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
  #11  
Old Jan 20th 2016, 09:45 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



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.
The citation you requested:

Fictitious capital. Karl Marx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_capital

I agree that the stock market today is just gambling, but with fictitious capital.

And bitcoins are probably more fictitious than your average fiat currency.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center

Last edited by Tom Palven; Jan 20th 2016 at 09:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jan 23rd 2016, 11:41 AM
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 citation you requested:

Fictitious capital. Karl Marx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_capital

I agree that the stock market today is just gambling, but with fictitious capital.

And bitcoins are probably more fictitious than your average fiat currency.
Interesting. I remember the expression now from when I read it, but if I recall correctly, that's Engels work, post-Marx. And when I encountered the term I considered it absurd because it didn't include all money not invested as 'true capital' (ie. invested in production).

It is theoretically and intellectually possible to divide capital into 'productive' and 'non-productive' capital as categories. The same cannot be said for 'real' and 'fake' capital. Fake capital is just capital that Engels/Marx didn't like and that's not a theoretically or intellectually valid distinction unless one is an ideologue.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jan 23rd 2016, 02:06 PM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Let me take one more, unbelievably convincing, (is that an oxymoron) shot at macroeconomics (Keynesianism).

It's tempting to compare macroeconomics to astrology. There are sections at Barnes and Noble stores and in libraries devoted to astrology and sections devoted to macroeconomics, both of which are pseudo-sciences having similar predictive abilities; that is, none at all.

When Einstein produced reams of calculations describing his theories predicting nuclear reactions he may have looked ridiculous to some people, and then there were those loud explosions with big mushroom clouds. But the multitudes of calculations in Greg Mankiw's textbooks on macroeconomics fail to explain or to predict anything accurately.

However, comparing macroeconomics to astrology vastly underestimates the academic grandeur and political power associated with macroeconomics that astrology lacks.

A much more accurate comparison would be comparing macroeconomics to Christianity, both in the amount of shelf space given them in book stores and in the fervor of their devotees.

Christians are fond of saying that "Nothing succeeds like prayer," while some skeptics calculate that nothing fails like prayer. However, almost nothing fails like prayer, except macroeconomics.

The macroeconomic recommendations produced by top gurus like Greg Mankiw at Harvard and Paul Krugman at the New York Times have failed to achieve anything more worthwhile than the prayers of Christian gurus like Pat Robertson. They have produced stifling bureaucracy, economic stagnation, and an undecipherable tax code benefiting crony capitalists at the expense of mom and pop small businesses and average working people.
http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html

But, to question the track records of Mankiw or Krugman is as blasphemous to academics as questioning the track records of Robertson or Joel Osteen is to Christians.

We are addressing a scam of truly mind-boggling proportions.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center

Last edited by Tom Palven; Jan 23rd 2016 at 02:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jan 24th 2016, 12:46 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
Let me take one more, unbelievably convincing, (is that an oxymoron) shot at macroeconomics (Keynesianism).

It's tempting to compare macroeconomics to astrology. There are sections at Barnes and Noble stores and in libraries devoted to astrology and sections devoted to macroeconomics, both of which are pseudo-sciences having similar predictive abilities; that is, none at all.

When Einstein produced reams of calculations describing his theories predicting nuclear reactions he may have looked ridiculous to some people, and then there were those loud explosions with big mushroom clouds. But the multitudes of calculations in Greg Mankiw's textbooks on macroeconomics fail to explain or to predict anything accurately.

However, comparing macroeconomics to astrology vastly underestimates the academic grandeur and political power associated with macroeconomics that astrology lacks.

A much more accurate comparison would be comparing macroeconomics to Christianity, both in the amount of shelf space given them in book stores and in the fervor of their devotees.

Christians are fond of saying that "Nothing succeeds like prayer," while some skeptics calculate that nothing fails like prayer. However, almost nothing fails like prayer, except macroeconomics.

The macroeconomic recommendations produced by top gurus like Greg Mankiw at Harvard and Paul Krugman at the New York Times have failed to achieve anything more worthwhile than the prayers of Christian gurus like Pat Robertson. They have produced stifling bureaucracy, economic stagnation, and an undecipherable tax code benefiting crony capitalists at the expense of mom and pop small businesses and average working people.
http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html

But, to question the track records of Mankiw or Krugman is as blasphemous to academics as questioning the track records of Robertson or Joel Osteen is to Christians.

We are addressing a scam of truly mind-boggling proportions.
If you are just going to keep on insisting that "up is down" then I just don't see any benefit, reason or purpose to engage the discussion.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jan 24th 2016, 10:13 PM
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
If you are just going to keep on insisting that "up is down" then I just don't see any benefit, reason or purpose to engage the discussion.
Well, there it is, then, 'cause I've thought this through and am sticking to my guns.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old Jan 25th 2016, 06:42 AM
Tom Palven Tom Palven is offline
Cranky Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,045
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Nah, I'll blather on some more.

The "laws" of supply and demand were in effect back in 1776 when Smith wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

They existed in the interest rates charged in private bank loans, in the costs of insuring ships and cargo, and so on even to the largest shipping interests and producers in the textile industry, iron and steel industry, etc.

Smith examined how the prices of goods and labour related to the supply and demand for these goods and services, and were governed almost seemingly by an "invisible hand," which some of Smith's detractors like to imply has some kind of spooky element to it.

It didn't matter how small or huge a given manufacturing industry or insurance company was, they were all involved in spontaneous order if left alone.

Smith observed that when government meddled in this order to subsidize wool production, ban textile imports or imposed various other tariffs or taxes to benefit special interests, that it was detrimental to the "wealth of a nation" as a whole.

Smith is considered to be the father of economics, much as Darwin is the considered to be the main father of evolutionary theory, and the Wright Bros were the fathers of aeronautical engineering.

There was just economics back in Smith's day, not macro or micro economics.

It was only after central government-enmeshed central banking came into effect and the possibilities for governmental deficit spending occurred that the term "macroeconomics" was coined to describe Keynes ideas in the early 20th Century.

Macroeconomics cannot be described as a science because it's laws do not exist in a natural state, but vary according to the whims of politicians with the power to tax, spend, print money, subsidize special interests, and manipulate interest rates.

Lead melts at a temperature regulated by a law of nature. The thousands of laws in the US Tax Code are not laws of nature.

The only time macroeconomists like Greg Mankiw can make accurate predictions are in those areas governed by the laws of supply and demand which existed in a natural state described as just plain economics since the 1700's, areas that some macroeconomists try to claim for themselves.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Greg_Mankiw
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Jan 25th 2016, 09:27 AM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: Keynesianism in 4 Simple Lessons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
Well, there it is, then, 'cause I've thought this through and am sticking to my guns.
I think it might go better if you tried to talk more about specific economic policies/approaches and less about vague, poorly-defined, disputed terms like "Keynesianism" and "macroeconomics."

Discussing whether or not a particular monetary policy is useful or not sounds a whole lot more interesting and worthwhile than arguing over whether or not it should be called "Keynesian."
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Jan 25th 2016, 10:32 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 dilettante View Post
I think it might go better if you tried to talk more about specific economic policies/approaches and less about vague, poorly-defined, disputed terms like "Keynesianism" and "macroeconomics."

Discussing whether or not a particular monetary policy is useful or not sounds a whole lot more interesting and worthwhile than arguing over whether or not it should be called "Keynesian."
Richard Nixon changed almost the entire world's (with the notable exception of China), monetary policies when he unilaterally cancelled the convertibility of the US dollar, the world's reserve currency, to gold, and allegedly said "We are all Keynesians, now."

Most mainstream economists then and now(you don't have to call them Keynesians, if you don't want to, although I think that's an accurate description. They certainly aren't the classical economic adherents of Adam Smith) applauded this move, which provided for more central government control and planning and initiated the tax and spend policies that now permeate the world, from the US to Zimbabwe, Greece, and the rest of the West, causing widespread economic stagnation.

The man who is probably the world's most influential economist, Greg Mankiw, of Harvard, supports this central planning and wants more of it, as does his loudest disciple, Paul Krugman of the New York Times.

Here are some of Krugman's predictions at one site, although there are many which address this in a similar way:
https://mises.org/library/fact-check...out-everything
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center

Last edited by Tom Palven; Jan 25th 2016 at 10:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Jan 25th 2016, 10:50 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 dilettante View Post
I think it might go better...
Let me add that I don't expect things to go better. Centralized planning and socialism are more popular than ever, and Bernie Sanders might well even get elected as President or Vice President.

I'm just more of less engaging in a "philosophy slam," trying to whittle away extraneous layers of BS and get down to some basic truths, for grins.

I don't expect that a whole lot of people are suddenly going to embrace free enterprise any more than I expect the hundreds of millions of people who embrace the Abrahamic religions are suddenly going to become agnostics.
__________________
Voltairian individualist on the Lunatic Fringe of the Radical Center
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Jan 25th 2016, 06:51 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
Richard Nixon changed almost the entire world's (with the notable exception of China), monetary policies when he unilaterally cancelled the convertibility of the US dollar, the world's reserve currency, to gold, and allegedly said "We are all Keynesians, now."
Nixon was a jackass and a criminal. And he was also wrong in this case. That comment is pure bullshit designed to discredit Keynesian economic theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
Most mainstream economists then and now(you don't have to call them Keynesians, if you don't want to, although I think that's an accurate description. They certainly aren't the classical economic adherents of Adam Smith) applauded this move, which provided for more central government control and planning and initiated the tax and spend policies that now permeate the world, from the US to Zimbabwe, Greece, and the rest of the West, causing widespread economic stagnation.
That's not why the US went of the gold standard.

Going off the gold standard does not equal Keynesian economic theory. That is absurd.

Btw, the economic stagnation of the 1970's was mostly driven by a rapid increase in the price of oil beginning in 1974.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
The man who is probably the world's most influential economist, Greg Mankiw, of Harvard, supports this central planning and wants more of it, as does his loudest disciple, Paul Krugman of the New York Times.
Central planning? Like Soviet Union style central planning? Are you kidding?

Call that whatever you want, but central planning of the economy is not Keynesian economic theory, not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Palven View Post
Here are some of Krugman's predictions at one site, although there are many which address this in a similar way:
https://mises.org/library/fact-check...out-everything
You really need to avoid intra-economic pissing matches okay? Mises.org represents "the Austrians" (aka Hayak) who are related, but not identical to the the "Chicago School" (aka Friedman & Greenspan). Both are extreme rightwing and both consider Keynes to be enemy number one (because his economic theory is good stuff that helps the working class at the expense of the ruling elite class).
__________________
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 11:24 AM.


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