Someone redpill me on keynsian economics. I have always had really liberal teachers...

Someone redpill me on keynsian economics. I have always had really liberal teachers, but from my own research Keynsian economics seem to remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht
youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/Looting.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I also believe that the 2008 financial crash and great depression could have been avoided or reduced with a little regulation, am I wrong?

Keynes = only major figure in modern economics that wasn't Jewish.

I hope that makes you think

You're not wrong but you're still an asshole.

Government intervention to artificially steroid the economy is extremely harmful in the long run even if it's good in the moment.
See : fdr

Well, I mean regulating rating agencies wouldn't hamper the free market

It doesn't work because politicians/regulations stall that shit until it works against it, amplifying the booms and the busts.

Thats why in times of economic growth, the government stops spending and focuses on making it stable

Keynesian economics is just a scam. Printing money does not create wealth.

Most leftists are not Keynesian. They just use part of his argument.

His views: there are economic cycles that happen naturally. The government should intervene in the economy through monetary and fiscal policy to 1) when in a boom, moderate that boom and 2) when in a recession, moderate that recession. In other words, save in good times, spend in bad times. This is helped by financial markets which run to safe assets when there is a recession, which lowers the cost of financing to governments.

Modern leftists: spend more whenever you can because short-term growth guarantees long-term growth.

Wouldn't this just force to market to always be in spend mode like it is right now?

Keynes school adopts the theory that the government can dictate the course of the market

It can't, and any industry it tries to influence will ultimate burst or cause a depression, I.e the dotcom bubble and the housing legislation

Exactly, and I think that is genius

It completely depends on how you apply it.

It works if you make your country Autarkic, remove all Jewish banksters and globalist ties

any other scenario it doesn't work

Wrong. Its more like: say that they will always spend more to win votes and then behave like everybody else once they take office.

No, if the government followed Kenysian economics they would be cutting back spending right now (in the US) and focusing on regulating the economy to prevent a collapse. When the economy starts going bad, they deregulate and start spending to stimulate.

You are wrong. That is a Jewish lie.
Look up Hjalmar Schlacht and his economic theories.

BULLSHIT. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht

It could also have been avoided or reduced through vastly decreased regulation. Regulation breeds consumer complacency, and paves the way to shenanigans that are technically within the letter of the law. The more regulation you have, the more convoluted things become, and the more opportunities there are for people to be fucked over.

Keynesian economics allows banking-government complex to rob you.

Thats not keynsian though. Plus, I think both republicans and democrats spend way to much.

So basically in bad times the market would force the ZOG machine to import third-worlders and give them a bunch neetbux so they can spend it to stimulate the economy?

>he fell for the autarky meme

youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

Show me one example of this. This is exactly why keyensian economics is bad in practice. Economist btw.

You have to admit there are some common sense regulations right?

For example rating agencies

Elaborate? I want to hear some real points

Moreover, Keynes was considered a conservative at the time. His ideas were proposed to save capitalism from socialists and communists.

Keynes is mostly pretty shit, and a bootlicker statist

Hayek and Friedman are based

Keynes was a genius and Keynesian economics are a total insult to the man.

'Keynesian policy' is a codeword for big government policy, 'justified' by ISLM-ASAD models that are imperfect and have too many assumptions behind them. Anyone who claims to be keynesian just wants to expand G and and T(ax) you a lot.

Compared to the overblown bureaucracy in the US today (thanks to both the left and right), I think that he still could be considered conservative.

B-but what about Rothbard and Mises?

>but from my own research Keynsian economics seem to remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth
This is the intention. Governments have been trying to do this since the Great Depression. See how well it works?
The 2008 financial crash was a direct result of regulations. Investment and commercial banking are both highly regulated.

Rothbard literally created the anarcho-capitalist theory, the biggest meme in economics of all time

But still pretty gud

There comes a point where simply lowering interest rates won't have the intended effect. Then it becomes about simply expanding the monetary supply to stimulate the economy, which results in inflation.

That is where Keynes fails. Keynesians can't conceive raising rates in a bad economic environment to curb inflation, it's why monetariasm (sp) came to the fore in the early 1980s.

The theory works well as long as you have great amount of money or people are willing to lend you money. If not, you're fucked.

Basing your thoughts on economic theories because the individual who invented it was white is silly as Fuck. During Keynes' lifetime the UK went from international superpower to bankruptcy.

Capitalism has one major flaw...Monopolies

All kike economist ignore this major flaw. Really makes you think

youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

I dont think it was created by regulations, I think it was created by fucking morons who borrowed more money than they had and invested it in worthless shit

Ratings agencies can be privatized. Public offices have a nasty history of being bought off far more than the public sector parallels.

Japan is keeping it's deficits under control even though they are financing almost their complete deficit with printed money.

So there can be only one conclusion, Keynesianism works ... as long as you don't have Jews and shitskins.

Good point

The 2008 crash was a result of the lending to niggers and white trash. And then international Jewry got a bail out.

>For example rating agencies
The big three are all private businesses, what are you talking about? Do you think that without NRSROs, there would be no demand for credit ratings, or no way to satisfy it on the open market?

God-tier.

>ignore
They don't ignore it, they address it and demonstrate that it's not a real problem.

Schacht actually implemented Keynes General Theory's aspects before the book was written. Top man.

Bullshit. Keynes knew very well about the LM curve.

I'm not an economics major, but I assume there could be someway to prevent these agencies from being payed off and giving A+ ratings to shady derivatives.

Good goy.

Comcast, viacom, google, Amazon ect don't exist

Capitalism has its flaws but it's still better than socialism that inherently relies upon monopolies to deliver goods.

If Wal-Mart went under tomorrow some other business would just take it's place.

no.
laws were passed which allowed people (niggers) who should not have gotten loans to get loans. The loans were backed by the federal government, giving the jew banks no risk, basically free sales.
When niggers inevitably couldn't pay, the pieces started to fall

>I'm not an economics major
You can't contribute here. Go away burger.

Walmart is a fucking monopoly. How much market share does a company need before you consider them a monopoly?

But he's right. Free trade is the best defense, and most of all (save for literally 2 examples) monopolies have been propped up by government in one way or another, either by trade restriction or direct intervention. No monopoly (save for the 2 examples) has ever lasted in the long-term without government, and fell apart.

Nigger you dumb shit we operate on Keynesian economics, it caused the housing crash, the stock market crashes, and removes faith in currency. We're going to be crashing again soon and it'll only get more and more frequently.
Kill the stock trading industry, and you basically save the economy after the initial "HOLY SHIT ITS THE APOCALYPSE MUH FREE MONEY FOR NO CAPITAL MADE"

Umm thats the gist of what I said
People getting loans they shouldn't have and buying home and investing where they shouldn't have

When it starts to use price discrimination strategies.

thanks to the laws and regulations which allowed it. regulations are to blame

image saved and canada is right for once.

They aren't the only people on the market. Do you even understand the definition of monopoly?

If the credit agencies systematically give sub-par information on the markets, new agencies will arise to fill the gap left by absence of proper market credit information.

> The theory works well as long as you have great amount of money or people are willing to lend you money.

A country with it's own fiat currency has infinite money.

Japan's economy is Shit tier though. The measure of a great nation is not how ethnically.homogeneous it is. Japan's been losing ground industrially since the 1990s.

Sorry, but isnt that deregulation?

>implying literally any of those are monopolies

they need to be the only business within a certain field, i.e. the only provider of a good/service, to be considered a monopoly.

No, it was caused by removal of the essential parts of regulation in a market dominated by regulation in the main.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall via the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act in the late 1980s in a supposed "liberalisation" of banking removed an essential barrier that prevented banks from becoming unstable within a system where there were no individual rational actors.

Banks collectively were able to behave as both investment and savings - mortgages could be sold as investment portfolios - generating "huge" returns that created prolific supply of loans to people that shouldn't have got them in the first place due to individual risk being too high.

In the case of one bank being permitted to do this but no others - this would be fine, since the total overall cost of a single loan default or even an entire portfolio default would not significantly alter the financial standing of an extremely large banking institution, which undoubtedly had insurance of one form or another to cover potential losses.

The problem of the subprime crisis happened because all banks suddenly jumped at the chance to capitalise on the repeal of an onerous but extremely important barrier to investment. Thus the actions of a group of people all moving in the same direction were now dependent on each other. In just 9 years, the asset portfolios of most major banks had become so riddled with dubious loans that when the first domino fell (Lehman Bros, which were the most egregious with their leveraging of bad loans) others had to turn to national governments to prop them up.

Northen Rock and RBS in the UK were two notable banks that did the same thing that Lehman Bros. did. They were the first to go under. We even had a proper bank run on NR in 2009.

The point is that regulation is fine, changing regulation is not fine. Either have a defensively regulated industry or completely deregulate it.

I agree, but before they are replaced they can destroy the entire economy

just read the neoclassical school
but warning: once you cross to the austrian side, you ain't coming back

Bullshit, the American firms base their financing strategy on the stock market and the bond market.
In order to do that, the US must reform the financial system and transform it to a German-Italian one where firm financing is primarily made by commercial banks through secret loans.

deregulation would be having no law which enforced who the banks should or should not loan to.
regulation: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.

Keynes didn't even use math correctly in his papers

He was a charlatan that sold a made up idea basically like a snake oil salesman for a couple checks

politicians were and continue to be retarded in regards to this simple fact that none of his math made any sense and were full of extremely obvious number fudging

No, the monopolist just needs to be the absolute price maker. Ignorant twat stop posting.

>there could be someway to prevent these agencies from being payed off and giving A+ ratings to shady derivatives
Government-run agencies are no different, and no less susceptible to corruption. At least with competition in the free market, it becomes unlikely (though not impossible) that ratings and certificaftion agencies start taking bribes.

The thing is, when it broke that they were pulling this shit, consumers should have lost all confidence in their ratings. But they didn't, because they're backed by the government.

Google and Amazon are not monopolies. Telecom companies are a more difficult issue because they're issued special legal privileges (exclusive use of certain radio frequencies, permission to build lines and towers, etc) in order to secure their position in the market.

Which they don't, because it's not a profitable business strategy. Predatory pricing is a socialist bogeyman.

>once you cross to the austrian side, you ain't coming back
This is very true. Austrian economics is a cult; once you cross to their side, you'll be incapable of seeing the light because your brain has been fried.

You're right, it is. And it failed. The market learned a lesson, and most with a brain won't do that again.

The structure they used to issue those mortgages was designed to absorb defaults and was essentially too good to be true.

My town of 10,000 had a Walmart. There are still 4 other grocery stores, nearly 10 other clothing stores, 2 other sporting goods stores, a ton of auto parts stores, and a couple of places that sell furniture. The only thing it doesn't have competition in is video games because no one wants to build a gamestop on the middle of bumfuck nowhere. How is that a monopoly?

Semantics...
When I say regulation I mean a tighter control on the open market
When I say deregulation I mean loosening control on the open market

There were no crashes until the deregulation. Well, there were, before it.

After the deregulation started, the banks kept getting moe predatory. The term used is 'Looting'. THere is a famous paper you should read.

pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/Looting.pdf

Depends on what you mean by 'Keynesian'. Neokeynesians, like Krugman are the result of the neoclassical synthesis, which basically destroyed most of what was good in Kenesianism and classical economics. Post-Keynesians continue on Keynesian tradition.

Also, boom and bust are dependant also on supply. Keynesian methods can easily abolish demand recessions, involuntary unemployment and the sort of overindebtedness we suffer from now.

However, growth still requires resources. That is why during the oil crisis you had stagflation.

It's not. You can buy anything that's in Wal-Mart online. Bricks and mortar stores are going the way of the dodo.

The 1980s were a result of neo keynesianism. Keynes advocates government stimulus in times of recession when labout is cheap to build up national infrastructure until the economy got back on its feet. Neo keynesians decided that they would stimulate the economy forever and be permanently in debt forever. Thats why you got massive inflation that cant be killed by reducing rates.

The math was right, the problem was it was all based off of theoretical markets which were totally unrealistic. The theory was good, the application was bunk.

True

>he fell for the use inflation to secure full employment meme

>Keynsian economics seem to remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth.

It does, but it's been given a bad name by liberals using it as an excuse for relentless expansion of the welfare state.

Yes, it could have been avoided with effective regulation. However, part of that regulation, the greatest part, has to be cultural on the side of financial institutions. Simply adding more government oversight wouldn't have been enough. Our banking culture needs to be changed, in addition to new government regulations being added.

Wal Mart has a large market share because it offers lower prices than the competition. What exactly is your issue with consumers paying less money for the same goods?

there's no such thing as an 'absolute price maker', friend

austrian school here, can confirm you won't leave if you join us

>taking a different approach to social sciences is cult behavior

Monopolist are price-takers, not price-makers. They take the highest price the market can bare, setting a price too high causes the barrier to entry to become lower. Have you even taken an economics course in the past decade, gramps?

keynesian is some kind of ponzi scheme. while it may work pretty good for some time it eventually crashes. What's the point of creating a system that has to crash? how about create a system that is eternal and just ride the fucking waves like men. Stop being pussies trying to maintain a sweet sweet temporary numb world, just to fuck your children into a shit hole. It's the modern economic policy for the modern soulless decadent faggot. Keynesian policy is for people who wear masks and fuck each other in the ass. And have Pitbull for NYE

All a see in my life is a series of kike owned monopolies.

When Comcast charges $5 to rent a movie that cost 99 cents a decade ago is that not price discrimination.

Banks were compelled to give loans to people whom they would've never previously given loans to thanks to government threats and schemes.

First came the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. On the surface, the purpose of this law was to eliminate red-lining. If you're not familiar, red-lining was a policy started by the FDR administration when they created the Federal Housing Administration to keep blacks out of white nieghborhoods via regulations. The Clinton administration took the CRA and used it to threaten banks that they would not be allowed to expand, merge with other banks, or generally do things every business would want to do unless they gave loans to minorities with bad credit or no credit. The purpose of this policy was to artificially increase homeownership rates. The consequences should've been obvious, that a larger proportion of borrowers would default, but government forged ahead. Homeownership would go up until the defaults came, at which point it would go back down.

The relevant CRA policies were pushed by Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo.

For commercial banks, this is a very bad deal. They are now giving loans to people they know will default at an increased rate creating a greater potential for loss. However, the government offered them a form of relief. The government also runs two mortgage securities enterprises, commonly referred to as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These government enterprises buy and package mortgages from commercial banks, which can then be maintained or sold to investment banks. Commercial banks were guaranteed that Fannie Mae would buy their mortgage packages in the early to mid-1990s, giving them a place to offload high risk mortgages compelled by Janet Reno.

The relevant Fannie Mae policies were instituted by CEO James A Johnson.

A lot of Americans don't know what Keynesianism is. Keynesianism is just Classical Liberalism - Say's Law, because Say's Law is not factual. Keynesianists just believe that the unmet demand should be met, in part, by government. Libertarians believe the fairy of consumer confidence will fly down from the cosmopolitan-sphere (Libertarian heaven) and create demand.

hahaahah
somewhat correct, somewhat not, but good joke nontheless;
it is actually quite diffferent from the other economic schools - more archaically libertarian in some way,
however it would properly work only with global acceptance of it in which case it would yield great results,
while this system is in power it's goals and results can't be seen

So as long two business which are owned by the same 100 investors exist its not a monopoly

It's called monopolistic competition market structure. They are not monopolies.

>is that not price discrimination.
When a company charges more than you would like to pay, doesn't mean it is discriminating against you. Take your business elsewhere you entitled millenial.

Global warming weather models are the pinnacle of science compared to macro-economic modeling. The most math adds to macro-economics is pretension and deception.

>When Comcast charges $5 to rent a movie that cost 99 cents a decade ago is that not price discrimination.
Nope

Money don't create wealth.
It jobs do create wealth

He argued that we should spend money to sustain wealth and do not feel crisis.
HE WAS DEAD WRONG
What is crisis? A system reaction to dysfunction. A reaction to cleanse itself from parasite business that don't provide people with goods that they want
If we pay out our way out of every crisis this leaves us with undergoing stealth recession going on

People don't do valuable jobs, don't produce valuable goods anymore in Keynesian economics near fatal crash

Government shouldn't intervene during crisis, cause it won't ever let clear the system out of parasites

This is the problem with economists. Creating an ideal society is a retarded concept. What we need is a stable society. Homeostasis requires osccillation. this is the natural way of things. Economic idealism is just putting a dam up on a river that will eventually fuck your shit up. You need chaos and decentralization for a system that sustains itself.

Bullshit little one. The monopolist is the price maker. I maybe gramps but you didn't study economics at all.

If the rating agencies hadn't made it possible for banks to offload all those shit mortgages on investment banks and institutional investors then nothing would have happened.

They would have just been shit mortgages on bank mortgage books ... might have pulled a few under, but it wouldn't have snowballed.

Government spending creates jobs though...

(cont.)
Finally came easy money. In 2001, the Federal Reserve drastically lowered the interest rate in response to the dotcom bubble bursting and other economic factors in an attempt to stimulate the economy by making borrowing money easier. Even without this policy, the act of compelling banks to give loans to more people who will default would've been enough. This added fuel to the fire by making home loans even more appealing for those who might fail to pay them back. As a result of the combined policies, demand for home ownership was rising so fast that prices necessarily rose quickly to match them. Eventually, defaults started coming in too quickly for banks and the market to keep up. As more defaults were added to the balance sheets of banks, they become more desperate to offload the homes now considered on their possession. As such, they undercut the market. This helped fuel a rapid drop in the value of real estate, which led more people to become upside-down in their mortgage and choose default.

None of this would've happened if the government did not compel and induce commercial banks to give loans to individuals who they previously would not have given loans to for risks of default.

You don't come back because the Austrian school provides the ultimate economic red pill.

do yourself a favor