Arguably the greatest thinker of the 20th century

But he was arguably wrong. Keynesianism was a disaster during FDR's term and led to subpar economic growth in the post ww2 era. Remember that Keynes basically commanded British economic policy after ww2 and Britain had by far the worst economic growth of all western euro countries.

itt:

1. people that have never read: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

2. people that have never read: The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions

3. people that have never read: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

4. people that have never read Marx, any Marx

5. people that have never read: Stabilizing an Unstable Economy

6. people that unironically believe that IS-LM is "pure Keynesianism"

7. people that unironically believe that DSGE is somehow "pure Keynesianism"

8. people that unironically believe that the Neoclassical orthodox consensus is somehow "pure Keynesianism"

9. people that unironically believe that the global economy during the Breton Woods era was "pure Keynesianism", and have never heard of H.D. White

10. people that unironically believe that there is a global Keynesian conspiracy to take away their freedums

11. people that strawman Keynes and Marx, dismissing them while never having actually read their work

12. people that are unironically "Austrian" or "Libertarian"

13. people that unironically parrot Stephan Molyneux videos

14. people that unironically believe in static equilibrium and stable markets

15. people without a single lick of education in mathematics or economics, that dismiss both fundamentally due to their ignorance

16. people that are unironically "Marxist" and believe in Marxian LTV

17. Econ101 undergraduates

18. and scho on and scho on...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's another economics thread on Veeky Forums (into the trash it goes)

>worst economic growth of all western euro countries
this is intended to control and subvert global mass population & growth..

humanity doesn't know what to do with itself and now regrets its fostered(the religion experiment) results, we're in a cooling/slowing phase, and then a decline.

shit=good when it comes to global control of a masses (out) to select few genetic oligarchs (in) .. or whatever.. based on force, who controls the most force and can ensure the strains/strands and inherited/passed on transgenerationally

failure aka keynes economic policy woven so completely into socio strata is condusive to these overarching goals of capital.. communism based economies in usuary ... see the value of the derivatives bubble compared to any other sector of the economy (global gdp etc).
in particular the value manip of the precious metals market
namely silver
number one element on the table
what countries have in reserves, mines, mined, unmined, and control of

thats all that matters

keynes like hitler poster boy for bullshit and yeah they pulled some triggers but if an individual doesnt have self responsibility they forfeit that individual personhood/life

>communism

socialist... anything fiscally left

see: 8, 9, 10, and perhaps 11 & 12.

you live in a christian world where the legal status of cannabis is questioned

see: 2, 5, & 9

>Remember that Keynes basically commanded British economic policy after ww2 and Britain had by far the worst economic growth of all western euro countries.
Yeah but that was because he was a terrible politician, not because of his economic ideas. Remember that he accomplished none of his goals at Breton Woods because he was too incompetent to make a decent compromise and America a a result won all the negotiations.

you live in a word where your stoner conspiracy theories magically become true simply because you believe them to be so.

>see the value of the derivatives bubble compared to any other sector of the economy (global gdp etc)
>keynes like hitler poster boy for bullshit
>silver
>failure aka keynes economic policy

offt it seems like you have been educated from the Molyneux University of Zerohedge..

You think you know what you're talking about, but you don't. I think you had better crawl back into the pol echochamber.

>it's a "17 year old Austrian fanboys feel qualified to call Keynes shit after reading a blogpost on mises.org" episode

Yawn

Wow really makes you think.

He would probably say that Wittgenstein was. But let's be honest and cliche, it's totally Einstein. Don't front here.

yep, that was 9. At this rate we'll have every point covered.

yep, 11&12

It just amuses me that in every thread I see the same uninformed posts. "Humanities" WAS a mistake on this board.

triggered shill

die pleb skizo

He was gay

Here's my mises.org blogpost quote to prove it

>Bertrand Russell, who was a decade older than Keynes, did not like the Keynes/Strachey group that dominated undergraduate members during the first decade of the 20th century, largely because of their conviction that homosexuality was morally superior to heterosexuality.

Literally Roman Patrician tier.

>shill
oh dear...

Hoppe is also constantly buttblasted about Keynes' faggotry

>the greatest thinker of the 20th century
>didn't understand The Law of Markets

At least he came up with sticky wages and prices.

>inb4 someone calls me an Austrian

Right, because economic collapse is a good thing and we should let the banks fail. I loved 2008. t. Goldstein

Jesus Christ I hate Zerohedge so much, reminds me of Peter Schiff but with a pro Putin bias.

Tell me, how else do we prevent another great depression without government intervention?

ikr

"buy silver, the world is about to collapse -- any day now. Illuminate have really fucked up this time. Hooah."

t. Zeropleb

>tfw Austrian Jewcucks have the audacity to call other people kikes

But it's a shit law. Keynes only went a little strawman on it because otherwise he would have had to dealt with mental gymnastics about what was meant.

I've read Marx and it's fucking horrible, tons of philosophical technobabble and being verbose for the sake of it while espousing theories that contradict each other. Communist manifesto is ironically his best work because it's short and coherent, whereas Kapital is such convoluted dogshit that even Marxists argue with each other about what Marx actually meant when he said this and that and accuse each other of misenterpretation. Literally Bible Belt baptist tier.

On the other hand Keynes is a pretty great economist and it seems unfair to mention him in the same sentence as Marx.

It's not a shit law, it's one of the (now) obscured fundamentals of economics.

Applied to recessions, value added activities which come from supply are the only thing that provides sustainable growth and recovery.

Many government demand spending programs which do not meet the requirements of value adding only add to the misalignment of the structure of production. This adds to the time needed for recovery whilst investment could be made in value adding enterprise otherwise.

the price of your mountain dew has gone up 400% in terms of silver in 15 years

t. eat bags of dicks faggots

The best part are the gullible EuroPacific clients who bought Schiff's bullshit and lost their life savings with their commodity lunacy

It is a shit law.

>greatest thinker of the 20th century,

Considering the fact that 20th century thinkers were retards, this isn't much of a an achievement.

Nice explanation there senpai.

Can anyone outretard Trotsky? I think in sane society he would be on disability benefits, he was that dumb.

>inb4 OG purist Marxist or "traditionalist"

Oh right, capital and labor is perfectly fungible between industries and people can't hoard shit and stockpile silver for no rational reason. Sorry.

He wasn't dumb. He was an autist. There's a difference.

Not even close

i wouldnt say retards just completely segregated/compartmentalised strains of knowledge due to the retroactive nonadvent of mass telecommunications chiefly named the internet & mass surveilance processing technology.

Many autists can be and are dumb. See CWC.

>capital and labor is perfectly fungible between industries
What does this have to do with the Law of Markets?

>people can't hoard shit and stockpile silver for no rational reason
Of course they can. But does this happen enough to make a profound impact on the economy?

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

That is an absolute baller picture of Hayek.

Thanks user.

Because you're arguing that you can just shift the economy to suddenly change production so that unmet demands are met.

>But does this happen enough to make a profound impact on the economy?
Yes.

I put them in the same sentence because they are both thinkers that people dismiss without reading. I view Keynes as infinitely superior to Marx, in mind, taste, and theory. I put them together because I doubt an economic illiterate would know Turgot, but they would know of Smith. They would not know Marshall, Jevons, or Walras, but they would know of Keynes. They would not know Ricardo and Veblen, but they would know of Marx. They then outline the thinkers they know of with a line or two of second hand thought of the most superficial nature.

It is nice that you have read Marx. Most Marxists haven't even read Marx properly. I think you are too hard on Marx:

"I've read Nietzsche and it's fucking horrible, tons of philosophical technobabble and being verbose for the sake of it while espousing theories that contradict each other. The Gay Science is ironically his best work because it's short and coherent, whereas Zarathustra is such convoluted dogshit that even Nietzscheans argue with each other about what Nietzsche actually meant when he said this and that and accuse each other of misenterpretation. Literally Bible Belt baptist tier."

Marx, like Nietzsche, is one of those towering figures that is equally misunderstood --partly, I agree, due to verbose language-- by both followers and critics.

That's what happens when you write in Germanese

>Friedman

kek, we could add Luther, Heidegger, and Kant to that list

Well honestly I don't know a songle person who started with Zarathustra and didn't immidiately think something along the lines of "What the fuck is this shit?" It's a really really shit choice to start with Zarathustra as your first Nietzsche work.

Yeah, and when it comes to Marx it might be better to start with the Grundrisse. Also having a good understanding of Classical economics is a must, it would be like reading Nietzsche without having read Kant and Plato.

>monopolies cant exist in the free market
>except debeers because those are jews
>also let me conveniently forget all those anti trust laws and the time big gub broke up monopolies and prevented mergers
His economic thought isn't actually so bad when taken as one of many though. Sometimes his autism and belief system get to me though.

I'm not arguing that the economy suddenly shifts at all. It's through millions of concurrent entrepreneurial decisions made over time that causes the economy to eventually recover.

Supply-siders aren't arguing that they can cause sudden reversal of a downturn, just that they will reverse faster without stimulus spending.

As for hoarding, interest rates should be allowed to rise in banks to attract savings. The plague of central banking cannot be attributed to Keynes but the low interest rates that discourage saving absolutely can be.

I would still argue that most people still do resort to saving during crisis, rather than hoarding. For example, over here in Australia when the Gillard government gave out free money during the GFC, most people elected to deposit it in banks rather than spend or hoard.

Aggregate barriers. Millions of little concurrent barriers stopping individuals from acting like rational economic actors and distorting markets en masse.

Keynes: save during the boom, spend during the bust
Neo-keynesians: spend during the boom, spend during the bust

Keynes: both supply and demand are important in economics, you not only need money to spend but also high quality low cost goods to spend it on, my bff Hayek has got the supply-side covered, but right now during the great depression we have to look at the lack of aggregate demand and why the blame can be pinned squarely on the federal reserve and the state for mismanaging the nation's central bank and misleading creditors, once this mishap is all cleared up we can all go back to following Hayek's advice
Neo-keynesians: spending drives the economy!

I agree that people should read more, but it's also quite silly to take the other extreme and say that you can't criticise someone's ideas that you've heard from secondary sources.

It's true that I haven't read Marx, but every time someone who is supportive of his ideas (and sometimes claiming to have read him) talks to me about his economic viewpoints, they just turn out to be downright wrong.

Now I know that I should actually read the man before dismissing him absolutely, but isn't it isn't like my only exposure to Marx is criticisms of him.

Government was responsible for creating all those monopolies you fuckwit.

>i read a second hand source that marxism means welfare states and centrally planned economies
>every time a communist that was read marx said the ussr wasnt really communist they are downright wrong
Really?

>le gubmint is the only source of market power

That's simply an assertion.

If you don't believe that monopolies can arise without government intervention, you seriously need to read more.

And I'm a libertarian and I'm telling you this.

For example, if a firm has the ability to produce a good far better than anyone else, they could feasably become a monopoly in an industry.

I didn't say either of those things.

I was more thinking about surplus labour, labour theory of value and the socialist calculation debate.

>all the monopolies that exist do so only because those are the ones allowed to exist by the government
Nice selection bias. So we can confirm that big government keeps monopolies from forming due to deregulated markets, and only allows monopolies it sees as useful, either became a competitive market is nonviable in that industry of the government is taking bribes, proving that the government is really effective at dealing with monopolies. Only the monopolies it allows because they benefit the government are allowed to exist.

>monopolies can't exist without a government

Then how come governments came to exist? Government is a monopoly. Checkmate atheists.

>not based hayek

Aggregate barriers apply to which point I made and how?

I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific.

Hayek was the only Austrian who wasn't an outright cultist. Also maybe not coincidentally one of the few who was not a Jew.

Austrians aren't really cultists, they're quite wrong, but not cultists.

Rothbard even made a play about the Objectivist cult.

> It's through millions of concurrent entrepreneurial decisions
Barriers to making those. Most specifically making them in ways that helps the economy recover.

Objectivists are beyond just cultists, they are retards and memesters.

>Austrians are not cultists
See Gary North, Lew Rockwell etc

Which is why modern Austrians disown him. I'm pretty sure there's a mises.org blogpost where he's shown to be the devil

I'm not quite sure of what you mean, but I'll give it a crack.

Even though entrepreneurs may not make good decisions, some of them may eventually figure things out and/or strike it lucky. Then begins a process of other entrepreneurs analysing those decisions for the merits in them and thus the economy moves towards equilibrium again.

Entrepreneurs aren't completely rational, but they are definitely not completely irrational either.

Sorry for being lazy but are there any articles on either of those to being cultish?

I'm a libertarian myself and I find it really amusing when those in our ranks end up being immense hypocrites.

Never got Zarathustra.
At one point I got frustrated just threw open a random page to see if I find something more understandable later on and I found Zara dragging a dead dog through the woods speaking to him as a beloved friend.

Thats when I stopped.
His notes on friendship are interesting tho, albeit depressing.

Literally just read a wiki article on Gary North and try keeping a straight face. You can also download some free books from his website.

And you're arguing that they're rational to begin with, and intervention makes them less rational, because the premise is that actors are rational and can only go down from there.

Now that's we've properly established that actors are not perfectly rational, it can not be said that intervention will always result in less rational actions, because that's the only direction in which it can go.

The question is whether or not intervention can improve rational decision making, or more accurately, decision making that leads to recovery. The logical proof that intervention can only make things worse when it relies on premise that worse is the only direction to move in is refuted.

From there on it becomes a matter of degrees of what affects what and how much, and is a matter of empiricism, not dogmatic conjecture.

cringe

I'm not actually saying that intervention makes entrepreneurs less rational, but that it makes it either makes it harder to invest or creates incentives to invest in activities that aren't value adding.

I'm not saying that governments are less rational than entrepreneurs either. I'm saying that it is far harder for governments to create value adding enterprise than entrepreneurs in the first place.

If this were not the case, then the government should be in charge of all industries.

He does seem pretty fucking wack.

Having extreme views alone doesn't make a cultist though.

Sternly believing in the gold standard because you think the Bible tells you to is cultist as fuck