Shared publicly  - 
 
"As government debt has ballooned and policy interest rates have hit rock bottom, central banks have focused on increasingly innovative policy to boost demand. Yet growth continues to be painfully slow. Why?"

Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago, on the Forum:Blog
22
5
Bill Wok's profile photoClaude Robichaud's profile photoStephen Holt's profile photoEdwin Dearborn's profile photo
14 comments
 
He's as convoluted as the bastards that perpetuate this mess. 
 
I'd say Keynesianism has about 80 straight years of failure.
 
I think that the answer to that is pretty obvious.
 
But without Keynesian policies growth would be even lower. It hard to increase GDP when a lot of it is based on consumption and a lot is deleveraging. Now supply side has never work and is a fantasy 
 
In the U.S., Keynesian economists pointed out that filling the void left by a rapid $4 trillion dollar dip in the economy would require about $1.2 trillion in stimulus spending. The final package was about $900 billion with only $600 billion in stimulus spending. The summer following the adoption of the stimulus, we cut spending by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. The next summer, we signed sequestration with cuts of about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, some going into effect this fiscal year, driving a 0.1% GDP shrink in the fourth quarter of 2012.

So...why is this person hoodwinking the public by pretending that we are enacting Keynesian stimulus policies? We have to enact them before they can fail, and the fact that the author wants to refer to expanding debt, which has complex sources, as evidence of Keynesianism without actually discussing any specific fiscal policies we have enacted since the recession, makes me really question his integrity and credibility. While our monetary policy has recently begun following more Keynesian prescriptions, true Keynesian economics would require a fiscal policy component as well, which, as the above shows, we haven't had. The author of the piece doesn't even differentiate between stimulus spending and spending related to pre-existing governmental functions, referring only to the "ballooning of debt" as evidence that somehow we have been adopting Keynesian stimulus policies (we haven't). While the Chicago school has produced some great thinkers, I'm beginning to think they're in decline in intellectual relevance.
 
novus ordo seclorum
 
Hahahaha.....that article is even worse!
 
You people have a lot to learn about economics, I'm afraid. 
 
Haha, says the idiot who posts an article taking excerpts from a book about Austrian economists whose theories have been largely refuted by empirical study (and the parts that classical economics got right have been refined accordingly) to make only partial and broad statements about the field of economics to someone who has a graduate level education in economics. You, sir, are a source of great laughter.
 
I think the same about you. Austrian economics works. The Keynesian policies that have been enacted for years have failed over and over again.
I mean, when something doesn't make sense in theory and also fails every time it's put into practice, you'd think they'd opt for a different approach. Sticking on the same path is the definition of insanity. You can continue to ignore reality as long as you want but you can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. 
 
See above for some insights into why you don't seem to know what "Keynesian policies" are. But yeah, I forgot how much an IT curriculum teaches advanced economic theory in a comprehensive enough way for someone to comment on it as an expert.
Add a comment...