How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I'm old enough to reason.

Good. I have enjoyed discussing things with you because you do seem reasonable at times.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
Universities generally are dominated by the far left.

Not true.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Trajanus
Some are actually aiming for such prizes right now!!

Trajanus, I doubt you would get a prize if your thesis was that Reagan was right to declare the USSR an Evil Empire.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Not true.

Really?

Which ones are not?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned


Good. I have enjoyed discussing things with you because you do seem reasonable at times.

Same to you, sir.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned


Really?

Which ones are not?

I don't believe any of them are. There are some lefty faculty members, but the majority are either moderates or rightwing.

[Ned]

Well, I'll be. That simply is not the impression I got from listening to pundits over the years. The general impression I received is that universities are a haven for the far left.

My first hand impression of Carleton College, from which my daughter just graduated, is that it is dominated by the far left.

I must admit, though, that the schools from which I graduated only had a smattering of far left professors.

[DuncanK]

Ned,

I have an economics degree from Cal State Fresno. Out of 9 professors, only 2 were Communists, one was an American Institutionalist (left wing), and the rest were either mainstream or rightwing (at least 2), but none of them ever graded me because they didn't like my ideology.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I credit Nixon for getting us out of Vietnam. He should have escallated the bombing sooner, because that was what forced NV into a deal.

Nixon was a traitor. He sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace talks and kept us in war four years longer than we should have been.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, I'll be. That simply is not the impression I got from listening to pundits over the years. The general impression I received is that universities are a haven for the far left.

My first hand impression of Carleton College, from which my daughter just graduated, is that it is dominated by the far left.

I must admit, though, that the schools from which I graduated only had a smattering of far left professors.

Most of the economics departments are mostly mainstream. I think there are a few that are unorthodox, but I'm not sure what the names of them are. If you study Sociology or Women's Studies, something like that, of course the professors will tend to be liberal or left wing.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Nixon was a traitor. He sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace talks and kept us in war four years longer than we should have been.

Che you were 6 years old when the war stopped. How can you come off saying something you have no knowledge of? Only what you have read or someone has told you is all you know, nothing else.
If anyone was a traitor, it was Johnson for not letting our guys (my guys, remember that was supposed to be my war to, but was not sent to Nam). do their jobs. When Nixon first came in, he try the Johnson way but it did not work. So he bomb the piss out of them and they finely said no more, we will sigh a treaty with us and we can go home.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't believe any of them are. There are some lefty faculty members, but the majority are either moderates or rightwing.

LOL, welcome to lala land .

Oh, and continuing the past discussion: Many pre-Keynesians did not believe in Say's law (Malthus considered himself a free market, classical economist, remember). The market always clearing only refers to the market clearance if supply and demand are followed.

Producing more product is simply moving along the S curve, which, if moving away from equilibrium, is simply foolish and will not clear because you aren't following supply and demand. And demand curves aren't nice and all flowing like you saw in your economics classes. Sometimes they stop in the middle of the graph. Free market types knew this (especially in industries concentrated in a certain location). If you increase supply to the point where the demand curve ends, free marketers did not believe it will not magically extend to match supply. Supply must match demand. It is demand which creates supply, not the other way around for most of capitalist history. If it were otherwise then economists would tell companies to simply produce as much as you can, no matter what the demand, and you'll sell it all. That's ludicrous.

Further, Keynes got Say wrong. Say never said 'supply creates its own demand'. Say said that without supply there is no demand. Basically supply is a precondition for demand, which is basically correct.

In the end, consumption boosters are demand side policies and investment & production boosters are supply side policies. Seeing as you back consumption AND production (as seen in other threads), I'd say you were a demand and supply sider .

'Supply-Side Economics' is something totally different though, and is now simply considered the type of economics during the Reagan years. Say would have deplored Reagan's economics. He'd applaud the tax cuts, but would back spending cuts to balance it out.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Nixon was a traitor. He sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace talks and kept us in war four years longer than we should have been.

What was the deal that the NV were offering Johnson?

[Ned]

Imran, et al., it seems to me that putting more money in the hands of the people will cause the industrial engine to speed up if the slowdown has caused inventory buildup to meet the short-term demand. Otherwise, the new money will merely bid up prices for products as short term demand exceed short term supply.

Reduction of corporate taxes or interest rates, on the other hand, reduces the cost of good and services, enabling corporations to hirer more people, to cut prices to move more product and to make more profit so their stock price rise. All three effects lead directly to a growing economy.

To this effect, I understand that Greenspan is thinking about cutting interest rates again. Congress should also consider cutting corporate taxes - for example, by making dividend deductable.

[DuncanK]

Imran,

Your post is very unclear. When you say 'producing' more you mean a shift in supply right? That's what Say was talking about. If you believe in Says law then you believe that a new equilibrium price will be set after supply increases. There is no movement along the supply curve because the supply curve moves. The movement is along the demand curve.

If you have a shift in demand then you have a movement along the supply curve. Both of them amount to increased production, but Say wasn't talking about shift in demand or movement on the supply curve.

On the other matter, I don't know what you're talking about with Say's law. I haven't studied Say much, but it's common belief that he stated that equilibrium price would be maintained no matter how much supply increased, that is that any production of goods would be bought up by consumers.

As far as demand-side Keynesianism, I think it can be used to correct market failure. As far as supply-side economics or trickle down economics I think it doesn't work and causes market failure, and it certainly doesn't correct market failure.