Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

PM to Ozone

2»

Comments

  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    What, the economist from Berkeley who according to you was right is now very wrong? He said the $$$ were pretty insignificant and the policy (which doesn't match Keynesian theory) was the reason for the turnaround. And a bunch of economists believe the same. And no, it was not a given that the Marshall Plan was freeing up the markets...for a period of time it did the exact opposite and things weren't better (they were kinda a mess if you actually go back and read about it). That was the brilliance of Ludwig Erhard (and U.S. General Lucius D. Clay)...they ignored orders and removed the price controls on a bunch of products.

    I love your two new "sources":
    1) a blogger with degrees in psychology and communications (not a Forbes magazine contributor) and Al Jazeera America guest who's famous works include "The Green Supermarket Shopping Guide", "The Green Company Resource Guide", "The Cul-de-Sac Syndrome" and "Keynes's Way to Wealth". And...

    2) a Spanish socialist journalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Ramonet)

    The sad thing is you could actually learn something from this...instead its a facts be damned dig in your heels and trot any and everything out to try and prove yourself correct no matter what reality says. Its very Hondo...

    Heck, read Brad DeLong's paper I linked to...I not a fan of all his stuff and I hadn't read it before but its a pretty good read. Or just keep spinning and speaking in clichés without having a clue about what you are talking about...I don't care really...

    Next time you link a source, I'll attack the background of the person you sourced. Oh wait, you've never provided a link.
    From earlier in this thread...
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w3899
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Commanding-Heights-Battle-Economy/dp/068483569X
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

    Shite or get off the pot you effin moron...
    nber is your source? FML
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,739 Founders Club
    I don't understand anything in this entire thread but I have a hard on. Weird.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    "not large enough to have significantly accelerated recovery" =/= "inconsequential"
    AZDuck said:

    No wonder you don't understand macro, if you're an MBA.

    Keynes absolutely DNGAF about "controls" in an economy. His big idea was smoothing out the market cycle by using government spending to stimulate aggregate demand.

    The Marshall Plan stimulated aggregate demand, in part, via government spending from the US, which was matched by the Euro governments. It worked better than the modeling would suggest, and in part due to reduction of controls and so forth.

    But the Keynesianism already happened before that.

    If you want to say that demand wasn't stimulated as much by the spending but rather by the loosening of regulations and administrative control by governments, that's fine. Just so long as you understand that the basic idea behind demand stimulus is Keynesian.

    Anytime a government engages in countercyclical spending to stimulate aggregate demand, they are following Keynes. The Marshall Plan did just that. That is all.

    Are we done here or do you want to keep going?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,999
    We were done here last page when you cited DeLong who wrote a paper saying your claim was FS. You've just been spinning your wheels since.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    LOL, no.

    You spun his words into "inconsequential" when he never said that. His paper presupposes that government spending will increase aggregate demand, which he does not address specifically because that is Econ 101.

    But whatever makes you feel all warm and snuggly at night
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,739 Founders Club
    Arizona and Houston are close enough you two could drive for five-six hours each to meet in the middle and fuck.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,999
    Inconsequential, or if you want to be more specific, "not large enough to significantly". Or, as the authors later say, "negligible importance"...and this is your Liberal Keynesian economist I'm quoting. I can find worse if it makes you feel better.

    Keep going all Hondo...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    HoustonHusky said:

    Inconsequential, or if you want to be more specific, "not large enough to significantly". Or, as the authors later say, "negligible importance"...and this is your Liberal Keynesian economist I'm quoting. I can find worse if it makes you feel better.

    Keep going all Hondo...

    englishmotherfucker.gif

    Also, TWSS!!!


















    huh?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter