Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DeathHamster, Oct 13, 2011.
QE 1&2 were pure Keynes, as was the bank bailout.
Someone's been smoking crack. Keynes was the greatest huckster and promoter of violence in the economic realm of the 20th century. His theories have been proven to be faulty and unworkable.
Uh, the economic policies that #OWS favours are solidly Keynesian.
That's why I included that the author's affiliation: "economist for the Canadian Union of Public Employees" I suspected that there was some bias there.
more's the pity. Keynesian economic policies don't work, so promoting a failed economic theory is sheer lunacy.
marx predicted this
The Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics at Princeton University disagrees with you.
it would be hard to show the utter fail of that article without totally derailing the thread, but since the Keynsian position is that stagflation can't happen, yet it did, then the theory is fail.
Keynesian economics is the economics of the State, not the market. As such it is designed to give justification to the State, not to explain reality, but to subvert it. Truly a failed theory, yet the State and its apologists love it because it gives justification to theft.
Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University Professor of Economics, author of one of the standard economics textbooks, and ex-member of the Council of Economic Advisors, disagrees with you:
Perhaps you should write to Princeton and Harvard Economics Depaertments and let them know about the 'justification to theft' thing?
I'm sure they'll see that it's a 'failed theory' if you do that.
I think you should show how fail that article is. I'd like to read it, hell if you're convincing enough you might change my opinion, till then rhetoric about the state and the left gets you zilch
any economic theory that can't explain reality is useless, less than useless, destructive. Keynesian economics has failed many times over the past 74 years. The countervailing theory is Austrian economics, which explained and or predicted the failures of Keynesian economics. SO, the counter argument would be contained in Friedrick Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and von Mises' Human Action.
You can find them in any decent library or bookstore, they have survived as long as Keynes and done a much better job explaining reality, which is the only reason for a theory to exist.
If that is too much reading (it's a lot) then a great starting point is Henry Hazlett's Economic In One Lesson.
And if even that is too much research for you read I, Pencil
And I will add that if you don't understand free market economics then you are failing in your due diligence. If you can't accurately express what it says, you can't accurately refute it.
There's no reason to let those State apologist economists know about the Austrian school. They are fully aware of it and what it does to their beloved if false theories about how the world works.
As I said, Keynes is the ultimate State apologist, in his ruthless pursuit of power.
This is what you want more of?
In the scientific community false theories get dropped (see aether and the theory of relativity). But since Keynesian economics is so useful to the politicians, they ignore reality in favor of faulty if emotionally satisfying false theories.
So you have posed a different theory, again the keyword theory and have made an unequivocal statement. Congratulations.
Yeah yeah, Hayek etc, I know.
Pros and cons on both sides. A matter of academic debate / discussion / argument.
Very far from being the one-sided 'Keynes's theories proven false' headline that you're pushing.
The issues are far more subtle and comples than that.
Yes. I know they are. That was my point, fuckwit.
I wasn't really suggesting that you actually do know more about economics than they do, and that you really should write to them! Quite far from it.
I see, a global conspiracy. Oh kay then.
Any theory that can't account for an observed behavior is a false theory. Keynesian theory can't account for stagflation and certainly didn't predict it. Austrian school predicted it and can account for it.
As for global conspiracy, it ignores my point in favor of a straw man, but whatever.
Now has its own thread.
you're so kind
I've been explaining it for the past six months: failed economic theories. While economics is not a precise science like physics or chemistry (come to think of it, they aren't all that precise either-think quantum mechanics) we can make predictions based on theories to see how they fare. Keynesian theories never work. Let me repeat that: Keynesian policies never work.
Austrian economic theories do much better. They predicted stagflation, show how incentives make a difference, show that people making their economic decisions is the best way to vote.
We vote once every year or two for politicians, which pales compared to the literally thousands of votes we cast in the same time period in our private lives. More feedback means better understanding. Which would you prefer: one vote every two years or ten thousand votes in the same period, votes that cannot be cheated.
The law of supply and demand is more elastic than the law of gravity, but both are inexorable.
Keynesian economics appeals to the emotions, Austrian economics appeals to reality. Something for nothing always sounds good, but it runs up against reality. The simplest explanation why Keynesian economics appeals to people is that it subverts the harsh realities of making a living.
And in case it isn't clear, the #ow clip advocated Keynesian solutions in the context of a socialist ideology. Some of us don't want that. In a free society, you would be free to set up a community of Keynesians, if that was your wish. But in your society, I would not have the freedom to set up a free market. So whose society is freer, the one that allows all possibilities, or the one that restricts the supply of choices artificially?
And last, it is a lot easier to spell 'Austrian' than 'Keynesian'. That is the deciding factor for me.
I agree 95% agree with everything you said except for the part about quantum physics. just because i'm uncertain about quantum physics doesn't mean I'm not precise. In fact, I'm precisely uncertain.
Brillantly put. I don't completely agree that Austrian is the final truth also, but it beats Keynes' wishful thinking by far.
You do realise the Austrian School has worse problems here right? Scandinavia is a right problem for ye.
You're claiming that university economics departments worldwide are sticking to a theory they know to be false. Hence, a global conspiracy.
So now you have the space, feel free to go for it. No excuse not to.
I'm interested in a proper discussion of the economic issues. Not so interested in the point-blank "Keynes was wrong because I say so and stagflation proves it" bit you've been peddling so far.
Fuckin kangaroos, what's up with them?
No theory is final. And there can never be a 'final truth' when people are involved, We are too dynamic for finality.
Care to elaborate?
Your point ignores human nature and what I actually said but hey, it sounds kewl.
Dude, I've been trying for six months and what I get is:
discuss, get confused, contradict yourself, insult me, get angry, raegquit.
Once the discussion gets to a point where people's emotions are involved, reason breaks down, I get insulted and that's the end of the rational discussion.
And at the risk of repeating myself, if a theory fails to account for a known phenomenon, then the theory is false. So my reasoning is not "Keynes was wrong because I say so and stagflation proves it" but "Keynes could not account for stagflation, hence his theory fails to account for known phenomenon." My opinion is of no interest in this. I say Keynes was wrong because his theory failed to account for reality. That is not 'opinion' that is a statement of reality.
Keynesian theory says it can't happen.
Keynes was wrong.
The syllogism is not difficult.
The article begs the question of whether taxes are moral are not. It assumes they are.
It also ignores the homogeneity of the Scandinavian countries and the heterogeneity of the US.
The fact is that taxes are theft and a moral society cannot be based on an immoral notion.
This is a false dichotomy. There is NO security in this world. NONE. Never, ever, it is impossible. So to ask about the tradeoff between prosperity and security is a false dichotomy. Economic security leads to personal security. It is not a trade off. More economic security means more social security. Less economic freedom means less social freedom.
Care to actually address any of the substantive points raised in the article? You know, the economic argument it presents and the problem it highlights for your beloved Austrian School?
You do know that the user 'Anonymous' is more than one person, right?
I did. If the premise is wrong, the conclusions are just noise.
Care to address my rebuttal?
No I did not know that. Thank you so much for pointing that out to me.
So you asserting, without any evidence, reasoning or empirical evidence, that taxes are somehow 'immoral', while completely ignoring basic fucking economic reality (i.e. that without taxes you cannot have things like roads, police and all the other things that have lead to a higher quality of living than hunter/gather culture) is a rebuttal? Are you seriously that fucking retarded?
We shall return to the days of yore where we can hire our own militias and have actual toll roads and pay a tariff for goods, as tariffs are not taxes!
Behold, Austrian progress!
If you don't understand someone, you ask them questions. If you want to drive people away, you insult them.
Insults tell me that you haven't thought your position through. If you had, insults wouldn't be needed. Want to talk in a civil manner or are you here to insult people with ideas you don't understand?
A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.
To recap - you are ignoring the economic argumentation and empirical evidence presented in the article by hiding a behind the simplistic unfounded assertion that taxes are 'immoral'. I think that fully deserves to be regarding as retarded tbh.
"A simpe yes"
God, you really are willfully blind, sonny boy.
I did refute the article. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You haven't mentioned what I said, you've ignored it. Address the points I made before you resort to insults again.
Does anyone really think that people would pay the actual cost of government if they had to pay for it out of pocket? Taxes have no defensible moral basis. If you have one (don't use the social contract crock) then i truly would like to know what it is. If you defend it based on the social contract then you are truly naive and haven't thought the position through. It doesn't stand up to the scrutiny.
The social contract is the false dichotomy fallacy writ large. To wit, either agree or GTFO. That is a false dichotomy.
Are you serious? Taxes pay for the infrastructure that lead to things like available clean water which in turn leads to billions of people not dying. You really want to try arguing that this isn't a moral basis?????
Simply repeating this same unfounded inane shit isn't helping you....
Blah blah blah
Free market is a mean, not an end. It's not in the public interests to let entities which purpose *by definition* is to amass as much wealth as possible in the shortest time to unduly influence or outright run governments, which first purpose is to represent public interests, through evidence-based policies. It's these "balance-sheet-must-grow-whatever-it-takes" entities which need to be bound and restrained through sensible regulations to protect the public interests and are enacted by the people, *not* the other way around. (Notice how these too big for our own good entities actually *despise* free-market economy, they wish they were alone and free to dictate whatever they wish, and unduly influencing governments is just one of their tool in their arsenal.)
Else you end up with fed-up people.
Not sure this would pass peer review for some reason:
Abstract: This paper analyses the underlying premise that Keynesian economics rests upon.
Method: State “taxes are immoral”. Repeatedly. And without waiver or hesitation.
Conclusion: Keynesian economics is wrong and the Austrian School is right.
all I'm seeing is false dichotomies
to wit: Taxes or no roads
The response: private roads have a long and honored presence in the US.
Conclusion, private roads are viable and hence the premise "Roads won't be built without taxes" is demonstrably false
You do realise that, without governance (which requires taxes), no private entity would have existed to build the roads right? Please tell me you see this?
Can you point to a private interstate highway for me? Perhaps a private port? Commercial Airport? How do we measure taxes? Are tolls taxes? Are fees taxes? Does it matter if private industry, groups or governments collect them?
You've used what I would consider a ridiculous proposition of "private roads" You understand even in private communities they still pay "fees" to a local board for maintenance right?
So if you can show me how your economic model would work in a simple commercial transaction, it be awesome.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!