Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Most Americans Reject Witch Doctor Economics



February 06, 2010 – Comments (8)

Good news for the weekend: according to Rasumssen, the majority of Americans, across all political spectrums, disagree with Keynesian economics (or as I prefer to call it "Witch Doctor Economics.")

Americans Reject Keynesian Economics

"Richard Nixon once said, “We’re all Keynesians now.” But that was a long time ago, and it’s certainly not the case anymore (if it ever was).

While influential 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit."

Richard Nixon was an idiot, a traitor, and a crook, so it's not surprising that he would fall in love with the Witch Doctors.

"Rejection of Keynesian economics is found across demographic and partisan lines. Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party overwhelmingly reject the notion that increasing the deficit is the right prescription in difficult economic times. Among Democrats, 21% agree with the Keynesian approach, and 47% do not.

Investors reject deficit spending even more strongly than non-investors."

Well, except a couple of so-called "investors" at CAPS, who constantly whine about how anti-Keynes everyone is around here. 

"However, all polling on federal spending and deficits must be viewed with the recognition that only 35% of voters realize that the majority of federal spending goes to just defense, Social Security and Medicare." 

Yes, it's true.  Our government cares most about killing poor people overseas and subsidizing poor people at home.  Strange, eh?  

Ok, I'm out for now.  Enjoy the Super Bowl.  I hope to hit y'all up with a post about my travels in India very soon. 

David in Bangalore

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 06, 2010 at 1:44 PM, kdakota630 (29.41) wrote:

I hope to hit y'all up with a post about my travels in India very soon.

Look forward to hearing more.  Also, for half a second when I read you sign off as "David in Bangalore" I thought to myself, "what the hell is he doing in Maine?"

Report this comment
#2) On February 07, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bkeepr100 (< 20) wrote:

Indeed the "vodoo" economicists have really cooked up a heck of a problem for the USA.


I follow the Austrian school of economics, personally...Ludwig Von Mises predicted this time would come eventually from the overextending use of credit.   The crack-up boom is headed our way!  Pres. B.O. and the other polititions may not be able to contol this economic tsunami type of event.

Report this comment
#3) On February 08, 2010 at 12:27 PM, kirkydu (90.29) wrote:

I would counter that the 11% of the people who believe the gov'ment ought to be spending (on productive endeavors) are the ones who have the most money and knowledge.  What do I care about the economic thoughts of a population that still mostly invests in a highly flawed mutual fund industry?  What do they know about economics or investing?  Bahhhhhh. 

In economic good times, the gov'ment ought to pull back and get out of the way, except for regulation.  Under Bush, the gov'ment did neither, it spent and didn't regulate.  In bad times (brought about by Bush and flunkie Repub Congress) we need to spend on productive ends as a society. 

Gov'ment is a smoother of cycles in theory.  Obviously they screwed the pooch from 1999-2007, however, to say abandon trying to help the economy turn now is silly at best, suicidal at worst.  There are certain projects that only can get off the ground with gov'ment backing or spending.  Energy, water and transportation infrastructure build-outs are among that handful of items.  While I prefer loan guarantees, I don't have much problem with spending on things that have a return.  Businesses do it all the time, and since the money is going directly to business, it starts the very positive cycle of money and jobs creation David claims to want (I'm not so sure he cares about that as long as he gets his cut of the pie, regardless if it is a shrinking pie).

David is either a shill for those who would benefit from the further collapse of the United States or a flunkie.

Report this comment
#4) On February 08, 2010 at 12:36 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Get personal much?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On February 08, 2010 at 2:54 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

It would seem the kitchen table has more rational thinking than a politician addicted to borrowing and printing bills out of thin air.

How long can the average consumer go spending more than they take in, and continue to consume, over-extending, gorging until it falls apart in a personal ponzi-style bankruptcy? Why does anyone believer that the government could do so with impunity? Debt means chains. Debt is the enemy of freedom - as we become beholden to our enemies.

BOTH political parties have been in bed with spending, so blaming the last administration is not cutting it when the current one runs up an INCREDIBLE debt.

Known as nzsvz9 in the USA (not Bangalore but we're headed that way)

Report this comment
#6) On February 08, 2010 at 10:02 PM, JacobFreeze (< 20) wrote:

This "scientific" poll was obviously designed to produce its anti-Keynesian outcome.

"1* Which would be better for the economy, cutting the deficit or increasing deficit spending?

70% Cutting the deficit
11% Increasing deficit spending
19% Not sure

2* Will cutting the size of the federal deficit help or hurt the economy?

56% Help
17% Hurt
9% No impact
19% Not sure

3* Will increasing the federal deficit help or hurt the economy?
19% Help
59% Hurt
7% No impact
15% Not sure"

Keynes is all about increasing aggregate demand, which Rasmussen's push-poll never mentions.

He just keeps repeating "deficit, deficit, deficit," calls it "Keynes," and announces that the public hates "Keynes."


Rasmussen is turning into a right-wing stooge!

Report this comment
#7) On February 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM, dargus (82.29) wrote:

David, I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm glad to see you've changed you opinion of the Tea Party, at least a bit. You probably don't remember, but I scolded your defense of it a few months ago. For the record, I don't think you're a shill or a flunkie. I enjoy reading your thoughts even when I disagree, and it is nice when someone changes their opinion when new facts arise. Sorry if that is too Keynesian for you. ;)

Report this comment
#8) On February 11, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Melaschasm (< 20) wrote:

Most keynesians oppose the economic policies advocated by Keynes.

According to Keynes, the government should spend more during recessions, and cut spending during times of economic growth. 

Unfortunately the so called 'Keynesians' on the left never seem to be willing to cut spending during the good times.  During the 80s boom, Reagan wanted to cut spending but the Democrats in Congress refused to do so.  During the booming 90s Republicans in Congress, led by Newt, wanted to cut spending, but the Democrats led by Clinton refused to do so.  During the booming 00's neither party wanted to cut spending, and the end result was the same as the previous few decades.

A quick questin for the Keynesians, When is the last time the US government spent less than the spending of the prior year?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners