One Trillion

> elected as a Republican
> to implement Keynesianism on a massive scale

Why are you so retarded, burgers?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_finance
youtube.com/watch?v=0Q8c9Z7Dexs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Neither candidate was perfect.
Would you prefer if they elected a literal criminal?

Not the first time.

Are you dumb? Bannon proposed exactly what people like Paul Krugmen and other NeoKeynesian academics have been clamoring for for 8 years: Massive infrastructure investments while interests rates are low.

This is what Bannon proposed. Who knows what Trump actually thinks. By the way, Keynesianism isn't necessarily Leftist and there was a time, pre-Goldwater, when basically every Republican believed in Keynesian policies. Coincidentally, President Elect Trump is very similar to pre-Goldwater conservatives.

>implying keynes was wrong

Dig the ground you pathetic Keynesians. You will be very rich by digging the ground.

The problem is that Keynesian policies are sure to be misused and abused in the long run, spoiling there entire purpose. You can't only spend money during downturns because of how politics works in our country. It isn't that Keynesianism is necessarily statism, it is that "temporary" boosts quickly turn into permanent outlays and government grows and grows. It isn't an economic flaw. It is a political one, and a fatal one.

But goldwater was also somewhat keynsian. He opposed big goverment but so did keynes. Keynes thought that goverment spending shouldn't grow with the economy but instead only increase(as a percentage of gdp) in times of crisis to pick up the slack of the private sector in downtimes and for future prosperity.

>We can spend 5 trillion on bombing sandniggers but we can't fix our fucking roads and bridges.

But we did, Trump just lost a civil case where he was being charged under RICO law.
He settled for 25 million.

Republicans ditched Keynes because practically speaking this was sure to happen. This led to some rather idiotic economic thought being popularized on the Right. Which is OK. Economics is complicated. It is hard to do right. It is hard to know what is right. The common voter shouldn't be expected to know this shit.

>Stupid enough to actually think fiscal conservatives are going to allow Trump's big spending plan

Stupid rural hick

I know that is a problem with the political economy.

Neck yourself Urbanite

>Republicans ditched Keynes
Ronald Reagan, Bush Jr and Trump are all deficit spending Republicans of the current era - wtf are you talking about

he is implementing a light form of Hitlers economic policy

i support this

Civil cases aren't criminal nor was he determined guilty, that's what settlement means faggot. They pay the other person to fuck off.

Rhetorically. And George W. Bush's spending was definitely not Keynesian. Deficit spending /= Keynesian.

George W. Bush both Democrats and Republican representatives raised spending while the economy was fine. This isn't Keynesian. This is just bad fiscal policy.

>Civil cases aren't criminal
He's still liable for the fraud, and fraud is a crime
Clinton was never charged, yet, when Trump has to settle - he isn't a criminal? Dumbass


> that's what settlement means faggot. They pay the other person to fuck off.


No, it means he couldn't win the case, and had to settle because if he proceed - he would have lost
By the way, Trump also said he would never settle, retard. He's a loser, just like you

>Deficit spending /= Keynesian
Where did you get your economic degree? Devry fucking University? That's literally the fucking definition of Keynesian economics

Also, and this will get some hate, the broken window fallacy isn't a fallacy under the right conditions. If when the economy is down and money is cheap you break a bunch of windows and fix them, in the long run you very well could be better off.

one was civil, the other was actual case

pretty sure he's got better things to do now

I hope you get sued, it would be so easy to clean out your retarded ass.

>pretty sure he's got better things to do now
Like ruin the fucking country

>Hitlers economic policy

it wasn't Hitlers tho

A reputable organization. And no, that isn't the definition of Keynesianism. You are misinformed. You literally only run deficits when both aggregate demand is low and interest rates are as low as possible.

Unlike Trump, I'll never get sued because I'm actually a law-abiding citizen that doesn't commit adultery or avoid taxes

Welfare and progressive taxation are kind of like automatic Keynesianism and the reason we have a much more stable business cycle since their introduction. They push the budget counter-cyclically regardless of which idiots we voted in last election. That said, we would be better off if our governments would use discretionary fiscal expansion (deliberately running deficits) exactly as much as needed - difficult, but it can be done.

What we really need is this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_finance
>Fiscal policy should be directed in light of its impact on the economy, and the budget should be managed accordingly, that is, 'balancing revenue and spending' is not important; prosperity is important.
>The amount and pace of government spending should be set in light of the desired level of activity, and taxes should be levied for their economic impact, rather than to raise revenue.
>Principles of 'sound finance' apply to individuals. They make sense for individuals, households, businesses, and non-sovereign governments (such as cities and individual US states) but do not apply to the governments of sovereign states, capable of issuing money.

Holy shit I saved that pic.

Thanks based roach.

-Leaf

Just like Clinton am I right?

