It is nice to see democrats breaking from Keynesian dogma laid out in this piece by Paul Krugman that was posted on the mises blog a couple of months ago where he vehemently denies the war in Iraq caused the recession because as Keynes taught us, whether we are building pyramids or fighting wars, government spending is ALWAYS good for the economy . If 4000 people hadn't died, it would almost be funny.
I believe this leads a huge logic gap in Democratic economics which were previously dominated by keynes.
Thoughts?
One step forward; two steps backward. At this point, I think Obama aptly represents the "new" direction of the Dems as being much more soft-parentalist than before. Additionally, I am not forgiving of a party that seems to hold the fantasy Federation of Star Trek as it's ultimate "goal".But seriously, they will just probably stumble around for more regulation and find some other clow- I mean, economist, to base policies upon.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Mr. Keynes is one of the greatest villains in this country's history.
While it's nice to see leftists ignore his hilarious-but-entrenched logic, in reality they always have... when it's conveinient. Using stolen money to fund an art museum will always create jobs to a leftists, but using stolen money to fight wars is "taking government money that could have been spent on health care for all".
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.