John Maynard Keynes

Well after the colossal fuck-up that was the 2008 Financial Crisis I don't know why anyone takes economists' opinion on anything seriously

I'd say it has become sort of a transformation more than anything. Free market economists were always and always will be in the minority (15%

>all that tl;dr nerd shit

Could Keynes deadlift >400?

Jokes on you! I'm not communist! I'm state capitalist!

And for the record, unless destroyed in a war from a foreign power, state capitalist economies out perform regular capitalist.

Taleb is always butthurt about economists, he has an inferiority complex because of his PhD in "management science"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) > Keynesian economics in every way

>The 2008 Financial Crisis never happened

>American_School_(economics)

>It consisted of these three core policies:
>protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70).
>government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation).
>a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

no economist claims to be able to predict recessions so I don't know what your point is

It can essentially be summarised like so:
Protect your manufacturing from foreign manufacturing, invest in public works that will make manufacturing easier and that the private sector won't touch, and have a national bank that protects manufacturing from rampant speculation

The "professional" economists repeatedly insisted that nothing bad would come of shit like the housing bubble, deregulation of derivatives, etc,.

But what else could we expect from a profession insulated from any and all criticism ("Well, maybe you just don't get the math?")

>Austrian school economics

Looks like a whole lot of unfalsifiable bullshit

Pretty much China's model with more emphasis on domestic consumption

Austrian
Chicargo
Keynesian
Socialism
Marxism
Communism

Austrians anarchism, Chicargo's minimalism, the rest is bullshit & tyranny.

Practically no professonal economist predicted 2008.

What use are they if they can't make me money?

>Practically no professonal economist predicted 2008.
t. fox news economic forecast advisor

Economists will never be able to predict recessions. If they could, then the predictions alone would cause a collapse in investment and create the recession. So then economists would just be causing recessions instead of predicting them.

Examples?

Retarded logic

nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html

When Krugman of all people admits that economists got it wrong, maybe it's time to listen, instead of insisting that critics of the field are "just too stupid to 'get it' "?

To be fair, economists prevented things from going worse by quantitative easing.

All of those models have dozens of papers testing them with econometric studies. Compare this to Austrian or Marxist "models" which can't be tested quantitatively.

QE's net effect is still unknown. It may have marginally helped, but its overall effect is more a signaling effect than a "real" effect.

What's the difference between Austrian and Classical? Do they mean the same thing?

Economics as a profession simply isn't all that useful for formulating future policies.

It is a field that studies past evidence, and then attempts to use it to affect future policies.

Did we end up with 50% unemployment?

No?

QE worked.

>printing more money would solve anything
tell that to nowadays Europe, United States and Japan. People like Paul Krugman are just keeping the lie alive.

Do you not know what a "scare" is?

Krugman is shit meme tier

Yeah well I mean all those countries did it and would you rather live somewhere else lmao

Classical economics was the predecessor to neoclassical and Austrian economics. It's not a rigorously defined term and generally refers to any pro-market ideology before the 19th century.

Austrian and neoclassical economics are both based off the rational agent paradigm, the main difference is that Austrian economics is more of a religion than anything resembling social science. Neoclassical economics is just a set of mathematical models that make a certain set of rational agent assumptions, neoclassical models are testable (and often proven false) so nobody is a "neoclassicalist" like some people are Austrians.

The US and China had the most aggressive QE policies of all major economies and have recovered the best. The EU, the UK, and Japan refused to lower rates meaningfully for the first few years of the recession, now they're forced to lower rates to negative levels.

The United States went into recession because of reckless deregulation and now they're recovering because they have returned to the path of Keynes.

> Be me, a statistician
> Scroll to random page
> Time series and regression

I'm home.

Yep Sure is.

Fucking Christ it's microeconomics all over again

>Chicargo
>Chicargo

>Economists will never be able to predict recessions.
Marc Faber, Max Keiser, and the guys who did the Big Short apparently were able to predict the Great Recession.
It's just that they're not considered smart enough by other economists for pointing out massive flaws in the current economic system that they're ignored by everyone else.

If you think about it, economists are some of the biggest circlejerking speculators around in the globalized economy.

Isn't this basically mercantilism or Japan Inc?

