I did! Big Basin from the ocean to the ranger station and then the bike ride back down was fantastic. I've more then enough exposure to economics to know that I'm not buying what you're selling, thanks. Unfortunately you've often struggled to respectfully disagree and once again this is the case. But do enjoy your Monday! STOMP
Speaking of economics... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...achs_hits_obama_theres_never_been_a_plan.html Economist Jeffrey Sachs slammed President Obama on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday. "We're almost three years into this administration, and there's never been a plan. And that's what everybody feels. And the president didn't lead. He waited. The quintessential image, sadly, of an administration that I supported and hoped for much better, is the president waiting by the phone to hear what Congress calls to tell him. It doesn't work in this country that way. It's not a matter that it's August. It's a matter that it's August 2011. So we've been drifting for a very long time. And we've been drifting down. And we had a short-term plan that failed. A short-term stimulus that was supposed to get the economy back on track, but it failed. And now we have nothing behind it. And we have no agreements, and we have no leadership. And, frankly, I do think it's pretty odd the president's on vacation right now. Normally I wouldn't care about such things, but the world markets are in deep crisis. It's no joke. This isn't just an up-and-down little blip. This is a very serious situation."
I read that and was amazed. Sachs is a dyed-in-the-wool saltwater economist. He's not only brilliant, but highly influential. If you've lost him, you have real problems.
I advocate people doing their own research. I'd invite you to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/1573921394 Then look at the circumstances required to pursue these advocated policies and tell me whether or not its possible given our abdication of fiscal discipline during good times.
I can empirically prove Keynes is bound to fail. He assumes there is a multiplier on govt. spending that is > 1, but it really is < 1. When you realize you have to tax 10 people $10K each to pay a govt. worker $100K, the multiplier cannot be anything but a fraction. The discussion really should be that since govt. spending is so inefficient, the money better be spent on things only the govt. can do somewhat more efficiently than the private sector.
No matter how you slice and dice it, if the govt. takes in $1, it pays some % of that for middlemen to decide how to spend what's left. It cannot possibly by a multiplier of 1 or greater.
