On Wed, Oct 5, 2011, c b wrote:
> > To the anti-Obamaites, did the O Stimulus abate recession and
> > unemployment at all ? Would a Stimulus twice as large saved us from
> > the current supe-high unemployment rate ? or not ? Three times as
> > large ? How precise really is Keynesian science ?
Bullshit. The problem with the "stimulus" is that it was no stimulus
at all. It saved the banks. it didn't put any money into
CB: What kind of exaggerated horseshit is that ? the stimulus was no
stimulus at all.
The government also didn't engage into a single large scale public
works program... the only public spending continued to be the overseas
war, which profits a select number of private contractors.
CB; Under Keynesian theory , military spending stimulates , too. The
demand for public works programs is Marxist, more than Keynesian.
No new roads,no new bridges, no large-scale energy production
reconversion. No printing money to put them into the hands of
CONSUMERS and no major policy to bring back MANUFACTURING to the US of
A. So if you put money in the consumers' wallets as things are right
now, they'll buy Made in China goods.
Trying to blame Keynesianism for the current sad state of the US
economy is laughable. The POTUS has not engaged in Keynesian economics
CB; That this exam tries to _blame_ Keynesians for the the current
sad stae of the US economy is what is laughable.
You don't answer whether all you propose would have
ended/prevented/abated recession and high unemployment. Can government
spending end recession ?
You get a D on the exam. Would have been an F , but you tried to answer.