Topic: John Maynard Keynes is responsible for all that is about to happen to the world (Read 3679 times)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

Historically Gold Standard did fail and largely from lack of velocity (gold got tight) or from inflation (American Gold & Silver bankrupted much of Europe and East Asia in the 1600s).


If we returned to gold standard then we would have to return to that cycle of production boom and busts.  $Fiat as it stands can be crap from certain perspectives but at least it does seem to generate more predictable growth (without the hard busts) and you can still shelter your wealth (to an extent) through assets including newer forms like Bitcoin.

Im glad you stated that point of view because I think its a common view.  Capitalism gifts the rich with overwhelming advantage, means oppression and misery for poorer masses.   However I do not agree

First we have democracy and that is important and so its not absolute pure capitalism, nobody wants to argue one human should be less valid as a person then another

Then a court system also most countries have constitution or system of rights, all of those should balance out 'i'am rich, get out'

With fixed currency you have equality from one coin to the next.   With our system now, the FED produces money and it is not giving or selling in exchange for that worth it acquires.   That is vastly more unequal.   The dollars are not equal, some have access to large amounts more easily then others.

The invisible hand is just a name for human nature.   Its not random, we all start jobs, advance in life wanting to be at least bit richer.     What drives capitalism is competition and that open struggle is productive for society not just rich people.   This idea is hard to explain but say compare it to sprinters in a race, alot of work goes into getting 1st place.    You might say only the winner gains, Im arguing society can benefit not just 1.   All that effort by all runners is usually positive work, the athletes are healthier, maybe some technology/biology (whatever, some advance of some kind) is discovered along the way.
  If one competitor starts cheating, its destructive to the sport.  The FED producing new money is destructive, its not useful to society and its not competitive capitalism


I think it was dollars which failed that standard.  The gold being a cause of failure I dont think I can agree on though Ive heard it plenty, ie. tight money is cause of bankruptcy, etc  Well they devalued dollars in 1930's, thats easy money and it didnt work then

So what you want, bad intentions?
Anyway, OP's delusion off the charts if he thinks ONE MAN is responsible for the future of everything. How ridiculous can that be?

capitalist financial system provided the monopoly over the world's financial system, it has influenced the world's financial system, the capitalist financial system makes no buildup kuangan to one person, while the bitcoin with cryptocurrency system provides more freedom in terms of financial, free of monopolies and government financial policy binding, plus a bitcoin is also free of tax, very lucky if the financial system following the financial system bitcoin ... 

sure, but what other options were there back then, we didn't have Bitcoin.
Bitcoins future isn't even secured yet there are those who believe inflation is good, and are trying to mold bitcoin to fit with the inflation model of national currencies by adjusting to protocol, and there seems to be a lot of support for it.  

unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It was the failing of the gold standard and 2 world wars that paved the way for Keynes.

It is only now with bitcoin we have a better system, if we start using it like gold to back other currencies we're doomed to make the same mistakes.

Bitcoin will be the new currency if we use it as such it's backed by people who use it. Lots of political pressure to use it as a blockchain not the currency, so who knows.

I don't blame Keynes had he understood the situation today I bet he'd be swinging closer to Bitcoin than the IMF.

while i agree Milton Friedman shares much of the blame, Keynes is the first one to have opened the door for all the other theories that seek to implement a control economy disguised as a free market.

he was the first one to give the excuse governments needed to intervene in the labor markets, without him no one would have listened to Milton Friedman's money printing nonsense.
without those people we would probably still be on a gold standard and none of the 00 and 07 bubbles would have happened, families would still only need one worker instead of having both parents working and still barely making ends meet.

highly recommend watching this series:

Masters Of Money │ Episode 1 │ John Maynard Keynes Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niNYQtU8GkY

Masters Of Money │ Episode 2 │ Friedrich Hayek Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEiCN57XhiI

Masters Of Money │ Episode 3 |Karl Marx BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvAf2gOvaiY

Actually John Maynard Keynes's ideas failed in the 1980 (just prior to the Thatcher and Reagan administrations.)

the person responsible for this mess is Milton Friedman, hes the one who said Keynes was wrong but implemented a macro economic control system that is now in the hands of elites. He believed one can manage everything through the central bank and by manipulating the money supply.

he said "We are all Keynesians now" after integrating Hayek's economic theory with Keynes's.

Keynes had the goal of setting up public private interests in a free market to create equality, he failed as the public got the better deal, Friedman reversed that and the 0.01 got the better deal.

here is a great video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg 5 min.  

You can google it if you want to know who he is.

Keynes is not responsible. It is more likely Hayek. The theories of Hayek were adopted just after the 1929 crisis in Germany. The results were simple : no deficits but a rising unemployment and deflation. Because the government just let the economy free. We know what happened after.
All the crisis are consequences of free market. Because the market is unstable, there is no "invisible hand" ruling it, it's a crowd of humans doing business, diving into bubbles, then the bubbles pop etc. Think about Kondratiev and Schumpeter.
If you accept pure free capitalism, you also accept many collateral damages, such as extreme inequality (born in a rich family or a poor one), no stability (bubbles, crisis). The auto-regulation of the economy is brutal and violent.
I'm interested about BTC because I'm a programmer. But I'm not a libertarian like 90% of the Bitcoiners. I don't believe in a pure free market, because the power is then possessed by those who have the more money.
Printing money is artificial and can't be a long term solution, I agree with that though.

Why not use the whole thread dude?

Pretty controversial, many competing recipes


Capitalism is the capital worth of an economy distributed among its participants not controlled by a central body.   Not equal worth distribution, but certainly not QE, probably not fixed interest rates and I would argue, no central banks with exclusive license in a free capitalist society.   That would be traditional, we're a long way from that.   The positive about bankruptcy is that bad ideas die, we may have a while to wait


IMF article -

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/03/basics.htm

What is a 'traditional monetarist'?  A follower of Milt Friedman?  To me, Friedman and Keynes were closely joined at the hip, with the former leaning towards a IS–LM model with monetary policy doing the work on shifting IS and the latter leaning towards an AD-AS model with fiscal policy doing the work on shifting AD.

Both models IMO are flawed, as they assume you can move the market.  In practice neither the Fed nor the Treasury have much long term power to move the market.  This btw is heresy amongst professional economists.

See more here on what I am talking about, in case you know very little about economics despite your moniker :-):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS%E2%80%93LM_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD%E2%80%93AS_model

My view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_view

In macroeconomics, particularly in the history of economic thought, the Treasury view is the assertion that fiscal policy has no effect on the total amount of economic activity and unemployment, even during times of economic recession. This view was most famously advanced in the 1930s (during the Great Depression) by the staff of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. The position can be characterized as:[citation needed]

    Any increase in government spending necessarily crowds out an equal amount of private spending or investment, and thus has no net impact on economic activity.

In his 1929 budget speech, Winston Churchill explained, "The orthodox Treasury view ... is that when the Government borrows in the money market it becomes a new competitor with industry and engrosses to itself resources which would otherwise have been employed by private enterprise, and in the process raises the rent of money to all who have need of it." 

Keynesian economists reject this view, and often use the term "Treasury view" when criticizing this and related arguments. The term is sometimes conflated with the related position that fiscal stimulus has negligible impact on economic activity, a view that is not incompatible with mainstream macroeconomic theory.

So who is that John Maynard guy? 

Sure Im not stating absolutes but to run deficits always like they have, I dont believe Keynes did advocate government actions of this nature.     The main danger now is with excess, so such large debts, such extreme interest rates, the amount of QE and the degree to which fiscal expenditure makes up gdp.    All of these dials are in the red, they dont have to do anything at all but it seems likely with so many extremes that consequences or 'rebalance' will be hard to mitigate.  

  The argument always seems to be, government can do whatever they wish to set forth, set rates low, never pay debt off, increase spending as they desire or see best fit to do so but 1 central body dictating is not the case in democracy or in capitalism, if we are facing other possibilities beyond that it has already become very much not a story of success

They don't need to "pay off" debt, just need to make sure that revenues grow faster than expenses.

Snazzy video there but the most useful thing about Keynes and feature most liked by politicians is that he is long dead.     The last record of him of any great note is his very great disagreement with the dollar being the reserve currency, does that really sound like he would approve of Washington ruling the world now like it does.

Of course he cant argue and his books are open to interpretation but I prefer to actually take what he said while living, Im fairly sure if he was alive he'd quickly die again of shock at our sheer stupidity.  Keynes advocated a surplus not just continual deficit, when did US federal gov last reduce national debt; it never will until failures already current are apparent and force change

So your a traditional monetarist? Care to elaborate.