Hurricane Irene and Keynesian insanity

Boulevardier

Anyone who thinks Reagan and Dubya were Keynesians must have an extremely broad definition of that term. Keynes would certainly have disowned them.

I knew this was a tea-party thread, thanks matthew8 for confirming it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

I think it is an appalling lie that Keynesians welcome disasters. Disasters in recent decades have been pounced on much more by their opposite numbers, the neoliberals. I understand that there is a book by Naomi Klein called "The shock doctrine" which pretty much proves this. That is why disasters are often followed by the enforcement of neoliberal doctrines such as privatisations.

There is no evidence whatever that fair and equitable tax kills jobs. A strong programme of good public services is clearly the way forward now that neoliberalism has been so utterly discredited.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He clearly advocates increased Gov spending during times of crisis and depression. Not just for "any" reason.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

I wasn't aware that taxes increased when a natural disaster occurred? You pay the same amount of tax either way. Your point is moot.

So, Government spending doesn't have to be paid for out of taxes? Or does the money for this new spending just come out of thin air?

Boulevardier wrote: »

I think it is an appalling lie that Keynesians welcome disasters. Disasters in recent decades have been pounced on much more by their opposite numbers, the neoliberals. I understand that there is a book by Naomi Klein called "The shock doctrine" which pretty much proves this. That is why disasters are often followed by the enforcement of neoliberal doctrines such as privatisations.

Would you care to give any examples of this happening?

There is no evidence whatever that fair and equitable tax kills jobs

What is a fair and equitable tax?

A strong programme of good public services is clearly the way forward now that neoliberalism has been so utterly discredited.

I don't think neoliberalism has been discredited. Why do you think it has?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

The underfunding of the US government debt owes much to the fact that the super-rich continue to be protected from paying more tax, a thing they can easily afford to do and which some of them are even supporting. Taxing the super-rich is very unlikely to cost a single job.

Fair and equitable taxation equals progressive taxation, and that equals the rich paying a bigger percentage while the ordinary middle class pay a smaller one. It is social and economic justice - 2 terms the tea party loathes.

Neoliberalism has clearly and comprehensively failed, and capitalism itself is in crisis. It is clear to more peole by the day that democratic socialism is the way forward. I am hopeful that the tea party will prove to be a final sting from a dying neoliberal wasp.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Boulevardier wrote: »

Taxing the super-rich is very unlikely to cost a single job.

Talk about an utterly simplistic and flat out wrong view. Tax and regulations most definitely have an effect. The only question to ask is should the regulatory and tax compliance burden employer's face be heavier or lighter than it is at the moment? Anyone with common sense can answer that question correctly.

See how Illinois is faring:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/illinois-loses-most-jobs-in-nation.html

Manic Moran

Boulevardier wrote: »

Fair and equitable taxation equals progressive taxation, and that equals the rich paying a bigger percentage while the ordinary middle class pay a smaller one.

Out of curiosity, if you keep a dictionary in your house, would you mind awfully posting the definitions found in it of the words "fair" and "equitable?"

NTM

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a financial crisis at the moment you might have read about it. Why do you keep insinuating that Krugman wants war!!

Anyway Ron Paul has been shown up for the fool he is this week saying that there is no national response required for hurricane relief or major disasters. Like New Orleans would have been fine if the state had kept out of the way and let the millionaires in their helicopters and luxury motor boats pick everyone up.

Boulevardier

Just look at the jobs that are being created under neoliberalism. People are having to work longer and harder than before, while their union rights have been eroded. During all this time, the super-rich are raking it in, even though there is no evidence whatever that the tax breaks of the Dubya era have created a single decent job.

The long hours, insecurity and low pay of modern jobs represent the immiseration which Marx warned about. Globalisation has given it room to expand by creting Dickensian job environments in poorer countries, but now that process is stalling.

Obama is right to expose the lies and machinations of the super-rich and their tea-party poodles, but unfortunately his fightback has been pathetically weak. However, if he can unite a broad coalition of workers behind a programme of stimulus, fair taxation, better healthcare for all and more to spend on public schools, he can wipe out the tea party. Lets hope he succeeds.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I seen something along the lines of what he is saying
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/26/ron-paul-trashes-fema-just-hours-before-hurricane-irene-makes-landfall/

Just hours before Hurricane Irene is scheduled to reach the East Coast, Ron Paul decided it was appropriate to trash the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

While speaking in New Hampshire, Paul stated that no national response to the hurricane is needed, even though Irene threatens approximately 65 million people.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul FEMA today, just hours before Hurricane Irene is scheduled to make landfall in the U.S. Approximately 65 million people are in the storm’s projected path. “A state can decide,” Paul said. “We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

He went on to cite the deadly hurricane of 1900 that leveled Galveston, Texas and killed more than 6,000 people as an example of a better life before FEMA. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time,” said Paul. “The local people rebuild the city. Built a sea wall and they survived without FEMA. We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940 1950 1960,” Paul said. He argued they only make a “great contribution to deficit financing.”

These comments are really irresponsible at a time when millions of people are in the path of a hurricane which comes after a rare earthquake strikes the same region. People need to know that their government can take action if need be. But Paul apparently thinks that people should be left on their own if disaster and tragedy strikes

No national response is needed but a response on a local level,

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

I know the republicans "want to take their country back" didn't think they meant to the 1900's. Galveston was one of the worst natural disasters in US history.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

permabear, the left slammed FEMA after the Katrina Fiasco because under Dubya they were good for nothing and did nothing.

If you live in a "nation" and fellow members of your "nation" are victims of a natural disaster, then there is ipso facto a case for a "national" response.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

Boulevardier wrote: »

There is no evidence whatever that fair and equitable tax kills jobs. A strong programme of good public services is clearly the way forward now that neoliberalism has been so utterly discredited.

Neo-liberalism:
No bank bailouts
No central banking
No stimulus

What's actually happening:
Bank bailouts
Central banking
Stimulus

What we are seeing is not neo-liberalism. As Noam Chomsky put it, we haven't seen anything close to resembling capitalism.

20Cent wrote: »

He clearly advocates increased Gov spending during times of crisis and depression. Not just for "any" reason.

Most recent republican presidents increased spending in recessions, which is Keynesian.

If Keynesianism works, why are England and Canada (both cutting spending, Harper is doing brilliantly in Canada) doing better than the USA (skyrocketing spending and forcing people to spend thousands of their own money on health insurance) economically?

Boulevardier wrote: »

The underfunding of the US government debt owes much to the fact that the super-rich continue to be protected from paying more tax, a thing they can easily afford to do and which some of them are even supporting. Taxing the super-rich is very unlikely to cost a single job.

Fair and equitable taxation equals progressive taxation, and that equals the rich paying a bigger percentage while the ordinary middle class pay a smaller one. It is social and economic justice - 2 terms the tea party loathes.

Neoliberalism has clearly and comprehensively failed, and capitalism itself is in crisis. It is clear to more peole by the day that democratic socialism is the way forward. I am hopeful that the tea party will prove to be a final sting from a dying neoliberal wasp.

I would consider fair being the government not bullying people for having more money and confiscating it.

20Cent wrote: »

There is a financial crisis at the moment you might have read about it. Why do you keep insinuating that Krugman wants war!!

Anyway Ron Paul has been shown up for the fool he is this week saying that there is no national response required for hurricane relief or major disasters. Like New Orleans would have been fine if the state had kept out of the way and let the millionaires in their helicopters and luxury motor boats pick everyone up.

If people in New Orleans were the ones doing the responding it would have been far more effective than that of Washington bureaucrats.

Just look at the jobs that are being created under neoliberalism. People are having to work longer and harder than before, while their union rights have been eroded. During all this time, the super-rich are raking it in, even though there is no evidence whatever that the tax breaks of the Dubya era have created a single decent job.

