Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Debt Ceiling Increase or Spending Cuts First?
Cutting spending is the opposite of what is needed given the current economic reality.
The simpletons of the world think that carrying a debt is a bad thing. You are being played. The only reason that the GOP is goading you into calling for spending cuts is because they know that doing so will cause the economy to limp along. The only chance they have of winning back the Senate and the WH.
Keynesian economic policy is a failure. If you knew how badly it collapsed in the 1970's, you wouldn't espouse something like it now.
The debts and ACA have already been voted on.
They are not up for negotiation before a 15-month CR up and down clean vote.
The black man won, his supporters won, the bill was passed and signed and opined.
This is over.
Cutting spending is the opposite of what is needed given the current economic reality.
The simpletons of the world think that carrying a debt is a bad thing. You are being played. The only reason that the GOP is goading you into calling for spending cuts is because they know that doing so will cause the economy to limp along. The only chance they have of winning back the Senate and the WH.
Cutting spending is the opposite of what is needed given the current economic reality.
The simpletons of the world think that carrying a debt is a bad thing. You are being played. The only reason that the GOP is goading you into calling for spending cuts is because they know that doing so will cause the economy to limp along. The only chance they have of winning back the Senate and the WH.
Keynesian economic policy is a failure. If you knew how badly it collapsed in the 1970's, you wouldn't espouse something like it now.
In the 70's.......you were not alive. And you don't read books. How in the fuck would you know?
Read this:
That '70s Crisis | Dollars & Sense
According to Professor Keith Shaw, an important early milestone in Friedman's campaign against Keynesianism was the 1956 publication of Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money. [11] In this work Friedman restated the Quantity theory of money, and obtained the attention of several Keynesian economists partly because he admitted Keynes was right to state that the velocity of circulation of money in the Equation of exchange can vary, rather than being a constant as assumed by classical economists. However, Friedman's restatement was otherwise closer to the classical view in reducing the scope for beneficial government intervention in the economy.[11] An even more influential work was his 1963 publication of A Monetary History of the United States. Drawing on extensive empirical data, it further strengthened the case for his restated Quantity Theory of Money, arguing that inflation was "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon", while conceding that it could take one or two years for an increase in the money supply to lead to inflation. This ran counter to the then orthodox Keynesian interpretation that inflation was linked to employment, as modelled by the Phillips curve which predicted an inverse relationship between the two variables. Governments at the time would use the Phillips curve as part of their models to calculate the expected cost in terms of inflation for a stimulus designed to restore full employment. In 1968 Milton Friedman published a paper arguing that the fixed relationship implied by the Philips curve did not exist, and that it would be possible to have both inflation and unemployment rise at once.[12] [note 6] Friedman had also argued that workers' expectations of future high inflation could lead to an inflationary spiral as they would push for increased wages in advance to try to compensate for expected future inflation.
Friedman's work began to gain increasing acceptance among academics after 1973, when stagflation - the simultaneous increase in both inflation and unemployment - became prominent, just as he had predicted. While the 1973 oil crisis was clearly an inflationary shock to the global economy, Friedman was able to argue persuasively that inflation was much higher that it would have been due to the rapid expansion of the money supply by governments in 1971. By the late 1970s, empirical data was also present to suggest that Friedman was right to emphasize the role of expectations on inflation, further increasing the acceptance of his ideas by mainstream economists.[4] Post Keynesian economist Paul Davidson has argued that part of the reason for Friedman's intellectual victory was that Keynes' ideas were misunderstood by the main stream academics of the time (the Neo-Keynesians) who therefore didn't have a consistent framework to rebut the attacks.[6]
Keynesian economic policy is a failure. If you knew how badly it collapsed in the 1970's, you wouldn't espouse something like it now.
In the 70's.......you were not alive. And you don't read books. How in the fuck would you know?
Read this:
That '70s Crisis | Dollars & Sense
Apparently you don't study history like I do. It was called Stagflation. It was the failure of postwar economic policy based on the Keynesian economic theory. My not being alive doesn't mean jacksquat in the grand scheme of this argument. Milton Freidman successfully argued against the Keynesian system in 1956, 1963 and 1968. In 1973, he was proven right.
According to Professor Keith Shaw an important early milestone in Friedman's campaign against Keynesianism was the 1956 publication of Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money. [11] In this work Friedman restated the Quantity theory of money, and obtained the attention of several Keynesian economists partly because he admitted Keynes was right to state that the velocity of circulation of money in the Equation of exchange can vary, rather than being a constant as assumed by classical economists. However, Friedman's restatement was otherwise closer to the classical view in reducing the scope for beneficial government intervention in the economy.[11] An even more influential work was his 1963 publication of A Monetary History of the United States. Drawing on extensive empirical data, it further strengthened the case for his restated Quantity Theory of Money, arguing that inflation was "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon", while conceding that it could take one or two years for an increase in the money supply to lead to inflation. This ran counter to the then orthodox Keynesian interpretation that inflation was linked to employment, as modelled by the Phillips curve which predicted an inverse relationship between the two variables. Governments at the time would use the Phillips curve as part of their models to calculate the expected cost in terms of inflation for a stimulus designed to restore full employment. In 1968 Milton Friedman published a paper arguing that the fixed relationship implied by the Philips curve did not exist, and that it would be possible to have both inflation and unemployment rise at once.[12] [note 6] Friedman had also argued that workers' expectations of future high inflation could lead to an inflationary spiral as they would push for increased wages in advance to try to compensate for expected future inflation.
Friedman's work began to gain increasing acceptance among academics after 1973, when stagflation - the simultaneous increase in both inflation and unemployment - became prominent, just as he had predicted. While the 1973 oil crisis was clearly an inflationary shock to the global economy, Friedman was able to argue persuasively that inflation was much higher that it would have been due to the rapid expansion of the money supply by governments in 1971. By the late 1970s, empirical data was also present to suggest that Friedman was right to emphasize the role of expectations on inflation, further increasing the acceptance of his ideas by mainstream economists.[4] Post Keynesian economist Paul Davidson has argued that part of the reason for Friedman's intellectual victory was that Keynes' ideas were misunderstood by the main stream academics of the time (the Neo-Keynesians) who therefore didn't have a consistent framework to rebut the attacks.[6]
Post-war displacement of Keynesianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the 70's.......you were not alive. And you don't read books. How in the fuck would you know?
Read this:
That '70s Crisis | Dollars & Sense
Apparently you don't study history like I do. It was called Stagflation. It was the failure of postwar economic policy based on the Keynesian economic theory. My not being alive doesn't mean jacksquat in the grand scheme of this argument. Milton Freidman successfully argued against the Keynesian system in 1956, 1963 and 1968. In 1973, he was proven right.
According to Professor Keith Shaw an important early milestone in Friedman's campaign against Keynesianism was the 1956 publication of Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money. [11] In this work Friedman restated the Quantity theory of money, and obtained the attention of several Keynesian economists partly because he admitted Keynes was right to state that the velocity of circulation of money in the Equation of exchange can vary, rather than being a constant as assumed by classical economists. However, Friedman's restatement was otherwise closer to the classical view in reducing the scope for beneficial government intervention in the economy.[11] An even more influential work was his 1963 publication of A Monetary History of the United States. Drawing on extensive empirical data, it further strengthened the case for his restated Quantity Theory of Money, arguing that inflation was "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon", while conceding that it could take one or two years for an increase in the money supply to lead to inflation. This ran counter to the then orthodox Keynesian interpretation that inflation was linked to employment, as modelled by the Phillips curve which predicted an inverse relationship between the two variables. Governments at the time would use the Phillips curve as part of their models to calculate the expected cost in terms of inflation for a stimulus designed to restore full employment. In 1968 Milton Friedman published a paper arguing that the fixed relationship implied by the Philips curve did not exist, and that it would be possible to have both inflation and unemployment rise at once.[12] [note 6] Friedman had also argued that workers' expectations of future high inflation could lead to an inflationary spiral as they would push for increased wages in advance to try to compensate for expected future inflation.
Friedman's work began to gain increasing acceptance among academics after 1973, when stagflation - the simultaneous increase in both inflation and unemployment - became prominent, just as he had predicted. While the 1973 oil crisis was clearly an inflationary shock to the global economy, Friedman was able to argue persuasively that inflation was much higher that it would have been due to the rapid expansion of the money supply by governments in 1971. By the late 1970s, empirical data was also present to suggest that Friedman was right to emphasize the role of expectations on inflation, further increasing the acceptance of his ideas by mainstream economists.[4] Post Keynesian economist Paul Davidson has argued that part of the reason for Friedman's intellectual victory was that Keynes' ideas were misunderstood by the main stream academics of the time (the Neo-Keynesians) who therefore didn't have a consistent framework to rebut the attacks.[6]
Post-war displacement of Keynesianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are right. I do not study History like you do. I do not rely on Wikipedia.
You knucklehead.
Cutting spending is the opposite of what is needed given the current economic reality.
The simpletons of the world think that carrying a debt is a bad thing. You are being played. The only reason that the GOP is goading you into calling for spending cuts is because they know that doing so will cause the economy to limp along. The only chance they have of winning back the Senate and the WH.
^^ That. We need spending at this moment more than anything. Sequestration is already hurting what was a recovering economy and now with the shutdown and the looming debt increase, we could fall right back into a recession if the GOP doesn't stop fucking around.
Apparently you don't study history like I do. It was called Stagflation. It was the failure of postwar economic policy based on the Keynesian economic theory. My not being alive doesn't mean jacksquat in the grand scheme of this argument. Milton Freidman successfully argued against the Keynesian system in 1956, 1963 and 1968. In 1973, he was proven right.
Post-war displacement of Keynesianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are right. I do not study History like you do. I do not rely on Wikipedia.
You knucklehead.
Rofl, I blew you away. Unlike you, I don't rely on left wing interpretations of history, or what is dubbed as "revisionist history." Have a seat, knucklehead. You have been denied.
Cutting spending is the opposite of what is needed given the current economic reality.
The simpletons of the world think that carrying a debt is a bad thing. You are being played. The only reason that the GOP is goading you into calling for spending cuts is because they know that doing so will cause the economy to limp along. The only chance they have of winning back the Senate and the WH.
Take a chainsaw to the budget. Slash EVERYTHING.
You are right. I do not study History like you do. I do not rely on Wikipedia.
You knucklehead.
Rofl, I blew you away. Unlike you, I don't rely on left wing interpretations of history, or what is dubbed as "revisionist history." Have a seat, knucklehead. You have been denied.
Are you out of your mind? You just cited Wikipedia...and paraphrased it in your post. You have not blown me away.
In fact, I am pretty sure you did not read the link I cited for you. How could you know if it left wing interpretation.
"Or what is dubbed as "revisionist history"?" Man are you a word clown!
What do you know about Friedman? What country, besides this one, did he help fuck over? Do you have a clue? You have 10 seconds to answer.
Go!
Rofl, I blew you away. Unlike you, I don't rely on left wing interpretations of history, or what is dubbed as "revisionist history." Have a seat, knucklehead. You have been denied.
Are you out of your mind? You just cited Wikipedia...and paraphrased it in your post. You have not blown me away.
In fact, I am pretty sure you did not read the link I cited for you. How could you know if it left wing interpretation.
"Or what is dubbed as "revisionist history"?" Man are you a word clown!
What do you know about Friedman? What country, besides this one, did he help fuck over? Do you have a clue? You have 10 seconds to answer.
Go!
Your link is left wing revisionist history. I will not dare pollute my mind with that nonsense. Milton Friedman is a Misesian economist. He is responsible for singlehandedly changing governmental views on economics across the world. His protege was none other than Thomas Sowell, who himself singlehandedly countered and destroyed the Cloward-Piven strategy.
Please.
