Economics For Dummies. Keynes or Hayek?

[JBeukema]

Only if you believe that you make the shallow end of the pool deeper by scooping up some water out of the deep end, then pouring it back into the shallow end.

That's one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.


America's most prosperous era involved some of the highest marginal tax rates ever seen.

With the lowering of the marginal tax rates and the practical abolition of corporate taxes, the average American's real income has declined over the last 40-odd years and the income gap has increase.

When the trusts were broken and the monopolies forced apart, the American economy got better.

The more wealth in the hands of the average man, the better for all of society. Capitalism will eat itself without proper regulation- the blind greed of the bourgeoisie leads not only to the exploitation of the proletariat, but ultimately to the collapse of the system which enables the bourgeoisie to exist.

Unbridled capitalism and the Austrian mindset which advocates it is the nearsighted idiocy of the bourgeoisie's useful idiots. It is no more sustainable than the centrally-planned collectivism that we see when Keynesianism runs wild.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Both were philosophers of political economy. Neither empirically tested their ideas.

No philosopher is completely right or completely wrong, though Hayek was probably "more right" than Keynes.

But its a false dichotomy. Both contributed to our understanding of human behavior.

Oh, Keynesian voodoo has been empirically proven....WRONG!

Yet, the Keynesian witch doctors keep telling us that it's just because we haven't yet thrown enough vestal virgins into the volcano.....

Keyns is not responsible for the Phillips curve.


it is not nice to blame someone for the stupidity of their decipal.

Keynes would not have agreed to the concept that inflation and unemployment trade off. the problem he had was both high unemployment and prices crashing.

 

[Publius1787]

Keynes knew what he was talking about, so did Hayek. Keynes believed in a world where the beurcracy could be trusted.

The sentence I emboldened proves that Keynes did not know what he was talking about.

His theories are fantasy.

Keynes has been shelved since the early 70's as a reliable economic theorist. Until Obama that is.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't agree with that. I don't even agree that Hayek and Keynes are in opposition.

Hayek didn't say that Kenynes' math was wrong, or the tools wouldn't work. His postion was that putting these tools in the hands of the average politician was like leaving a two year old in alone in the control room of a nuclear power plant.

 

[william the wie]

Keyns is not responsible for the Phillips curve.
absolutely true

it is not nice to blame someone for the stupidity of their decipal.

Keynes would not have agreed to the concept that inflation and unemployment trade off. the problem he had was both high unemployment and prices crashing.

Keynes was mostly trying to get data collected so that politicians would have some clue as to what the probable result of their actions would be. As a lifetime bureaucrat he was blind to the many errors of bureaucracy. But he was well aware of how difficult it was to correct the errors of politicians and that led him into errors but the big errors were committed by his disciples. I picked Hayek because the Keynesian approach did not deal with the increasing substitution of automation for bureaucracy makes it difficult to keep political stupidity in check and also he assumed that with good information politicians would respond wisely.

 

[editec]

There are times when an economy could use more liquidity and times when it is unwise to increase liquidity.

Kynes quite accurately predicted the outcome of the stupid policy of reparations on Europes economy.

Trying to compare Hayak v Keynes, as though they are polar oposite philosophies of economics, is the hallmark of people who don't know what the fuck they're even talking about.

 

[Toro]

Both were philosophers of political economy. Neither empirically tested their ideas.

No philosopher is completely right or completely wrong, though Hayek was probably "more right" than Keynes.

But its a false dichotomy. Both contributed to our understanding of human behavior.

Oh, Keynesian voodoo has been empirically proven....WRONG!

Yet, the Keynesian witch doctors keep telling us that it's just because we haven't yet thrown enough vestal virgins into the volcano.....

I'll listen to the empiricists comment on empiricism, not the ideologues.

 

[Ravi]

Dummies, shameless political opportunists and authoritarian central planners go with Keynes.

Thinkers go with Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, Skousen, etcetera.

Wrong,. Ignorant jackasses incapable of independent thought make post like yours.

Thinkers recognize that people on both sides can have their points and draw what works from whatever school it might originate form.

Yep. I've noticed a trend. Some people read Ayn Rand and stop thinking from that point forward.

 

[Toro]

Keynes knew what he was talking about, so did Hayek. Keynes believed in a world where the beurcracy could be trusted.

The sentence I emboldened proves that Keynes did not know what he was talking about.

His theories are fantasy.

Keynes has been shelved since the early 70's as a reliable economic theorist. Until Obama that is.

That's not true. Open up any economics text book and his ideas are all over the place in standard economic thought.

What is true is that the idea that government should be the driving force of the economy had been shelved, for the most part. But that's not really what Keynes said. People bastardized his ideas into believing that the government should always be everywhere. That's not what Keynes was getting at.

Keynes' efforts were motivated by a strong desire to maintain the liberal capitalist order. Honest conservatives have always understood this. In 1945, economist David McCord Wright noted that a conservative political candidate could easily run a campaign "largely on quotations from The General Theory." The following year, economist Gottfried Haberler, of the conservative Austrian school, conceded that the specific policy recommendations of Keynesian economics were not at all revolutionary. "They are in fact very conservative," he admitted.

Peter Drucker, a conservative admirer of Keynes, viewed him as not merely conservative, but ultraconservative. "He had two basic motivations," Drucker explained in a 1991 interview with Forbes. "One was to destroy the labor unions and the other was to maintain the free market. Keynes despised the American Keynesians. His whole idea was to have an impotent government that would do nothing but, through tax and spending policies, maintain the equilibrium of the free market. Keynes was the real father of neoconservatism, far more than [economist F.A.] Hayek!"

John Kenneth Galbraith, whose politics were well to the left of Keynes, not to mention Drucker, agreed with this assessment. "The broad thrust of his efforts, like that of Roosevelt, was conservative; it was to endure that the system would survive," he wrote. But, Galbraith added, "Such conservatism in the English-speaking countries does not appeal to the truly committed conservative."

As Keynes himself explained, "the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie." He expressed contempt for the British Labor Party, calling its members, "sectaries of an outworn creed mumbling moss-grown demi-semi Fabian Marxism." He also termed it an "immense destructive force" that responded to "anti-communist rubbish with anti-capitalist rubbish."

Keynes Was Really A Conservative - Forbes.com

 

[editec]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

 

[Toro]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

Ed

I agree with your first sentiment but not your second. The bankers didn't want the economy screwed up. They were making a boatload of money before the crisis. They didn't want, or believe, that the Financial Crisis could happen.

 

[editec]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

Ed

I agree with your first sentiment but not your second. The bankers didn't want the economy screwed up. They were making a boatload of money before the crisis. They didn't want, or believe, that the Financial Crisis could happen.

Well have to disagree on that point, Toro.

SOME insider bankers are much muchy much richer now, thanks to the meltdown.

The CAUSED it, and made scads of dough because of it.

And then, to add insult to injury, they got help (wile outsiders did not) to keep them afloat during that brief period of liquidity problems they were having.

And what happened to those banks that they helped put down?

The absorbed their business and GREW wealthier as a result.

This is not the first time the BankSTERS had a night of long knives that eliminated the competition, ya know.

They do this in conjunction with the government that they OWN.

 

[william the wie]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

Ed

I agree with your first sentiment but not your second. The bankers didn't want the economy screwed up. They were making a boatload of money before the crisis. They didn't want, or believe, that the Financial Crisis could happen.

Well have to disagree on that point, Toro.

SOME insider bankers are much muchy much richer now, thanks to the meltdown.

The CAUSED it, and made scads of dough because of it.

And then, to add insult to injury, they got help (wile outsiders did not) to keep them afloat during that brief period of liquidity problems they were having.

And what happened to those banks that they helped put down?

The absorbed their business and GREW wealthier as a result.

This is not the first time the BankSTERS had a night of long knives that eliminated the competition, ya know.

They do this in conjunction with the government that they OWN.

The smart bankers, Dimon, Blankfein and Mack, built up war chests to take advantage of the carnage they saw coming due to the stupidity of the dumb bankers. But causing the failure of the dumb bankers is CT.

 

[Toro]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

Ed

I agree with your first sentiment but not your second. The bankers didn't want the economy screwed up. They were making a boatload of money before the crisis. They didn't want, or believe, that the Financial Crisis could happen.

Well have to disagree on that point, Toro.

SOME insider bankers are much muchy much richer now, thanks to the meltdown.

The CAUSED it, and made scads of dough because of it.

And then, to add insult to injury, they got help (wile outsiders did not) to keep them afloat during that brief period of liquidity problems they were having.

And what happened to those banks that they helped put down?

The absorbed their business and GREW wealthier as a result.

This is not the first time the BankSTERS had a night of long knives that eliminated the competition, ya know.

They do this in conjunction with the government that they OWN.

Bank stocks fell 86% from their peak. That's worse than what the Nasdaq fell after the Tech Bubble collapsed. Nobody wants to see what they own fall by 86%.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Fed/Govt/Collusion. Weren't the fed originally bankers? Since 1913 we have had endless bubbles, deflation, inflation, tinkering. And now we're at the culmination of such idiocy.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I remember that crash because most of my 401K was in the stock of the bank I worked for.

 

[Oddball]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

Keynesian theory, along with playing games with the currency, is the cornerstone of the bubble economy and the in for the meddling of the Fed banksters.

You keep talking about reading books...How 'bout you try this one: Creature from Jekyll Island

 

[william the wie]

Trying to debate the finer points of macro-economics with people who imagine that the world is black and white is rather pointless.

They seem to think this issue is some kind of football game with opposing sides or something.


The amount of clueless partistan nonsense being posted here about one of the 20th century's finest macro-economists is staggering.

Our economy is screwed up exactly in the way our BANKSTERS want it to be screwed up.

This has NOTHING to do with Keysian theory, and everything to do with KAKATOCRACY.

Wake the fuck up!

Read a book!

Keynesian theory, along with playing games with the currency, is the cornerstone of the bubble economy and the in for the meddling of the Fed banksters.

You keep talking about reading books...How 'bout you try this one: Creature from Jekyll Island

The creation of the fed predates any major work of Keynes. But the US is run mostly on the theories of Fisher, not Keynes. Fisher is best known for his Permanent Plateau of Prosperity comment just before the 29 crash. After that famous episode Fisherites started calling their nonsense Keynesianism and packaged it to sound right. I was so hoping that Toro would deal with this one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama finally and publicly pulled Keynesian economic theory down to the bottom of the Lautentian Abyss.

Emperor has no clothes, Keynsian economics has no basis in reality

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Conservative economists know that they do best when they fill out the team line up card, putting the best situation for the players to capitalize maximally. The arrogant Keynesian Central planners think they can fill out the box scores