Keynes's theory, and its application to our current economic plight, is best understood if one bears in mind one historical fact and three claims that he made in the book. The historical fact is that England, between 1919 and 1939, experienced persistent high unemployment--never less than 10 percent, and 15 percent in 1935, when Keynes was completing his book. Explaining the persistence of unemployment was the major task that Keynes set himself. Though he famously declared that "in the long run, we are dead," he tried to solve a problem that, already when he wrote, had had a pretty long run.
The three claims are, first, that consumption is the "sole end and object of all economic activity," because all productive activity is designed to satisfy consumer demand either in the present or in the future. "Consumption" is not in the title of the book, however, because the only thing that interested Keynes about it was how much of their income people allocated to it--the more the better, as we will see. The second claim is the importance (and the deleterious effect) of hoarding. People do not save just to be able to make a specific future expenditure; they may also be hedging against uncertainty. And the third claim, related to the second, is that uncertainty--in the sense of a risk that, unlike the risk of losing at roulette, cannot be calculated--is a pervasive feature of the economic environment, particularly with respect to projects intended to satisfy future consumption.
A nation's annual output, which is also the national income, is the market value of all the goods (and services, but to simplify the discussion I will ignore them here) produced in a year. These goods are either consumption goods, such as the food people buy, or investment goods, such as machine tools. What people do not spend on consumption goods they save: income minus consumption equals savings. Since income minus consumption also equals investment, savings must, Keynes insists, equal investment. But equating savings with investment is confusing. If you stuff money under your mattress, you are saving, but in what sense are you investing? If you buy common stocks, you are investing, but the contribution of your investment to the productive capital employed in building a factory is attenuated.
At the very least, we should (and Keynes implicitly does) distinguish between enabling productive investments and actually making them; or, equivalently, between passive investment and active investment. If you deposit some of your savings in a bank, the bank--not you--will decide whether to lend the money to a businessman to invest in his business (or to an individual to invest in buying a capital asset, such as a house). Still, the money is invested. Even the money you stuff under your mattress can be considered a form of investment, for in all likelihood it will be spent eventually (though perhaps not for generations), and thus, like all investment, it is an aid to future consumption. But as in this example, passive investment may take a long time to stimulate active investment.
The lag can retard economic growth. Income spent on consumption, in contrast to income that is saved, becomes income to the seller of the consumption good. When I buy a bottle of wine, the cost to me is income to the seller, and what he spends out of that income will be income to someone else, and so on. So the active investment that produced the income with which I bought the wine will have had a chain-reaction--what Keynes calls a "multiplier"--effect.
And here is the tricky part: the increase in income brought about by an investment is greater the higher the percentage of income that is spent rather than saved. Spending increases the incomes of the people who are on the receiving end of the spending. This derived or secondary effect of consumption is greater the higher the percentage of a person's income that he spends, and so it magnifies the income-generating effect of the original investment. If everyone spends 90 cents of an additional dollar that he receives, then a $1 increase in a person's income generates $9 of additional consumption ($.90 + $.81 [.9 x $.90] + $.729 [.9 x $.81], etc. = $9), all of which is income to the suppliers of consumer goods. If only 70 cents of an additional $1 in income is spent, so that the first recipient of the expenditure spends only 49 cents of the 70 cents that he received, the second 34.4 cents, and so on, the total increase in consumption as a result of the successive waves of spending is only $1.54, and so the investment that got the cycle going will have been much less productive. In the first example, the investment multiplier--the effect of investment on income--was 10. In the second example it is only 2.5. The difference is caused by the difference in the propensity to consume income rather than save it. (No one today, by the way, thinks that investment multipliers are that high.)
For Keynes, in other words, it is consumption, rather than thrift, that promotes economic growth. And here the second key claim of Keynes kicks in: that people often save with no particular aim of future spending--they hoard. Keynes mentions a host of reasons why people save that may not promote active investment (he also discusses the analogous motives of businesses), at least in the short run. Savers may want to "bequeath a fortune," "satisfy pure miserliness," "build up a reserve against unforeseen contingencies," "enjoy a sense of independence and the power to do things, though without a clear idea or definite intention of specific action," or, implicitly, obtain a reputation for being thrifty. (This latter motive is reminiscent of the "Protestant ethic" of which Max Weber wrote.) Since Keynes was centrally concerned with unemployment, he was suspicious of saving because, as we just saw, the greater the percentage of income that is consumed rather than saved, the greater the demand for goods, and therefore the greater output, and so the lower the unemployment rate.
But it is here that Keynes's equating saving with investing becomes particularly confusing. Isn't investing a good thing? It is what drives income. And if investment is a good thing, mustn't saving, being synonymous with investing (as Keynes has told us), be a good thing, too? Keynes's answer, though it is not stated as clearly as one would wish, is that investing increases output, and therefore employment, only when it finances the creation of productive capital. When it takes the form of hoarding, the link between saving and promoting economic activity is broken, or at least frayed.
The third claim that I am calling foundational for Keynes's theory--that the business environment is marked by uncertainty in the sense of risk that cannot be calculated--now enters the picture. Savers do not direct how their savings will be used by entrepreneurs; entrepreneurs do, guided by the hope of making profits. But when an investment project will take years to complete before it begins to generate a profit, its prospects for success will be shadowed by all sorts of unpredictable contingencies, having to do with costs, consumer preferences, actions by competitors, government policy, and economic conditions generally. Skidelsky puts this well in his new book: "An unmanaged capitalist economy is inherently unstable. Neither profit expectations nor the rate of interest are solidly anchored in the underlying forces of productivity and thrift. They are driven by uncertain and fluctuating expectations about the future." Only what Keynes called "animal spirits," or the "urge to action," will persuade businessmen to embark on such a sea of uncertainty. "If human nature felt no temptation to take a chance, no satisfaction (profit apart) in constructing a factory, a railway, a mine or a farm, there might not be much investment merely as a result of cold calculation."
But however high-spirited a businessman may be, often the uncertainty of the business environment will make him reluctant to invest. His reluctance will be all the greater if savers are hesitant to part with their money because of their own uncertainties about future interest rates, default risks, and possible emergency needs for cash to pay off debts or to meet unexpected expenses. The greater the propensity to hoard, the higher the interest rate that a businessman will have to pay for the capital that he requires for investment. And since interest expense is greater the longer a loan is outstanding, a high interest rate will have an especially dampening effect on projects that, being intended to meet consumption needs beyond the immediate future, take a long time to complete.
The "sinking funds" I mentioned illustrate institutional hoarding: money is accumulated to pay off a debt in the future rather than being spent, and its unavailability for investment causes interest rates to rise. High interest rates discourage active investment while making passive investment attractive, and thus deliver a one-two punch to consumption. True, high interest rates discourage the hoarding of cash by increasing the opportunity cost of such hoarding, but they also encourage forms of passive investment, such as purchasing government bonds, that may have only a remote effect in encouraging active investment.
Print
COMMENTS (12)
The more we learn from the macroeconomic theorists the more we learn how macropolitical handlers always finds a way to feed it to the beasts on Wall Street.
Keynes, Friedman. Fiscal, monetary. Democrats, Republicans. Liberals, Conservatives. Come on, it draws more folks in or out of the economy, more folks in or out of the government. But it doesn't change the fundamental nature of crony capitalism.
And maybe it never will. And maybe it never should. I'll leave that to the ever conflicted and contradictory experts. Economists, for example. And pundits.
My point is always to pull the fig leaves off the rhetoric that adorns both the prescriptions and the proscriptions of folks in places like t ... view full comment
The more we learn from the macroeconomic theorists the more we learn how macropolitical handlers always finds a way to feed it to the beasts on Wall Street.
Keynes, Friedman. Fiscal, monetary. Democrats, Republicans. Liberals, Conservatives. Come on, it draws more folks in or out of the economy, more folks in or out of the government. But it doesn't change the fundamental nature of crony capitalism.
And maybe it never will. And maybe it never should. I'll leave that to the ever conflicted and contradictory experts. Economists, for example. And pundits.
My point is always to pull the fig leaves off the rhetoric that adorns both the prescriptions and the proscriptions of folks in places like this; intellectuals who always place the emphasis on a clash between policy, politics or principle....and hardly ever on a clash between those who vie to be in charge of the revolving doors, the campaign finance reform legislation and regulating the dastardly deeds of the lobbyists. Tweedle dee or tweedle dum some call them. I just call them Congress and the White House
But let's keep it that way, right? Let's keep it tasked to the authorized disseminators of the authorized inflection points.
