In Economics, Do You Subscribe to the Keynesian or Austrian School?

[Mini 14]

You kneel at the altar of Keynes everyday and you don't even realize it.

WTF are you talking about?

You asked which theory we subscribe to, not what policies we live under.

Oh wait.....I get it.......

It was never intended to be a question.....you're going to give a sermon.

Carry on, Billy.

You are a Keynesian and you don't even know it.

Ok.

Can I be a Jew, and an architect too?

 

[skeptic]

I tend to go with Ron Paul ( Austrian ), Ronald Reagan ( Trickle-down, supply side ) and Milton Freidman, "Friedmanism" - the belief that changes in money supply dictate fluctuations in the economy - supplanted Keynesianism as the dominant economic philosophy of the industrial world. Also Ayn Rand's laissez-faire capitalism. In other words, a supporter of the job creators.

You do realize that from a theoretical pov you can't go with all 4 because they contradict one another, right?

What if all 4 were 100% wrong and you just gravitated toward elements of their perspectives because it made you feel gushy inside?

 

[skeptic]

WTF are you talking about?

You asked which theory we subscribe to, not what policies we live under.

Oh wait.....I get it.......

It was never intended to be a question.....you're going to give a sermon.

Carry on, Billy.

You are a Keynesian and you don't even know it.

Ok.

Can I be a Jew, and an architect too?

Yes, Jesus was a carpenter. But YOU are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in trickle down economics? Then you are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in stimulating the economy by cutting taxes? Then you are a Keynesian.

Not entirely of course, but you are an advocate of Keynes ideas. And I proved it twice in 1 minute.

 

[whitehall]

What is your position? Do you subscribe the the Austrian school of Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe, or do you follow the Keynesian theory of Greenspan, Bernanke, Geithner and Paulson?

If you don't know, then list yourself as undecided and allow proponents for the two schools to try to win you to their side by the strength of their arguments.

Are you shi*ting us Ali? I bet the drooling wild eyed teachers rioting in Wisconson couldn't even define "trickle down" much less Vom Mises and I bet their students probably can't locate the US on a globe. What do you call it when an economic advisor to the president is accused of cooking the Fannie Mae books to show a fake profit tied to his bonus money and walked away with 90 million dollars for three years work just before Fannie went under? Von Capone?

 

[Mini 14]

You are a Keynesian and you don't even know it.

Ok.

Can I be a Jew, and an architect too?

Yes, Jesus was a carpenter. But YOU are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in trickle down economics? Then you are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in stimulating the economy by cutting taxes? Then you are a Keynesian.

Not entirely of course, but you are an advocate of Keynes ideas. And I proved it twice in 1 minute.

You did?

When did I say I believed in any of those?

You have no clue what economic theory I subscribe to.

You COMPLETELY understand which one you HOPE I subscribe to.

All I've said in this thread is Keynes was full of shit, and Marx should be included in ANY discussion of Economics.....and from that, you get that I'm into trickle down and tax cuts.

And what does Jesus have to do with it?

No one told me Jesus was going to be on the test???

 

[AquaAthena]

I tend to go with Ron Paul ( Austrian ), Ronald Reagan ( Trickle-down, supply side ) and Milton Freidman, "Friedmanism" - the belief that changes in money supply dictate fluctuations in the economy - supplanted Keynesianism as the dominant economic philosophy of the industrial world. Also Ayn Rand's laissez-faire capitalism. In other words, a supporter of the job creators.

You do realize that from a theoretical pov you can't go with all 4 because they contradict one another, right?

What if all 4 were 100% wrong and you just gravitated toward elements of their perspectives because it made you feel gushy inside?

I can do anything I want. I can go with aspects of all of those. You have to remember the theories fit the times, and capitalism still does. *Bygones* bud!

 

[skeptic]

Ok.

Can I be a Jew, and an architect too?

Yes, Jesus was a carpenter. But YOU are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in trickle down economics? Then you are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in stimulating the economy by cutting taxes? Then you are a Keynesian.

Not entirely of course, but you are an advocate of Keynes ideas. And I proved it twice in 1 minute.

You did?

When did I say I believed in any of those?

You have no clue what economic theory I subscribe to.

You COMPLETELY understand which one you HOPE I subscribe to.

