This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
That John Maynard Keynes inspires all manner of silliness is not news. This particular incarnation might be.
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
/facepalm
http://www.zgeek.com/forum/gallery/files/1/1/5/8/0/facepalm_double.jpg
Cheeky you are back, we missed you!
"You intervene in the downward slide by injecting more aggregate demand" <-- sounds like the stock market today.
We certainly got injected in the aggregate.
That's just in your end doe.
Keynes: Playing on the public desire for a handout and further government expansion. Wimp!
Keynes and Samaulson both lived long enough to look failure in the face. HopyChangy showed everyone how to turn stimulus spending into an election slush fund and 10% unemployment.
I must be missing the silliness. I thought it was a pretty decent discussion, presenting both sides of a debate.
Keynes by himself, man I don't got beef
Its all them posers suckin at his teet
and holding up his name
carrying his flame
Intellectual dishonesty, a crying shame
Potential output is cover for politicians
spending our chips n promisin to grant wishes
Cause Keynseans say when there's an output gap
money printing won't inflate, what you think bout dat?
I think its bullshit, at best a damn lie
monetize your debt, inflation goes to the sky
the common folk in pain
oligarchs all claim
keynes said its all good so don't dare complain
Tell me its complicated, ho I'm well read
I'll make the bass drop on Krugman's head
These self serving intellectuals make me sick
Dey better wise up n get off Keynes dick
good stuff
Excellent rap.
Touche!
LoL.
That is f-ing all time! Not too often I literally LOL from some sh-t on the internet!
Word.
Beautiful.
(I have alredy posted on this on ZH, so sorry if I sound like a broken record to some people here).
Here is the problem with modern-day Keynesians, as I see it: Keynes was for government intervention, provided that an interventionist government managed its affairs correctly before there was a crisis.
In other words, governments that wanted to intervene in a crisis, had to start from a position of monetary strength and balanced budgets. Once a crisis is over, governments should stop intervening in the markets and make sure they re-balance their budgets, stop inflation, and settle their debts.
The situation we have today is that the United States have been on a 20+ years binge, fuelled by cheap international credit, pseudo-Keynesian militaro-industrial complex (see the Pentagon budget), lowering the taxes for the richest, and a currency that was -and still is, to a large extent- the reserve currency of the world. The US government simply does not have the means to intervene anymore, and certainly not on the trillion-of-US$-scale that Bernanke and others have in mind.
The U.S.A. domination has run its course, the empire has no resources and practically no industry anymore, the US$ and the credit-worthiness of the entire country are about to implode, and permanent "Keynesian" interventions and market manipulations (though it would probably shock Lord Keynes himself) are simply a way to dig the hole deeper and deeper and deeper.
Anyone who thinks the US Government can still intervene in the markets and save the situation is simply fighting the last war (1929/Great Depression) with weapons (US$, interventionist policies) that simply do not have any potency anymore.
And, yes, that rap was particularly odious, ridiculous, even insulting, given the extent of the current crisis. I'd like a bit less rap and a bit more sustainable policies.
No state intervention, ever. Let failure fail. Once they start intervening they don't stop. Such is the timeline of a fiat-based economy.
The problem with that is there is ALWAYS state intervention on some level. There is no true capitalism (of the unregulated variety) and there has not been since the first child labor laws were passed.
So we are going to have government intervention or regulation (in this case the terms are interchangeable) on some level whether we want it or not. The real issue is can we afford government spending intervention? (usually comes with regulation) In other words, when the crisis passes can we restore balance and pay-off the debt?
This is where thinking people cringe. The levels of public debt from which we began this spending spree were simply too high to make this sustainable. Bottom line is there is a great question remaining to be answered: can we (did we) jump start the economy to where growth will be enough to pay off the debt?
Karl Denninger has a chart (actually several of them) which indicated two things: (1) GDP growth for the past 30+ years has been financed; and (2) the debt service once interest rates tick back up will be so great that it will create a debt spiral which will squeeze out every line item in the federal budget.
