Facts would seem to refute your statements, both in the aggregate of EU countries as well as almost all of them individually :
See chart of public debt growth of EU countries here :
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13361930
and here :
Supply side economics, as has been advocated by the top 1%, has not been Keynesian in nature.
You cannot blame Keynesian policies for Europe's malaise since Europe has reacted to the depression with austerity, or at least grossly insufficient Keynesian stimulus, and as Europe enters another recession, Germany has proudly balanced its national budget, which too is against Keynesian theory for stimulus.
Facts would seem to refute your statements, both in the aggregate of EU countries as well as almost all of them individually :
See chart of public debt growth of EU countries here :
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13361930
and here :
Wait, what? The Eurozone is proof in FAVOR of Keynesian economics, not against it.
Europe has been slashing budgets in the face of recession, not increasing them. They have faced terrible economic performance. It's an epic fail alright, for the opponents of Keynesian economics.
The US has not been following Keynesian policies for the last 30-40 years.
Do you know what the terms you are using mean?
This chart clearly shows you do not understand what Keynesian economics is.
Hint: you cannot tell if a country has pursued Keynesian economics by their debt/GDP ratio at a specific point in time.
Which is why there is the other link that you clearly are too stupid to click on. The graph in that link can't be linked as an image.
Yes, but you clearly don't.
US Debt vs GDP :
Wrong answer :
Yes, but you clearly don't.
US Debt vs GDP :
What a strange chart. All of the countries with high debt are completely screwed. The countries with the lowest levels of debt seem to be doing ok. This flies in the face of Keynesian theory. If the Keynesians were correct, Greece would have the strongest economy and Norway would be the one facing bankruptcy.Facts would seem to refute your statements, both in the aggregate of EU countries as well as almost all of them individually :
See chart of public debt growth of EU countries here :[/url]
All you do is claim that everything is a right wing conspiracy. Time magazine is a conspiracy, news reports of people complaining about food prices are a conspiracy, New York Times is a conspiracy, Wall Street Journal is a conspiracy, Americans voters are a conspiracy, BLS is a conspiracy, Pew research is a conspiracy, Google Finance is a conspiracy, etc.We have been over all of these data points before.
You were explicitly shown why you were full of shit.
Now is a good time to start. It's just applied economics. Statistics play a role as well.BTW I don't invest in individual stocks, bonds, or anything else.
What a strange chart. All of the countries with high debt are completely screwed. The countries with the lowest levels of debt seem to be doing ok. This flies in the face of Keynesian theory. If the Keynesians were correct, Greece would have the strongest economy and Norway would be the one facing bankruptcy.
All you do is claim that everything is a right wing conspiracy. Time magazine is a conspiracy, news reports of people complaining about food prices are a conspiracy, New York Times is a conspiracy, Wall Street Journal is a conspiracy, Americans voters are a conspiracy, BLS is a conspiracy, Pew research is a conspiracy, Google Finance is a conspiracy, etc.
http://www.businessinsider.com/18-34-years-olds-living-with-parents-2014-6
Now Business Insider is part of the conspiracy against Obama.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/01/a-rising-share-of-young-adults-live-in-their-parents-home/
The chart on the right is interesting. Of the record number of young adults still living with their parents, only 29% of them have jobs. Obamanomics appears to be working. I hear the unemployment rate will go down if we have a theoretical war against martians (krugman frequently talks about this hypothetical situation). Bush and Obama took that idea and ran with it. War with Iraq. Attempted war with Syria. Trying to get involved in Ukraine. So far they've all failed. How many times do Keynesian need to be proven wrong before they stop trying to turn us into Greece?
Now is a good time to start. It's just applied economics. Statistics play a role as well.
What a strange chart. All of the countries with high debt are completely screwed. The countries with the lowest levels of debt seem to be doing ok. This flies in the face of Keynesian theory. If the Keynesians were correct, Greece would have the strongest economy and Norway would be the one facing bankruptcy.
