Topic: economics sub-board should be removed (Read 4351 times)

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

The difference is Keynes emphasis on distribution and consumption of wealth, versus those that emphasize saving and investment. Keynes seems to be more interested in how income flows around the economy, even through make-work projects that everyone gets to wet their beak in. You'll probably disagree with that if you beleive that spending should not take place unless it is efficient and profitable.

The difference is Keynes emphasis on distribution and consumption of wealth, versus those that emphasize saving and investment. Keynes seems to be more interested in how income flows around the economy, even through make-work projects that everyone gets to wet their beak in. You'll probably disagree with that if you beleive that spending should not take place unless it is efficient and profitable. One could see this as a matter of paying as few people as little as possible for as much work as possible. But that may undermine the ability of people to buy the stuff you've invested in making. In the Depression the income stopped flowing, seems this affected Keynes thinking.

Krugman sounds like a dick, the bail-outs have not circulated through the economy in any way I would describe as Keynesian, welfare for the banks is all it was. Would have been more Keynesian to just hand the money directly to households. I understand that some of the money made its way to local government spending (building roads and so on) but mostly in a retarded kind of way. But covering the banks asses so they can sit on it and not lend it out into the economy isn't Keynsian in my opinion, and that's not even assuming Keynsianism is a good thing.

I think this right here is the crux of our difference. Nothing I have read of Keynes suggests that his ideas are about extending government action beyond its primary responsibilities.

I happily admit that Keynes model of the economy does not represent a number of things in real life, there are fair grounds to disagree with him, but don't forget that models are just that, simplified maps of reality the purpose of which is to try and capture certain relationships or behavior. Keynes did a lot for macro-economics, he basically founded the study. I just think criticisms of his ideas should be more constructive and not just used as a banner by metalists, rightwingers, libertarians etc to rage and condemn 'Progressives" or "Liberals" or 'Socialists' or 'fiat' or whatever their problem is. He certainly did not consider inflation a good thing.

You see, the fiscal stimulus might as well be literally filling holes, since according to Keynes's ridiculous understanding of how an economy works, it doesn't matter what the government spends money on; even digging up holes just to refill them would qualify as beneficial stimulus. You might think that this must not be literally true. "Keynes may have been wrong on some things," you may protest, "but no economist as prominent as him would believe something so foolish!" Read the man's words for yourself:


The above passage is not some off-hand note written to a colleague in a fit of academic speculation. It is part of Keynes's chief contribution to economics, upon which his reputation rests: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. I don't care how prominent, credentialed, or "accomplished" an economist is. If he says that burying cash in the ground can be a boon to society, then he should be immediately dismissed from public and academic discourse.

The simple fact that Krugman regards such a fellow as an exemplar of economic scholarship would be highly telling by itself. "Okay," you might think, "Keynes was a bit extreme. But Krugman himself wouldn't go so far as to believe something like that."

Wrong again. In April, Krugman actually bemoaned the fact that Obama's stimulus projects were under budget.


That's right: Krugman would, all other things being equal, prefer government stimulus spending to be inefficient. He then goes on to quote the very same ridiculous passage from Keynes's General Theory, which I quoted above, but favorably. And the title of the piece in which he made this complaint? "Time for Bottles in Coal Mines."

What it needs is a moderator to send all the threads of sell sell sell and buy buy buy to the trading section or wherever.

I think this right here is the crux of our difference. Nothing I have read of Keynes suggests that his ideas are about extending government action beyond its primary responsibilities. My impression is that there are people who have that agenda that invoke Keynes to justify their objectives. I just don't think this fairly represents Keynes himself or his ideas, regardless of whether you agree with the guy or not.

I happily admit that Keynes model of the economy does not represent a number of things in real life, there are fair grounds to disagree with him, but don't forget that models are just that, simplified maps of reality the purpose of which is to try and capture certain relationships or behavior. Keynes did a lot for macro-economic, he basically founded the study. I just think criticisms of his ideas should be more constructive and not just used as a banner for metalists to rage and condemn and project their issues with their father or whatever with.

My own belief is that both Keynes and Hayek have something to say worth thinking about, I'm not interested in the kind of stop-think demonization used by "Keynsianism!" shriekers that replaces what should be enlightening debate.

 In some areas, this can be useful, like in meeting needs that otherwise would not be met due to the free-rider problem, but when it extends it action beyond its primary responsibilities, it becomes a tool to exploit people by making them do what they otherwise would not want to.

Answer what exactly?

Look, I'm no professor of economics, but from what I do know, the Keynes-hate comes over as pretty retarded. So Keynes intentions weren't good? To my mind his ideas were a matter of practical problem solving, that's all. And his actual job at the time was a matter of post war rebuilding. So the guy considered government to have an important role in that context, big fucking deal. The concept of aggregate demand pulling everything along is a concept, it's not exactly nazi-ideology.

I was implying that you are pissing on us by basically not answering and saying that Keynes had very good intentions. That is unknown and basically independent of the validity of his theories. I substituted ironically the name by Stalin to prove that your same words could argue that Stalin had very good intentions... You are basically not answering anything, just handwaving.

And regarding my previous posts, it basically proves that the idea of slack capacity and lack of demand causing a crisis is wrong. And those are cornerstones of keynesian though. Without them you can not justify all that you are saying. But I get the impression (maybe a wrong impression) that you only know the surface of keynesianism, so you really can not answer.

Very well said.

I know what aggregate demand is.

Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space.  There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Keynes was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Keynes just wanted inflationary big government all the time.

Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed,

and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it.

I would like Ron Paul to be president though, it would be a laugh, and maybe keep the US boot off the neck of 3rd worlders for awhile, give em a chance to breathe. The US itself would probably quickly degenerate into all-out post-Katrinaesque anarchy, complete with roving bands of mercenaries and starving people

What exactly is your question, I looked back and couldn't find a single question mark in your posts. As I recall it was I that asked you a question. Ask me now and I'll see what I can do, though I suspect that I won't agree with your premise.

By the way swapping out Keynes for Stalin means fuck all. If you seriously mean to imply Keynes and Stalin were basically the same, I cannot help you.

Do you realize you have not say anything? Its just a big handwaving.

And you have still not answered me.

I know what aggregate demand is.

Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space.  There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Stalin was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Stalin just wanted inflationary big government all the time.

Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed, and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure Stalin did not envisage inflationary government for its own sake, that would be pointless.

Keynesianism has been the dominant economic ideology in the Western world since the 1930s, so I don't think it's wrong to allude to it in discussions.

It is being challenged now by people like Ron Paul, and to some extent by the tea party that the likes of Paul Krugman so scorn, but its assumptions are still widely accepted by decision makers.


I think you are misunderstanding what 'demand' means in economics. People always demand things, in the sense that we always want things, but in economics, demand means 'a desire to purchase something, and the means to purchase it'. Demand is the resources people have and want to spend to acquire another resource.

Keynes' basic theory is that recessions are a result of the 'paradox of thrift', where every one is trying to save, by reducing consumption, which results in every one's income being reduced, and every one being able to save less.

His theory is wrong in my opinion, but its application does some short-term good in a highly controlled economy where the national currency is the only one the market can use and credit issuance is centralized, and therefore deflation results in a lack of liquidity due to the lack of alternate currencies.

What Keynes missed is that government inflation solves a problem caused by centralization of the economy, but that it promotes the very centralization that caused the problem in the first place by increasing the role of government in the economy.

is theory is wrong in my opinion, but its application does some short-term good in a highly controlled economy where the national currency is the only one the market can use and credit issuance is centralized, and therefore deflation results in a lack of liquidity due to the lack of alternate currencies.

What Keynes missed is that government inflation solves a problem caused by centralization of the economy, but that it promotes the very centralization that caused the problem in the first place by increasing the role of government in the economy.

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Keynes idea is that demand drives the economy, I don't think that's wrong. Demand for cheap credit drove a credit bubble and feed an overheated housing market etc.

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.