All I've said in this thread is Keynes was full of shit, and Marx should be included in ANY discussion of Economics.....and from that, you get that I'm into trickle down and tax cuts.

And what does Jesus have to do with it?

No one told me Jesus was going to be on the test???

I have read your posts, poseur. I will be happy to point out your economic bias in the future when you express it.

 

[skeptic]

I tend to go with Ron Paul ( Austrian ), Ronald Reagan ( Trickle-down, supply side ) and Milton Freidman, "Friedmanism" - the belief that changes in money supply dictate fluctuations in the economy - supplanted Keynesianism as the dominant economic philosophy of the industrial world. Also Ayn Rand's laissez-faire capitalism. In other words, a supporter of the job creators.

You do realize that from a theoretical pov you can't go with all 4 because they contradict one another, right?

What if all 4 were 100% wrong and you just gravitated toward elements of their perspectives because it made you feel gushy inside?

I can do anything I want. I can go with aspects of all of those. You have to remember the theories fit the times, and capitalism still does. *Bygones* bud!

You are cherry picking and not bothering to digest any of the content behind the econ soundbytes you cling to.

In reality you should not pretend to adhere to or prefer any of those folk's opinions and just promote the out of context soundbytes that warm your cockles.

Because you have no idea what Rand, Paul, Mises etc were on about.

 

[skeptic]

the theories fit the times!

trends fit the times. Scientific theories must be absolute or wrong. There is no middle ground.

 

[Mini 14]

Yes, Jesus was a carpenter. But YOU are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in trickle down economics? Then you are a Keynesian. Deal with it.

Do you believe in stimulating the economy by cutting taxes? Then you are a Keynesian.

Not entirely of course, but you are an advocate of Keynes ideas. And I proved it twice in 1 minute.

You did?

When did I say I believed in any of those?

You have no clue what economic theory I subscribe to.

You COMPLETELY understand which one you HOPE I subscribe to.

All I've said in this thread is Keynes was full of shit, and Marx should be included in ANY discussion of Economics.....and from that, you get that I'm into trickle down and tax cuts.

And what does Jesus have to do with it?

No one told me Jesus was going to be on the test???

I have read your posts, poseur. I will be happy to point out your economic bias in the future when you express it.

LOL.....

And because I believe in incentives to investment, I'm a Keynesian?

LOL.....

What color are my eyes, Swami?

How many children will I have?

 

[JBeukema]

Scientific theories must be absolute or wrong.

Wrong. Theories are either consistent with the evidence or debunked. We can never know whether they're correct- only whether they are viable. We can only know whether the model works; whether it is actually accurate can never truly be known with certainty.

 

[blu]

What is your position? Do you subscribe the the Austrian school of Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe, or do you follow the Keynesian theory of Greenspan, Bernanke, Geithner and Paulson?

If you don't know, then list yourself as undecided and allow proponents for the two schools to try to win you to their side by the strength of their arguments.

LOL

I am guessing your economic 'education' comes solely from glenn beck

 

[skeptic]

You did?

When did I say I believed in any of those?

You have no clue what economic theory I subscribe to.

You COMPLETELY understand which one you HOPE I subscribe to.

All I've said in this thread is Keynes was full of shit, and Marx should be included in ANY discussion of Economics.....and from that, you get that I'm into trickle down and tax cuts.

And what does Jesus have to do with it?

No one told me Jesus was going to be on the test???

I have read your posts, poseur. I will be happy to point out your economic bias in the future when you express it.

LOL.....

And because I believe in incentives to investment, I'm a Keynesian?

No, because you believe in tax breaks for the rich and trickle down econ you are a Keynesian.

Deal with it. Of course that makes you a librul commyist socialist, but whatever.

 

[skeptic]

Scientific theories must be absolute or wrong.

Wrong. Theories are either consistent with the evidence or debunked. We can never know whether they're correct- only whether they are viable. We can only know whether the model works; whether it is actually accurate can never truly be known with certainty.

So we agree.

FWIW theories have been postured that were consistent with the evidence but still wrong.

 

[Londoner]

I'm with Keynes only if demand has fallen below a certain level and triggers a severe deflationary spiral, i.e., 1930s and 2008. I'm not with Keynes' crude followers who think government can magically eliminate the business cycle by flooding the system with money, like has been the practice for the last half century, save the brief Volcker shock in the early 80s. I agree with the Austrian School that Reagan's maestro Greenspan virtually dumped money from helicopters to help his Washington Masters get re-elected, giving us the tech and housing bubbles. Keynes would not have supported this vulgarization of his policy by any stretch of the imagination, despite what Hannity and the Talk Radio Right think.