> prevented things from going worse by quantitative easing.
Umm, what? Look at the charts for the stock market while measuring GDP growth. The growth of stock values far outpaces real economic growth, because central banks are simply pumping money into the economy. It is masking the structural weaknesses of the economies around the world.
The very reason why we have a huge economic disparity between the elite and the non-elites is due to this. The wealthy are literally getting free money, while the poorest people are getting devalued cash and having to compete against a globalized labor market further stagnating their real income.
I'm actually surprised things haven't gone down yet at all (though it has in some countries like Greece and Cyprus).

>Austrian memeonomics
>ever

The highest unemployment rate in the Great Depression was 25%.

>I learned everything I need to know about Keynsianism from John Papola's epin rap battles

What is the path of Keynes? Can you please explain this.

Wait, so what do Austrians do if their praxeology says X will happen but Y happens instead?

They blame it on BIG GUMMINT swinging its dick where it shouldn't in the economy

That would be why they don't make predictions, they just analyze the past and ignore any and all data that would suggest that it was in fact Y that caused Z, as opposed to X.

Can you actually prove him wrong?

Keynesian Economics is the original trickle down.

Government takes money and spends it through agents, either government organs or through the citizenry. Creating an artificial demand bubble. The money cycles through and ends up back with the rich. Minus the cuts the government took here and there. The plebs get to buy some stuff, and for a while will have a job to make the stuff being bought. Eventually the bubble must pop. The rich are bailed out or not affected at all. The government creates a bunch of debt and then the plebs have to pay it off.

And those same people likely didn't see the dot com bust coming and won't see the next crash coming either. The thing about gurus is that none of them are ever right more than once. Economists and traders make all sorts of predictions and bets all the time, eventually someone's gonna get it right while everyone else gets it wrong. Some people even get it sort of right but still fuck up. For example, Howie Hubler shorted lots of shitty housing loans, but because he didn't accurately assess how shit the A rated bonds were, he turned a potential profit into the single biggest trading loss in history. It's a mistake to hail whoever got lucky and made the exact right call in the most recent clusterfuck as some sort of sage.

t. literally has no understanding of Keynsian economics whatsoever

>austian
>chicargo

Depends. Keynes didn't anticipate people reliant on government assistance having more children than net taxpayers, and this cycle repeating generation after generation. Keynesian economics MUST be paired with eugenics or the whole system gets larded up with takers, not makers. Keynes was actually the president or leader of a prominent eugenics organization, actually.

#notalleconomists

Not even joking. Of course the economists the corporate media parades around in front of you are going to say things that benefit corporate interests. Lots of economists saw a housing bubble. It was actually rather obvious, as housing skyrocketed past affordability. The way to justify a mortgage is the assumption that housing prices would keep increasing and the value of the property was safe and would appreciate.

Why do you need banks? Why do you have a bank account and investment portfolio? Just bury that shit yo!

Nice ellipses.

I literally watched Fox news the other day have a group of people on who all agreed the 16th amendment (allowing an income tax) should be repealed and a national sales tax would boost the economy.

government takes money.

gives it to consumers.

consumers buy things.

people are paid to make things

those people buy things

people paid to make those things.

and so on, until it all filters back to the people it was taken from, or it crashes horribly.

>Keynesian economics MUST be paired with eugenics or the whole system gets larded up with takers, not makers. Keynes was actually the president or leader of a prominent eugenics organization, actually.

Interesting. He was even smarter than I thought.

Did Keynes anticipate a post industrial economy. Where fewer and fewer people are paid to make things. Where multinational corporations make things in one country and then sell them all over the world. Sucking the cash out those countries.

Didn't the govt do that during the great depression to no avail?

The way you describe the current global economy, it reminds me of how fucked up Europe was economically before the Black Death made labor worth paying something, because 30-60% of the region's populations disappeared in 9 years.

yes.

thankfully the germans blew up europe, again. eliminating a lot of industrial capacity and making people buy goods and money from the USA.