All you do is claim that everything is a right wing conspiracy. Time magazine is a conspiracy, news reports of people complaining about food prices are a conspiracy,
New York Times is a conspiracy, Wall Street Journal is a conspiracy, Americans voters are a conspiracy,
BLS is a conspiracy, Pew research is a conspiracy, Google Finance is a conspiracy, etc.
http://www.businessinsider.com/18-34-years-olds-living-with-parents-2014-6
Now Business Insider is part of the conspiracy against Obama.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/01/a-rising-share-of-young-adults-live-in-their-parents-home/
The chart on the right is interesting. Of the record number of young adults still living with their parents, only 29% of them have jobs. Obamanomics appears to be working. I hear the unemployment rate will go down if we have a theoretical war against martians (krugman frequently talks about this hypothetical situation). Bush and Obama took that idea and ran with it. War with Iraq. Attempted war with Syria. Trying to get involved in Ukraine. So far they've all failed. How many times do Keynesian need to be proven wrong before they stop trying to turn us into Greece?
Now is a good time to start. It's just applied economics. Statistics play a role as well.
Bush and Greenspan did exactly what Krugman suggested. They stimulated the economy and inflated new credit bubbles. It was a complete disaster. Millions more people went bankrupt.
It is posters like eskimospy that show the vulgar Keynesian doctrine that consmption grows economies is in fact alive and well among self-professed Keynesians.
Consumption is not the cause of growth. Consumption shrinks the economic pie. It is only saving and investment that grows economies.
Yes, at the micro level producers depend on consumers for revenues which are necessary for subsequent saving and investment. However it is a fallacy of composition to assert that this is true at the level of the economy as a whole. At that level of the whole, the dependency is the other way around. At this level, which is the level under discussion, consumption as such depends on production as such.
One can easily grasp this by considering what would happen if consumer spending spending rises and rises and rises without there being enough of that evil saving and investment you seem to have no clue to be the cause of growing economies. If consumer spending keeps rising, it is capable of resulting in enough real consumption activity that real productive activity cannot replace what is consumed. The economy would shrink.
The only activity that adds to the economic pie is saving and investment activity. You cannot consume what has not yet first been produced, and production requires non-consumption spending. Every material, every labor hour, every machine, every means of production requires expenditures that are by definition not consumption expenditures.
Consumption shrinks the pie. Production adds to the pie. Period. End of story.
Keynesian are advocating for a poisonous, destructive activity.
It's the "build it and they will come" economic doctrine.
What exactly are we investing in if there is no consumption? We just produce to stock inventory on shelves?
That's how you grow the economy! In fact, if we all just made things nobody wanted we would have no consumption and therefore the biggest economy ever. It can't possibly go wrong.
Seriously though I'm baffled at the production vs. consumption idea he tried to push there as if consumption were a bad thing.
It's still better than you, who took the joke "fake it 'til you make it" and used it as the basis for your entire economic 'philosophy' if you want to call your stupidity that. In fact, "Keynesian economics" is too gentle a term, we ought to rename it something more appropriate like "Payday Loan economics." Thank god that politicians wised up and stopped listening to assclowns like you and Krugman. You're the equivalent of quacks peddling homeopathic medicine or Scientology.
You might find your emotional ranting to be a compelling argument, but I'll take the analysis of those working at the IMF that said during the crisis fiscal multipliers were above 1. Unless you can explain how fiscal multipliers were in fact not above 1, you have no choice but to admit that Krugman was right, yet again.
What's odd is that Krugman was right and we followed his recommendations more closely than a lot of other countries. This made all of us better off, but it seems to enrage you. I get the feeling that you would rather him have been wrong and the U.S. worse off, which is weird.
We can see that the cumulative multiplier for high-income countries rises from an initial value of 0.37 (the impact effect) to a long-run value of 0.80. Hence, even after the full impact of a …scale expansion is accounted for, output has risen less than the cumulative increase in government consumption, implying some crowding out of output by government consumption at every time horizon.
Oh, you mean the same IMF that says the multiplier effect is close to zero or even negative? Especially for countries like the U.S. where debt is above 60% of GDP, where is specifically says "fiscal stimulus may be counterproductive." You might want to spend some time reading through the conclusions on page 24.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1152.pdf
You should be thanking him for pushing for good economic policy,
Printing money out of thin air is NOT good economic policy.