These people never seem to ask themselves "Is the reason this is "true" some sort of forced social concept?" And "Is this actually a good thing?"

"Assuming you're not with kids" = "Assuming you were not shot with a missile launcher to the face... you'll be fine"

As someone who finished all of that game and has hooked at least 3 family members on top Pirates! Gold, i resent that.

Supposedly the latter, but we'll see come the announcement.

It's a trap!!

"As long as I'm not a public official, I'm OK profiteering off this awful person" is immediate grounds for NOT becoming a public official.

WHY ONLY IF?

I'll wait until I see actual results until I believe these.

Hence the retirement.

Anne Selzer says hi.

Anne Selzer retired because of poll results like this so... I'll wait.

This is a very embarrassing thing to say.

That shoe had one day till retirement.

Goodbye forever, shoe.

And in the end, they were both right. It sucked! 😂

Let's not pretend, though, that Keynesian economics wasn't against the gold standard though. They simply came at it from a different rationale.

See, none of that actually has anything to do with Keynesian economics. You just quoted him and that's it. You sound like a bot.

And really, the gold standard was a HUGE part of the issue too.

I mean, sure. If you only cite freshwater sources you'll see that there is agreement with freshwater stances 😜

Basically, yes. Though I would also state I think the Keynesian explanation also does a better job of explaining the factors that were more felt related to it (eg, unemployment).

I am not sure it counts as crankery. They (assuming it is a person and not a bot) seem totally unable to understand the frame of reference within posts. The responses are like

"Marx said the word "dig" 47 times in Das Kapital but "shovel" only appears 10 times. Scientists don't care about oil!"

If you're not a bot then you should seek help. The way your brain can't seem to grasp underlying logic patterns in speech points to some sort of unaddressed issue you need help with.

Nothing you just said has anything to do with Keynesian economics and you seem completely unable to realize this.

Lol, yep. I mentioned that specific quote from General Theory elsewhere in this thread.

Notice how it can't actually address the concept of "GDP isn't economic theory, it's an economic measurement". Your bot is broken, dude.

Also, I should say, I don't see the two theories as conflicting as some do, but that may just be because I'm not a professional economist.

Well, the gold standard was also a huge problem, as both monetarists and Keynesians agree.

Frankly, I'm more on the Keynesian side than the monetary side when it comes to the Depression, but that is one of the longest running debates in 20th century economics.

There wasn't any spending during the Depression though.

Like...GDP is a measurement. It has nothing to do with Keynesian economics. Hell, it has nothing to do with economic theory of any kind.

It's like saying a square disproves geometry cause it isn't a cube. It's a nonsensical statement.