The events of the next 4-5 years will unfortunately prove me correct, I’m pretty sure.

See here:
http://mises.org/story/3488
and here (as linked above):
http://mises.org/daily/3870

If you find no reason to question your Keynesianism after reading those two articles, one of them written by an eminent economist, then what can I say?

…….more sophistic blather…..it’s a poor substitute for backing up absurd claims like your earlier one which you’ve never answered and this most recent one that the current recession will rival the great depression in longevity which is just as ludicrous

……and when it comes to debauching the currency much of the debauching was done by Republicans…..in 1998 in Bill Clinton’s golden days I was staying in a rather grand hotel in Salzburg and could buy Euros for around 81 cents……they now cost around $1.50……and just in case you want to claim this is all the current admin’s creation they were costing about $1.55 in the spring of 2008!

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

i don’t understand when i became a nihillist? in fact, i believe such a cynical statement as “in the long run we’re all dead,” would, especially when used to promote dangerous policy with insouciance, require nihilist, if not sociopathetic, tendencies.

jruss and otto,

“The events of the future will prove me right…… and it may indeed rival the Great Depression in terms of longevity. Of that I’m relatively confident. ”

…….You forget one of Maynard Keynes most memorable aphorisms “In the long run we’re all dead.”

…….Unemployment is going to hit 25% and the economy is going to continue contracting for about 14 successive quarters?……..not very likely….in fact it’s already started growing again……I know in your nihilist heart that this is what you want to happen but you’re going to disappointed a bit like those religious guys carrying signs saying the end is nigh.

““Last night I saw Steve Forbes speak, and his prescription for the ailing economy was largely in line with what I outlined in post #61.”

……..Mr Forbes would be better employed tending to his own garden…..he owns a business that’s on its knees and he personally has allowed to atrophy……..he should also read his own columnist Bruce Bartlett who actually is an economist not just pretending to be one.

As someone who generally likes sticking to reality when making statements, I implore you to explain how papering over bankruptcy could prevent what you call a “meltdown.” What harm would have come with a restructuring? Lehman is no more; Bear is no more; the world continues to turn.

Almost everyone would not include anyone on this list:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

We shall see, we shall see…

Quite well, given the very legitimate fears 14 months ago that we were about to see a complete economic meltdown.

As Krugman and Reich and others argued last February, twice as much stimulus was probably warranted – but Obama decided to hold back in order to lessen the risk of rapid currency devaluation. As you say, we shall see who was right.

Although almost everyone is sure that the anti-stimulus crowd is wrong.

Recent: http://mises.org/daily/3870

The events of the future will prove me right. We will have a very slow recovery, and it may indeed rival the Great Depression in terms of longevity. Of that I’m relatively confident. Our only saving grace here is the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

I am defending the classical liberal position on political economy, and yet I am derided not only for my aberrance from the modern mainstream, but nearly treated as a pariah who has presumptuously developed his own fatuous system and pushes it on people like would any other charlatan. The lack of respect that legitimate criticism is treated with by forum members speaks to their arrogance and ignorance.

Political revolutions do come about from poor economic conditions. Recognizing this blatant fact of history (in modern American history, 1932 and 1980 come to mind) does not make me a Marxist eschatologist, waiting for salvation day upon the dawning of the proletariat uprising. Not all political revolutions are bloody coups. Above all, your dismissal of this strong correlation speaks loudly about your lack of historical perspective, and your disavowal of economists as anything but number crunching technocrats.

In the past, economists have written extensive treatises to explain their theories and illuminate them through recorded historical phenomena. Nowadays, “economists” attack you with a barrage of charts, numbers, formulae, and statistics they claim to be portentous, yet balk when asked to explain why these models failed to predict the 2007 collapse. The older tradition almost always championed liberty; the modern tradition, central planning. But I digress.

Mentioning Say’s law is not name dropping, it’s reference… name dropping would be something like “Last night I saw Steve Forbes speak, and his prescription for the ailing economy was largely in line with what I outlined in post #61.” That, in fact, happens to be true. In otto’s schema, Mr. Forbes’ preference for a strong and stable dollar serve to qualify his mind as “unusual.”

“Natural law? In economics?” Yes, that’s the idea. Universal laws that remain valid for all time space, just like all other “laws” we develop from our pursuit of knowledge. Not a hodgepodge of empirically derived, at best arbitrary deficit spending policies. You would do well to read Bastiat, and then turn to Mises. Bastiat will cure you of your knee-jerk protectionism, central planning tendencies, and – yes – hubris in believing that a bureaucrat can short circuit recovery. Mises’ work on the philosophical underpinnings of the economic science and epistemological problems inherent in empiricism and positivism may allow you to drop the yoke of erroneous methodology. Somehow, I feel I am asking too much.

Speaking of empiricism, let’s see: the biggest government “bailout” of the economy since Hoover/FDR has taken place in the last year, and in that year unemployment has risen to double digit and the job losses keep mounting without any abatement. Gold has climbed to all time highs on inflationary fears. There is mild inflation during a time when there should be deflation, to use these vulgar terms. The commercial real estate market is on the precipice, and come February could very well be in the same position as was the subprime market. How’s that Keynesianism working out?

“Being economically literate” #61 and “clearly since I claim to be at variance with nearly the entirety of modern practitioners, I do not claim to study modern economic journals and jargon.” #135

Given what you said, plus your name dropping (Say’s Law, etc.) I naturally assumed that you were versed in economic theory, and that you had studied it. Would a man conversing in French not be assumed to know the language?

“Economic theory is qualitative, not quantitative, and therefore whatever statistics are collected, if they’re even accurate, do nothing to contribute to the the discovery as what I would call natural law.”

Natural law? In economics? As I would recall, in a state of nature, there are no “markets” as such. In fact, it takes entering into a society to form a market–by definition–thus thus negating the opportunity to observe man in nature and thus Natural Law from man itself. And last I checked, the other sources of Natural Law, God and animals (the world around us) don’t trade.

You speak about government spending as though it must be met by an immediate tax increase, which is just not true. It is easy enough for the US government to spend more (sell foreign reserves, sell gold reserves, borrow internationally) without levying more taxes–we have this flexibility because of our fiat money. -Eventually- we ought to pay it back, but that is an issue to deal with when our economy is in the upswing. (Again, I address the worries of crowding out above)

“It’s like the idea of true scarcity never entered your head when thinking about the problem we’re facing. Like those who insist we must start EXPORTING more goods when clearly we’re hurting for more goods internally. We don’t need mathematical models to tell us that when we feel poorer, we need more real production, and we should do things that encourage the behavior rather than punish it.”

Since you are so fond of the classical economists (Ricardo in particular), you should already recognize the silliness of that argument. What would be more productive, transforming silicon valley into a car manufacturing center (or some other good we need) and be terrible at it, or continue to export our software (which is very good, and fetches good prices) and trade the money you earn for cheaper goods elsewhere? What of Comparative Advantage?

“Economic dangers aren’t just about dollars and sense. At some point they lead to political revolution of one sort or another.”

So you’re a Marxist now as well?

“Right now must be a time of thrift”

And for individuals and families, it is. With just how uncertain things are these days, one ought to be financially prudent. However, this is where the government, in some way or another, must come in lest we intend for the recession to last for years or decades as in centuries past.

And in closing, “I think you’ll find the best policy comes from knowing the best theory.” – Right back at ya