Conspiracies aside, what worries me is that we will not be able to balance the budget without severe/autere cuts in spending and huge tax increases -- both combined with hyper-inflation and unsustainable local government deficits and possibly bankruptcies.
That is an apocalyptic scenario and one that could result in violence and further morphing of the US into a centrally controlled kleptocracy. There will be no rebellion or revolution ... we will all go quietly into the night simply because most of us would rather do so than risk our relatively comfortable, if banal, existence.
Oh there will be pockets of heavy resistance - even temporary autonomy - but nationwide reset? You're right. It'll never happen. Ask the Tribes and the Mormons about that - they had to keep moving until nobody wanted the land.
Interventionism arises when the press is limited in coverage or ability to report. Public awareness drives the social good instead of creating a 'malum prohibitus' law to intervene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum
Nike and McDonalds changed their ways (albeit in a limited fashion) in order to protect their brand image - but it shouldn't be illegal for a child to work - why can't a responsible 10-year-old earn a wage? If an employer is abusive they would theoretically ruined by loss of business and employees seeking work elsewhere.
I hope not to be approaching some form of Utopia (evil is always at the door), but it is my belief that interventionist policies drive out healthy competition and seek to reside in every little pocket they can find - rather than letting the informed society decide what is best.
Interventionist policies in my view are the result of an uninformed society - and slavery is just around the corner. Instead of healthy, concerned communities, we have a sea of humans that rely on psychopaths to protect the 'general welfare'.
I would be pleased to see pockets of resistance and/or autonomy. Best chances are in the western states. It will never happen in heavily populated eastern states.
I can't agree about 10 year olds working. You presuppose the system is self-correcting - a hypothesis that has been brutally disproved in my opinion. Do we refuse to by cheap knock-offs from China just because they employ cheap (if not slave) labor? Of course not, and China refuses to amp its own middle class to push its goods on us. Meanwhile, they promise to keep buying our treasuries so we can run huge deficits.
I have been a Republican all my life ... I don't know what I am now, but it does not start with a "d" or an "r." Free markets are not free as wealth tends to accumulate in the hands of a priviledged few who then pull the strings. Ayn Rand ("Objectivism") was simply wrong - and she started from a false assumption.
Psquared,
"Free markets are not free as wealth tends to accumulate in the hands of a priviledged few who then pull the strings."
The eternal fight.
I hear you...
Up until the election of George Bush's I would have described myself as a Republican too. The truth is both parties are completely useless when it comes to fiscal responsibility (with the exception of a VERY limited number of senators who have no voice anyway)... From a pragmatic standpoint, would I prefer that government use borrowed money to finance two wars and kill women and children or would I prefer that they used borrowed money for health care? I guess I would choose the later...
Making a law to prohibit action that isn't 'malum in se' won't make the problem go away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
If a child has been treated in an evil way, and the one committing the evil act is not punished, it is the failure of society to demand justice in the first place - making every nook and cranny of perceived evil only punishes those that would obey their own conscience.
We make it illegal to carry weapons to school. Does this stop non-law-abiding citizens from doing so? No. This is not a common sense law, as so many expound, because bringing a weapon to school already defies common sense. The problem is the individual, not the society.
Laws of prohibition serve as controlling mechanisms - they do not make us anyone more 'free' - and we see in practice it is quite the opposite. We have millions of citizens that have served 'hard time' for acts that are not malum in se - this is an indication of a severely broken/exploited system. We have an enforcement problem as it is. Making new laws only affects those that cannot pay for competent legal counsel anyway.
Laws of prohibition serve as controlling mechanisms
"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognize my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No, I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."
He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well, Do it."
"Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
+∞
Lex malla, lex nulla - A bad law is no law. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
To be fair, this is a valid assessment of Keynesian economics. The government, with its immense powers and the entire nation's resources at its disposal, can fill-in the role of any economic agent as needed. Eg. if construction activity is down, build bridges; if retail sales are lacking, lower the relevant taxes/tariffs, and make up the budgetary shortfall with its own reserves . And so on.
It is a sound theory misapplied.
Or, it is an unsound theory that has been applied perfectly.
+#10 can of freeze dried potatoes.
