Keynes

[Anonymous No.18918337]

This guy revolutionized economics, founded modern macroeconomics, influenced the entire modern banking system, and is responsible for the Golden Age of Capitalism.

What is the problem with keynesianism and why does the austrian school of economics still exist?

[Anonymous No.18918380]

>>18918337
As this man didn't lick rich assholes the ancaps hate him. That's it.

[Anonymous No.18918520]

>>18918337
>What is the problem with keynesianism
Because government does not actually practice it and just uses it as an excuse to spend more
>and why does the austrian school of economics still exist?
Because it's actually correct but does not appeal to normies who think government should interfere during crisis

>>18918380
Says the bootlicker who wants more power to the government

[Anonymous No.18918608]

>>18918520
>Because it's actually correct but does not appeal to normies who think government should interfere during crisis
>Austrian School
>Correct
The ABCT it's shit anon.

That's why nobody in economics take the austrian school seriously.

Where in the ABCT are stock market bubbles for example?. Can answer me that?.

Austrians complain about asset bubbles, but they doesn'tfocus on stock market speculation or asset bubbles.

[Anonymous No.18919075]

>>18918337
There's literally noting new in Keynes. Paradox of thrift, notions of countercyclical spending, price rigidities, etc, etc were all theorized by previous heterodox figures... Keynes was just an already respected figure which made anyone listen

[Anonymous No.18919174]

>>18919075
>Paradox of thrift
>Notions of countercyclical spending
>Price rigidity
Who did this before Keynes?

[Anonymous No.18919199]

>>18918337
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/eventually-i-will-write-full-series-of.html
The blog that kills the lolbertarian and commie

[Anonymous No.18919520]

Read Mises and Hayek, they thoroughly dismantle Keynesianism.

Keynes knew very little about economic history, and it shows.

[Anonymous No.18919529]

>>18919520
Yeah, for ancaps this 2 authors are God and you cannot tell anything against them.

[Anonymous No.18919557]

>>18918337
Actually Austrianism and Keynesianism are similar in their rejection of rigid neoclassical autism. Hayek and the early Austrians like Menger would get along pretty well with modern Post-keynesians despite disagreements on policy and they would both dunk on modern macro and econometrics.

[Anonymous No.18919580]

>>18919529
>just print yourself out of every economic downturn

[Anonymous No.18919615]

>>18919520
You know back in the 30s and 40s there were epic debates between keynesians and austrians like Hayek, and the austrians lost those debates. You know it right?

[Anonymous No.18919617]

>Le Stagflation Man

[Anonymous No.18919622]

>>18918520
>normies who think government should interfere during crisis
do you really think there should be no fiscal stimulus in response to economic downturns?

[Anonymous No.18919627]

>>18919615
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8l47ilD0II

Keynes got btfo by Mises and Hayek.

[Anonymous No.18919635]

>>18919622
Not him but yes.

Fiscal stimulus have proven be disastrous over and over again. What do you call someone who does the same thing over and over again expecting different result?

[Anonymous No.18919640]

>>18919635
haha yeah I guess the Great Depression was better haha

[Anonymous No.18919654]

>>18918520
I don't want more power to the government. I want more power to non-Jews. Shalom kike.

[Anonymous No.18919658]

>>18919635
Please provide this proof that fiscal stimulus has been disastrous

[Anonymous No.18919662]

>>18919640
>>18919658
The Great Depression is a very good example of what happens when you try to use fiscal stimulus to combat an economic downturn. Compare the crisis of 1920 to 1929, it's day and night.

2008 is another example of how disastrous fiscal stimulus is.

[Anonymous No.18919667]

>>18919580
Even if the government cuts spending into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Chicago Schoolians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent less.

[Anonymous No.18919676]

>>18919667
*1920 enters the match*

[Anonymous No.18919693]

>>18919174
In the likes of Sismondi and such already... also the notion of national accounting goes right back to the physiocrats

>>18919580
>print
A little unprecise. The idea monetary policy and interest rates could be an effective way of controlling an economy was the anti-Keynesian response to Keynesian macroeconomics. I don't even think someone conservative like Friedman would say you can save your way out of a slump but just that government shouldn't be making all the big decisions on how to spend

>>18919635
>Fiscal stimulus have proven be disastrous over and over again
Why has no major government gotten rid of stuff like employment insurance and such and reaped the rewards? You'd think that would be an easy win for right of center governments

>>18919662
The Great Depression in America wasn't an example of stimulus though. The federal government raised taxes and aimed at keeping public debt under control. The government didn't resort to running big deficits until war spending for WWII.
2008 is another bad example, just compare the rate of recovery in America who were more liberal to Europe.

[Anonymous No.18919719]

>>18919676
The Harding administration raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates.

[Anonymous No.18919736]

>>18919693
>I don't even think someone conservative like Friedman would say you can save your way out of a slump but just that government shouldn't be making all the big decisions on how to spend
But that's what you do. The economy will rebalance to a point where it starts recovering. However, the bigger the bubble the bigger the fall.