Less regulations and corporation tax are more important than less income tax. I don't have any problems with unions, but I don't have any problems with bosses who fire people for being in them.

Obama is right to expose the lies and machinations of the super-rich and their tea-party poodles, but unfortunately his fightback has been pathetically weak. However, if he can unite a broad coalition of workers behind a programme of stimulus, fair taxation, better healthcare for all and more to spend on public schools, he can wipe out the tea party. Lets hope he succeeds

.

Actually that would give the tea party the house, senate and presidency. If we want to increase education spending, the way to do it is to take the money from the military spending and block-grant the states a fixed amount of money.

matthew8

Boulevardier wrote: »

permabear, the left slammed FEMA after the Katrina Fiasco because under Dubya they were good for nothing and did nothing.

If you live in a "nation" and fellow members of your "nation" are victims of a natural disaster, then there is ipso facto a case for a "national" response.

In New Mexico they use state money to build roads, in Colorado they spend state money to clear snow in the winter, In New York and Boston they spend state money on advanced public transport. One size doesn't fit all for a country of 300 million people. Different states spend money on different things, and they know best how to spend it. Not Washington.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The FEMA response to Katrina was very poor according to reports. Apparently there have been a lot of changes to it since. Still better than doing nothing. People are not up in arms due to criticism of FEMA. It the idea that states should be just left to fend for themselves when a disaster strikes.

Soldie

Boulevardier wrote: »

However, if he can unite a broad coalition of workers behind a programme of stimulus, fair taxation, better healthcare for all and more to spend on public schools, he can wipe out the tea party. Lets hope he succeeds.

I have to laugh at the idea of "fair taxation" in order to stimulate the economy. Forcing taxpayers to subsidise unproductive industries strikes me as being an extremely unfair concept. Again we're back to basic economics - Say's law, in this case. That some sectors are depressed is not indicative of a general glut; it is indicative of those sectors being inefficient or unproductive. Some sectors are healthy, and so any stimulating done to unproductive industries is done to the detriment of productive ones. I always find it odd that proponents of a supposedly anti-hierarchical ideology (socialism - be it "democratic socialism" or otherwise) support top-down approaches to the economy, but I suppose the ends justify the means.

gargleblaster

Exile 1798 wrote: »

C'mon now, even if that cropped quote is all you read on some Tea Party/Libertarian website, it should be obvious at first glance that it's not as they purport.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman%20mcculley%20bubble&st=cse

So, he nailed it, and the meaning of his quote was actually the exact opposite of what you supposed/purported/presented it to be.

This is the problem with economics/politics, especially in the US. People simply have no shame or respect for honest argument. Even when Krugmen is exactly right, he's wrong.

I understand why people fall for this misinformation. What more interesting is the people who knowingly formulate it. If you have to lie to argue your position, isn't that a good indicator that your position lacks merit? I guess the probability is that they don't actually care about economics or politics, and that for them these are just vehicles with which to channel their "culture war" resentments. This would explain the American phenomena of the people who pontificate most loudly about taxes, debt and deficit knowing the least about taxes, debt and deficit.

Hear hear re: intellectual honesty. The lack of it has made me loathe to even attempt to discuss politics anymore.

As for pontificating the loudest while not actually knowing the facts, I disagree that it's an American phenomenon. It may be more obivious here or even more extreme, but it's far from unique to the US. This thread is replete with examples of it, and I doubt that all of those engaging in spreading misinformation are Americans.

Boulevardier

Soldie, if Mac Jobs and Walmart jobs are not the products of a "top-down approach to the economy" by big business, I don't know what is.

In any case, sorry to see you regard schools, hospitals, road-building, defence forces etc. as unproductive industries. I would not agree.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

California wouldn't have a hope. They have come within inches of bankruptcy. Their tax cutting propositions can't have helped.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its not very economical for every state have its own emergency response services why not a national organisation that can go to the area affected.

Tell us what the libertarian solution is then?

Insurance has been mentioned so far.