Those rappers kinda suck.
They at least need some bullet-proof vests or a 40oz. Maybe cornrows.
omfg.
Dude, seriously.....?????
My god, I am so ashamed of my skin colour right now. I grew up listening to hip-hop in the early '80s before the term "wigger" ever became popular (back then it wasn't cool to eat government cheese and live on welfare because you were the kid of a teenage mother). Seriously? I'd bitch slap those idiots if I ever saw them in person.
Scratch that, I'd tie them up and leave them in the middle of a Houston Ghetto with that tape playing on a radio.
Then I would come in and do a little bitch-slapping action.
As a finale, I would fart in their general direction.
Ahhhh, to have the old troop of Monty Python do sketches on this..... that would be good.
seriously, the word retard simply doesn't do it!
Seriously, the word "retard" simply doesn't do it!
"One ring to rule them all..."
Federal Gvmt needs to collapse into oblivion. Until that happens, we're screwed. Too many vastly disparate groups trying to be controlled by one entity. It won't work. We will fracture the same way Rome, UK and every other empire fractured. It can happen with or without violence but it will happen. It will happen in Eurodisneyland as well. Probably China too eventually.
It's bad enough I have to live like a hamster on the inflation wheel but to have to listen to overfed and overpaid douchebags tell me TPTB HAD to spend MY money to give to someone else is just f*cking ridiculous. End this bs pyramid scheme of a monetary system already.
Ah yes, the Snooze Hour. It's sad to see them desperately trying to remain relevant while simultaneously making white people seem even more retarded than they already are. Maybe they should just invite porn stars onto the set to discuss economics? Wouldn't do anything for their crap journalism but I'll bet their ratings would increase.
I am Chumbawamba.
You got a problem with white people? Are you declaring another race as the chosen or something here?
Here's something a little more mainstream:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eobfR27Ti-w
Not too bad.
Oh god, you guys are really white...... (And I say that sarcastically since I am too)
Hip Hop that is socially relevant and points out the flaws with our current capitalist system:
Loer Velocity - Bummed Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-vOju0j4v0&feature=PlayList&p=36B23ECDEAD9B689&index=67
"I've learnt though, that most people live in fear, they don't see what's right near, or question what they hear, that's another story by itself, and I'll leave that right there, and concentrate on getting enough change for this next beer"
Or let's go to Mos Def "Mathematics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycJ5m5Mt9JE&feature=PlayList&p=36B23ECDEAD9B689&index=28
Budget cutbacks but increased police presence
And even if you get out of prison still livin
join the other five million under state supervision
This is business, no faces just lines and statistics
from your phone, your zip code, to S-S-I digits
The system break man child and women into figures
Two columns for who is, and who ain't niggaz
Numbers is hardly real and they never have feelings
but you push too hard, even numbers got limits
Those who say Hip Hop is unintelligent need to turn MTV the fuck off and stop listening to the Corporate Radio.
Oh, man, Mos Def is a great example of the craft. It's just all the 20" rims scrapin' the well with 20 [ladies] going for a ride to the perpertual-party-clubbin'-.40 Glock-lifestyle that gives Def beats a bad rap.
REAL hip-hop has many useful things to contribute to our ongoing discussion about what the hell happened and what its like to live in a society whose standard of living has been declining for years. It is poetry in motion, cutting to the heart of the human experience.
The crap rap in that video is about as useful (and infinitely less entertaining) as the flows about pimpin hos and slammin cadillac doughs. Thank you Phaesed for posting some intelligent rhymes.
NP, glad you enjoyed it....
It's a shame that so many white kids who also grew up in poverty have to still deal with that "wigger" bullshit.... Half of the kids who act hard these days make me laugh, those were the ones who pissed their pants the first time they had a gun to their head :) You never see it when a real gangster decides to end you.
Royce is still the most consistent lyricist doin it. I'll take complex rhyme schemes and word play over content any day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGlLKysOFXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiz2YipskkU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ynTaEl1Sg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCvuQPH1hTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk5X2K6CZNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71pXtjxWz_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIlgwSigMyk
my geeky white brothers got nothin on bone thugs in droppin keynes to the 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_cOsgRY7w
don't miss the fat cat with the handbroom around the 3 min mark.