>Why has no major government gotten rid of stuff like employment insurance and such and reaped the rewards? You'd think that would be an easy win for right of center governments
Same reason no major government has ever decided to shrink government spending. How do you expect to gather votes by doing unpopular things?

>The Great Depression in America wasn't an example of stimulus though
It literally was. First the federal reserve caused it all by credit expansion, then the government thought it could spend its way out of the crisis which resulted in mass unemployment. Let's not forget that employment rising again after 1929, but as soon as government started interfering it show up above 10% and never went under double digits until after the war.

>2008 is another bad example
We are now in year 13 of zero/negative rates, endless and ever growing credit expansion to the point where the bond market is nationalized in most western countries. M2 has shot up through the roof in most countries. Repo facilities in the U.S. are doing new records every single day, we are currently at over $1 trillion in repo each day. There is no growth to be had anywhere, all we have are massive buybacks due to essentially free credit. If that is not a bad example I don't know what is.

[Anonymous No.18919741]

>>18919719
>The Federal government cut spending, it balanced budgets, and the Fed allowed interest rates to rise. As a result, the depression of 1920 and 1921 is but a footnote in history

[Anonymous No.18919777]

For anyone wondering, M2 is a monetary index, calculated as thus:

High-power money + deposits

This index represents the second most liquid form of capital in an economy, all the currency available to the public and the one stored in private banks.
A massive increase in M2 makes every unit of currency lose purchasing power due to inflation.

[Anonymous No.18919815]

>>18919627
You that Hayek video doesn't prove anything right? You just need to look that the world converted to Keynesian economics, and Austrians like Hayek and Mises were relegated to outer darkness.

In fact, a good many of Hayek bright students at the LSE in the 30s like Abba Lerner and Nicholas Kaldor simply abandoned his theories once they came to understand Keynes ideas.

[Anonymous No.18919834]

>>18919815
Irrelevant to the thread, stay on topic or leave.

[Anonymous No.18919841]

>>18919719
You're ignoring the entire global economy. America built up a massive economic surplus during the 1920s by putting the rest of the world into debt and using tariffs to keep foreign goods out and domestic goods flowing out... that entire scheme wasn't sustainable for obvious reasons.


>>18919736
I think you're missing the point I was making. I don't think it's controversial to say spending is the only way you can exit a slump, it takes a extremely paleolithic conservative to go that far. Someone like Friedman thought the best way was individuals/firms responding to changes in interest rates whereas Keynes thought government increasing spending on stuff or tax changes were more effective.
Governments (at national or regional levels) have shrunk spending in both real and nominal terms. Governments do get elected on a mandate to slash spending or technocratic governments are occasionally imposed to push through "structural reforms".
The depression was global and not just a creation of the US federal reserve. Governments all over the world responded differently. The big thing you're misunderstanding is the Roosevelt administration didn't push through a stimulus policy but wanted to redistribute wealth, all spending was offset with increases in taxation. Japan is the classic example of expansionary policies during the depression.
Like I said Europe responded to 2008 a lot more conservatively and did a lot worse since than then America.

[Anonymous No.18920027]

>>18919615
>epic debates

[Anonymous No.18920481]

>>18919815
> implying concepts like economic calculation, price signals, dispersed knowledge, and spontaneous order aren't well accepted by economists

[Anonymous No.18920999]

No economist has ever come close to Marx's level. He's the only economist that has maintained relevance since his work was first published. Every other economic school has been a fad and ultimately a failure.

[Anonymous No.18921016]

>>18918337
This guy steals savings by pushing people to stress out and panic. If it wasnt for him there would be no bank runs and we could get away with a fragile fractional reserve banking system twice as retarded as the one we have now.

[Anonymous No.18921154]

>>18918608
Rothbard 's Power and Market has the best explanation of stock prices ever conceived - and I am saying this as someone who's read literally dozens of trading books (on top of all the mainstream economy ofc)
Btw, Keynes was a pure economically illiterate hack, you can check Hazlitt's "The Failure of New Economics" for (hundreds) of details of his incompetence.

[Anonymous No.18921156]

>>18918380
>lick rich assholes
He literally did

[Anonymous No.18921184]

>>18918337
This man's work was probably the main reason communism did not spread like wild fire in the 30s, classical autism of "letting the market correct its course" is completely detached from the immediate material conditions of people, why would the average worker wait 5 to 10 years for a global recession to correct itself when they can just stage a revolution and eat the rich? it's honestly amazing how counter intuitive most liberal economics is when dealing with socio-political turmoil, even the Germans fucking empire knew you have to bend to some of the workers demands if you wanted to keep the communists at bay.

[Anonymous No.18921277]

>>18921184
Except that leftist and Keynesian conceptions make the conditions of workers worse and there are no country-wide recessions without government enforced monopolization of industries; particular enterprises rise and collapse all the time without concentrated shocks.

[Anonymous No.18921299]

>>18921277
>without government enforced monopolization of industries
This includes centralized monetary policy btw.

[Anonymous No.18921342]

>>18921156
kek

[Anonymous No.18921345]

>>18921277
government enforced monopolization of monetary policy and certain industries is a vital part of securing national interests, what do you think would happen if the communist run China decided to just buy up their western competition and ramp up on illegal business practices such as dumping to flood our local markets? without strong regulation and custom taxes it would be extremely easy for a centralized political entity to manipulate a decentralized one.
like I said classical economics is detached from reality, it only exists in theory, there is a reason post-keynesian economics is the most widely accepted when dealing with crisis, even the so called liberal haven that is the US could not just let its financial system collapse in 2008 because they knew a 5 to 10 years gap of markets adjusting would assure they would lose their stage on international affairs and the world's trust on the dollar as a whole, they HAD to bail those banks out, it wasn't because of lobbying or any meme practice.

[Anonymous No.18921351]

>>18921277
>>18921299
On these terms the obvious reason we never saw such a thing is because there was never an industrial economy without a government. And it's pretty hard to make the case that it's possible to have one at all, only idealists and really enthusiastic marxists think so.

[Anonymous No.18921375]

>>18921351
We can extrapolate pretty well from cases when there were very little or very large bureaucratic "interventions". Less is better even if it isn't ideal.
Statists "regulating" economy is like schoolchildren LARPing as brain surgeons.

[Anonymous No.18921382]

>>18921345
>illegal business practices such as dumping to flood our local markets?
You have no place in an economics thread.

[Anonymous No.18921397]

>>18921375
>unironically using the word statists
right back at you, retarded ancap >>18921382
it's just embarrassing to out yourself as such at this point, I feel bad for even picking on you.

[Anonymous No.18921415]

>>18921397
Are you feeling well? The word accurately describes the government controlled _economy_ which is the focus of a large part of the _economics_ debate.

[Anonymous No.18921420]

>>18921397
Why are you offended by the word "statist" in a thread which picks up on "Austrians" is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.18921437]

>>18921415
the word statist holds absolutely no meaning beyond a buzzword
you say that "Statists "regulating" economy is like schoolchildren LARPing as brain surgeons.", but this is such a nonsensical point considering most of the people regulating the economy are experts in the fields they are brought in (politicians do actually consult with experts believe it or not), you don't get a random carpenter to regulate industrial zoning laws.
by describing them as "statists" you not only strip the entire process from its nuances but also paint everyone you disagree with in a single grouping so as not to engage with how every sector of the economy is dealt with, you're not even worth the time I am spending on this post let alone additional (you)s.
tl;dr: pick up a fucking book, you're on /lit/

[Anonymous No.18921444]

>>18921375
That's pretty much Friedman's take (except the having a stateless society thing, or the state not regulating money, as he talked mostly about ways to regulate money). But does it really hold at all? Back in the 19th century things were way less efficient than after the current monetary and interventionist practices took hold, and the European countries who did not adopt such practices well enough (Russia, Spain) fell to the Socialists soon enough, making this >>18921184 statement still pretty reasonable.

[Anonymous No.18921713]

>>18919520
Hayek and his ilk ushered in the neoliberal hellscape we are stuck with today

[Anonymous No.18921819]

>>18921713
Utter absurd, the governments still "stimulate" the economy and inject money into it like madmen.

[Anonymous No.18921842]

>>18919580
someone should tell sowell private banks are in charge of the circulation of money.

[Anonymous No.18921845]

>>18921819
governments borrow money from banks.

[Anonymous No.18921852]

>>18921845
Governments create the (economic) laws and protect banks' monopoly at taxpayers cost.

[Anonymous No.18921872]

>>18921852
Exactly. Governments should be using money to ensure the health and education, and to open avenues for advancement of their citizens, not endlessly financing and bailing out private capital owners.

[Anonymous No.18922093]

>>18921872
It should keep its dirty, greedy, incompetent and corrupted paws off the most important aspects of the society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXyFmmGBQ

[Anonymous No.18922098]

>>18922093
how can you be an artist and a capitalist? incompatible ways of life.

[Anonymous No.18922153]

>>18922093
USA is the only developed nation without publicly funded, universal healthcare and they not only have the highest costs, but also the most waste. Government is needed, but government working for the people, not perpetuating corporate profits (health insurance in the USA brings tens of billions in profits per year).

[Anonymous No.18922219]

>>18922153
If you compare the statistics of the effectiveness of the American healthcare (possibly the most idiotic system of business - state collusion possible) with that of the rest of the world it's really a close call; actually we don't have a clear winner.
That should give you an idea that we are talking about Paralympics competitions - which one of these cripples runs faster..

[Anonymous No.18923791]

>>18921154
>Keynes was a pure economically illiterate hack, you can check Hazlitt's "The Failure of New Economics"
Keynes explicitly makes assumptions which are "irrational" from a conventional point of view. Hazlitt of course just claims that classical and conventional wisdom is right, Keynes wasn't ignorant of those claims. If you claim savers are doing themselves and everyone else a favor by not spending, owners and workers will set labour and commodity prices at their market clearing prices, etc than of course noting Keynes says makes sense.