I am a business student and I consider myself to be conservative fiscally but not a "fiscal conservative.". By this I mean that I want my government and the legislators therein to make careful, responsible fiscal decisions based upon real numbers and accurate information. I understand that I am committing a political foul here but classical "trickle down" economic theory was shown to be incorrect a long time ago.  Yes folks, Keynesian theory has been shown repeatedly to be the most accurate (not perfect but most accurate).

Why do "fiscally conservative" politicians and talking heads cling to an outdated and incorrect economic theory as if it is religion.

I ask this because...let's face it.  Paul Ryan's budget proposal is a farce and frankly embarrassing to anyone who takes business seriously.

We have been practicing Keynesian theory in the US since the Clinton years. Government intervention and manipulation led to the housing bubble, and our current economic malaise due to failed stimulus programs, etc.

Please point out the successes. I'm not aware of any.

I wouldn't call "trickle down", a sound economic theory either. Personally, I like the idea of free market capitalism, with responsible government oversight, but not direct government involvement in manipulating outcomes.

What's outdated, is the notion that once we pin the label of president, congressman, or senator on people, they suddenly become geniuses. They have repeatedly proven this to be wrong, and continue to do so.

Any economic policy in which the government has direct involvement in the markets, be it Keynesian or supply side, (trickle down), is inherently flawed, because government is inherently flawed.

What we are currently seeing from Obama, (and he didn't start it), is a twisted mix of economic philosophies that will result in disaster. Keynesian economics for the masses, and trickle down economics, (tax breaks and subsidies), for the industries that Obama either likes, or have contributed large amounts of money to his campaigns. Both sides play this game when they gain power, and it's killing us.

If you would like to study abject failure on the part of government, followed by continuing failure and a refusal to stop; take a look at ethanol and it's far reaching, (negative), economic impact.

In fact, you can expand on that, and have a look at Keynesian theory as it's been applied to the entire alternate "green" energy sector, and find one failure after another. Might make a good thesis paper.

I agree with you to a great extent kramarat.  Almost by definition Government is flawed because it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.  I also recognize that Keynesiasm is flawed, but I ask for this discussion that we separate Keynesian theory from the practical application of the theory.

I consider myself conservative because I desire judicious application of Keynesian theory.  Spending money to improve roads and rails in my humble opinion is a business saavy expenditure for it will decrease wear and tear on semi tractor trailers and increase the efficiency with which goods are shipped.  Spending money on military hardware that the generals don't even want just because the factory is in someone's congressional district is a terrible expenditure.

Already thought about that thesis.. and when I get the assignment that warrants such a thesis I shall write it.  On the face of things I agree with you 100% on ethanol but I still have an open mind about other alternative energies.  My reasoning is that most business suffers from oil spikes, especially small business.  Hedging only goes so far and does not rake care of the root of the problem.  Furthermore " drill baby drill" is another farce.  That oil will stay in the ground until the price fetched justifies the expense of getting it out.  Therefore the only true relief to businesses that consume energy is to promote alternatives to oil.  NatGas seems to have filled that roll lately.

To put an exclamation point on that thought.  T. Bone Pickens laid out that argument and the Dems were loathe to support the idea because Pickens was responsible for the swift boat ads and the Republicans showed him no love because they hated anything that smelled of green energy.  At that time I held stock in the company Pickens was promoting and was aghast to see good business get kicked in the face because of the surrounding politics.

Quote from: redwhiteblue on March 15, 2013, 06:44:24 AM
To put an exclamation point on that thought.  T. Bone Pickens laid out that argument and the Dems were loathe to support the idea because Pickens was responsible for the swift boat ads and the Republicans showed him no love because they hated anything that smelled of green energy.  At that time I held stock in the company Pickens was promoting and was aghast to see good business get kicked in the face because of the surrounding politics.

Hate to break it to you, but Green energy is socialist ideals wrapped in green painted excrement.
There is no such panacea as green energy, it's antithesis of all practical energy in use today.

NG is not an alternative green energy source since it too is nothing more than an derivative of oil.

It's great that you have an interest in economics, but to really understand the concept, one needs to have a better understanding of the commodities being represented, to do otherwise is perpetuating a fraud on one's customer base.
There is no place for emotional investment in Capitalism, that's a suckers bet.

I can understand redwhiteblue's position on the economic becasue he is a business "student" and subject to what he is hearing in the classroom. When he becomes a business "practitioner" it should not tkae him long to see what I am yalking about.