The problem isn't markets, and it isn't stimulus. The problem is how we create money. As our economy grows through population increases and productivity improvements the economy needs additional money to facilitate the exchange of all those goods created. But we don't print money despite what everyone says. We print debt. Until recently we had huge explosions in the real money chasing goods in the form of household debt that has been parabolic since the 80's. We didn't have crazy inflation.
What really pisses me off is how our economy prints money. The banks print money via fractional reserve banking system. You put $100 in the bank they lend out $90 and tell you that they still have your $100. Since no one borrows money to then save it debt is converted quickly into purchase of goods which gives the seller of goods $90 which she then puts in the bank and then the bank borrows out $81 dollars and tells her that she still has $90. The bank has just created $171 of loans from $100 dollars. They charge interest on these loans of money that for all practical purposes they created out of thin air. This is just two turns of the money, our system turns money so many times that pre-crisis the multiplies was around 11. So a bank gets a $100 deposit and creates $1100 in loans that they charge interest on. Why do the banks deserve the right to print money and then charge people a tax in the form of interest for printing money out of thin air?
What would happen if instead we didn't allow banks to loan out money they didn't truly have requiring 100% reserves. Well I'm guessing that we could fully fund our government with the money that would need to be printed every year. So your telling me that if we took away the right of banks to print money we could eliminate taxes and fully fund the government with the money that banks are printing out of thin air a right the constitutional says is illegal for anyone other than the government. Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
The whole banking system is fraudulent in design. They have created this elaborate system to conceal the fact that they get to print money and charge people 5%-30% for money they printed. The original designers of this system and those that keep it "hidden" in plain sight from an ignorant populous are truly the best and brightest. The rest of them are a bunch of idiots that can't even make money when they get to print it. They should be first in line for unemployment.
Fuck the banks let them do an honest days living and create something. I'm sick and tired of listening to these worthless pieces of crap telling me how important they are. I could put together a team of high school students that could successfully make money given the ability to print it out of thin air.
AngryVoter,
I appreciate and respect your passion and drive.
The problems we're experiencing are not financial or political in nature but psychological. Until we recognize the deep seated insanity we live with and within on a daily basis, no amount of tinkering with methods or mechanics will "solve" anything.
Man has been living an unauthentic life for dozens of centuries, culminating with the delusional insanity we are living today. I read a very serious and sober scientific journal story the other day about how man will be able to "control" nature within the next 50 years. There is no other way to describe the premise behind such thought as anything other than insanity.
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.
So true. It's refreshing to see more and more people starting to promulate the fact that we as humans need to go through a psychological revolution in order to advance as a species here on Earth.
There is no spoon.
AngryVoter -- You are not really thinking about this deep enough. Go one more layer.
If you want your money, and you want to earn interest on it. Then you HAVE to lend it to someone. It doesnt magically earn interest.
If you lend it to someone -- you could lose it. Nothing is stopping you from lending your money privately right now. Its just that you dont know businesses, real-estate developers or other credit worthy parties. And you dont really have the skills to monitor and collect. So the bank fills that role.
But the function is as natural as capitalism itself.
I would respectfully counter that maybe you aren't thinking this through deep enough. I can borrow someone money, BUT I CAN'T CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR. As long as the money borrowed is spent and goes bank into the banks as deposits there is no end to how much money they can create. Sure some goes to this bank some goes to that bank but save the black market everyone has their money in the banks. So if at the end of the day you collect more than your share of the deposits from the newly minted money then you "borrow" it overnight to the bank that didn't collect his share. As long as the money borrowed is spent and comes back in deposits the banks can keep ginning up the money supply. This isn't capitalism. This is printing money.
Simple example:
you deposit $100 bank loans $90
you go out and write a check to buy a shirt for $100 and the borrow goes out and buys a pair of pants for $90.
store owner deposits $190 in bank
if you or i did this it would be considered check kiting and illegal.
But it doesnt matter whether there is a bank or not.