Here is what most people don't know: there are members of the Austrian school who think Friedman (like Greenspan) was a money-dropping crude Keynesian.
Butler on Friedman, Keynesian vs. Austrian Policy

Pop Quiz
Who convinced Nixon to abandon the gold standard in favor of fiat currency and floating exchange rates? Who is responsible for the withholding tax? Which famous economist in the last 40 years is famous for getting the fed to expand the money supply to combat recessions? Whose dirty hands are behind Greenspan's habit of dumping liquidity into the economy to avoid the pain of a recession? Who owns the fed policies that have destroyed this country? (psst: they're coming back in 2012. Big Government Conservatism is the Left on steroids, i.e., they are what happens when you add Machiavelli to Keynes). When will the uneducated Glen Beck listeners realize which party has destroyed this country?

 

[Londoner]

Fisher, Friedman, and the End of the Gold Standard

From his earliest days, Irving Fisher was – properly – considered to be a monetary radical and a statist for his desire to scrap the gold standard. Fisher realized that the gold standard – under which the basic money is a commodity mined on the free market rather than created by government – was incompatible with his overpowering desire to stabilize the price level. Hence, Fisher was one of the first modern economists to call for the abolition of the gold standard and its replacement by fiat money.

Under a fiat system, the currency name – dollar, frank, mark, etc. – becomes the ultimate monetary standard, and absolute control over the supply and use of these units is necessarily vested in the central government. In short, fiat currency is inherently the money of absolute statism. Money is the central commodity, the nerve center, as it were, of the modern market economy, and any system that vests the absolute control of that commodity in the hands of the State is hopelessly incompatible with a free-market economy or, ultimately, with individual liberty itself.

Yet, Milton Friedman is a radical advocate of cutting all current ties, however weak, with gold, and going onto a total and absolute fiat dollar standard, with all control vested in the Federal Reserve System.* Of course, Friedman would then advise the Fed to use that absolute power wisely, but no libertarian worth the name can have anything but contempt for the very idea of vesting coercive power in any group and then hoping that such group will not use its power to the utmost.

Full post here
Milton Friedman Unraveled by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Londoner]

Bush did not want the collapse of the tech bubble + 9/11 fallout + disastrous war to hurt his re-election, so he had the Fed dump liquidity on the economy by holding rates at 50 year lows for WAY too long. The Bush Fed's easy money policies contributed to a housing bubble which destroyed the economy. Problem is: Talk Radio is so tightly controlled by Movement Conservatism that voters have no idea that the GOP has become the easy money party. Wait until 2012 when they re-take the White House. We will see another disaster or a terrorist strike -- and they'll seize upon it once again to do what they always do: double or triple the deficits of their Democratic predecessor (ala Reagan and Bush).

God Help Us . . . because the real crooks are coming back.

 

[Toro]

Bush did not want the collapse of the tech bubble + 9/11 fallout + disastrous war to hurt his re-election, so he had the Fed dump liquidity on the economy by holding rates at 50 year lows for WAY too long. The Bush Fed's easy money policies contributed to a housing bubble which destroyed the economy. Problem is: Talk Radio is so tightly controlled by Movement Conservatism that voters have no idea that the GOP has become the easy money party. Wait until 2012 when they re-take the White House. We will see another disaster or a terrorist strike -- and they'll seize upon it once again to do what they always do: double or triple the deficits of their Democratic predecessor (ala Reagan and Bush).

God Help Us . . . because the real crooks are coming back.

Bush did not control the Fed.

 

[Toro]

I agree with the Austrian School that Reagan's maestro Greenspan virtually dumped money from helicopters to help his Washington Masters get re-elected, giving us the tech and housing bubbles. Keynes would not have supported this vulgarization of his policy by any stretch of the imagination, despite what Hannity and the Talk Radio Right think.

George HW Bush thought Greenspan kept monetary policy too tight in 1992, and partly blames him for his loss to Clinton. So that theory doesn't really hold.

I do agree that Greenspan is the one most responsible for the mess we are in today, however.