0
0

[–] novictim [S] ago 

both Germany and Sweden keep their bankrupt or next to bankrupt public enterprises outside the public books not to mention that Germany is loaning the entire European south to buy their goods .

Ah. This seems emotion based rather than fact based as there are glaring internal contradictions.

Do you want to have the cake or do you want to eat the cake? Does Sweden and Germany loan money because they are wealthy or do they hide their bankruptcy because they are poor and broke? Choose. You cannot have it both ways. Once you decide which position to take then I can google the facts concerning Northern Europe's very successful Keynesian economic approach and present them to you.

Mind you, we are talking about economics and I have grave concerns about the current EU/Brussels/Stockholm/Berlin programs to flood the EU what amounts to a foreign army but that is not our current discussion.

30 or more years "supply side" economics have destroyed the purchasing power of the middle class worldwide

Hmm. My position is that the USA has been embarked for four decades of Supply Side economics while the Northern States of the EU have been embarked on a Keynesian approach since WWII. Southern Europe's tax dodging malfeasance has essentially been replicating the USA model of trickle down/supply side economics and that is why they are not doing well.

There is a case for stimulating/incentivizing production depending on where a country is in its development but what we see in Europe's southern states is just corruption and tax dodging combined with crony capitalism of the supply-side variety. Special laws that provide extra protect from taxation for politically well connected producers is a symptom of USA-style political corruption spilling directly into the economic system.

I guess you have noticed how the QEs hoard money to the banks

Absolutely. It is supply side economics, not Keynesian monetarism. As I said, you cannot take half of Keynes and call it Keynesian. You have to take the whole program, monetary and fiscal and wise policy to use tariffs and target high earning production jobs and services.

nobody will take a loan to open a business because there will be no customers .

That is 100% correct.

All that money from QE went into a liquidity trap. Producers see the broke and over extended credit of the consumer and decide that the problem is not insufficient production but insufficient consumption. And they are correct. Why would you "stimulate" the economy with more manufacturing jobs when the public is broke?? Makes no sense and that is why QE does little to nothing to spur growth.

There is no argument for a Supply Side approach without both 1) the consumer having money to spend and 2) tariffs ensuring that QE is focused on generating US manufacturing jobs. This should make sense to anyone.

Free markets are not an ideal "Free markets" are certainly an ideal. It is the goal of libertarian idealists. I am just saying that this ideal can never be realized so trying to achieve it in its "pure" form is a waste of time. Thus, we have to accept regulated markets.

and capitalism is not when people have ownership but only when some of them do.

Everyone has some ownership. Labour is a form of capital. Everyone has control over that to some degree. And we regulate that market for labour because we are civilized and think that the economy's ultimate beneficiary must be We the People.

Corruption , capitalism and representative regimes go hand to hand and you cannot have one without the other

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -Winston Churchill.

"If I had to sum up the immediate future of democratic politics in a single word I should say “insurance.”

"My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is also essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimization. He marks his ballot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives and together decide what government, or even in times of stress, what form of government they wish to have in their country. If that is democracy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.”"

https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

i propose a mix of things :

Well, that is exactly what Keynesian economics provides. It is flexible and responds to the needs of the economic cycle to maximize the wealth generated through the system. The goal is low unemployment, meeting material needs, and providing increasing wealth through consumerism all within a capitalist market economy.

But you are right that if we get the political system wrong (corruption) then Keynes or no Keynes, the situation will be bad for the public. So really, this all starts and ends with the voter and what the voter knows and wants. Corruption is just the inevitable tension of the haves from the have-nots. It will always be there but there is no system that that will not be the case with as well. (Maybe a computer run economic system might be something we try in the future?)