When you come up with an entirely bullshit theory of economics in an attempt to justify your ideological reforms

More sad it's to be a cuck and defend him.

lmao didn't know Keynesianism was responsible for all of the economic factors from the period of 1950-1973 in the US. Why don't you include the Great Depression? I take it it's your position that you can grow an economy by suppressing production (and therefore increasing wages), and also that the Phillip's curve is accurate, right?

let's be real here. I've studied more econ than I should have (finance postgrad) and at the root of it, keynesianism, neoclassical theory, marxism, and austrian schools are all a priori, unempirical, self-contradictory nonsense. Keynesianism is only next to Marxism and Austrianism in its looney suggestions (like the ones I assumed you agreed with above). According to Keynesians, we should pretty much never stop stimulating the economy (for the sake of it) and depression is impossible (Ben Bernanke et al use models where a "depression" isn't even a possible state).

>using CPI for the WHOLE economy
>did you use the GDP deflator for Real GDP per capita, or cpi?
let me give you the straight dope.

from ntanet.org/NTJ/65/1/ntj-v65n01p7-32-second-opinion-economic-health.pdf?v=α

Truthfully, I'm using Keynesianism simply to mean the notion that consumer spending is the most important factor in an economy.

Supply side a shit.

>you should never stop stimulating the economy
>depression is impossible
Wrong. Keynes argued you should use deficit spending to get the market out of it's slump, then pay up the debt you contracted during the periods of growth.

>to be a cuck
please stop trying to appropriate right wing memes

>nonsense
bullshit*

also pic related

>consumer spending is the most important factor in an economy
says who? your feelings? Keynes himself? like I said: a priori, untestable bullshit

>supply side a shit
JUST like I said: a priori, untestable bullshit that you only believe because Keynesianism ==> democrats ==> good and Monetarism ==> Republicans ==> bad

let me tell you what the main things (relating to the health of an economy) are: return to capital (ie the rate of advancement of trade and tech), debt to income ratio, and productivity.

Focusing on consumption as an indicator of economic volume is silly, and ignores where the real evolution is made in the economy: investment. It's a fine measurement for other things though.

>then pay up the debt you contracted during the periods of growth
the problem is, Krugman and Bernanke and Yellen have a track record of NOT doing that, mainly because you can't predict when the apex period of growth will be, and they prescribe inflation as part of paying off the debt. IF Keynesians had a reasonable record of when to spend and when not to, I might agree with you, but everyone that follows that line of logic prescribes ridiculous stimulus packages, like the "trillion dollar coin" or Krugman suggesting $2 trillion in stimulus in 2009.

That aside, yes it is true that prominent Keynesians Yellen and Bernanke use computer models that preclude the possibility of a depression.

He didn't even come up with it lmao. Monetarism obviously isn't dominant today, but many of Milton Friedman's principles are core to modern economic synthesis

the other argument I just laid out aside, the problem with stimulating the economy during recessions is that once you've spent all that money, you have to pay it off at interest (not to mention you've just crowded out a bunch of borrowers) in the future, and the combined effect of both stopping the stimulus and then paying it back at interest is, assuming consumer spending really IS the main driver of the economy, actually worse than just letting the depression happen.

Now, the argument is made that by stopping the progress of a slump (like reversing the progress of cancer), we can somehow make up for the premium described above, but there is evidence that the economy continues through its full "cycle" anyway (modeled in 3 dimensions: debt, unemployment, I forget the third it was either consumer spending or investment of some kind)

>>just let recessions happen with no interference, fuck the poor.
This is a really good way to have lots and lots of unrest. Fact is that without states there are no markets, and the if states value their own existence they must put other factors before economic efficiency.

good rebuttal brainlet

your ideal government

>Understanding simple concept of hyperbole

>our little rinkydink npo has the answers the entirety of financial academics do not
>and the answer is people aren't suffering as bad as they claim if you just starting arbitrarily including medicare/medicaid in their income for one business cycle

Weeeeeeeeeeeew laaaaaaaaaaad

>fiscal policy, tax laws, and corporate regulations
>not having anything to do with economics

We need to tell the people the truth. Some user on a mongoloid comicbook site has all the answers that they don't.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think that people... he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."-Barack Obama

>using hyperbole as a shield

Most people I knew who lived through the time say he was a fairly good president despite his mistakes. Even hardcore liberals say it was a good time.

By comparison to the 60s only the 30s could be worse but your point is taken that people have a soft spot for Ronnie. He is not called the teflon president for nothing.