The headline for this article in a newspaper that is not supposed to be as economically ignorant as the New York Times is just mind-boggling. "Hard-Hit Families Finally Start Saving, Aggravating Nation's Economic Woes"
In fact, the reason why the nation has such severe economic woes is largely due to our abysmal savings rate, the lowest in the world. The conspicuous overconsumption of the last century is finally catching up to us now, as the "great" presidents of the last few decades mortgaged today (at the time, the distant future) in order to immediately consume then. We are finally feeling the effects of the false "boom" periods of the past when people threw their money away on junk instead of saving to produce more wealth in the future.
Unfortunately, that sophisticated pseudoeconomic justification for irresponsible fiscal policy (Keynesianism) remains widely believed by the press, including the supposedly "intelligent" and "free market" Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, although it is not the New York Times, still publishes absurd articles that would be right at home in the New York Times.
Does the Wall Street Journal really believe that savings is bad for the economy? How can anybody actually believe absurdities like this?Does the Wall Street Journal really believe that saving is bad for the economy?
depends on where you save your money. if you pull all your money out of the bank and keep it under your bed, thats bad for the economy. if you save it in banks and bonds, then thats good for the economy. keeping it at home means that it isnt circulating. keeping it in a bank means that more money is available for people to borrow and invest.Does the Wall Street Journal really believe that saving is bad for the economy?
Its a Double Edge Sword..
The more we save, the less we spend. And if we spend less, the economy suffers and businesses begin laying off people or going bankrupt.Does the Wall Street Journal really believe that saving is bad for the economy?
{{{ Unfortunately, that sophisticated pseudoeconomic justification for irresponsible fiscal policy (Keynesianism) remains widely believed by the press, including the supposedly "intelligent" and "free market" Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, although it is not the New York Times, still publishes absurd articles that would be right at home in the New York Times. }}}
This is hilarious. Everybody wants to blame Keynesianism because stupid politicians and economists misused it for decades. Keynes didn't say to go into debt for weapons systems that couldn't work like Ronald Ragygun's Star Wars. Keynes didn't tell the economics profession to ignore the depreciation consumers' automobiles. There were 200,000,000+ cars in the United States in 1995. How many were there in 1946 when Keynes died.
If you give pseudo-intellectuals some new knowledge they will come up with more complicated ways of being stupid.
Then after they screw things up they will try to blame the person that came up with the knowledge. ROFL
Of course I never heard of Keynes, Galbraith or Friedman saying that accounting should be mandatory in our schools. Shouldn't it be easy with today's computers?
Uh, more companies going out of business, putting more people out of work, is NOT good for the economy.
What they're saying is that, if people don't buy stuff, and use services, that's what's going to keep happening.
Spending money you actually HAVE is not the same as borrowing and spending money you don't have.
It's not that it's harmful for anyone to ever save any money; it's just that more and more companies are tanking, putting more people out of work.
No comments:
Post a Comment