Is more debt worth Keynesian policy?

ROTFL!!!!!!

Of course not. If the back room deals were observed, we would finally get upset enough to not re-elect that politician. When companies get together and fix prices, it is illegal. When companies meet with a politician that fixes prices, it is called regulation.

 

Reality seems to be a problem for you,

I can agree with that. Any one with an understanding of the firm would appreciate the comment made. Sadly you're not in that category just yet!

 

How many companies have you worked for? How many at the director level and above, with direct access to the decisions made, and the rationale behind those decisions. I have worked at that level in 5 companies, Machivelli plays a minor role, and more in middle management than senior.

I am well aware of reality, and would never hire you for your economic "expertise".

 

I'm a consultant. I couldn't count

 

There are three drivers of the economy, consumers, business and government. The consumers don't have the confidence or the assets to spend. Business has a trillion plus socked away mostly for de-leveraging and future moves. The only entity left to stimulate is the government. In these times it is more important to stimulate than to use austerity as austerity creates more debt in the form of lost revenue and trade along with increased unemployment. When the economy expands at a rate faster than, say 3-4% then we can think of austerity in the form of tax reduction, interest rate hikes and tariff modification among other things. Right now the economy demands we stimulate or the debt will continue to increase and revenue will continue to decrease. Even if the GOP is elected, some stimulus will be enacted immediately, the only reason they haven't yet is
A. They want a bad economy to get rid of Obama
B. Grover Norquist
C. Stupid people who signed the Norquist pledge

 

Is our current trillion dollar deficit being used efficiently?

 

What criteria for efficiency are you using? Deficit created through military expenditure would be inefficient in Keynesian terms

 

How about deficit created by tossing cash into black solar holes? Solyndra, to name but one.

Efficient?

 

Another opinion, given as an absolute - WWII?

 

The government lower interest rates, and through Freddie and Fanny stimulated our way out of the tech crash. The problem is, the government didn't know when to stop - and you see how that worked out.

 

A heterodox economics approach would refer to the importance of government 'waste' as a means to stabilise capitalism. Makes a mockery of the standard efficiency arguments (but its rarely understood by the right wingers still struggling to come to terms with supply and demand)

 

If you keep count, there will be many more failures in our effort to change to sustainable energy, it is a new field. There will also be some graft, stupid decisions and wasted money, just like in the business world. On the plus side, there will be progress and hopefully we can gain energy independence before other nations do. First major power to do so wins.

 

To what extent can we rely on market forces to deliver the required technological progress?

 

We have the technical solution, what we need is a cost effective solution. The governments solution is to raise the price of fossil fuels, so the alternatives are cheap in comparison. Only the monopoly of government can do that.

There is one exception, solar panels. The US is adding a 30% tarriff. I guess protecting a few inefficient companies is more important than alternative energy for all.

 

You haven't got anywhere near the question asked: To what extent can we rely on market forces to deliver the required technological progress?

 

An Open Letter to President Roosevelt
John Maynard Keynes

A synopsis of the letter by yours truly

 

Please make an argument on here! It doesn't need much after all

 

I answered the question - you just don't understand the answer.

 

We both know you can't answer the question. Can't you at least copy and paste from a right wing site and pretend you have something? Here it is again: To what extent can we rely on market forces to deliver the required technological progress?

 

Your ignorance on the state of sustainable energy is showing. Spend some time it the forum on the enviroment.

 

Of course and so what? The original comment I disagreed with:

It would be difficult to compete with the hierarchy in the firm and the coercion it generates in day to day bobbins

My point being that it's an apples and oranges comparison in regards to corruption. For one we ought to have a higher set of standards for public service people. Second, corruption in the government sector can lead to systemic issues that no single firm has the power to sway. So even if comparing the two in terms of corruption were relevant, the amount of influence each is capable of exerting aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

Heavily!

Often times what we're given isn't what we expected. For instance, no one in the 80's said... "Hey, what I really want is an IPod" -- they didn't even know that was an option. What we can count on from government is pouring money into technologies that may not be a best fit, but because it's the only one we're aware of and we want to appear to be "doing something" to the voters, bureaucrats throw money at it.

The market is the only entity capable of delivering what we didn't even know we wanted.

 

Nope, its all good ole influence costs.

 

Then why has US R&D been skewed by the military sector? Why do we have study after study referring to spin-off technologies, despite the apparent innate inefficiency of public sector involvement

 

Because people with a profit motive are good at finding uses for things that people with no profit motive have no idea what to do with other than blow things up.