<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keynesian (Fake) Economics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://the-classic-liberal.com/keynesian-fake-economics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://the-classic-liberal.com/keynesian-fake-economics/</link>
	<description>Libertarian &#38; Old Right Conservative News, Politics, Economics, Opinion, Analysis.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 03:22:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Sceptic</title>
		<link>http://the-classic-liberal.com/keynesian-fake-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-13376</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Sceptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-classic-liberal.com/?p=33495#comment-13376</guid>
		<description>A very shoddy argument. The repetition of the phrase &#039;vulgar Keynesian&#039; illuminates nothng and is, well, vulgar.

It is not clear for the above that you have atually read the General Theory, certainly not that you have understood it. 

The idea that Keynes was unaware of the interrelationships between the sectors of the economy is a laughably poor one. The only way any idea of a &#039;multiplier&#039; can work is if increased activity in one sctor calls forth increased activity in another. That is, if you set up a factory, construction, energy production, busines services etc., etc.will all be deployed in the intermediate levels of production.

I am not a Keynesian, as I think there are separate faults in his analysis. But it is infinitely preferable to this schoolboy attempt to rubbish his ideas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very shoddy argument. The repetition of the phrase 'vulgar Keynesian' illuminates nothng and is, well, vulgar.</p>
<p>It is not clear for the above that you have atually read the General Theory, certainly not that you have understood it. </p>
<p>The idea that Keynes was unaware of the interrelationships between the sectors of the economy is a laughably poor one. The only way any idea of a 'multiplier' can work is if increased activity in one sctor calls forth increased activity in another. That is, if you set up a factory, construction, energy production, busines services etc., etc.will all be deployed in the intermediate levels of production.</p>
<p>I am not a Keynesian, as I think there are separate faults in his analysis. But it is infinitely preferable to this schoolboy attempt to rubbish his ideas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 6/13 queries in 0.056 seconds using disk

Served from: the-classic-liberal.com @ 2012-05-24 07:20:35 -->
