silly conservatives

Who was in charge for the majority of "2008 to present?"

Who was setting economic policy?

Who fully embraced Keynesian economics with both arms and maybe a leg?

Inflation has remained essentially equivalent with the fed rate. The only thing that determines inflation is the fed rate. What are you talking about? In charge of what? The Fed? The Presidency? Treasury? The economic advisory staff? Be specific.

The very much have not embraced kenysianism. Neither party has. Keynes was for govt intervention of markets and against rentierism. Neither the MMT crowd, now the "Classical Economists" are really doing anything very kensyian right now.

You win the daily prize for Googlin' Stuff! Too bad you can't actually apply any of it.

None have applied Keynesian policies? Did you miss Stimulus I? Stimulus II? Remember ARRA? How about the countless government subsidies in all markets at this point?

How about Covid Relief I? Covid Relief II? Covid Relief III? Be real - all three were Christmas Tree bills. Look that up if you don't know what that means - it's got nothing to do with December but everything to do with Santa.

That money literally comes out of thin air. It doesn't even need to go through the formality of getting spit from the end of a printing press - it's all just electrons sent out from the IRS into online bank accounts.

QE is a post keynesian policy. By definition. Keynes was about control of the economy by the govt being used to moderate economic excesses, not about the use of helicopter money. The notion is laughable because keynes predated the fiat era. To be clear, a keynesian solution would entail high taxes and market regulations. Keep not understanding words tho. Ur good at that.

You are all over the place and are not even making a coherent point, just jumping around randomly. You started out talking about inflation and then got mad and sidetracked into not making sense.

Strike 1 - Keynes advocated for lower taxes, firstly. He embraced deficit spending and criticized the 1930s British policies of increasing taxes during the depression to pay for spending.

Strike 2 - Speaking of deficit spending, Keynes was all about the "helicopter money." Thats how deficit spending works. Goxernmental meddling notwithstanding, the ideal was for money to flow all around and precent any slowdown from ever occurring.

Strike 3 - to discuss perpetual inflation is to discuss Keynes. Fiat currency or otherwise the Keynesian ideal is to always discourage saving, as saved money is not active in the economy. He knew quite well that a perpetual squeeze of inflation was an effective way to discourage saving, as money would never hold value.

All over the map? Nope. Just looking at the big picture.

Go see your high school econ teacher. You got some splainin' to do.

England left the gold standard in 1931. Keynes wrote "General Theory" in 1936.

Honk honk!

but when did Murica leave the gold system? we're talking about murican policy.

he doesn't advocate QE, and he believes in a natural rate of interest. The second one has been disproven by Mosler.

(i) The first characteristic which tends towards the above conclusion is the fact that money has, both in the long and in the short period, a zero, or at any rate a very small, elasticity of production, so far as the power of private enterprise is concerned, as distinct from the monetary authority; — elasticity of production[2] meaning, in this context, the response of the quantity of labour applied to producing it to a rise in the quantity of labour which a unit of it will command. Money, that is to say, cannot be readily produced; — labour cannot be turned on at will by entrepreneurs to produce money in increasing quantities as its price rises in terms of the wage-unit. In the case of an inconvertible managed currency this condition is strictly satisfied.

in fact money can be readily produced by someone other than the currency soverign in the form of banks just creating money in a computer (the creation of endogenous $ by a banking system).

Given that keynes is wrong about the natural rate of interest, I think he is also wrong about predicting inflation as a natural consequence of govt spending or else the Economy is in such a suppressed, weakened state from decades of malfeasance that any marginal infusion of cash creates no infusion. The only other possible explanation I can think of is that the quantity of "financial wealth" and hot money is already so huge that any amount given to poor people is negligible and insufficient to create inflation according to keynes model, but according to post keynesianism that hot money itself should be creating massive inflation. Consistent with both of these facts is the explanation that Mosler advances that inflation is just the interbank lending rate and any skimming off the top through fees and other forms of loan interest.

so yeah ur wrong

When you're on the gold system, you have to tax people to raise money. Also how can he be against high taxes and advocate raising taxes at the same time. You contradict yourself.

Keynes did not advocate QE. QE didn't exist back then. He advocated a market system that was intervened upon by the government so as to be stable and not require QE from crashes in the first place.

You are all over the map. Keynesian monetary policy is NOT APPLICABLE TO A FIAT CURRENCY. They couldn't just create fiat $, we can. The funding structure for each situation is totally different.

Ur a clown

I also didn't google anything. I just know economics waaaaaaaay better than you

Sure pal. Sure.

You don't know what keynes economic principles were, you don't understand MMT, you don't understand inflation. how am I wrong?

Read it and weep chump

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/james-l-seward/what-benefits-can-illegal-aliens-receive

Facts don't care about your feelings, "trans women" are ruining sports for natural born women.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764

Yeah it says they don't qualify for them. Legal immigrants on the other hand can get welfare. You don't have good reading comprehension, huh? Did you also realize that this is a polocy statement from eliot spitzer? When was he governor? You know what a governor is, right?

Eliot Spitzer is a journalist, they write articles about information they have researched. Governors do not generally write articles. You know what job responsibilities are, right?

Elliot spitzer is the former New York governor. Did u even read the link you posted?

Hmmm mixed up a name. My bad. I could swear there is a journalist with a very similar name.

if you wanna learn about economics, I'm willing to point you to some things you should read. Believe it or not, RWers are more likely to give a fair shake to socialist perspectives then democrats/libs.

Think about it like this: If the US can print (close to) infinite money, then there is no reason not to fund social programs fully since no one needs to be taxed to pay for it and the improvement to social conditions that the programs create are beneficial to society as a whole. 40Trillion to the rich ppl caused no inflation, so less money (and social benefits programs cost FAR LESS) wouldn't cause any inflation if the 40T didn't . The extension of the same argument is that we don't really need income taxes or payroll taxes if we manage our economy correctly, When you have infinite $, then the purpose of a tax changes. they become a way to control excesses (chipping away at billionaires and the economic power that comes with their wealth).

One of the most major issues is that the orthodoxy from a pre-fiat era-for example, the idea of a balanced federal budget-is maintained even under the fiat system simply because they haven't been critically re-examined and the ppl who they benefit work very hard to prevent the re-examination.

No one is taking anyone's "Hard earned money" to pay for anything. The $ is all fiat. By the same ratinale, it makes sense to give welfare to immigrants documented or otherwise. They're just gonna spend that $ back into the economy anyway. Poor folks are generally too poor to save and benefits cannot be saved anyway.

I could care less about highschool sports. Most transppl don't play sports. Why are you out to hate them as a group of people? I doubt you even know any trans ppl. They just want to be left alone and for ppl to be polite to them. I want the same thing.

Pssst . . . it isn't a phobia if the female hating left actually IS allowing transgenders to compete against genuine female athletes. It's called REALITY.

Literally the same logic used to defend the segregation of baseball.

Transgendered males did not compete against women in baseball of long ago. You are comparing apples to ball bearings. But then again, that is what all emoting and never thinking leftists . . . do.

They said the same about black people from the segregated baseball leagues playing in white leagues. You are seizing on an extreme example that I have seen zero evidence of even happening. Besides it not like dipshits like you are major consumers of women's sports. What a bunch of crap.