To this day, what I believe got the US out of the Great Depression were the following things:
1. Basically what amounted to helicopter money due to US bonds and government soldier pay that suddenly avalanched itself when everyone got back to the US after WW2.
2. A lot of people wanting to buy new shit and now had the money to be able to buy new shit every year.
3. Almost every industrialized nation outside of the US was rekt and so only they could produce shit. Meaning a lot of jobs for the US.
4. US economy was not globalized, so companies could not just up and move their cash abroad nor replace their US workforce with those from other countries. Not minding the fact that other countries did not have a comparably educated workforce at the time.
5. Other countries had massive debts to the US.
I don't really think Keynes had much to do with anything rather than the world being in the perfect time and place for the United States during the 50s.

>argument by intimidation

>US economy was not globalized, so companies could not just up and move their cash abroad nor replace their US workforce with those from other countries.
This is a rather big one, actually. Multinationals make it hard for nations to dictate economic policy. Multinationals just need to threaten to move capital away, capital owned by capitalists but needed by labor, or they're "job creators" to put a more positive spin on it, and they can fuck off and go "create jobs" someone else if you don't treat them good. So everyone is competing on economic policy to suck the dick of the capitalist "job creators" so they can trickle down those jobs they create. Poor countries want those jobs, so they have corporate friendly policies. Rich countries want to keep those jobs so they have corporate friendly policies.

Only China has learned how to game the system. They're very corporate friendly in the short term. Huge markets, cheap labor, the only problem is you have to transfer your capital to them. And China with it's state owned businesses makes sure that much of the development stays in China, the newly skilled workforce stays in China, trade secrets stay in China. And if you don't want to sabotage your long term success? Well your competitor is going to go to China, and run you out of business in the short term with their short term advantage, and your long term is gone.

China is smart. They're building capital using first world capital. But this capital is national capital, it won't leave China, at least not if it hurts China. China is keeping a tight fist on that capital from becoming multinational. This lets them gear their economy however they want without fear of losing Chinese capital.

I may be remembering but I feel like ten years ago Austrian economics pretty much only came out of its dustbin to sell gold to the gullible on late night infomercials.

*mis, sage

Technically the Germans did that during 1933, but instead of just giving citizens money, they put them to work building roads and tank factories.

Oh, I know this guy. He was Friedrich von Hayek's bitch years ago.

Workfare I believe it's called.

>le hitler economy meme

His economic plan was to borrow a tremendous amount of money, then use it to start huge public projects, so people can be fooled into thinking its all fine - they have jobs, buildings are popping up, economy must be great!

Meanwhile the country was practically owned by banks.

>banks
You mean Jews

>le hitler ethics meme

Two wrongs don't make a right.

C I G ALL TOGETHER GETS TO Y

PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER AND WATCH THE ECONOMY FLY

The Austrian School fell apart in the aftermath of the Great Depression.

Keynesian economics fell apart in the aftermath of Stagflation.

The Chicago School (did you actually mean the Monetarists?) fell apart in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

We're currently in the market for a new economic paradigm.

Behavioral Economics will be the new paradigm

>shit happens lol

As a beginner in economics, can you explain why these events discredited these schools of economic thought?

and it won't be marxism

Yes the destruction of capital values allowed a rebound in the economy. 'Death, the greatest of all Keynesians, ruled the world once more'

> Capitalism

> creating value

Capitalism is inherently self destructive.

It uses resurces (wastefully) to create non-value (currency), claims infinite growth from very limited resources and treats humans like chattel (i.e. human resources).

In short, all schools of capitalist economics are varying degrees of shit.

>treats humans like chattel (i.e. human resources)

Name any system that doesn't

The only viable economic paradigm would have to be based on ecology - creating a self-sustaining economy.

Anarcho-syndicalism, off the top of my head.

>this kills the Keynes

Talking about real life examples not theoretical fantasy tripe.

Humans are not rational economic agents

They are not homo economicus

Anarchist Catalonia, during the Spanish Civil War, before it was fucked over by the reds.

How does it feel to make an idiot of yourself on a history forum by not knowing history?

It only stopped working in increasing employment and GDP when thed cut back on inflation, the supreme court struck down some of the new deal, and FDR made compromises with the conservative democrats and people in his cabinet.
Luckily he got to do whatever he wanted (which always worked) after those two years.

Sort of similar yah

Always worked? In what sense? What worked was all of the US' economic rivals getting obliterated forcing everyone to buy from the US.