The LOAN creates the money, right?
Once you LOAN your money... then you "have" it and someone else also "has" is. In between there is a collection process. The only way to stop this process is reduce or eliminate lending (which simultaneously removes interest bearing savings).
And the trouble with your thinking is that it turns out that lending is very effective. Example -- I borrowed over $200k to go to graduate school and paid it back in about 2 years. Most loans are quite good. Take a step back from 2008.
" Its just that you dont know businesses, real-estate developers or other credit worthy parties. And you dont really have the skills to monitor and collect."
a well-designed p2p system could solve that problem for microcredit -- individuals & small businesses. but if you're desperate to give your $ to the big boys, you are correct. question is: why do you wanna keep lending your $ to them? so you can get bitchslapped again?
There is a simple fix. Deposits may only be secured by Treasury Bills/Notes/Bonds when determining Deposit asset base.
The corporate lending could be established through a separate arm.
+1E26 (a zimbabwe dollar)
A knock-on side effect is that the interest demands REQUIRE you to find another person to borrow money at interest to pay YOUR interest, and for him to find yet more people to borrow. That mandates aggregate growth at an exponential rate. It is interest (his repayment) on top of interest (your repayment). As the monetary system grows, you end up with a pyramid of interest upon interest.
If growth stops, the interest needs of the repayment begin to eat the money supply, the deflative collapse.
This is why 2 major religions derogate interest lending. A system where transactional money cannot come into existence except by borrowing it at interest has an inevitable conclusion that the bankers end up owning everything in a deflationary collapse.
Result: war and genocide. People associated with "banking" get run out of countries and worse. When you study historical precursors to 1940s Germany and read how Weimar notes were dismissed as valueless "jew confetti" by producers in Bavaria, it becomes easy to see how demagoguery on a grand scale can be facilitated.
Thank you for the addition I couldn't have stated it better myself. At some point you have created more debt than can be serviced by the wages supporting it. At that point stuff starts to break. If you look at household debt it just recently decreased for the first time EVER since the Fed began reporting it. Translation, stuffs breaking.
Keynes is the Stevie Cohen of economists... much maligned, but for those in the know - a man among children.
Every Fed governor worships JMK and sees the General Theory as THE seminal work in modern macroeconomics.
But hey, you guys read Hayek... so you probably know better.
It's becoming boring: keynesians vs austrians, stimulate&intervene vs don't stimulate&don't intervene, whereas little or no attention has been paid to the way money were spent, without that the whole debate is pointless.
The "way money were spent (sic)" does not change the fact that the government must first marshall resources in order to conduct said spending.
If you'd like to explain how the government is capable of creating something from nothing, I'm all ears.
You know the answer, it's not and nothing is. Are market forces being driven by the invisible hand can create something out of nothing? No.
Who cares how government distributes wealth? The effect is more or less the same.
The dude representing Keynes in the video says (paraphrasing), "In free market, innocent people are punished as a result of the mistakes of a few.". Indeed, Enron, for instances, spawned problems for many employees and investors, problems that resulted from a few people on top.
However, he does not extend his premise. Is it then up to ME and YOU to be punished, and subsequently bailout out those unemployed workers and investors who lost money and jobs in Enron?!
Keynes' solution distributes all problems on the backs of society, until everyone is equally poor and/or morally depraved by a system that encourages others to bear the consequences of someone else's mistakes. Instead of deterring bad behavior, Keynes' system implicitly encourages it.
Sh*t happens. Innocent people get into car accidents as a result of drunk drivers. Does that mean I must serve some of the jail time of the guilty party and provide monetary restitution to the victim? Does that mean I have to get taxed to make whole people who fell victim to the Nigerian scam? Does that mean I have to replace the contents of a stolen wallet?
+1000
Keynes' solution distributes all problems on the backs of society, until everyone is equally poor and/or morally depraved by a system that encourages others to bear the consequences of someone else's mistakes. Instead of deterring bad behavior, Keynes' system implicitly encourages it.
+1,000,000,000
Who cares? Well, you should if you pay taxes. Otherwise, why would they care themselves? And no, effect can vary from just inefficient spending to total waste, this debate gives you little to none in terms of defining which is which.
Absolutely. But my point supercedes this, and that is: Debating about the degree of inefficiency overlooks the fact that government redistribution of wealth is, in and of itself, inefficient and thusly ought not be a policy worthy of pursuit.
Well, then why people have the government at all? Wouldn't we be better off just getting rid of it completely then? And you know, there are several places in the world where there is no functioning government, where people organize themselves and act according to their self-interests. Somalia is one example of such place, no government, no taxes. Should I move there? Shooting RPGs onto passing vessels would a lot of fun after all.
While I admire Austrians explanations of the business cycle and ability to predict the ultimate outcome of the government intervetion (sphere where Keynesians fail miserably to the extent that it is almost laughable), I cannot grasp the idea why government is there at all. Why individuals tolerate it, if it is nothing but a waste of money and limitation of their personal economic freedom? My take on that: government is there because at some point individuals organized themselves into such a form, as it was easier to have some people who would take care of the common interests (national defense, police, judicial system etc). And notice that, Austrians themselves advocate 'limited government', not 'no government', but what is that 'limited government'? Or, in other words: 'limited by who'? And my answer to that - by you. It is your task to pressure government, to ask tough questions, check where the money is gone. It takes one's involvement to make government 'limited'. Moreover, in that case you act in self-interest, just like any Austrian would encourage you to do.
The government we have is not the type of government we ought to have.
Government ought to exist to protect me from you and you from me. To ENFORCE the rule of law... enforce 'meaningless' things like the right to property (instead of actively violating the very rights it has been entrusted to protect).
Progress occurs in societies that protect property. By contrast, those that seize property, deprave society of progress and its citizens of wealth (in virtually every way the term progress and wealth can be measured).
But perhaps you and Hugo Chavez would like to disprove this claim?
Wouldn't it take you personal initiative to change that?
No disagreement here, I'm all for it, but you probably missed the second part of my reply.
Comrade Hugo is kind of busy redistributing wealth, I'm here for him. No, see above.
You mean my caustic commentary on this thread is is not personal initiative?
But seriously, until most people start to gain understanding of what's going on and/or until they start suffering at the hands of those in power, change will not come about. And when government makes the masses dependent on the welfare government provides, it insures that those people will likely not question the legitimacy or even sustainability of that welfare.
I should've put it different way, didn't mean you personally, rather any person for that matter.
Welfare is pure moral hazard, I agree. Masses of course don't realize that they are being bought with their own money.
Oh, Boris. Because the Fed has a printing pre$$ there is no real reason to tax people other than to 1) manipulate prices and 2) redistribute wealth. Our kidz won't pay a dime for this - the fiat system will fail soon enough. The only thing holding it together now is confidence, as always.
I'm afraid they will - in one form or another, if not through taxation, then through higher inflation. Surely, in that case dimes aren't going to be a measure of the price they are paying, probly gazillions of worthless pieces of paper would be more appropriate.
Actually, if the Fiat Currency were to collapse, Dimes would be worth infinitely more than dollars... They are direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, not the Federal Reserve.
I stand corrected on that.
The "way money were spent" does not change the fact that the government must first marshall the resources requisite for said spending. It's necessarily zero-sum (yes, even borrowing, insofar as the opportunity cost of the borrowed capital is accounted for, and goal-post moving additions to the money supply are excepted) and does not increase net economic activity.
If you'd like to explain how the government is capable of creating something from nothing, I'm all ears.
Anything but! It's the fate of humanity at stake here!
This is simple.
Greenspan=Austrian school=epic fucking fail.
Huh? Greenspan and Austrian? Maybe back in 66'. But as soon as his star really started to shine he was bought buy the Keynes-machine.
Bullshit.
Greenspans entire life was spent defending the "efficiency of markets"...and deregulation.
There's that famous line from PBS's Frontline, earlier this year, where Greenspan didn't even believe that fraud should be regulated against.
Do as I say, not as I do.
You're confused, calling Greenspan an Austrian.
