Keynesianism

How else is the economy supposed to recover from periods of contraction and slowdown other than from specific government policy and increased centralized spending to make up for the resulting lack or decrease in decentralized private spending?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/5UNwjB-k6aI
econtalk.org/archives.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Xqpv9APE3MM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes.

The economy moving naturally back to the equilibrium level of output without government intervention, just at a lower price level is how.

You fucking retard when the economy slows down goods and services get cheaper, incentivizing people to start spending and investing and bring again, and things will pick up

Also nice digits

How can Keynesianism explain bodies like this? I think it's suppositions about the oridinary individual and the rationality of the market fail. We're left with our dicks as the most useful guides to the world, no?

Also, deep acknowledgment of triples.

If that was the case why would there ever be large slowdowns at all if it was that easy? Equilibrium would always be relatively close and easy to reach, and unregulated markets would barely even have a boom-bust cycle.
Why would a country want to wait longer to get back to standard levels of productivity and lose the time value of economic growth and tax resulting tax revenues? The opportunity cost of falling into a rut is absolutely massive.

using based Georgist economic model like the Chinese

>tax resulting tax revenues?

how do you tax morally? this is the question answered best by Henry George

China doesn't have a Georgist economic model w/ single Land Value Tax.
I am a Georgist and in favor of a Land value tax but that doesn't answer the question and overall has little to do with economic policy other than taxation. You could be a Keynesian or Non-Keynesian Georgist.

fuck this, i would racemix with this specimen

no, the cost of fueling an unsustainable boom is massive. Look at every depression or recession of the 20th century and there's always a boom before it. Government spending and low interest rates sow the seeds for malinvestment that rears it's ugly head in the boom, but you don't feel it because asset prices are rising. Just like in the housing market. Everybody thinks it's all hunky dory until reality hits and the whole system comes crashing down all around us. Spending arbitrarily for the sake of getting the economy moving in arbitrary directions is not actual growth, and it always takes a painful redirection to re-allocate resources appropriately.

Plus there's the whole broken window fallacy thing. If you throw a rock at a window and hire a repairman to fix it, you get to go "hey look I've stimulated economic growth!" however, all you've really done is re-allocated resources from something ACTUALLY productive. Like a real economics book for instance. Go buy one and stop reading keynes.

You could do a debt jubilee. Then the existing money won't go to pay unpayable debts

You want the periods of low growth / contraction. They are like a wildfire clearing away dead growth. Central banks have been preventing that so we have a zero growth situation and a scary debt overhang. In a lot of places Keynesian spending can't even drive growth right now. $1 in debt spending generates something like $.1 in growth, instead of a multiplier like x3.

> Spending arbitrarily for the sake of getting the economy moving in arbitrary directions is not actual growth
That's why it isn't arbitrary spending or at least wasn't traditionally and was heavily focused on public goods and infrastructure which increase overall net economic value and productivity within an economy among virtually everybody.

>recover from periods of contraction
>implying contraction is not actual self healing
you silly commie roach

Judging by the way she looks, that's already happened up the family tree a few times.

Uh, look if people didn't buy it themselves, it's arbitrary. If you go and buy a gallon of milk today, and I, the government, decide to buy you a trillion dollars worth of milk, thinking it's something you value, even if you've already proven that you value it, just wasted a trillion fucking dollars. Not to mention I just sent a whole bunch of fucked up signals to the market to start investing in a whole bunch of infrastructure to sell more milk than people can actually afford. Hello bust phase. If people didn't buy it VOLUNTARILY, there is in effect zero demand. Taxing the money from them and spending it how you think it should be spent as a central planner is inherently manipulative, and will inevitably result in poor investment. Prices and how people spend money is far from arbitrary.

Besides, EVEN IF it's something people value, there's absolutely zero knowing whether or not they value it AT THE PRICE that you bought it for. So say the government spends all the money in EXACTLY the same way the people would've spent it themselves, just at different prices than they would've paid. That WILL send signals to the market entrepreneurs that will be different than reality can justify. Keynesian central bankers are the primary cause of the boom bust cycle, and there's no knowing where the world economy would be at if it wasn't for the chain getting jerked around unnaturally for the past, i don't know, hundred years.

nice job ignoring cascading effect that could easily have been prevented

monetary policy ofc. Literally the less expensive version of fiscal stimulus

Contraction is the market correcting itself. When walstreet fell, we should have let the whole system crash. It was the free market fixing itself.

>Like a real economics book for instance
Well post some recommendations

Government wants to increase spending. Where does it get the money? It issues bonds. Which are bought by private investors. Who no longer have money to invest in private enterprise after buying the bonds.

>spending is what creates wealth
Shit, better tell the poor people they're not rich because they didn't spend enough money!

individual responsibility shouldn't be prevented
of course, that's something a leafing hiveminding (((social))) insect wouldn't understand

>if people didn't buy it themselves, it's arbitrary
What makes people less arbitrary than anything else? They're economic decision making agents, i.e. arbiters, just because they're individuals doesn't make their decisions any less arbitrary.
> Like a real economics book for instance
Are you implying Keynes wasn't a real economist and his writings don't count? What about Keynesian economists who are still very common and have written numerous books on multiple topics? Do you think that the Austrian School is somehow more legitimate than the Keynesian School? lol
Are you a monetarist? Besides monetary policy is completely compatible with a Keynesian framework.

...

unfortuetly sectors like banking have massive spillover effects into other sectors and cannot be allowed to fail under any circumstances, but i agree with you that there should be consequences.

>cannot be allowed to fail under any circumstances
A 100% reserve bank issuing notes redeemable in specie cannot fail under any circumstances. The only banks at risk of failing are those engaging in fraud.

>Are you a monetarist? Besides monetary policy is completely compatible with a Keynesian framework.
yep, not even hardline, fiscal stimulus is OK, but its done way too irresponsibly to the point its creating instability with raising debt. What would USA do if you had another 2008 type recession now, print till 300% debt to gdp? seems scary to even think about

>there should be consequences
>but
>banking cannot be allowed to fail under any circumstances
you dun goofed...
your (((remedy))) at best amounts to prolong the agony and suffering

sorry Murray, nobody cares about your moralistic systems that cant effectively fund a nation's needs

MMmmm..what a fine example of a negroid woman!!

Full Reserve Banking is also massively less productive than Fractional Reserve or almost any other type of investment-based banking system and resorting to it for everything would result in massive economy-wide decreases in productivity, availability of capital, economic growth, and opportunity costs associated with all three.
> Ancap Economics
> Muh Austrian School
Pure memes.

why do you think allowing them to fail is the only consequence? prosecute those fucking CEO's and board of directors for being irresponsible and over leveraged for christ sake.

No reason to tank an entire system doing it

>fund a nation's needs
Individuals create wealth, not nations. Individuals have demands to be supplied, not nations. Fuck off with your collectivist nonsense.

Counterfeiting is not productive m8. Robbing people of their wealth through inflation is not productive.

Nations create and have institutions that individuals need and which make them orders of magnitude more productive than they would be without those institutions. The individual's job is just to maintain and/or perform well within those institutions.

Robbing the entire economy of massive amounts of available capital and productivity isn't productive either.

i was alluding to the fact that if all people borrow X now\, and under your system the people would have to borrow much less.....we might have a problem. Also if individuals have demand to be supplied, how come they are currently demanding more than your system can provide, hmmmmmmmmm.

>Nations create and have institutions that individuals need
Individuals do that. A nation is just a term for describing a grouping of people linked by some characteristics. A group does not make decisions, individuals within the group do so.

stable inflation doesnt rob anybody as long as you dont hold substantial amounts of money is green pieces of paper
also almost every commodity, stock or physical asset holds its value through inflation.

You literally need groups of people/individuals to do those things. Do you think a single person is responsible for constructing universities, coordinating scientific research, building the interstate system or infrastructure, etc.? No, it's collective networks of people.

>available capital
Counterfeit money is not capital. It is fraudulent paper. And the money supply has little to do with production, because no particular supply of money is more or less economically useful than another. When you start fucking with it, you get problems.

If we use your logic, the bigger the money supply, the more productive the economy. Zimbabwe should have been a powerhouse, no?

>What makes people less arbitrary
Because they spend their own money for their own benefit, rather than spending someone else's money on someone else. When they decide to purchase something, that represents genuine demand since it is an entirely voluntary process. When a government beareu decides to spend money, it is not based on voluntary association but on the whims of whatever beareucrat is in charge of the decision (a beareucrat who not only may have vested interests in how the money is spent, but couldn't possibly know the entirety of the economic situation anyway in order to make perfect decisions even if they were honest and sincere).

njice trips
ur talking about 2 different things, user is saying 100% reserve banking doesn't produce enough lending in the economy to be a viable alternative.

>How else am I going to suck dicks if I don't skip social studies class?

>How else are people able to do anything if the government doesn't do it for them?

>How?

>How else is the economy supposed to recover from periods of contraction and slowdown other than from specific government policy and increased centralized spending to make up for the resulting lack or decrease in decentralized private spending?

it's not. austerity didn't work in europe, and stimulus worked in the usa, mostly.

the people pushing for austerity are either stupid, or they want the system to fail. anyone suggesting otherwise is autistic or just a fucking retard.

>why do you think allowing them to fail is the only consequence?
I don't. And still.

When people desposit money in fractional reserves, they loan money to their bank. And loaning always carry a risk. Whether you wanna take it or not should be your individual responsibility, nothing more, nothing less.

Allowing banks to fail actually would serve as a great incentive for people to ask for narrow banking, if that's what they're actually interested in, which should as well be a matter of individual responsibility.

>What makes people less arbitrary than anything else?
Is that a serious question? You legitimately don't buy that a centralized authority can't make economic decisions on a personal basis, take into account every individuals budget and wants/needs and control it intelligently for millions of people? Of course individuals decisions in what they buy is not arbitrary. If every time you went to go buy gas for your car you accidentally bought a diamond necklace obviously things would go awry pretty quickly, and that's probably more intelligent of a decision than some board room full of multi-millionaires thousands of miles away with a million different agendas would make on your behalf. The fact that the vast majority of economic decisions are made by sovereign individuals on their own behalf every single day in the market is empirical PROOF that it works and needs no central planning. The best part is that when they mis-allocate resources they take a loss and learn from it as individuals, central planners just blame animal spirits in the economy and never pay for the damage they create, in fact people like you fancy themselves in their position and so they get praise literally no MATTER what they do.

And you're right, his writings definitely count as a source material for what NOT to do economically. Of course it's a great idea if you want to prop up central banks and make sure they never ever their monstrous level of control, so naturally his ideas are the ones that get adopted.

And as far as I can tell you haven't countered a single word of what I've said economically so I'd say yeah, austrian economics has served me magnificently better than whatever you've been getting into.

Nice trips
> Counterfeit money is not capital. It is fraudulent paper.
And yet virtually nobody has a problem accepting it and it's the most widely used and accepted currency on the planet. That's disregarding the fact that the paper part is mostly useless these days since most transactions are done digitally without any physical medium.
> And the money supply has little to do with production
No that's completely wrong, booms and busts are directly related to the money supply.
> If we use your logic, the bigger the money supply, the more productive the economy. Zimbabwe should have been a powerhouse, no?
No because that's a terrible example because the production of money if well managed via monetary policy doesn't drastically outpace increases in productivity. The purpose of money is in large part to match or correlate to the productivity of an economy, Zimbabwe just printed a shit ton so they thinned their actual money supply without it corresponding to anything like furthered increases in productivity, which is what every reasonable economy does.

>under your system the people would have to borrow much less
There is a difference between sound money and counterfeit monopoly paper. If a higher money supply is what's holding us all back, then you should be ok with dropping counterfeit laws and allowing individuals to join the banks in using the (((money multiplier)))?

>how come they are currently demanding more than your system can provide
?
>stable inflation doesn't rob anyone unless you don't spend your money right away

Single people make discrete contributions to a project. I'm not claiming people act in a fucking vacuum. I'm contesting the vague and undefined concept of nations "producing goods". It would have been far more honest to call it what it is, the government monopolizing the production of certain goods and services.

>stable inflation doesn't rob anyone unless you don't spend your money right away
That isn't what was saying at all. And honestly, unless you're an absolute retard with your money you'd put your money into investments, assets, or commodities anyway which either match or beat the market slightly to increase your capital.

economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt's probs a good one. Anything by mises, rothbard, tom woods, bob murphy, etc. If you google any of them it'll get you in the right direction

>doesn't produce enough lending in the economy to be a viable alternative
You make this claim based on what? Are you under the impression that fractional reserve banking arose because the economy "needed" more lending? It came about because banks wanted to make more money under the table, and then paid off politicians to declare it not fraud because of reasons.

i'd like to remind you that the austrian school is not taken seriously at all and you will be laughed out of academia if you start talking about mises and rothbard.

please just stop.

kek youtu.be/5UNwjB-k6aI

...

>stable inflation doesn't rob anyone unless you don't spend your money right away
its called fisher's equation. All interest bearing assets have inflation already priced into them. Technically you could 'steal' from them by creating 20% one time inflation spike nobody could predict, but thats highly unlikely. Again most portfolios are inflation neutral, as stocks dont care about it as long as it's not a shock to the system
>There is a difference between sound money and counterfeit monopoly paper
fractional reserve banking exists even with gold standard, or under proposed fixed money supply standards.
>dropping counterfeit laws and allowing individuals to join the banks
unfortunately its in nobody's interest to shift the risks and benefits of monetary policy to banks, except bankers ofc, they would have a field day.

>virtually nobody has a problem accepting it and it's the most widely used and accepted currency on the planet
For several reasons. The layman doesn't know how money works. Fractional reserve does indeed increase the amount of money that can be lent in an economy, and since governments ultimately control this AND finance a significant portion of their activity through debt, there is little wonder why this became the dominant system. When governments in Europe started to go off the gold standard, and talked about how economically backward it was, how it stifled economic progress, etc, do you recall what was happening at the time? World War 1. The most expensive conflict Europe had ever faced. Convenient that when governments would have become broke under a gold standard, they immediately abandoned it and suddenly fiat paper was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And I use the term paper in a derogatory manner, I understand that physical banknotes make up a small minority of the currency.

>booms and busts are directly related to the money supply
I meant in the sense that one amount of money, all things held equal, is no better or worse than another, because the real prices will be the same.

I agree about the business cycle, but not for the reasons you subscribe to.

I don't know about you all but I personally love the massive wealth transfer to the rich, the huge middle class tax increase via monetary policy, inflation, and quantitative easing, and the perverse market incentives that all creates.

Build more high end real estate to sit empty and be used as a speculative investment for the rich!!!!!

>That isn't what # was saying at all.
It was. Investing is not the same as saving, if you weren't aware. Saving carries no risk, by definition. In an inflationary system, saving is penalized by a steady loss of purchasing power.

>le mainstream academia maymay
Let's not forget that queer feminist theory is "mainstream academia". Your appeal to authority doesn't give your position any credence.

You are forgetting that the money supply is not fixed, and if more money can be profitably invested in private enterprise, people will save less and borrow more from banks, so more money will be created.

Great idea. Let's bury jars of money in disused mine shafts.

>appeal to authority

yes. an authority who thinks the austrian school is a complete joke because it rejects empiricism while doing nothing but fellating it's own ideology.

it's not real economics mate.

>Austrians unironically posting a jab at the gold standard
priceless

Fractional reserve banking is a meme.
In reality the amount banks lend is never limited by the reserves they have. Instead it's limited by
• The Basel capital requirements
• Their ability to find profitable debtors

ehhh, there's some good Austrians out there. They just dont follow the Rothbard branch of Austrians, who have infested the internet

Basel is screwed anything, any time a regulation is set up they evade it within weeks

>interest bearing assets
Are not savings.

>fractional reserve banking exists even with gold standard, or under proposed fixed money supply standards.
Certainly. But a critical part of having a "true" gold standard is being able to redeem the notes for specie. This stipulation renders fractional reserve fraudulent, prosecutable like any other crime.

>nobody's interest to shift the risks and benefits of monetary policy to banks
Everybody's interest. Monetary policy doesn't need to be a thing.

>joke because it rejects empiricism
Mainstream economics is a joke because it rejects fundamental economic principles when it arbitrarily divides econ into macro and micro.

ok

Pooh I know.

Instead of having small inneficient stores we can create a giant store called widget mart.

But we will subsidize the employment costs, and ensure that most of its income comes from ebt cards thereby undercutting true economic utility and destroying all competition via governmental intervention....

We can then massively subsidize the rich via quantitative easing who will use this money is further rent seeking and speculative ventures. Like empty luxury high rises or further inflating The bubble economy....

Then we can put massive hidden tax increases on the middle class to fund this governmental largesse in the form of monetary policy, insurance, the destruction of regulation and oversite in required market sectors like healthcare.

Then we will force then we will radically increase the price for certain inellastic commodities by forced participation coupled with governntal subsidation like health care and higher education further restricting The asset accumulation and purchasing power of the middle class....

Then we can all wonder why the economy isn't working and why inneficient allocation of capital is so prevalent. And make make work programs like burying money in mines or raising the middle wage which ironically is exactly the same as building empty high rises...

Capital in a capitalistic economy seeks its most efficient allocation. Our capital is predominantly going to service the rich with useless production ergo we no longer live in a capitalist society.

The solution is higher taxation on the rich and asset class (wealth transfer to the poor), ending subsidizing of sectors or at least allowing for better capitalist controls like bargaining power, regulation, open markets, and bankruptcy for student loans, or efficiently allocating the capital in meaningful production (like China), or allowing the market to correct via collapse and correction. . .

But I for one look forward to our interminable economic malaise.

What? Are you saying that physics is a joke because it's broken up between classical or relativity and quantum?

which has no connection to anything said now that i think about it

dont worry guys I'm sure the (((New York Times))) the gold standard of investigative journalism will do a write up on solution real soon....

Just like they did when the cost of higher education went hyperbolic. Surely being governmental schools it would be easy to figure out where all that excess spending is going right.... Right guys......

The sooner you learn we are purposefully operating in an information vacuum the better. And why are (((they))) trying to keep the populace uninformed while the economy collapses?

It's almost like (((they're))) trying to impoverish western countries and destroy white society. That's fucking weird...

I love watching Keynesianism get BTFO'd. Well done Anons!

Yeah do that but prepare to handle a bigger crisis within 10 or 15 years.

I'm serious why is it that fucking Sup Forums a board populated by college age white males can make better economic policy and have a more illucidating conversation about the causes and solution of the malaise than any newspaper or the government. . . ?

a million times this... Macro is BS... micro principles can be sued to explain just about everything. Macro is pseudoscience.

t. have econ degree, worked at JP Morgan, now have own company.

would race-mix with/10

Just because the poor don't have the resources to invest in the first place, it doesn't make the statement any less true.

Keynesianism:
If poor people have no jobs, destroy their homes and print money to pay them to build them back.

It can't and doesn't, Krugman has actual economic opinion piece articles he does in NYT from time to time and he knows infinitely more about economics than anybody on Sup Forums.

no need to strawmn it mate, theres plenty of legit criticism of fiscal policy

>the economy is a living thing beyond human control

(((Krugman))) is a progressive mouthpiece. Read teh stuff he published in the late 80s - mid 90s.... it completely contradicts everything he writes abotu in the (((NYT))). And he knows it too. He's been called on it many time. But he doesn't care, because he gets a nice paycheck and invitations to all the elitist cocktail parties.

his 80s and 90s work is GOAT because he is a godlike writer, id give my left nut for him to turn neutral

and he's also full of shit. For those interested there's a podcast that takes down his idiocy in the NYT every week. It's called contra krugman

>hosted by Austrians
naaah i'll skip it

anyway for all you econnerds, if you still havn't listened to this gem, its well worth
econtalk.org/archives.html

And it's by Tom Woods, an Austrian (lol) "economist".
Honestly as someone who used to subscribe to Austrian economics the arguments don't hold up at all, they refuse to go with empirical data and models, it just appeals to autists because of it's simplicity and order even though it doesn't effectively model the real world.

you mean to tell me i cant solve all world's economic problems from my armchair using basic economic principles and simple logic ?

It was a joke.

Sure, ignore who disagrees with you, it's the best thing to do

Not entirely an accurate analogy. Both models work within their own domains. Quantum theory doesn't let you build bridges, and classics mechanics doesn't let you accurately describe quantum phenomena.

In economics, the "macro" economy is simply a large amount of individuals engaging in "microeconomics". Economics is based on fundamental axioms of human action. Those inviolable axioms are in force whether you're looking at an individual's actions, or trends in an entire economy.

And just because people invest their money, doesn't make my statement less true.

I still haven't heard a single legitimate argument back from you on any legitimate topic. The only response you've got is "clearly I'm more sophisticated because I believe what the mainstream believes and muh models" you can shove your fucking models. If models explained everything so god damn perfectly why isn't the whole thing solved by now, why are we even talking about it? Why big banks being bailed out, why is the economy just barely sputtering along with record amounts what I assume you think is genius intervertion?
It's fucking obvious central planning is garbage.

And color me shocked, I'm putting in plenty of time consuming your side of the arguments media and books and actually making arguments, but when you get confronted with legitimate statements your only defense is ridicule and when people bring up content that refutes yours your defense is.... shockingly, ridicule.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xqpv9APE3MM

in what way would much less or no government intervention help the u.s. economy at this point?

How else does the economy enter periods of contraction and slowdown other than from specific government policy and increased centralized spending?