Who was in the wrong here?
>free market, if its broke just endure it
>long term, current problems will be ironed out over time
>too big to fail is just a phrase, let the big companies die
>save for the future
>pro investors
>state intervention, try to fix problems from above
>short term is more important, long term everyone is dead
>too big to fail is real, we can't afford this spike in unemployment
>spend now, always invest money quickly
>pro workers
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
nber.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
...
that doesnt look like kanye at all.
>The economy doesn't magically recover in a depression.
1. It does, long term. This is the crux, short term vs long term, and can you afford to wait natural growth or do you have to force it risking inflation later.
2. Depression won't occur if the system until then was ran in the Austrian model, or so Austrians argue.
...
>Only in a depression the government should intervene, he said.
Not at all, he would also intervene to build huge projects (bridges, highways, stadiums) that the business wouldn't build, to bail out big failing businesses, etc.
He does promote government intervention, but not government planning. The difference is easy to spot if you are looking for it.
The jew number 2. Anyone living under the illusion that propping up failed business helps workers should kill themselves already.
>The economy doesn't magically recover in a depression.
yes it does
eventually everyone with bad loans gets liquidated
The Great Depression and now recently the Great Recession pretty much proved Hayek wrong. Hayeks "theory" is pretty much the equivalent of if your doctor would tell you that your body is an equilibrium system long term so if the disease doesnt kill you then you will eventually get well. Which is true in a sense but also completely insane. Just like most wingtard ideas.
Keynes is more leftist. I wonder if he could possibly be wrong...
More seriously though, government regulations and subsidies lead to corporationism (big corporations lobbying for beneficial laws and regulations to keep newcomers and competition out) and bailing-out lead to making everybody else pay for rich people.
AFAIK Keynesian economy caused clusterfuck that is now.
The state apparatus never contracts, which is why keynes was wrong and a proto commie.
"Flag" checks out.
>artificially change interest rates
>economy crashes because false increase in capital goods
>blame the free market for socialist policies
cmon its not that hard i learnt this when i was 16
>government regulations and subsidies lead to corporationism
Free market leads to cartels and monopolies, like when a drug that used to cost $12 gets purchased by a new owner and now costs $250. And there are crazier real life examples too, especially with drugs, but also with other goods.
I would say corporations/lobbies cancel out with monopolists/cartels in the end, and we can ignore that side of the argument.
Both systems produce such tumors for the common man.
>proto commie
>he did most of his work after communist ideas were already established
How is he proto-X, if X came before him? And he is for intervention, not planning.
Hayek's theory falls apart if people aren't rational (they're not).
Depression can occur without direct state meddling with the economy, for example when we let computers drive cars and 10% of all men become unemployed in a very short time, without having other skills.
Or when you go to war and lose, historically this also causes depression, even if the state doesn't damage control horribly.
Think about it. Your doctor tells you
>The best thing is to do nothing! Unless you die, it usually just sorts itself out. Anyway, operations are hella risky and can actually kill you.
That's the kind of stupid shit you fall for
how does a true free market lead to monopoly's
i always see commies,nazis and lefties in general saying this but they never say how this will happen
monopoly can only form when governments subsidise failing business
>free market, if it's broke just endure it
Straw man. The cause of a boom/bust in Misesian and Hayekian theory is exogenous to the free market.
The boom-bust cycle is naturally occurring, based on the fundamentals of economics and the working of the human psyche. First you're greedy and think you can actually become rich and then you're panicked and terrified you will lose everything. Your behavior in both situations is counter productive.
Sure it sorts itself out eventually. The great depression sorted itself out in World War II, with 70 million people dead. Then after that we had some pretty good years.
>You treat every little infection with antibiotics
>eventually bacteria become so strong antibiotics don't work anymore and you die
Replace infection with bubble and antibiotics with bail-outs and there you go.
Also
>economy is a machine/organism meme
>people aren't rational meme, but when you add regulations/taxes corporations suddenly go with the most efficient (rational) route of evading them or increased costs
1. Develop a high quality product. Or in the more common case, buy someone small who developed a high quality product.
2. Everyone buys it, since its genuinely good, and you buy out competition who can't handle your great and well deserved success.
>but then...
3. The quality of your services and goods diminishes, but you have no competition, so people still buy your shit.
4. If competition shows up, you just sell at a loss for a few years and kill them, since they don't have your huge wallet to be able to afford this. Then you buy them and go back to being cancer.
Wannabe nazis exposed as closet leftists in this thread.
Intervention requires a plan, otherwise it's a bit pointless. He paved the way for the disgusting kind of socialism we're enduring now.
The free market doesn't lead to cartels, because if there is demand and you form a cartel, there will be someone on the planet who will easily undercut you. See European Economy as an example.
The example of medecine is a rather bad one because not many people have aids and the drugs are still in developemnt, which is costly. Also, thanks to 'safety regulations', patirnts cannot buy foreign drugs which are cheaper.
> the common man/ both sides
These memes must die already. Short term political pandering to the voter base is a shitty policy that leads to waste and hunger.
>people are rational
People will buy tobacco and alcohol, while at the same time complaining they have no money.
People will own personal automobiles instead of using public transport, and at the same time complain they have no money.
And the sheer size of the advertisement industry and the power of brands shows people aren't rational consumers.
Some businesses like gambling or stock exchanges prove that people act like morons, so the 99% of fools can feed the 1% of winners.
If there is some resource that can be hoarded and monopolized and the lack of which makes competing impossible. An obvious example is that only Microsoft Windows can offer access to software written to be compatible with proprietary Microsoft APIs. The result being a 25 year 90+% marketshare monopoly on PC operating systems.
>Short term political pandering to the voter base is a shitty policy that leads to waste and hunger.
I agree, but if you are appointed tzar of a state, and in your first speech demand that 2 generations of people suffer so that the third and latter ones can prosper, you will be lynched and your family killed.
>What are patent laws.
Just a random flag, I have no loyalty to ideologies.
I am also not convinced either way, which is why I am willing to discuss and can defend both sides.
I genuinely can't decide which approach is better more often.
So what you're saying is that majority of people is chaotic, but important people (like businessmen) are rational? In such case neither system really is right.
That, or the "80% of money spent is spent by women" meme.
Keynes and Hayek are both right but they need a combined economic theory that helps the weak points of both being filled with the other's strengths.
>The Fed and Kaynes both admit Hayek was right
>people still think the Fed and Kaynes were right
Pure malicious intent.
Depressions would still occur but they would be more mild and manageable.
What causes depressions is what austrian economists label as malinvestments or misuse of capital, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Keynessianism but it is increased.
An excess of capital flow due to low interest rates and short term motivators lead to worse malinvestments.
Like a bank that only gives loans to the ones they're 100% sure will pay back, they will lose some business opportunities but they will not crash either.
>Keynes and Hayek are both right
But they are making exactly opposite claims.
>short term vs long term
>state regulation vs free market
>workers security vs investors security
Keynes
>Like a bank that only gives loans to the ones they're 100% sure will pay back, they will lose some business opportunities but they will not crash either.
But if the bank next doors has a more lack policy, they will get more clients, will advertise and expand faster, and over time will kill the other bank.
So an arms race starts, who can get the most clients, and risks be damned, which leads to all too familiar issues.
Would be nice if there was some huge entity that could enforce, on threat of violence, some rules on how much loans a bank can give as a percentage of the money it owns...
True but then promising to improve the economy is a stupid career move anyway. It's like promising rain on a specified date.
The core problem isn't the spending of the money in bad times, it's the gathering of money in the boom times. Inevitably, you'll have to raise taxes to save for the bad times, which in turn causes bust cycles to come back earlier. Also, the massive state organs popping up during depressions would have to be scaled back, which is impossible short of an army coup.
I like how you ignore the fact that the great depression was extended nearly a decade because of Hoover and Roosevelt's socialist policies.
Unemployment never hit double digits, after the stock market crash, and was actually on the upturn, until Hoover's tariff scheme. Then, under FDR, it never hit single digits until we sent millions of Americans to die for retarded Europeans.
Governmental intervention has never worked and never will.
An army coup looking to play the long game and sacrifice short term to gain in the upcoming decades will have a short, bloody rule as well.
Its just hard to stay in power without doing short term reforms and policies.
Only a strong state could play the long game, and ironically a strong state demands the short game, to pay for itself.
>>You treat every little infection with antibiotics
This is not prescribed by Keynesians. However, Austrian School retards postulate that antibiotics are counterproductive and must never be used.
>Roosevelt
Is this the same Roosevelt that conquered a lot of land and created a lot of parks that payed off eventually?
>But if the bank next doors has a more lack policy, they will get more clients, will advertise and expand faster, and over time will kill the other bank.
If this bank is more "generous" with their loans they will need to balance their losses with their earnings better than banks that are more strict and have lower earnings but lower losses too.
It all comes down to investing skills.
That was Teddy. FDR came later.
That's why the best governement is the one that governs (and thus costs) least - Bush was right.
No, that's teddy. He was okay, although I disagree with the federal government owning so much land.
I'm talking about the cripple, who bought all the farmers' food in America, during the great depression, and then put them on naval ships, just so farmers' wages wouldn't go down.
Meanwhile Americans starved on the streets as all that food rotted.
Well those are laws protecting claimed "property". Property happens to be one of the few types of government intervention which lolbertarian and austrian school brainwashing victims are comfortable with, and somehow does not cause "distortions" (of Gods plan)..
Ah, right, my bad.
I never even think of FDR as "Roosevelt", just the way I have him indexed in my head.
>pumping billions into a failing economy and especially in its failing sectors is totally not the equivalent of pumping a sick body full of antibiotics instead of letting the body heal itself
retards who use antibiotics have their brains altered by the farmaceutical industry to comply.
>people are rational
and that's why hayek babbies will never be right
...
kek
You can have a socialist and a capitalist economy at the same time. It called a mixed economy
Ancapistan forever you little bitches
>I like how you ignore the fact that the great depression was extended nearly a decade because of Hoover and Roosevelt's socialist policies.
This is bullshit, but since Austrians promote pretty much Ancap policies it cannot be disproved because Austrian prescriptions were never really fully implemented anywhere. That's the beauty of believing in retarded shit that no one will ever really achieve. If you're a commie you can always blame the small remnants of capitalism you didnt root out; if you're a lolbertarian you can always blame statism, because who is stupid enough to really completely get rid of government and roads and shit..
property is not defined by government intervention but individual intervention. The government has nothing to do with who owns what property, it's only used as an easy means of keeping everyones property safe, which is one of the few good reason for taxes.
Keynes was wrong
And also a pervert
RIP Paul Krugman and all the federal reserve Jews preemptively BTFO by Hayek. Audit now faggot.
>this is bullshit but I have no argument or evidence so I'll just attempt character assassination
By the way, I'm not an Austrian so pic related
Why can't they both be wrong.
A worker oriented state investment and conservative log term minded fiscal policy seems like a winning combination
>property is not defined by government intervention but individual intervention
or divine intervention
>The government has nothing to do with who owns what property
of course it does you massive twat, the laws define ownership
what makes you think you are entitled to anything that you are not personally capable of protecting? right, the social contract and law through common governance.
Except the institution you are defending disagrees with you. Not that you care to read it or acknowledge this post.
nber.org
Centrally planned economies invariably consume more resources than they administer.
Also, fuck you you commie bastard.
Is that the one where the government practically admits the stock market crash and the great depression was their fault?
>why can't we have both?
More government spending for gdp short term growth vs little to no government spending
>practically
No it flat out does it and apologizes.
Property is defined by "if you try to take it i will do violence unto you", and in most states the government is the biggest actor when it comes to violence, so 99.9999% of the time the state guarantees property.
So what claim does the government have over my property? I used it first. I found the land and turned it into a farm. What entitles a latecomer who did not originally utilise the land?
He will ignore it because he'll claim some shit about Ben Bernanke.
Seriously, I've had this argument before with democrats. When you corner them, it's character assassination time.
what argument are you even trying to make
the weak should fear the strong
>Audit now faggot.
This reminds me, are Austrian and ancap supporters okay with foreign actors, including maybe states or organizations subordinate to states, to purchase and run business in your country?
If you want your government to stop being so huge, it has to sell a lot of shit, and would you be okay with foreigners buying it?
The government does not decide who owns what. That has been decided in ages past, after that we installed rules so everyone plays reasonable. Also you're right in Europe, we're socialists here, nothing is actually your own property. Good luck trying to defend your own home when you get robbed, the cops nor the politicians give a shit and care more about the poor opressed souls who were forced due to their 'socioeconomic' situation to rob someone. The only place where you can have your own real property is a place where you can have guns and can kill anyone entering your land on sight. The social contract just means you've given away all your property to the state, they're just not interested in taking it all away from you, for now.
>says Denmark
If youre referring to Quantitative Easing it was more equivalent to giving adrenaline when someone has a cardiac arrest. It also:
>Was only partially Keynesian
>Ordered by a neo classisist (Bernanke)
and
>Worked pretty fucking well
I know. Same arguments. Over and over. Without end. Reminds me of the Hitler quote. The one about how even if you win an argument against a jew he comes back the next day pretending like it never happened and he has already forgotten about it.
Kek. Then they went and regulated your economy some more.
>Government is full of hypocrites
More news at 11
>The government does not decide who owns what. That has been decided in ages past, after that we installed rules so everyone plays reasonable.
I swear you lolbertarians are just mindlessly typing words hoping that they will come out in an order in which they carry some kind of meaning
>Stimulus after stimulus
This is the same delusional mentality which brought italy to its knees, I thought you were responsible.
Do you really think that the burden of proof lies on me? You're claiming that a third party owns my property if they have the means to take it from me. How does theft differ from that concept at all?
Buy from whom?
rather the saving of the banks by governments. Fuck companies getting their asses saved for being worthless thrash, yet Keynes would cheer at this bullshit.
also
just wait and see about quantitative easing. It will work today, but you'll feel its effects tomorrow.
Seriously, why are you using that flag?
Pt.2
Have fun!
No, the government isn't allowed to seize your property and then sell it off to foreign states. It should give the property back to the original owners.
Ben Bernanke is still no Keynesian; he's a freaking libertarian himself, just like his master, Greenkike
>Centrally planned economies invariably consume more resources than they administer.
Eeehhhh... I've done a few organized trips abroad, where every one of my friends (and their friends, people that don't even know me personally) gives me money, and I plan spending according to the budget.
This is of course ridiculously low scale, but it did lead to much lower expenses. Lookup "economies of scale", its an observable effect, a planned economy would make much use of it.
So does centrally planned economy mean more efficient? In practice no, but its not inevitable. The theory is sound, we are just shit at implementing it currently (possibly forever).
>defending the government How does it feel to be this bluepilled?
...
Have you ever heard about your promised land, the USSR?
It wouldnt be Sup Forums if some nazi or lolbertarian didnt post some shitty infodump to prove the holocaust false and austrian economics true.
Some user earlier accused me of using the random nazi flag, so I switched to that one. As I said, I have no loyalty, I am asking questions to get answers, not to mock.
I'll change again if its so annoying to you, I don't care.
>Greenkike
>Tells bush to pay off american debt with capital gain's money
>"fuck no, let's lower taxes for the rich"
>Starts war in Iraq
>6 Trillion in debt for the tax cuts
>2 Trillion in debt for the war
>2008 crysis happens
>Nigger president and bush approve a massive stimulus
That's how you crash and burn a country
It's only annoying because it's distracting. Just use your nation's flag.
"Quantitative easing' is soviet speech for printing money and giving it to banks in the hope nobody will notice the loud sound the printing press makes. Unfortunately no bank wants to invest in the shitheap that is the economy right now, so that printed money is bunkered away, waiting for the day the last idiot catches on and then getti g burned for heat.
>Infodump
This is your national debt, you fucking retard. Your stimulus shit crashed the country, believe it or not.
Look, like clockwork.
Have you read my full post?
Economics of scale isn't even a commie thing, its observable in the private sector.
And its easy to prove. Try to produce 10 kilograms of salt using seawater, calculate the production cost per kg. Now produce 10000 kilograms, and calculate cost per kg. You will see it was reduced greatly.
By involving the state, you do everything at a large scale, and you can negotiate better deals. So the theory is valid, the implementation has just always been shit thus fat. And I even admitted it may always be shit, due to the personal interests of the people involved, we may need hive mentality before the human factor is taken care of to make it work.
Only a Democrat would think exposing real information is a problem.
Well because when all the big banks collapse then everyone's money is gone and we know what happens then... Anarchy, famine, war, etc.
Unfortunately, the best option is to save the banks until the immediate crisis is over and then regulate the shit out of them. Unfortunately, lolbertarians dont believe in regulation, so they have to entertain the fantasy that all the big banks could be allowed to go bankrupt with no adverse effect and zoom back to the "equilibrium"
Why dont you snoop out one which shows the debt in percents of GDP you sweetie little sleuth you?