for instance….let alone some 3rd world nation today.

We have a lot of inequality. But we don’t have a lot of people starving. The Gini of the US (according to the World Bank) is right next to Haiti’s. Ponder that.
 
Keynes’ basic idea was fine. Use short-term government stimulus with deficit spending to infuse demand into a contracting economy….with the debts incurred being paid down with the surpluses during expanding economies.

The problem isn’t Keynes’ idea, but the fact that our policymakers have proven wholly incapable of implementing it. They don’t do short-term infusions. They do permanent ones. As such, there never are any surpluses, so the debt always grows.

But for some reason, Keynesian economics is still promoted based on the merits of his theoretical idea, not the practical reality of fiscal policy of the last 100 years or so.

We can’t attract anywhere near the demand for our Treasuries to finance our debt. So we rely on the lender of last resort: the Fed. More than 2/3 of all of our debt is held by the Fed - which buys them with money they create…solely for the purpose of buying the Treasuries.

Folks, this is a recipe for disaster.

As an aside to this, I must point out what Keynes had to say about FA Hayek’s famous book “The Road to Serfdom.”

In my opinion it is a grand book. Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement.​
…​
What we need therefore, in my opinion, is not a change in our economic programmes, which would only lead in practice to disillusion with the results of your philosophy; but perhaps even the contrary, namely, an enlargement of them. Your greatest danger ahead is the probable practical failure of the application of your philosophy in the United States.

Heh.
 
Are Dems going to get the message?

Maybe. But, realistically, what can they do about it?

They’re politically beholden to the people doing the canceling. They can’t shame them out of the party. They can’t talk them out of doing it.

They just have to hope that enough people are sanguine enough to submit to the new terms of social conformity.
 
Last edited:
Keynes’ basic idea was fine. Use short-term government stimulus with deficit spending to infuse demand into a contracting economy….with the debts incurred being paid down with the surpluses during expanding economies.

The problem isn’t Keynes’ idea, but the fact that our policymakers have proven wholly incapable of implementing it. They don’t do short-term infusions. They do permanent ones. As such, there never are any surpluses, so the debt always grows.

But for some reason, Keynesian economics is still promoted based on the merits of his theoretical idea, not the practical reality of fiscal policy of the last 100 years or so.

We can’t attract anywhere near the demand for our Treasuries to finance our debt. So we rely on the lender of last resort: the Fed. More than 2/3 of all of our debt is held by the Fed - which buys them with money they create…solely for the purpose of buying the Treasuries.

Folks, this is a recipe for disaster.
Contractions in the economy are good and necessary, It's how markets flush out bad capital allocations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OpenWheels
Keynes’ basic idea was fine. Use short-term government stimulus with deficit spending to infuse demand into a contracting economy….with the debts incurred being paid down with the surpluses during expanding economies.

The problem isn’t Keynes’ idea, but the fact that our policymakers have proven wholly incapable of implementing it. They don’t do short-term infusions. They do permanent ones. As such, there never are any surpluses, so the debt always grows.

But for some reason, Keynesian economics is still promoted based on the merits of his theoretical idea, not the practical reality of fiscal policy of the last 100 years or so.

We can’t attract anywhere near the demand for our Treasuries to finance our debt. So we rely on the lender of last resort: the Fed. More than 2/3 of all of our debt is held by the Fed - which buys them with money they create…solely for the purpose of buying the Treasuries.

Folks, this is a recipe for disaster.
The problem is that no one is Kenysian. They are when they want to boost the economy, they aren't when it comes time to pay back. It doesn't really matter the party, look at any graph and one will see that Trump had increasing debts from Obama even excluding the 20 disaster.

I have long been a Keynesian. In great times, we need to tax more and cut spending. In bad times, we need to cut taxes and raise spending. That even includes defense spending, buy our toys during slower times and not during full-employment. Of course some things ammo for one, need bought every year.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT