Topic: economics sub-board should be removed - page 2. (Read 4306 times)
SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
I didn't say anything about aggregates, yes Keynes introduced the concept of Aggregate Demand, multiplier effect etc, how does that go against what I already said?
Are you going to address my points then?
I didn't say anything about aggregates, yes Keynes introduced the concept of Aggregate Demand, multiplier effect etc, how does that go against what I already said?
As for my question, I want you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad.
Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.
You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.
The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.
There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.
That doesn't strike me as Keynes thinking.
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. Doesn't mean that Keynes is wrong, in a recession or a post-war utterly leveled Europe say; the idea that government spending can rebuild an economy or recover it from a depression does not strike me as any kind of insidious lunacy. Keynes did not say that massive government spending to drive demand should be the norm. Save in good times, spend in bad times, what's the problem bro?
Keynes was into eugenics apparently, I'd far rather criticize him for that. But why lump his name in with the random babblings of any guy with a tie on that reckons government should bail out banks and hand out big ticket jobs to the buddies of senators and congressmen? That's not Keynes, that's just the usual matrix of power and influence in a state that does no longer (if ever) works for its owners as advertised.
If that does not sound as keynesianism to you, then you should learn keynesianism, because Keynes was the figure that introduced aggregates into the economic theory.
I would answer what you have stated because its wrong, but I dont think you know enough about keynesianism and are just following some "talking points" instead of understanding what keynesianism is.
As for my question, I want you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad.
Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.
You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.
The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.
There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.
That doesn't strike me as Keynes thinking.
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. Doesn't mean that Keynes is wrong, in a recession or a post-war utterly leveled Europe say; the idea that government spending can rebuild an economy or recover it from a depression does not strike me as any kind of insidious lunacy. Keynes did not say that massive government spending to drive demand should be the norm. Save in good times, spend in bad times, what's the problem bro?
Keynes was into eugenics apparently, I'd far rather criticize him for that. But why lump his name in with the random babblings of any guy with a tie on that reckons government should bail out banks and hand out big ticket jobs to the buddies of senators and congressmen? That's not Keynes, that's just the usual matrix of power and influence in a state that does no longer (if ever) works for its owners as advertised.
The economics board is, in my experience, trolls trolling trolls. There are two groups of people:
1) People who don't know their economics but feel the need to voice their opinions.
2) People who know their economics and deliberately try to deceive for personal gain.
I'll let you decide what the ratio is.
1) People who don't know their economics but feel the need to voice their opinions.
2) People who know their economics and deliberately try to deceive for personal gain.
I'll let you decide what the ratio is.
That's a rather dour outlook on things. Is it so hard to believe that there are people who sincerely want to learn and discuss economics?
The economics board is, in my experience, trolls trolling trolls. There are two groups of people:
1) People who don't know their economics but feel the need to voice their opinions.
2) People who know their economics and deliberately try to deceive for personal gain.
I'll let you decide what the ratio is.
1) People who don't know their economics but feel the need to voice their opinions.
2) People who know their economics and deliberately try to deceive for personal gain.
I'll let you decide what the ratio is.
As for my question, I want you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad.
Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.
You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.
The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.
There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.
the past couple posts are exactly what I was referring to when I made this thread
everyone get lost please
everyone get lost please
you don't even like this forum, you want it deleted, so what are you doing here? you get lost, go on, delete thyself.
Corporatism, another cease-think reacto-word. I can understand the criticism of decomcratic socialism being an allegience of the rich and the working class against the middle-class (monopolies and unions together screwing the middle class consumer who is niether the major sharholder of a monopoly nor a member of a union) but you've said nothing like that. You've just said Democratic socialism is Corporatism, and that's bad, m'kay... for me that kind of argument is below par.
As for my question, I'd specifically like you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad. I'll understand if you have other things to do and can't right now.
As for my question, I'd specifically like you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad. I'll understand if you have other things to do and can't right now.
Go on then, explain to the people.
What part of economics are you interested on discussing?
Quote
Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.
Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.
Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.
Here you have answered in American. In European "Social Democracy" is something else entirely, I don't think it's currently possible to articulate the concept in American.[/quote]
Im from Europe. I was talking about the general concept of social-democray. Social-democray is corporatism.
the past couple posts are exactly what I was referring to when I made this thread
everyone get lost please
everyone get lost please
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.
Generalizing much?
You'd think.
Yes, I think. I can explain you logically why keynesianism does not work and the main points why keynesiansim is wrong.
Go on then, explain to the people.
But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.
That's a fair point, although the idea that the Democrats represent Social Democracy is laughable, they represent nothing of the sort, Wall Street maybe... if "Progressive" is American for "Big Finance" anyway. Building concepts of social-democracy inside the US political power structure is like building a snow man in hell. Full employment, rising standards of living, human rigths and the taxpayer being the same thing as tax expenditure, I'm not sure that kind of thinking exists in the society these Libertarian types come from.
Anyway it's this orwellification of language and historical context that I fnd so objectionable when I come across it; the disconnections and reversals and pavlovian fetishisation of slogans. In this way people can string together any old nonesense and call it "rational argument". Perhaps that's the point.
Freedom is Slavery people, doubleplus good.
Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.
Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.
Here you have answered in American. In European "Social Democracy" is something else entirely, I don't think it's currently possible to articulate the concept in American.
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.
Generalizing much?
You'd think.
Yes, I think. I can explain you logically why keynesianism does not work and the main points why keynesiansim is wrong.
But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.
That's a fair point, although the idea that the Democrats represent Social Democracy is laughable, they represent nothing of the sort, Wall Street maybe... if "Progressive" is American for "Big Finance" anyway. Building concepts of social-democracy inside the US political power structure is like building a snow man in hell. Full employment, rising standards of living, human rigths and the taxpayer being the same thing as tax expenditure, I'm not sure that kind of thinking exists in the society these Libertarian types come from.
Anyway it's this orwellification of language and historical context that I fnd so objectionable when I come across it; the disconnections and reversals and pavlovian fetishisation of slogans. In this way people can string together any old nonesense and call it "rational argument". Perhaps that's the point.
Freedom is Slavery people, doubleplus good.
Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.
Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.
I don't think any sub-board should be removed, but there are a few trolls around here we could do without... 
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.
Generalizing much?
You'd think.
But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.
That's a fair point, although the idea that the Democrats represent Social Democracy is laughable, they represent nothing of the sort, Wall Street maybe... if "Progressive" is American for "Big Finance" anyway. Building concepts of social-democracy inside the US political power structure is like building a snow man in hell. Full employment, rising standards of living, human rigths and the taxpayer being the same thing as tax expenditure, I'm not sure that kind of thinking exists in the society these Libertarian types come from.
Anyway it's this orwellification of language and historical context that I fnd so objectionable when I come across it; the disconnections and reversals and pavlovian fetishisation of slogans. In this way people can string together any old nonesense and call it "rational argument". Perhaps that's the point.
Freedom is Slavery people, doubleplus good.
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.
Generalizing much?
Quote
It's like "Liberalism", the distinctive feature of 'Western culture' is liberalism, conservatives in the West are (theoretically) conservative of the Wests Liberal tradition, anyone who knows the history of Liberalism and what it means in the historical context and its relationship to the contemporary Western understanding of the world, of the individual, and of his or her relationship with religion and the state, would not spout the word "Liberal" in the way the average 6-pack chugging Tea Party barfing Fox-New recepticle does, with the raving emotionalism of the ignoramus.
Many people do not know how to think, and many that do use their powers only to manipulate others. It's sad.
Many people do not know how to think, and many that do use their powers only to manipulate others. It's sad.
But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.
I actually really like this sub-board. It's okay if most people have no clue about economics, this is a great place to debate it and learn.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.
And of course, this is all expressly relevant to Bitcoin. If the economics are sound, then it will likely succeed as a currency.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.
And of course, this is all expressly relevant to Bitcoin. If the economics are sound, then it will likely succeed as a currency.
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.
It's like "Liberalism", the distinctive feature of 'Western culture' is liberalism, conservatives in the West are (theoretically) conservative of the Wests Liberal tradition, anyone who knows the history of Liberalism and what it means in the historical context and its relationship to the contemporary Western understanding of the world, of the individual, and of his or her relationship with religion and the state, would not spout the word "Liberal" in the way the average 6-pack chugging Tea Party barfing Fox-New recepticle does, with the raving emotionalism of the ignoramus.
Many people do not know how to think, and many that do use their powers only to manipulate others. It's sad.
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing)
Welcome to the internet...
economics [is not] not a riveting subject
Rubbish! Economics is fascinating, if you don't think it is you're on the wrong forum involved with the wrong project!
Personally I wish the entire forum could be removed except for technical help. I think it drives down BTC value to see all the people or "noobs" here spouting off their opinions about how flawed Bitcoins are because they are too scared to invest, and want to justify not putting money in.
Are you joking?! Bitcoin is WAY more important than just some neat tech innovations. Politics, economics, even philosophy have been involved in these discussions and I think it's great. Bitcoin, if nothing else, is disruptive, and there are a whole world of effects that need to be explored.
Noobs being scared about Bitcoin shouldn't bother anyone who is secure and confident about their own reasoning for standing behind the currency.
Jump to: