Wednesday, February 16, 2011


I found a Post whose information I have considerable doubt on the accuracy of all expressed views, but which is excellent as a teaching element. John Maynard Keynes was an economist of his Times. He basically started his leadership role in Economics writing on the economies of the First World War. He watched the development of the Versailles Treaty, and felt compelled to note that it would never work. He observed Winston Churchill commit his second political Suicide by clinging to the Gold Standard. He endured the Great Depression alongside his fellow Englishmen, and understood that the laboring classes were dropping into the Hunger and Privation under which they had lived prior to the Corn Laws. He proposed his famous Stimulus theory trying to avoid horrors which he understood too well; never contemplating these measures to be more than a temporary expedient. He had the misfortune to continue his career through Breton Woods. He is crucified or deified by modern day economists, depending on which of his Works they want to examine; often both at the same time, using Words written in different decades. Keynes’ only fault was that he was a functioning economist attempting to find Solutions to arisen problems; he was never dedicated to creating a magnificent economic theory for all Mankind for all Time.

Here is another article on which I do not agree with much. Economists make too much of the value of Productivity Gains. I do not know whether any specific Reader has seen such a graph, but We are talking about those graphs whose traveling line is composed of interlocking U’s, graph line denoted by the lowest point of each U. This means that Productivity Gains increase with both increased and reduced Production (actual New Hires, or new Fires), with the bottom of each U means the lowest Productivity rate witnessed. Production levels depend on Consumer Demand, and labor employment can affect rise or fall from the lowest point of the U. The retirement of the Baby Boomers leads to a smaller labor force, but a maintained Consumption population. An increase or decrease in the later population governs Consumer Demand, which governs Production; Productivity Gains means little outside a math model.

Now here is a Post on which I can agree. I do have doubts that my reasoning coincides with Stan though. I believe there is a time of confrontation, where any level of Government will be forced to shut down, if Taxes are not raised. This means there is a Point where there will be no further subscription of Government debt. Government leadership will have to decide to actually print more money (this easier done with Computer keystrokes), or shut down programs. Then it becomes a decision of which Government employees to tell to stay home. Could they possibly decide to raise Taxes?–Oh Yes, but only after the whole nation suffers. lgl

No comments: