[Andre Jute]

On Dec 6, 5:18 am, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Dec 5, 8:06 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 6, 12:50 am, John Byrns wrote:

I think you have succumbed to the stereotypical belief that liberals are
poor and conservatives are "rich". I see no evidence to support that
notion, if anything the opposite is true in my personal experience. I
should warn you that my wife says I am a "liberal",

Don't worry about it until she puts a big cactus plant next to the
throne in your favourite bathroom.

I was educated at
what many say is the second most liberal university in the country, and
I was raised in a distinctly liberal town with a mostly liberal upper
middle class populace, no true wealth, and very little poverty.

Lenin and his crowd feared the middle classes so much with a good
reason. No predominantly middle-class society ever suffered a
revolution. When Lenin spewed bile against "reformist", it was a coded
attack on the origins of all his opponents, but it had to be coded
because all his own guys came from the same background, and Lenin
himself was a minor nobleman. Not many people know that.

For
example I learned in ECON 101 that raising taxes increases the total
economic activity of a society because of the "multiplier effect" of
taxes on economic activity, and that if individuals are left to spend
their own money there is no "multiplier effect" to boost economic
activity.

The main effect of Maynard Keynes's teachings were to turn an entire
generation of students into the most skeptical, anti-authoritarian
society the world has ever seen. That is ironic, as I observed even as
a student that "Keynesianism will raise taxes until all incomes are
equalized and then true communism will reign, from each according to
his ability, to each according to his need, the crucible of envy and
spite and denunciation of neighbour upon neighbour. It will last until
every productive element has emigrated from the police state necessary
to enforce it."

Where your teacher told you, "if individuals are left to spend their
own money there is no "multiplier effect" to boost economic activity",
he went quite a bit beyond Keynes, who merely didn't want the rich to
save their surplus income; many poor-quality teachers inthrough the
1950-1970 confused Keynesianism with Marxism. Keynes wasn't an
ideologue but a pragmatist; he just happened to be wrong because, even
though he was one of the greatest banking experts of his time, he
didn't foresee the ways that banking would expand to multiply the
savings of the rich, and everyone else.

"(2. Keynes was an intelligent man and he cannot have believed what
he said. When you read him, your first impression that what he
recommends is a moderate use of inflation, and that the guilt falls on
politicians who violate that advice, but if you pause to reflect on
his proposed remedy, you will see that it really amounts to what a
proverbial metaphor in Sanskrit describes as trying to extinguish a
fire by feeding it enough wood to glut its appetite. Keynes was a
noted pervert, and emotionally unstable. The late Malcolm Muggeridge,
who was well acquainted with Keynes and the circle about him, believed
that Keynes devised his economic hokum to take vengeance on society,
which he blamed for the loss of a favorite "boy-friend." If you reread
Keynes with that in mind, you may see in certain quirks of vocabulary
and style corroboration of Muggeridges's opinion.)"
R.P.Oliver

http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/S&L.htm

Stormfront Org, eh? It figures.

The fact that Keynes was a homosexual has nothing to do with anything,
Birdbrain Bret. Keynes took enormous stick from his pacifist and
defeatist fellow Bloomsbury's for serving in the Treasury in the World
War. Keynes was not only a patriot, he was a moral man, leaving the
prestigious British commission at Versailles and writing a book to
expose the vicious peace imposed on the Germans by Clemenceau's hatred
of the Boche (Clemenceau said that every morning when he rose he took
a few minutes to remember France's humiliation of 1870), Lloyd
George's pandering to the French, and Wilson otherworldly
ineffectiveness.

If R P Oliver wants to impugn Keynes with shouts of, "He's queer,
don't trust him," I might equally impugn Oliver with shouts of, "He's
an American provincial clown of a k-k-kluxer and jew-baiter, and
therefore pig-ignorant," or I might impugn his witness Muggeridge
with, "He turned Christian late in life and, always a malicious
****stirrer, he couldn't resist superciliously smearing everyone he
ever knew with his waspish bon mots on talking head shows on the
gogglebox." All of these are the dumbest sort of simplification that
only you, Birdbrain Bret, will believe.

You, Bret Ludwig, are clown who needs four tries to get his KKK hood
on with the eyeholes to the front. I was embarrassed the other day
when you agreed with something I wrote.

Andre Jute
Lifelong Chicago School monetarist