Topic: "Why bitcoin sucks" (An Ironic Piece from Keynesian perspective) (Read 2405 times)

Keynesianism is just another arrogant philosophy based on the assumption that it's possible (and desirable) to know what's best for everybody and how to achieve it. Keynesianism has been useful because of its theory that government spending can alleviate recessions or a depression? Even if this were true (hint: it's not), how is this a good thing exactly? How do we know that a depression/recession isn't exactly the thing the people & the economy needed? Maybe because a lot of bad investment decisions were made, which now need to be liquidated (this couldn't possibly have anything to do with expansive monetary policy which...surprise, is another Keynesian recipee), or the economy needs to restructure itself due to new technological developments. Such top-down enforced "solutions" just stand in the way of real solutions.

Keynesianism is like a person getting sick and instead of lying down, ceasing activity for a while and focusing on getting better, just downs some antibiotics and goes for a run to "stimulate" his body. And then wonders why he gets cancer while being 30 years old.

By the way as has been pointed out, we desperately need economic models based on sustainability as opposed to ones based on perpetual growth. It's sick, how talking heads everywhere freak out that "the economy is not growing fast enough" - like cancerous parasites, which just keep growing and multiplying without limit, only to eventually kill of their host and themselves. Keynesianism is just a shortcut from here to there and I spit on it 

Yes, its not all doom and gloom. but even if the population leveled off now. Bringing 6 or 7 billion people to a high standard of living is going to be a strain on the environment. And yes, technology is my hero too, and has solved a lot of our problems, and we'll be 100% reliant on it continuing to do so.
My original comment, was that our economic model only seems to work when its expanding. Otherwise we call it a recession or a depression and get all upset. I suggested, this is a problem that will need to be solved at some point. Otherwise future populations and the planet are going to face consequences.

It really does. I want to convert to wordpress but I'm worried about losing all my old posts and street cred. Any ideas?

Also to whoever was talking about overpopulation being a problem: No, it's not. World population growth rate has been slowing for decades and is expected to be negligible, possibly even negative, by the end of the century. Technology is easily outpacing the problem and as a result people on average are getting much more nutrition and overall quality of life every passing year.

Blogspot sucks.

Remember that big recession of 1920-21?

No?

That's because the theory of leaving things the heck alone WAS tested.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

I dont disagree with you. Its been and still is a lousy system. And Keynesian economics had its uses providing a crutch for this crippled and flawed system. But you maybe right, a different better system might not need stimulus spending to holt recession. But that's an untested theory as far as I know

Oh my head! Turned into a big one last night
Nice to meet you abbyd.


Ok, for all those who were hoping for and working toward a solution for over population and exploitation of earths resources. Dont bother! apparently its impossible.

I'll take the bait.


I believe you have internalized a number of assumptions about economies. Or, you simply haven't challenged what you've read...
Why is "government spending during recession" necessary? If you think about this, it's usually because a government has:

1) Overtaxed its citizens, and/or overburdened the productive sectors with tariffs
2) Distributed wealth unequally toward the top 1% because of monopolies and graft
3) Created huge trade imbalances and market inefficiencies

Money doesn't just disappear - if no money is circulating in the economy, it's usually because the rich are hoarding it.
Granted, printing more money "solves" this problem by devaluing the hoarders' stashes, but back in the old days the rich
started spending when they started getting eaten...


What makes you think trying to do something impossible is a good idea? Or perhaps you're moving to a world that is not finite?

Thanks for the conversation guys! This was the first time I submitted a blog directly to the forum and I appreciate the conversation...It's exactly what I meant to stir up

Glad to see our community is so supportive of us BTC bloggers! Yall motivate me to write more!

thats where i stopped reading

Thanks.  How about that, Shawshank Redemption happens to be my all-time favorite movie.  

Let me try a different analogy.  Say you have a pepperoni pizza.  Would it be accurate to say that the pizza is a part of the pepperoni?  Of course not.  Pepperoni is one of the parts that make up the pizza.  Or, how about a house?  Is a house part of a bathroom, or is the bathroom part of the house?  Likewise, human behavior isn't part of economics.  Economics is part of human behavior/interaction.

Yes some good points in there.

I concur. Keynesianism implies perfect logic of the market and therefore individuals in a given market.

Real markets cannot be predicted by or shaped by Keynesian economics in any specific fashion.

We need a new form of economics for the modern age.

Love your profile picture by the way. Shaw shank redemption is one of my all time fav movies.

I kind of, sort of get your point. But how can human behavior not be a variable in economics, when economics is the study of human behavior? Surely that makes in variable by default? This is a mind bender. Perhaps I need to be sober to understand this!!

More specifically, economics is a social science.  That is to say, it is a science of human behavior.  Human behavior isn't a variable in economics.  That would be like saying mathematics is part of algebra.  In reality, economics is a part of human behavior, just as algebra, calculus, or trigonometry, is a specific study within the field of mathematics.  Economics is, at its essence, an effort to understand and explain human behavior--behavior related to the exchange of goods and services.

I think you have missed the part where I said I agree with your remark.

[/quote]

Thank you. Agreement noted.

Ok, lets start again, because I would like to hear your opinion plz? You stated the following, and requested it be a topic for discussion.

"Quote"
I dont see how anyone would think that keynesianism has been useful. And more importantly economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again.
"End quote"

Then I pointed out,
1. Keynesian economics is useful for its mechanism of "Stimulus spending" to avoid recession.
and
2. economics isn't an exact science due to there being so many shifting variables, including human behavior.

So now the onus is on you to justify
1. Stimulus spending is not useful.
2. And more importantly, why economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again.

Ok, over to you hugolp. I look forward to receiving your comments

I think you have missed the part where I said I agree with your remark.

I say in all respect. But your reply doesn't answer any of my questions, or address any of the points I made. All you have done is question the context in which I've used two words (science) and (Art). But I think my intended context is quite clear. You can argue weather prediction is not art if you like, but I think you'll find most people will have understood the point I was making.

As for your question, for me to expand on stimulus spending? I can do that, but first please make an attempt to answer my questions?
Respectfully, Questing

No, I do agree that there is a difference between so called "social sciences" and empirical sciences. There is people who even argue that social sciences, by their own nature, should not be called sciences. I dont really care about the name and redefinitions of the word science. I do acknowledge that by strict historical standards social sciences should not be called sciences and that the extended use of the word science has been used to give credibility to certain theories that probably did not deserve it. But the new meaning is so extended at this point that its a bit useless to try to "enforce" the strict old historical definition. As long as we understand that social sciences are different than empirical sciences, I dont have a problem with the word people decide to use.

But social sciences are not art. Engineering has an "artistic" side, trading too, but social sciences are not so much about art, but about creating a theoretical body of ideas that try to reflect reality, not really about producing an effect (which is what art is).

Moving into the economic part, since you have started by bringing up the idea of government spending to (allegedly) stimulate the economy, why dont you expand on as a first topic of discussion?

Honest exchange of ideas? Sounds fine, thanks for the offer. Who knows, we might even find we agree on some things.
Firstly, I dont believe Keynesian economics has all the answers, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a keynesian. And I do believe btc can succeed, and I hope it does.
But spending gov money to stimulate the economy, I suggest can be useful at times?
Economics is a science, like weather forecasting is a science. There are so many shifting variables, including human behavior, so our scientific inquiry has limits. Perhaps it is fairer to say that economics is part science, part art?

If you have an economics model which is not just useful, but fully scientifically correct. Then plz do tell us about it?