george
Keynes being a revelation to Posner is, I suppose, on a par with parenthood being a revelation to young couples today. Not mentioned by Posner is the effect of concentrations of wealth. If consumption is the primary force for economic activity, then it follows that concentrations of wealth is a drag on economic activity, for the marginal propensity to consume by the wealthy is much lower. But what about the conspicuous consumption by the wealthy, from mansions to jet planes, doesn't that offset the lower propensity to consume? In the short run it does, for the mansions and planes must be produced. But in the long run do those mansions and jet planes add to the wealth, or productive capa ... view full comment
Keynes being a revelation to Posner is, I suppose, on a par with parenthood being a revelation to young couples today. Not mentioned by Posner is the effect of concentrations of wealth. If consumption is the primary force for economic activity, then it follows that concentrations of wealth is a drag on economic activity, for the marginal propensity to consume by the wealthy is much lower. But what about the conspicuous consumption by the wealthy, from mansions to jet planes, doesn't that offset the lower propensity to consume? In the short run it does, for the mansions and planes must be produced. But in the long run do those mansions and jet planes add to the wealth, or productive capacity, of the economy? Hardly. It is mindboggling that the smart folks at Chicago and other centers of conservative thought still believe that supply creates its own demand, Keynes (and history) notwithstanding. My own view is that they consider Keynes' theory (or theories) as a slippery slope, for to accept demand (consumption) as the key to economic activity not only invites government intervention into the economy (to spur demand), but raises very distrubing (to them anyway) questions about the negative effects of concentrations of wealth. And that one does not do!
While Posner these days is thought a conservative, he has never been thought a capitalist as his career as a lawyer/judge shows.
There are huge issues with the math behind Keynesian theory. The 2 mains models:
- IS/LM model
- Phillips curve
have been widely discredited as insufficient. Math doesn't work, the theory doesn't model reality. They are at best a teaching tool. And any reputable econ course views them as such.
And original Keynesion theory ignored all micro-economic theory. It has been disproven. Monetary policy works. Even the Keynesion acknowledge that though they would warn of a theoretical 'liquidity trap' where monetary policy loses effect.
Keynesian theor ... view full comment
While Posner these days is thought a conservative, he has never been thought a capitalist as his career as a lawyer/judge shows.
There are huge issues with the math behind Keynesian theory. The 2 mains models:
- IS/LM model
- Phillips curve
have been widely discredited as insufficient. Math doesn't work, the theory doesn't model reality. They are at best a teaching tool. And any reputable econ course views them as such.
And original Keynesion theory ignored all micro-economic theory. It has been disproven. Monetary policy works. Even the Keynesion acknowledge that though they would warn of a theoretical 'liquidity trap' where monetary policy loses effect.
Keynesian theory is mostly for left leaning politicians to rationalize Gov spending. The worlds central bankers use monetary policy as they know better.
There will always be business cycles. And the more Gov. involvement in a market (like Mortgage Backed Securities) amplifies the cycle. The recent recession being used by the in-effective and inept to push a euro-socialist agenda.
That agenda will fail. Best outcome, Gov as referee for markets improving transparency. Worst outcome, Gov manages any part of economy.
R:
There are huge issues with the math behind Keynesian theory. The 2 mains models:
- IS/LM model
- Phillips curve
have been widely discredited as insufficient. Math doesn't work, the theory doesn't model reality. They are at best a teaching tool. And any reputable econ course views them as such.
george:
R, I'm waiting for your rejoinder on the WealthCare thread. I proposed we begin a historic debate there about Rand, Capitalim and the dying art of silly polemics. Together, you and I can put Wealthcare back on top of the Most Views, and Most Comments blogs. Where it belongs.
Hmm...
The IS/LM model. Is that Leonard Piekoff's list of [giggle, giggle] mathematical calculations used by ... view full comment
R:
There are huge issues with the math behind Keynesian theory. The 2 mains models:
- IS/LM model
- Phillips curve
have been widely discredited as insufficient. Math doesn't work, the theory doesn't model reality. They are at best a teaching tool. And any reputable econ course views them as such.
george:
R, I'm waiting for your rejoinder on the WealthCare thread. I proposed we begin a historic debate there about Rand, Capitalim and the dying art of silly polemics. Together, you and I can put Wealthcare back on top of the Most Views, and Most Comments blogs. Where it belongs.
Hmm...
The IS/LM model. Is that Leonard Piekoff's list of [giggle, giggle] mathematical calculations used by Congress, CNBC and Wall Street to measure precisely the inflection point when laizze faire market capitalism becomes state capitalism; then becomes outright socialism? Do you, Tim Geithner and Max Baucus still edit it in the Oval Office?
The Philips curve. Isn't that the one Laffer drew on a clump of toilet paper before he and the Chicago Boys retired from the outhouse in search of napkins in a restaurant?
Modelling reality. Okay, give us the model used to calibrate derivative transactions that factor in, say, inside information, Jim Cramer, fear, campaign contributions and taxpayer bailouts.
R:
....original Keynesion theory ignored all micro-economic theory. It has been disproven. Monetary policy works.
george:
Where oh where is Roid when you need him!!!
A proposition: If anyone convinces Roid to come back in [or convinces Noam to have him released from Guantanamo] I promise to cut my Talkbacks down to less than 250 a day.
Has Keynesian macro theory been disproven by RyndDroid micro theory in the manner in which astrology has been disproven by astronomy? or alchemy disproven by chemstry? Can R provide us with a list of economists [qua physicists?] who will attest to this. Will it be longer than the Keynesians' list of economists who detest to it? Will the Right Theory be metaphysically [and romantically] sound?
And why oh why wasn't R and the other ubercapitalists in here a year ago explaining how the less than ubercapitalists on K Street and in Congress were opting for state capitalism instead? Couldn't they have saved us all a lot of grief?
R:
Keynesian theory is mostly for left leaning politicians to rationalize Gov spending. The worlds central bankers use monetary policy as they know better.
george:
Yes, the world's bankers were all over the housing bubble, weren't they? In fact, we don't know it yet but they kept feeding the Keynesians in the Bush Administration enough rope until they hanged us all. Now out of the ashes R will ride in from the Gulch with the True Believers. They'll ressurect the Gold Standard, send Alan Greenspan to a reeducation camp and set the economy to the task of finally bringing Atlas Shrugged to the silver screen. R will play both John Galt and Dagney Taggert. Rand will rise from the grave to play The Anti-Christ and President Glenn Beck will join her in finally reconciling Objectivists and Libertarians forevermore. Reconciling both transcendentally with Kant's God.
R:
There will always be business cycles. And the more Gov. involvement in a market (like Mortgage Backed Securities) amplifies the cycle. The recent recession being used by the in-effective and inept to push a euro-socialist agenda. That agenda will fail. Best outcome, Gov as referee for markets improving transparency. Worst outcome, Gov manages any part of economy.
george:
Marx couldn't have said it any better. Although he almost certainly did. Great big rhetorical bromides like this have always been the theoretical scaffolding of choice for those who dismiss the enormous complexies of the real world for the crystal clarity of, well, great big rhetorical bromides.
george walton
d/a
A wonderful piece from what has become that rarest of all things, a brilliant man with an open mind.
A wonderful piece from what has become that rarest of all things, a brilliant man with an open mind.
I agree with lsernoff. This is vintage Posner: Muscular, clear prose; well-informed argument; intellecutal seriousness without hand-wringing; skepticism of grand theory; responsiveness to the times; apparent open-mindedness; and a stubborn resistance to ideological caricature. One reason Judge Posner would face difficulty being confirmed to the Supreme Court if he were ever nominated -- and his prominent career makes him a natural candidate -- is that he writes a lot, writes a lot that doesn't fit either anodyne conventional wisdom on the one hand or rigid ideological orientations on the other, and he refuses to be bland. So, the Supreme Court's loss is the reading public's gain, I suppo ... view full comment
I agree with lsernoff. This is vintage Posner: Muscular, clear prose; well-informed argument; intellecutal seriousness without hand-wringing; skepticism of grand theory; responsiveness to the times; apparent open-mindedness; and a stubborn resistance to ideological caricature. One reason Judge Posner would face difficulty being confirmed to the Supreme Court if he were ever nominated -- and his prominent career makes him a natural candidate -- is that he writes a lot, writes a lot that doesn't fit either anodyne conventional wisdom on the one hand or rigid ideological orientations on the other, and he refuses to be bland. So, the Supreme Court's loss is the reading public's gain, I suppose.
That Judge Posner has introduced himself to Keynes and has told us about it is interesting and mildly informative. Three is no doubt the Obama administration is off on a love fest with what it believes to be Keynesian Economics -- an economics "for our time." But, I wonder. As much as one today is inclined to worship our great public thinkers, I am still concerned about the idea of debt. Just how are we to sustain the horrendous debt the United States is taking on? (Not a word about that in the Judge's piece. But, maybe I missed it. It could be part of a subtle insert.)
Keynes is fine with regard to saving capitalism for the time being -- for the short term -- but I do not recall the ... view full comment
That Judge Posner has introduced himself to Keynes and has told us about it is interesting and mildly informative. Three is no doubt the Obama administration is off on a love fest with what it believes to be Keynesian Economics -- an economics "for our time." But, I wonder. As much as one today is inclined to worship our great public thinkers, I am still concerned about the idea of debt. Just how are we to sustain the horrendous debt the United States is taking on? (Not a word about that in the Judge's piece. But, maybe I missed it. It could be part of a subtle insert.)
Keynes is fine with regard to saving capitalism for the time being -- for the short term -- but I do not recall the great hedonist said anything about taking on debt which is, well, quite simply, beyond the capacity of human comprehension, much less government repayment.
isernoff:
A wonderful piece from what has become that rarest of all things, a brilliant man with an open mind.
george:
I'm not familiar in depth with Posner. I'm not an intellectual. So, how open then is his mind on stuff like this:
* crony/state capitalism
* the military industrial complex
* the health care industrial complex
* the workings of K Street
Posner is usually associated with the laizze faire Chicago School of economics; so his trek to Keynes is certainly more welcome [to me] than had it been the other way around.
But where does he start drawing the lines in a discussion of political economy in America? In all the approproate places perhaps?
george
isernoff:
A wonderful piece from what has become that rarest of all things, a brilliant man with an open mind.
george:
I'm not familiar in depth with Posner. I'm not an intellectual. So, how open then is his mind on stuff like this:
* crony/state capitalism
* the military industrial complex
* the health care industrial complex
* the workings of K Street
Posner is usually associated with the laizze faire Chicago School of economics; so his trek to Keynes is certainly more welcome [to me] than had it been the other way around.
But where does he start drawing the lines in a discussion of political economy in America? In all the approproate places perhaps?
george
seugster:
Three is no doubt the Obama administration is off on a love fest with what it believes to be Keynesian Economics -- an economics "for our time."
george:
No doubt? Oh, please. Given the love nest Obama and Geithner Inc. has set up on Wall Street how exactly is this a solid Keynesian approach to the relationship between government and the economy? How, for example, is it wildly at odds with the Friedman apologists in the Bush Administration? What has Obama done differently? It's just a difference of degree not kind.
In the end, they all serve the same master: Whatever works to keep everything more or less exactly the same.
We are watching this unfold right now with health care "reform". ... view full comment
seugster:
Three is no doubt the Obama administration is off on a love fest with what it believes to be Keynesian Economics -- an economics "for our time."
george:
No doubt? Oh, please. Given the love nest Obama and Geithner Inc. has set up on Wall Street how exactly is this a solid Keynesian approach to the relationship between government and the economy? How, for example, is it wildly at odds with the Friedman apologists in the Bush Administration? What has Obama done differently? It's just a difference of degree not kind.
In the end, they all serve the same master: Whatever works to keep everything more or less exactly the same.
We are watching this unfold right now with health care "reform". After the legislation is signed let's start tallying up what has really changed.
george
seugster: Good question. I think the usual response is two-fold. First, debt for a money-printing entity only matters insofar as it leads to inflation -- not a problem now and not a problem given the amounts in question. I think that's a widely held, though not unanimous, view among economists. We can take on big debt -- it's not beyond human comprhension; just big -- if there's worldwide confidence in our continued prosperity. The notion that a government is like an individual and should always balance its checkbook is pointless, unrealistic, and harmful. Second, your suggestion of taking on big debt "for the short term" is, I think, perfectly Keynesian. During good times, we do re ... view full comment
seugster: Good question. I think the usual response is two-fold. First, debt for a money-printing entity only matters insofar as it leads to inflation -- not a problem now and not a problem given the amounts in question. I think that's a widely held, though not unanimous, view among economists. We can take on big debt -- it's not beyond human comprhension; just big -- if there's worldwide confidence in our continued prosperity. The notion that a government is like an individual and should always balance its checkbook is pointless, unrealistic, and harmful. Second, your suggestion of taking on big debt "for the short term" is, I think, perfectly Keynesian. During good times, we do restraint and balanced budgets and pay down debt and rely on monetary solutions to manage the economy. (See Clinton/Greenspan.) During tough times, though, we soften the blow of big downturns and avert potential economic disaster by introducing more aggressively the spender of last resort -- the government -- into the economy. I think that's roughly the idea. It's not the usual approach. But sometimes monetarist solutions are insufficient. When interest rates are zero, and we're still in free-fall, there's a problem. The model didn't work this time, as even Greenspan acknowledged. Posner is impressed by the depth of the crisis we faced and the serious threat of depression and the collective cluelessness of the profession in offering solutions. Such times call for unusual measures, but not forever. This is consistent with the Obama administration's approach. It does stimulus -- deficit spending, borrowing -- to avert calamity and soften the blow. Some say, not enough. But, when it comes to the long-term commitments, like health care, Obama insists on deficit neutrality and emphasizes cost control.
Who the heck is George? Am I missing something. Is it some inside bit?
To George:
"Whatever works to keep everything more or less exactly the same" ?
What, pray tell is that supposed to mean? The simple fact is Washington (it really does not make much difference who is in control (and the Wasilla Snobilly is not going to help -- nor are any of her handlers)). The debt is going to go over the top and for many decades to come.
And, there is going to be no way to lower it and more money will have to be printed because no one is to going to buy the debt to the degree it must needs be bought. And, of course, if you are a Keynesian or a Posnerarian (now), you will have to find a way to put mone ... view full comment
Who the heck is George? Am I missing something. Is it some inside bit?
To George:
"Whatever works to keep everything more or less exactly the same" ?
What, pray tell is that supposed to mean? The simple fact is Washington (it really does not make much difference who is in control (and the Wasilla Snobilly is not going to help -- nor are any of her handlers)). The debt is going to go over the top and for many decades to come.
And, there is going to be no way to lower it and more money will have to be printed because no one is to going to buy the debt to the degree it must needs be bought. And, of course, if you are a Keynesian or a Posnerarian (now), you will have to find a way to put money into the economy, the American one -- forget about Mexico or Canada or any other "local" econommy.
But, I am sure I am confused. Just as the rest of the 280 million or so people who live here are who do not have friendships amongst the the American Ruling Class. That is, we did not go to Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford or the University of Chicago, must be confused.
George -- I would be pleased to know what you are really saying. I will steel myself to be open minded and will even try, desparately but without much success to at least appear to be intelligent.
Look for me someplace at Costco or Walmart. I would love to have a conversation with you. Truly, what the hell else are we going to do as everything collapses around us.
seug:
To George:
"Whatever works to keep everything more or less exactly the same" ?
What, pray tell is that supposed to mean? The simple fact is Washington (it really does not make much difference who is in control (and the Wasilla Snobilly is not going to help -- nor are any of her handlers)). The debt is going to go over the top and for many decades to come.
george:
Well, over the past, I don't know, century or so the folks running the healthcare industry did not lose much sleep at night worrying about whether the rampaging cost of the healthcare delivery system in America would sink the economy.
And all the other democratic republics around the globe seem to have incorporated one or another ... view full comment
seug:
To George:
"Whatever works to keep everything more or less exactly the same" ?
What, pray tell is that supposed to mean? The simple fact is Washington (it really does not make much difference who is in control (and the Wasilla Snobilly is not going to help -- nor are any of her handlers)). The debt is going to go over the top and for many decades to come.
george:
Well, over the past, I don't know, century or so the folks running the healthcare industry did not lose much sleep at night worrying about whether the rampaging cost of the healthcare delivery system in America would sink the economy.
And all the other democratic republics around the globe seem to have incorporated one or another rendition of universal healthcare for their citizens without plunging them over into the debt abyss. Maybe because unlike us they aren't spending more money on their defense budgets than all the other nations of the world combined. You think?
Besides, these silly folks somehow got it into their heads that being a citizen entitled you to healthcare. You know, just for being a citizen!! Don't fool yourself, those Commies are still out there.
seug:
But, I am sure I am confused. Just as the rest of the 280 million or so people who live here are who do not have friendships amongst the the American Ruling Class.
george:
Huh? Kindly rephrase that please.
seug:
George -- I would be pleased to know what you are really saying. I will steel myself to be open minded and will even try, desparately but without much success to at least appear to be intelligent.
george:
Making me [and my psuedo-intelligence] the argument. That sounds awful familiar. Does TNR offer classes to readers on how to perfect this? The Editors, for example. Is there an inflection point named after me yet?
Let's start with the American Ruling Class [or as I prefer to call it, crony capitalism]. Is that just a myth? Okay, let's debate it.
seug:
Look for me someplace at Costco or Walmart. I would love to have a conversation with you. Truly, what the hell else are we going to do as everything collapses around us.
george:
I'll do that. Shall me meet in the back room reserved for the union busters or the one dedicated to preserving The American Way of doing business with Congress? Your call.
george