>A reputable organization.

I doubt it, because deficit spending is Keynesian Economics. You are just uneducated.
> You literally only run deficits when both aggregate demand is low and interest rates are as low as possible.

You run deficits when you don't balance the budget, you fucking re re
stop typing like you have a thesaurus in your hand - you're not smart

Obama try to do the same thing, GOP refused to work with him.

Literally every Hungarian immigrant I have met works in plumbing.
Clean my shit.

Deficits will always happen if the whole non-government sector, overall, wants to spend less than its income. So for the US (which is a net importer) it's literally impossible for the government to run surpluses for any significant period of time without running down someone's savings or building up a mountain of private debt.

If we want another balance sheet recession then sure, let's try to run surpluses or "balanced" budgets.

>Settled
>Lost
I don't think you even have a basic understanding of law.

But nationalistic keynsianism is great user, it's the only truly european economic theory.

Yes, retard, Hillary Clinton never cheated on her husband and nor did she ever get sued by the IRS for not paying her taxes - good to know even your hillbilly, dogshit brain ass acknowledges the wonderful character of Ms. Clinton

Honestly they had some better ideas that Obama didn't go with. Literally just handing people money in the form of tax cuts would probably have been more efficient than the pork filled shit pile the stimulus actually was.

Serious question.
Why are you against Keynes?
He's right in most respects except for not realizing that the Govt. should be the one creating money.

>Trump said he would never settle
>He settled
Yeah, he lost, I'm sorry if having a high school dropout education makes this so hard for you to understand

It's over buddy, time to heal.

My grandfather did carpets and tile. Was always wasted, but could still cut a straight line, unless he was sober of course.

KYS Hillshill. You fucking lost. Finish your transfag transformation and move to Saudi Arabia and get thrown off a roof.

This is a good point.
> So for the US (which is a net importer)
This will hopefully change

>Settled
>Lost
Once again you don't even have a basic understanding of law, and you have to widen the goal posts to even sound coherent.
The world would be better off if you drank bleach.

Seconded, please drink bleach and help raise the USA IQ score.

Lower interest rates are usually preferable to deficit spending for stimulus.

>Can't win the argument
>Have to make something up to sound intelligent
yeah, you definitely are a rural, uneducated hick

By that logic you can also say the other side lost and only settled for a smaller amount because they couldn't proceed.

It's cheaper and easier to pay shit cunts off sometimes because legal procedures are long and painful.

lol no bitcoins will solve everything, trust me I have a 1080GTX

>By that logic you can also say the other side lost and only settled for a smaller amount because they couldn't proceed.

Trump literally fucking said he SETTLED, not the plaintiffs. HE couldn't proceed. Because he KNEW he would lose in court.

>Have to make something up to sound intelligent
That's literally what you just did.
I live in the city of Phoenix btw.
Surrounded by spics, and niggers.

Anyone else not care what system they live under, so long as they have a comfy life?

Jesus, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this latest batch of nerd virgins.

At last, someone who is based!

>I live in a state with one of the lowest average IQs in the union
>You're making shit up! I'm intelligent!
Okay

Yes, and it mirrors Reagan's ridiculous fiscal policy in many respects except Reagan's spending was mostly military.
I'm not talking about Obama. Obama raised taxes to cover SOME of his spending.

I would argue that is the majority of the population.

Being a net importer is to your advantage and to net exporters' disadvantage.
youtube.com/watch?v=0Q8c9Z7Dexs

That's your policy preference, and many agree with you, but the deficit is not an outcome the government decides. It's a residual of saving desires in the economy. The only way to increase aggregate demand at a particular time is either get the government to spend more or tax less (discretionary expansion), or get the private sector to spend more, usually by indebting itself. Only one of these strategies is sustainable.

You're either trolling at this point, or literally retarded.
It's probably more of a
>I was just pretending to be stupid
kind of thing.

The other side has to accept the settlement. But your own logic the other side shouldn't have accepted a settlement if they knew they were right because they would have gotten 10 times more.

Some times innocent parties give payouts because procedures are expensive, lengthy, and risky.

>I don't care if I totally ruin my childrens' future as long as I get my bread and circuses
Shiggy

>Keynesianism
>bad

are you trolling us?
right?

Kek.

USA will go through whatb Japan went in 1991 - 2008 and China in the last 10 years. They were overbuilding absolutely everything in hopes of spurring the gdp growth rate. It worked for a period of executing those public projects, but as soon as they are over the growth ebbs out.

>surrounded by spics and niggers
>Let's talk about IQ

Okay, let's, you fucking racist, xenophobe.

>tfw to intelligent to argue with the cry baby

Yes China and Japan are doing so bad.

Not seeing the problem with infrastructure spending honestly. Besides, the other candidate would have started a war with the Russians and that is something we really don't need.

>Being a net importer is to your advantage and to net exporters' disadvantage.
Yeah, I don't agree. Everything has to even out in the long run and I would rather people have jobs in the meantime.
>. The only way to increase aggregate demand at a particular time is either get the government to spend more or tax less (discretionary expansion), or get the private sector to spend more, usually by indebting itself. Only one of these strategies is sustainable.
Neither is sustainable because eventually the rate of the increase in government spending has to increase. This isn't sustainable and creditors would quickly lose faith of a government whose spending was accelerating over any long period of time.

>Trump said he would never settle because he was innocent
>He all of sudden settles because he's going to lose - even though he's the President Elect

It's pretty obvious he wasn't innocent, he just didn't want to be impeached as soon as he got into office

Japan is in 20 years long stagnation and China is, when you take out uneeded construction work that is artificially propping up gdp % growth, is 2-3%:a year.

Because the SJWs just wouldn't shut the fuck up, and they kept advocating for more low IQ shitskins to come here when we don't fucking need them.

China's on the verge of collapse. Why do you think their rich our transferring their wealth to our countries?
The people buying citizenship in our nations are rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Does it still sting?

>Impeached from a civil case

But more importantly do you think any President would have time to attend court hearings in office. And if he did, and even if he was innocent do you know what the already hostile media would do to him.

I won't say he was definitely innocent but an out of court settlement has zero significance in determining whether he was or not. In either case it was a million times more practical for him to do it then proceed with the suit.

I just wanted to prevent a nuclear war.

It is mostly good old fashioned money laundering.

>Yeah, I don't agree. Everything has to even out in the long run and I would rather people have jobs in the meantime.
So maintain full employment at home and also import when foreigners are willing to export to you.
>Neither is sustainable because eventually the rate of the increase in government spending has to increase. This isn't sustainable and creditors would quickly lose faith of a government whose spending was accelerating over any long period of time.
The government runs deficits most of the time and can always maintain its spending. Besides, investors aren't stupid enough to abandon a currency issuer over solvency and it wouldn't matter if they were that stupid.
The important thing is that the government keeps a low unemployment target and price stability and then the size of the deficit won't matter (as long as it doesn't, say, peg its currency).

US infrastructure could use some work desu

>But more importantly do you think any President would have time to attend court hearings in office.
Trump can find time to dine with his family, and do business dealings during his transition, yet, he can't handle showing up in court?

>Impeached from a civil case

Clinton was impeached from a civil case...you seriously did not know this?

>impeached
>civil case before he is even POTUS
Even further proving you don't even have a basic understanding of law.
Please keep talking. There' probably at least 100 people laughing at how fucking stupid you are.

>Implying Trump isn't a criminal

Have you ever had proper bread? Have you ever been to a really good circus?

They're totally worth it.

>civil case before he is even POTUS

You dumbass, if the case continued after he was POTUS and he was found GUILTY under RICO law - he could definitely be impeached

That is why he settled. Are you hicks really this stupid? How can you be this ignorant?

Except Clinton was also proven guilty on criminal charges. Perjury, and obstruction of justice.

Impeachment is a process, not an end result.
For real please keep it up
You're my entertainment for the night.

Man, more 'if's in that paragraph than when Obama's teleprompter froze.

I thought we'd finished with Kenyanism

I felt the Johnson

No, he wasn't impeached
Holy shit you are retarded - how hard is it for you understand that Trump could be removed from office if he was found guilty of racketeering charges stemming from his Trump University case. It's not hard to figure out, but I shouldn't expect more from a dumb hick

Trump merely offered the settlement.

If the other party was so assured that they were right, why did they accept the settlement, when they could have denied it, beat him in court, and got ten times the settlement amount?


Back to the topic at hand, I'm not too keen on massive spending at this point since I'm pretty certain an economic bubble of some kind is about to burst and throw the financial system into chaos.

He literally can't though.
Not only is the case civil, it all happened before he is in office.
Once again that whole basic understanding of law thing.
Couldn't touch him even if you tried.

>Said "if" once
>proceed with shitty joke that doesn't make sense because you have no counterargument
you're REALLY bad at this

>using hick every sentence

I can't tell if you're baiting or just that narcissistic that you think anyone who disagrees with you is beneath you.

But you still haven't responded to the fact that whether Trump was guilty or not he has a vested interest in settling the case quickly and therefore an out of court settlement proves nothing.

You realize that to be impeached, the crime doesn't need to be committed even before you were in office - right? You can't be this stupid.

That's like saying the president can't be impeached if he murdered and raped someone in his hotel before he got into office

>You realize that to be impeached, the crime doesn't need to be committed even before you were in office
Give me a source on that.
Then you can see how fucking stupid you actually are when you do a little research on the topic.