Keynes - good or bad? Quick 101 please if anyone fancies it (debt, government)

[jtur88]

The US experience in 1929 et.seq. was an extreme outlier to routine national economics. Yes, the response worked. But we cannot be certain whether it was the nature or the nurture of the resolution that followed. It may have been bad economics, but worked anyway because of the resolve of a wise and diligent nation to make things right. As a single, isolated economic experiment, we cannot be sure if the theoretical principles were sound.

It is argument by anecdotal example, and one needs to be careful about using anecdotal arguments to assume that something that worked once in one set of circumstances will always work in all others, and is therefore sound policy oor tactics.

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

so why all the right wing criticism of Keynes?

why do opponents of Obama refer to him as a Keynesian (in a negative way)?

what is the better , more modern system?

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Why not read him yourself? Haven't you noticed by now that second hand interpretations are BS?

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes

Otherwise you will become biased, and not educated.

that's a great website, I've read heaps from there though only just briefly looked at Keynes

I guess you must be a left-winger if you use that site

I'll have to have a crack on this material soon - not really looked at it since school days

cheers,

[Suburban Dictionary]

Wasn't it Keynsian policy that extended the Great Depression?

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

that's a great website, I've read heaps from there though only just briefly looked at Keynes

I guess you must be a left-winger if you use that site

I'll have to have a crack on this material soon - not really looked at it since school days

cheers,

Nope, not a left winger at all. Most of the people who agree with my politics are dead. I also feel no shame in posting from Mises when it applies. In fact against VAT I use them as my allies, for example.


The Value-Added Tax Is Not the Answer - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The VAT is essentially a national sales tax, levied in proportion to the goods and services produced and sold. But its delightful concealment comes from the fact that the VAT is levied at each step of the way in the production process: on farmer, manufacturer, jobber and wholesaler, and only slightly on the retailer.
The difference is that when a consumer pays a 7 percent sales tax on every purchase, his indignation rises and he points the finger of resentment at the politicians in charge of government; but if the 7 percent tax is hidden and paid by every firm rather than just at retail, the inevitably higher prices will be charged, not to the government where it belongs, but to grasping businessmen and avaricious trade unions.

I don't deal in politics intitially and rarely can even hope to get there; I first deal in what I can logically prove. Historical contexts and empirical results follow as my next goal. In fact, I would say 9 out of 10 augments I have never moved to an actual belief, and my opponents typically cannot even get to a logically consistent argument and consistently ignores that I reject many of there premises which they feel no obligation to prove. Case in point is the fictitious Keynes entity where many self identified conservatives seem to have only seen the propaganda movie, but never read the book.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Suburban Dictionary

Wasn't it Keynsian policy that extended the Great Depression?

That was not the opinion of Kalecki who agreed with Keynes, using the empirical evidence of World War II that is.




Michal Kalecki, "Political Aspects of Full Employment"

There are, however, even more direct indications that a first-class political issue is at stake here. In the great depression in the 1930s, big business consistently opposed experiments for increasing employment by government spending in all countries, except Nazi Germany. This was to be clearly seen in the USA (opposition to the New Deal), in France (the Blum experiment), and in Germany before Hitler. The attitude is not easy to explain. Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but entrepreneurs as well, because the latter's profits rise.

Whose war machine proved the point? So what is he saying? While its often said that printing money does not increase wealth , it seems beyond a doubt under observation that reducing the money supply causes unemployment.


Now lets look at what the Fed is doing. It is said they are causing inflation. Not only do we not see wheel barrows full of money, we don't see employment. During the OWS protests was the issue that these poor people were drowning in too much money? If prices are going up doesn't that means sales are going up?

What else is he saying. If in ancient Rome for example each Roman citizen had a slave and then later through conquest had 2 slaves per capita would Rome be able to report more prosperity? Full employment isn't good for everyone is it since all Roman citizen would lose their servants.

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by Suburban Dictionary

Wasn't it Keynsian policy that extended the Great Depression?

One more time. From 1929 thru 1933 Government spending remained more or less constant. Yes at a time when interests fell to essentially zero, at the same time unemployment was in the teens, a perfect storm for business to expand while taking advantage of low interest rates and employment costs falling, business did nothing.

Keynes. while researching his great book The General Theory Of Employment, Interest, And Money by John Maynard Keynes determine that economic equilibrium can occur even when there is massive unemployment. He thought about it, and came up with the idea of Government entering into the free market, spending to create jobs, and by doing so inspiring business to re-enter the market by hiring people and step up production.

Keynes NEVER said that Government should be spending trillions of dollars to become a permanent major participant in the economy.

As you try to slog your way through economics and economic history, you might consider that the economy changes, and as a result people's behavior changes, and as a result economic theory changes.

Best wishes.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by chuckmann

One more time. From 1929 thru 1933 Government spending remained more or less constant. Yes at a time when interests fell to essentially zero, at the same time unemployment was in the teens, a perfect storm for business to expand while taking advantage of low interest rates and employment costs falling, business did nothing.

Keynes. while researching his great book The General Theory Of Employment, Interest, And Money by John Maynard Keynes determine that economic equilibrium can occur even when there is massive unemployment. He thought about it, and came up with the idea of Government entering into the free market, spending to create jobs, and by doing so inspiring business to re-enter the market by hiring people and step up production.

Keynes NEVER said that Government should be spending trillions of dollars to become a permanent major participant in the economy.

As you try to slog your way through economics and economic history, you might consider that the economy changes, and as a result people's behavior changes, and as a result economic theory changes.

Best wishes.

Don't you find it ironic that many of Keynes' critics would say that money is only a representation? Yet it is they that inflate the theory of Keynes.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Who can tell whether Keynes works or not? The government interferes enough to change any possible outcome, and never for the better.

With all the social engineering you'll never see Keynes in practice.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Who can tell whether Keynes works or not? The government interferes enough to change any possible outcome, and never for the better.

With all the social engineering you'll never see Keynes in practice.

What I use Keynes for is not considering if it is good if government interferes . Its if a good government could interfere for better or worse from changing the momentum of the greater economy. Its entirely possible to have the position that a good government could make it better, but believe that good governments are rare. That would paradoxically have one using a Keynesian model while being against government activism.

I agree with the Keynesian position that a good government could fix the economy much more than I would trust it to actually do so due to corruption and incompetence.

If its true it may lead to a good idea about what the economy will do based upon their actions for whatever reason.


Though it is also worth pointing out the problem of his day was not private consumer debt.