Quote from: supsalemgr on March 15, 2013, 08:15:09 AM
I can understand redwhiteblue's position on the economic becasue he is a business "student" and subject to what he is hearing in the classroom. When he becomes a business "practitioner" it should not tkae him long to see what I am yalking about.

Ahh, student, that says it all.

The problem is, that as long as politicians, (both parties), are self serving pigs, no economic theory, (in practical application), will work as promised.

I'm fully ware that republicans tend to dump money on their buddies in the defense industry; at the same time, roads and bridges are great, and we were promised that those infrastructure, (shovel ready), projects were going to happen when Obama was pushing his massive stimulus package. We got squat.

The basis of our problems is not what economic theory is being applied; it's the fact that the people that we send to Washington have become corrupt to the point of being criminal in their behavior.

Dismiss me as a student if you wish...but make no mistake I'm not a youngster.  I am a former scientist.  I like math and I like the numbers to add up.  I am tired of the BS on both sides of the aisle.

Furthermore I did not approach the issue of natgas from the tree hugging kum by yah singing point of view.  I do know as I consider running a business in my future career I must consider the huge swings in the cost of energy.  A lot of small businesses in my area failed during the last oil spike and many of them cited the cost of energy and their inability to pass the costs along to their customers.  That is the thesis behind my investment in Picken's firm in the first place.  As a math oriented person I would attempt to smooth the volatility by hedging but also by not being so dependant on the limited resource in the first place. 

Quote from: redwhiteblue on March 15, 2013, 04:13:14 PM
Dismiss me as a student if you wish...but make no mistake I'm not a youngster.  I am a former scientist.  I like math and I like the numbers to add up.  I am tired of the BS on both sides of the aisle.

Furthermore I did not approach the issue of natgas from the tree hugging kum by yah singing point of view.  I do know as I consider running a business in my future career I must consider the huge swings in the cost of energy.  A lot of small businesses in my area failed during the last oil spike and many of them cited the cost of energy and their inability to pass the costs along to their customers.  That is the thesis behind my investment in Picken's firm in the first place.  As a math oriented person I would attempt to smooth the volatility by hedging but also by not being so dependant on the limited resource in the first place.

Don't worry about it. We've had a rash of people that show up here just to cause trouble. From your original thread, it wasn't easy to tell if you were one of them or not. They really do only show up to disrupt things. It's annoying. I wouldn't be here, if facts weren't the central priority.

I don't fit I to anyone's pigeonhole.  I did not join this forum to argue a bunch of emotionally charged social issues with people who will never agree with me.  Joined this forum for the reason I initially stated.  As a math loving business student and former scientist I want the legislators to make conservative decisions with the most accurate models available.  I want our navy to operate under the theory that the earth is round and I want our budget to be based on Keynesianism.  And someday when someone devises a model that fits reality better than Keynesianism then I see no shame in ditching Keynes and moving on.

Having said that I believe that the Dems tend to practice Keynesianism Gone Wild. As a nation we need to spend responsibly.  I believe this sincerely but I don't feel my point of voice is to be heard by either political party.  I would have hoped that Republicans argue about which economic levers to pull.  Instead it is the same old supply side argument.  I do not understand this.

As a former scientist I believe that sincere debate is a path to greater understanding.  I am not here to cause trouble, but if it is a problem that I do not fit into anyone's pigeon hole then perhaps I joined the wrong forum.

Quote from: redwhiteblue on March 15, 2013, 04:13:14 PM
Dismiss me as a student if you wish...but make no mistake I'm not a youngster.  I am a former scientist.  I like math and I like the numbers to add up.  I am tired of the BS on both sides of the aisle.

Furthermore I did not approach the issue of natgas from the tree hugging kum by yah singing point of view.  I do know as I consider running a business in my future career I must consider the huge swings in the cost of energy.  A lot of small businesses in my area failed during the last oil spike and many of them cited the cost of energy and their inability to pass the costs along to their customers.  That is the thesis behind my investment in Picken's firm in the first place.  As a math oriented person I would attempt to smooth the volatility by hedging but also by not being so dependant on the limited resource in the first place.

The problem with so called Green energy, is it cannot survive as a stand alone in the free mkt, it requires huge Govt subsidies.
That goes for all forms, including biomass and solar, they just don';t produce a cost viable product that the mkt is willing to bare.
Young or not, you're still a student, one that is vulnerable to the opinions of the teaching staff, as evidenced by your post.
It's not an insult, rather an observation. Pickens investment would have relied heavily on our tax dollars and he knew it, which in my book makes him no better than the Leftists he was cavorting with.

Keep studying, and ask questions, the kind of questions most people are afraid to ask. I wish you luck, hope it works out for you.