Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Economics

Economics The economy, taxes, Federal Reserve, Central Banks, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, stock markets, currency, GDP, NAFTA, IMF, WTO, GATT, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old Jan 14th 2016, 08:47 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

The core lessons from the legendary Lord First Baron John Maynard Keynes:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...simple-lessons
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jan 14th 2016, 06:12 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
The core lessons from the legendary Lord First Baron John Maynard Keynes:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...simple-lessons
The link is bullshit. Nothing about Keynesian economic theory there, just typical rightwing tropes that someone made up and attributes to Keynes.

Btw, where did you get that title for Keynes? "Lord First Baron" makes no sense (it is redundant) and isn't a title in the British peerage. If you wish to refer to his title, he's Baron Keynes of Tilton.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jan 15th 2016, 06:54 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
The link is bullshit. Nothing about Keynesian economic theory there, just typical rightwing tropes that someone made up and attributes to Keynes.

Btw, where did you get that title for Keynes? "Lord First Baron" makes no sense (it is redundant) and isn't a title in the British peerage. If you wish to refer to his title, he's Baron Keynes of Tilton.
Lord First Baron John Maynard Keynes of Tilton in polite society:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jan 15th 2016, 06:40 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
Lord First Baron John Maynard Keynes of Tilton in polite society:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
From your link:

Quote:
John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
After his death, his son would become the 2nd Baron Keynes. In common usage, one may refer to Keynes either as Lord Keynes, or Lord Tilton (or simply John Maynard Keynes). Any other form of address would be improper.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jan 15th 2016, 07:04 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

And just for sport, we'll address the bullshit posted under the OP link.

First of all, we should note that these statements are asserted to Keynes, but notably no citation is given - that's because Keynes never said any of this stuff.

1. "Increasing the currency supply creates economic growth". This is absurd - or more accurately, it is just made up. Keynes never said this and his general economic theory doesn't demonstrate or support that in any way. To put it simply, 'increasing the currency supply' just tends to increase the money supply. That might facilitate economic growth, or it might facilitate economic contraction, depending on dozens of other factors.

2. "Spending is all that matters. Savings are harmful to a growing economy". Again, Keynes never said this, it is just made up. Indeed, it is quite the opposite to what Keynesian theory actually says. In actual Keynesian economic theory, savings are harmful to a contracting economy and beneficial to a growing economy.

3. "Price decreases are harmful to consumption and economic growth". Again, neither Keynes, nor Keynesian economic theory assert this. What Keynesian economic theory asserts is that a contracting economy is harmful to consumption and economic growth. And yes, price decreases often do accompany a contracting economy, but the price decreases are a symptom of a contracting economy, not the cause of the contraction. Price decreases are merely incidental to a contracting economy. Price decreases may also be incidental to a growing economy. That is to say, price levels have nothing to do with whether or not an economy is contracting or expanding.

4. "War, natural disasters, and destruction boost economic growth". This observation is generally true, but doesn't originate with Keynes. He didn't invent that idea, nor is it part of Keynesian economic theory. The idea that war and natural disasters tend to boost economic growth is something that was observed and widely asserted in the 19th century Victorian era.

* * *

In other words, just another typically bullshit rightwing slander of Keynes and Keynesian economic theory. There are grounds for critiquing Keynesian economic theory, but this ain't it. This is just silly stuff that the rightwing and their supporters love so much.

If one is genuinely interested in Keynesian economic theory, it is helpful to remember that his whole theory is entirely focused upon the 'boom & bust' cycle of business that dominated all the advanced economies in the hundred years that preceded Keynes. Keynesian theory is about how to mitigate the widespread economic (and human) damage caused by these recurrent boom & bust cycles. Keynesian theory is NOT a general theory of macroeconomics - no matter how hard people like to pretend that it is, it isn't and never was.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jan 16th 2016, 09:22 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
And just for sport, we'll address the bullshit posted under the OP link.

First of all, we should note that these statements are asserted to Keynes, but notably no citation is given - that's because Keynes never said any of this stuff.

1. "Increasing the currency supply creates economic growth". This is absurd - or more accurately, it is just made up. Keynes never said this and his general economic theory doesn't demonstrate or support that in any way. To put it simply, 'increasing the currency supply' just tends to increase the money supply. That might facilitate economic growth, or it might facilitate economic contraction, depending on dozens of other factors.

2. "Spending is all that matters. Savings are harmful to a growing economy". Again, Keynes never said this, it is just made up. Indeed, it is quite the opposite to what Keynesian theory actually says. In actual Keynesian economic theory, savings are harmful to a contracting economy and beneficial to a growing economy.

3. "Price decreases are harmful to consumption and economic growth". Again, neither Keynes, nor Keynesian economic theory assert this. What Keynesian economic theory asserts is that a contracting economy is harmful to consumption and economic growth. And yes, price decreases often do accompany a contracting economy, but the price decreases are a symptom of a contracting economy, not the cause of the contraction. Price decreases are merely incidental to a contracting economy. Price decreases may also be incidental to a growing economy. That is to say, price levels have nothing to do with whether or not an economy is contracting or expanding.

4. "War, natural disasters, and destruction boost economic growth". This observation is generally true, but doesn't originate with Keynes. He didn't invent that idea, nor is it part of Keynesian economic theory. The idea that war and natural disasters tend to boost economic growth is something that was observed and widely asserted in the 19th century Victorian era.

* * *

In other words, just another typically bullshit rightwing slander of Keynes and Keynesian economic theory. There are grounds for critiquing Keynesian economic theory, but this ain't it. This is just silly stuff that the rightwing and their supporters love so much.

If one is genuinely interested in Keynesian economic theory, it is helpful to remember that his whole theory is entirely focused upon the 'boom & bust' cycle of business that dominated all the advanced economies in the hundred years that preceded Keynes. Keynesian theory is about how to mitigate the widespread economic (and human) damage caused by these recurrent boom & bust cycles. Keynesian theory is NOT a general theory of macroeconomics - no matter how hard people like to pretend that it is, it isn't and never was.
You don't have to be a right-winger to think that Keynes was full of shit.

I'm an atheist, pro-choice for women, pro gay marriage, anti-war, anti-crony capitalism, and think that the US Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex is an abomination and a blight on the world. So I don't think that I qualify as a right-winger.

Keynes is the guy who said that he wanted to make the world safe for capitalism, and when Hayek said that his policies wouldn't work in the long run he allegedly replied "In the long run we'll all be dead."

But the long run has come and a new generation is alive facing the consequences of his policies.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jan 16th 2016, 09:54 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

I'm a fan of Scotsman Adam Smith, who was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and was a champion of the working stiff. He wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759, which historians say he considered his best work, better than An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations that was published in 1776, seventeen years later. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments he coined the term "mutual sympathy" to describe how good, ethical people relate to others, which we now call "empathy."

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith said that if a good, decent, person heard that 100,000 Chinese had been killed in an earthquake that s/he would briefly feel sorry about tragedy, but wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but if s/he knew that his/her little daughter or nephew was scheduled to have an infected finger amputated the next day that s/he might not sleep that night. Thus, Smith opined that normal people placed their own self-interest, and the interest of people closest to them first. He regarded this as being factual, although not necessarily the great virtue that Ayn Rand later proclaimed it to be.

In The Wealth of Nations Smith noted that people were most creative and industrious when working in their own self interest. He also observed that government tariffs, quotas, and bans on foreign produce to help special interest reduced to total wealth in a nation to the detriment of all but special interests. He noted that never do businessmen in the same trade sit down to tea without discussing how to monopolize their products, but that unless they could get the government to act against their competition that their efforts failed.

I could go on, but let me just say that I think that Adam Smith equated to Keynes as Albert Einstein equated to your average high school physics teacher.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jan 18th 2016, 06:22 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
I'm a fan of Scotsman Adam Smith, who was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and was a champion of the working stiff.
1. There are no contradictions between Smith and Keynes in economic theory.

2. Keynesian economic theory was created to mitigate the damage to working class stiffs - who were the ones that got stiffed by the old boom & bust cycles.

3. Smith's economic theories have been used by the ruling elites to screw the working class more than any other economist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
He wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759, which historians say he considered his best work, better than An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations that was published in 1776, seventeen years later. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments he coined the term "mutual sympathy" to describe how good, ethical people relate to others, which we now call "empathy."

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith said that if a good, decent, person heard that 100,000 Chinese had been killed in an earthquake that s/he would briefly feel sorry about tragedy, but wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but if s/he knew that his/her little daughter or nephew was scheduled to have an infected finger amputated the next day that s/he might not sleep that night. Thus, Smith opined that normal people placed their own self-interest, and the interest of people closest to them first. He regarded this as being factual, although not necessarily the great virtue that Ayn Rand later proclaimed it to be.
One cannot absolve Adam Smith of his great disciples of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Hayak who deified his name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
In The Wealth of Nations Smith noted that people were most creative and industrious when working in their own self interest. He also observed that government tariffs, quotas, and bans on foreign produce to help special interest reduced to total wealth in a nation to the detriment of all but special interests. He noted that never do businessmen in the same trade sit down to tea without discussing how to monopolize their products, but that unless they could get the government to act against their competition that their efforts failed.
When reading Smith, it is always important to remember that 90% of his economic writings were written to attack the economic theory of mercantilism as well as monopolies that were totally dominant throughout Europe in the 18th century.

As for Smith's view of businessmen, that's a very quaint 18th century view. Businessmen do not need to sit down to tea to discuss monopoly. Indeed, to do so is entirely illegal and therefore inefficient (though some foolish ones still try to do it that way).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
I could go on, but let me just say that I think that Adam Smith equated to Keynes as Albert Einstein equated to your average high school physics teacher.
Apples and oranges entirely. Smith is not the author of a comprehensive macro-economic theory any more than Keynes is. I do find it interesting that you seem to insist that is what they both did.

You appear to be imparting to Smith far more than Smith ever claimed. Indeed, you are, ipso facto, praising Friedman and Hayak's theories, not Smith. Friedman and Hayak constructed macro-economic theories based (loosely) on Smith's ideas.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jan 19th 2016, 08:54 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Indeed, you are, ipso facto, praising Friedman and Hayak's theories, not Smith. Friedman and Hayak constructed macro-economic theories based (loosely) on Smith's ideas.
I'm definitely not praising Milton Friedman's theories about monetarism, which presume a large, coercive state. However, I do praise the theories of Professor David Friedman, who seems to combine the brilliance of both his parents, Milton and Rose Friedman.

David Friedman's book addresses some of the really hard cases for unfettered free enterprise, including air and water pollution, criminal justice, and so on:
http://smile.amazon.com/Machinery-Fr...cal+capitalism

I'll even give some praise to Karl Marx. I think that his term "fictitious capital" regarding the stock market was spot-on, and even more relevant now than back in his day.

I don't believe that the labour theory of value is accurate, but at least Marx was intelligent and thought-provoking compared to fucking Keynes.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jan 19th 2016, 03:56 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
I'm definitely not praising Milton Friedman's theories about monetarism, which presume a large, coercive state. However, I do praise the theories of Professor David Friedman, who seems to combine the brilliance of both his parents, Milton and Rose Friedman.
Milton Friedman, along with Hayak, through their disciple Greenspan, have represented the dominant economic theory in US government for the last 30 years.

If you are bashing Keynes, that means you are [defacto] praising Friedman/Hayak/Greenspan in political terms. Don't you know why there are always so many articles out there written by rightwing hacks bashing Keynes? It is to prop up Friedman/Hayak/Greenspan economic philosophy (aka neo-liberalism, aka neo-conservativism).

That's a long-standing rightwing economic game - all political guns are always aimed at Keynes. Keynesian economic theory benefits the working class and is hated by the rightwingers for that reason.

Quote:
David Friedman's book addresses some of the really hard cases for unfettered free enterprise, including air and water pollution, criminal justice, and so on:
http://smile.amazon.com/Machinery-Fr...cal+capitalism
One can cite 'pie-in-the-sky' economic ideas from hundreds of economists. Unless they are students/disciples of Freidman/Hayak, they are irrelevant to policy makers in Washington.

Only Keynes scares the rightwing plutocrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
I'll even give some praise to Karl Marx. I think that his term "fictitious capital" regarding the stock market was spot-on, and even more relevant now than back in his day.
I think that's absurd. I'm also not familiar with this utterance of Marx. Do you have a citation because I'm curious about it. Capital is capital. The stock market isn't fake capital. What the stock market is, is just gambling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
I don't believe that the labour theory of value is accurate, but at least Marx was intelligent and thought-provoking compared to fucking Keynes.
I'm totally open to valid criticisms of Keynesian economic theory. Nothing you have ever posted is even remotely related to Keynesian economic theory. You seem to be just endlessly repeating spurious rightwing talking points about Keynesian economics that have no resemblance to actual Keynesian economic theory.

Btw, bashing Keynes with spurious rightwing tropes and citing rightwingers to do it, doesn't add up with your claim of being "not a rightwinger". You may not be a rightwinger, but you are certainly carrying water for them when you repeat their anti-Keynesian bullshit.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com