Why did the United States stop practicing Keynesian economics and instead switched to neoliberalism?

Stupidity

>So we're neoliberals when things are good and Keynesians when things are bad, which makes a lot of debt.

Exactly

This could be argued as being a failure of democracy. An economy managed by a dictator could have a consistent economic policy (preferably Keynesian).

How to pronounce Keynes.

Canes, but with a harder "a"

Or you could just have a balanced budget amendment in the constitution.

Lmao this is retarded

That's kind of the point of the Federal Reserve.

We are now seeing the limits of it.

Ex: Today

Care to explain?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Obsessing over a balanced budget Fucks you up hard.

Many countries are ducked by austerity.

Guess I should have said "cyclically balanced budget ammendment". Most balanced budget amendments allow for deficits in times of recession.

Why do world government still suck Keynes' cock when Hayek was right all along?

youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Stagflation.
This

Stagflation was brought about by Opec.

Higher gas prices brought about inflation when otherwise the economy should have done better.

It meant the outflow of cash was going to Opec rather than economic actors in the USA.

Sadly the technology wasn't there for the US to deal with energy prices. Not until recently where fracking basically stuck a big dildo in Opec's ass.

Which is why inflation is so low now.

Balanced budgets don't matter much in an economic sense. As long as your country doesn't look like it's going to collapse, be invaded, or see its economy tank, people will still lend to you. Just show that you're still willing and able to pay.

That said, debt matters a lot to political scientists. It can give you security, but it also requires a willingness to raise taxes.

WE WUZ KEYNES N SHIIETT

The jews wanted it.

People forget that the US Debt is backed by the world's largest military and world's largest prison system (in to which you will go if you do not pay your taxes in US Dollars) which is why it doesn't matter how much debt the US has.

As long as it can keep its military and prisons working then it will keep going.

Well, it's also bad if the government says they won't raise the debt ceiling or raise taxes. That hurt the rating for US bonds.

>Hayek
Couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag.
>hurr durr, now we build hospitals, back then they built castels
>herp der p, we better idea now

Hayek and the amaterialistic* front, not even once.

*) Not anti-materialists, he just disregard materialistic changes.

Yeah, though I never see anyone describe themselves with neo.
I got a friend who will call things "neo fascist" but never call himself "neo anarchist".

Because anarchist has never been tried

What about general marxists?
I am rather sure I have seen Marxists use neo for others but not themselves.

keynesianism hasn't really been stopped, it's been modified sure but i don't think neoliberalism is incompatable with keynesianism unless you're using a really crude definition of keynesianism

generally better to think in terms of deficits and debt as a % of gdp, it might still be harmful to have a balanced budget even in good times if it slows development too much

lol, hayek lost the debate in the 30s and just went on to write dubious political tracts which have barely any importance to economics

neo-marxism is a thing

Stagflation was used as an excuse to get the neoliberal agenda going. See Powell Memorandum and any good history of the period.
This guy knows.

>Laffer curve
>Believing in fairy tales

>Which is why inflation is so low now.

Inflation was 1.5% in 2012 user.

Whether you believe in it or not, you can't deny that the US government has tried lowering taxes since the 1980's, desperately hoping to generate more revenue. And every time revenue decreases. So either the Laffer curve is bullshit or we're still on the positive side.

Could you elaborate?

there's nothing wrong with the idea of the laffer curve

what is wrong is how it is only used by politicians who assume we're always on the right hand side of the curve

also only viewing tax through the prism of 'revenue maximization' may also be a faulty premise

estimates on income often put it at 60-70% (though often assuming other tax rates are also at a similar rate so the rich wouldn't shift money around much)

In the 1970s, you had a combination of inflation with a slowing economy, which Keynsianism thought was impossible.

It seems that people in the liberal arts in particular often have a very strong reaction to neoliberal economics. Not just rejecting them mind you, but associating them with evil.

Bretton Woods failed, hence the adoption of Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Liberal Institutions

>Run budget deficits since the 60's
>Elect a cuckservative president who slashes tax rates & increases the military budget but is cucked by a Democratic Congress into not slashing social spending
>The Fed reacts to every economic slowdown since the early 2000's by lowering interest rates
>Republican president reacts to 2008 catastrophe with stimulus & bailouts
>Democrat successor greatly increases stimulus his 1st year
> OP asks why the US isn't Keynesian & when did it change to neo-liberalism

I swear to God Veeky Forums is the toehold of fedora nu-male cuck ledditors. I can't go 2 seconds without seeing moronic left center trendster threads or muh /p-p-pol/ bogeyman posts on this damn board

the association generally seems to be the marketisation and monetisation of everything, seeing everything through a prism of what will make the most money/profit and not seeing value beyond that and trying to push everything into a commercialised and 'meritocratic' competition (which i think there are some legitimate things to critique)

now, i think that's a pretty crude strawman of neoliberalism - but it's one i've seen from its detractors on the left and right that leads to the 'neoliberalism is evil' line of thought

there are other 'criticisms' but they often seem to come from people who legitimately think socialism would work, think there are no negative effects from 90% marginal tax rates or think neoliberal politicians have only cut taxes/spending to spite the poor

there were huge cuts to taxes and creating a more 'flexible' labour market as well as privatising many public utilities (maybe less so in the states)

that's the general underpinning of neoliberalism, and yes deficits, bailouts and lowering interest rates (the weirdest one to list imo, what is especially keynesian about that? especially considering monetarisms main arguments...) all fit under neoliberalism as well as being able to fit within 'keynesianism'