It's more like Fed.Reserve=Zero Accountability=Fail. Even if you reincarnate Hayek himself and embed him into the current system, the outcome will probably be the same, no matter who is in charge. Personal views of one person don't really matter in that case.
boris, do you know of any crazy attempts to theoretically merge the keynesian & austrian schools -- sort of like a string theory of economics?
No, sorry, never heard of it. Austrian school is good by itself, merging it with Keynesyanism will be only giving Keyne's ideas more credibility by taking it away from the Austrians. But then again, I don't think it is about theories - we can have a whole bunch of them, it's the way we apply them that matters.
Merging Keynesian & Austrian schools is like mixing a keynesian sperm and an austrian egg. You end up being pregnant with socialism. No such thing as being a little bit pregnant, though initially that's precisely what it is -- just a little socialism. The bastardized economic child gestates initially, growing, like a parasite, inside its Austrian host. Eventually birth takes place, I believe Herbert Hoover delivered the child, FDR adopted it. Now the bastard is going through puberty, rebelling against its mother entirely.
To answer your question more directly, Keynesianism is an attempt to merge Capitalism and Socialism. The failure of Keynesianism demonstrates that such reconciliation is not possible. But really what it demonstrates, as is evidenced by any country that attempts these policies to various degrees, is the failure of central planning.
thank you both for your answers.
"Keynesianism is an attempt to merge Capitalism and Socialism."
do you think that china is undergoing the purest keynesian experiment so far?
-1
Your inability to grasp the rudimentary distinctions between the different schools of thought leads me to believe your understanding of economics does not pass go.
+10
No the guys' right. He (greenspan) was a little bit of a Austrian bug.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=338
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=267
CNBC Squawk Box Europe interview with Egon von Greyerz, December 22, 2009
http://goldswitzerland.com/index.php/egon-von-greyerz-on-cnbc-squawk-box...
http://goldswitzerland.com/index.php/eg ... ox-europe/
Could Roberts have made a less convincing case?
Skidelsky is a boob, but inferior positions, when argued convincingly, come off as better alternatives to poorly-argued superior positions. Why does the right insist on putting forth figures who always make third- and fourth-best arguments against Keynesian orthodoxy?
I think Keynes is basically right that stimulus is needed when interest rates need to be below 0% to have any effect. QE and free money for bankers (TARP) are something different. The crisis now I believe was created by loose monetary policy during Greenspan's watch and the lack of regulatory enforcement as well. Many financial problems are being blamed on Keynes when the real culprits are elsewhere. Perhaps the foremost issue is the growth of government spending in non-recession years. There is not enough force to restrain governments growth and tax cuts never lead to corresponding cuts in spending. The US economy is too debt based and the savings rate is too low. Government guarantees also eliminate maket efficiency.
Government intervention, a la justification de socialist Keynes, eliminates the market.
May the day come when the name Keynes is scorned with the greatest contempt.
I hated the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" the first time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I have watched four or five times now, and, while it could have been cast better, John Cleese is brilliant as the Professor.
Only at the precipice do we change ... do we evolve ... and we must evolve. We have a chance to enter a new era in human history and my sole prayer is that somewhere there are leaders ... brilliant men and women ... who will rise up and lead us forward as a human community where people and relationships are more important than "things" and "causes."
no need to look outside yourself for a leader amigo
Perhaps ... perhaps. We are a society on the edge. We can fall back into the abyss and founder for another thousand years or we can evolve. To evolve takes conscience and consciousness. We are still walking around in our sleep.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!! SHAKE OFF the delusions. This ain't Kansas anymore.
The Keynesian argument is a pathetic extension of the Aristole/Plato premise that a "government" must exist solely to control the "social animals" (Aristotle's term for the people). Without such premise not only the argument, but the entire discipline of "economics", becomes null and void. A better question to ask is this: Are you an animal, or do you deserve better?? The answer to that question, and the proper role of the government, was already handled very well by the US Constitution. Re-read it.
I hope Keynes will be proved WRONG once for all.
*sigh* You still think Keynes = Keynesian economics.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Glad to see Monty Python still got it.