Why do keynesian children like to pretend deflation is bad when the entire gilded age(period of massive economic growth where wages rose and prices fell) had deflation year after year after year?
Why do keynesian children like to pretend we're somehow living under "neoliberalism" when we've done nothing but print trillions of dollars and given it to bankers and corporations since we got off the gold standard in 1970?
Why do keynesian children like to pretend "muh animal spirits" caused the great depression when the fed printed money in the 1920s causing an artificial boom which collapsed and then the government under Hoover/FDR basically completely took over the economy putting in wage and price controls, massive tariffs and taxes, insane crazy regulation, literally printing money and paying farmers to destroy food to prop up prices etc?
Why do keynesian children like to ignore the recession of 1920, which started off worse than the great depression, the government did absolutely nothing, the economy restructured itself and the recession was OVER in 8 months or so?
Why do keynesian children like to pretend WW2, a MASSIVE destructive war somehow got us out of the depression when all it did was convert most of the economic capacity of the country to a war machine(consumer goods aren't produced), made a lot of men fight a brutal war(muh lower unemployment rate amirite?) while there was food rationing, extremely long hours and poverty back home?
Why did keynesian children whine like the children they are when after WW2 when we massively cut taxes, regulations and spending it lead to the most economically productive year in American history and set the stage for the post war economic boom when the years before we did this, they were saying cutting spending would lead to a DISASTER?
Why do keynesian children like Paul Krugman believe that an alien invasion would help the economy?
Why do keynesian children like to pretend that housing bubbles are good for the economy like the one they recently created? Why do they think raising housing prices on the middle class will somehow help them?
Why did keynes shove so many cocks up his ass?
Robert Foster
Why do keynesians like to pretend the post war boom was keynesian when we were still on a semi gold standard and the amount of money the government printed was relatively SMALL compared to the massive trillions we've printed in the last 37 years?
Why do keynesians not realize that without the band-aid petrodollar system we have today americans would be incredibly fucking poor because our currency is the world reserve currency?
Justin Howard
Why do keynesians not realize that any country that tries to implement a gold standard or some kind of sound money system gets fucking BOMBED and it's leader killed?
Jason Lopez
Wakey wakey keynesians.
Luke Parker
>Wakey wakey keynesians. Wake up and smell the economic fallacies.
Josiah Morales
Inflation helps debtors. Deflation helps creditors. The State is a debtors and so are many Americans. 2% inflation seems reasonable and seems the be the consensus among tye vast majority of economists. Don't use Krugman as a strawman
Isaac Sanders
But i agree there should be a better mechanism for expanding the money supply. It favors banks now. But its hard to come up with a non politicized alternative. We need to share that helicopter money
Charles Cruz
>Inflation helps debtors. You mean the debt created by the inflation and easy money in the first place?
If we had deflationary economy terms of loans would be different and there would be protections from excessive debt.
>Deflation helps creditors. Deflation helps most people in the economy including the middle class. The middle class would be SAVERS not debt slaves in a deflationary economy.
>The State is a debtors and so are many Americans. The state needs to abolish it's debt completely and start again.
>2% inflation seems reasonable Define reasonable. How is losing 20% of my net worth every 10 years reasonable when I'm trying to save money for my retirement and my children's future?
>the consensus among tye vast majority of economists. Most economists are retarded and couldn't predict the housing market crash. Austrian economists did though. We need to rethink the entire field of economics.
Christopher Lewis
>But i agree there should be a better mechanism for expanding the money supply. It favors banks now. In the economy we have now, I agree.
There hasn't been much price inflation because the banks aren't spending this helicopter money.
If they spent it or the government gave it to the people it would help short term but there would definitely be an economic crash.
Aiden Davis
>If we had deflationary economy terms of loans would be different and there would be protections from excessive debt. Who's going to protect old debtors? Magical political action? Just like in the 1890's right... Yes new loans will be adjusted but in the short run people will massively suffer
Anyone reading this dont fall for this scam. The gold standard is a rich mans scam. Just look at who argues in favor of it, and look who argues in favor as well as who argues against keynesian policies. Rich creditors want deflation to enrich themselves while claiming its good for the economy
Noah Richardson
The government cant sustain itself without borrowing at low interest rates. Youre saying an economic crash MIGHT happen if this continues but the alternative is a guaranteed collapse of the federal government.
Easton Nelson
>Who's going to protect old debtors? You mean after a period of government created inflation ends? They would have to go bankrupt and rebuild their assets. That's the entire point of restructuring.
After this period they and everyone would make better investments because there wouldn't be easy money. People would actually save their money and the value would increase year after year. You could retire by simply holding onto your fucking money.
>The gold standard is a rich mans scam. You're such a fucking liar. How is massive increases in wages and massive decreases in prices for like 40 years during the gilded age not great for the poor and middle class?
You want the middle class to be debt slaves and their wages to not increase.
>Just look at who argues in favor of it Middle class folks who don't have political power? It's the banks who support the federal reserve and free money.
>Rich creditors want deflation to enrich themselves while claiming its good for the economy This ISN'T TRUE AT ALL Literally all of the banks are against such a system, you banker shill piece of shit.
Andrew Harris
>The government cant sustain itself without borrowing at low interest rates. I know. It's unfortunately the government built the economy this way.
>Youre saying an economic crash MIGHT happen It WOULD happen. It would suck for a good 6 months, but the economy would restructure(as it always has) and we would be much better off after the restructuring.
>but the alternative is a guaranteed collapse of the federal government. GOOD
Gavin Russell
Nice shotgun approach faggot.
Matthew Rogers
So Stiglitz and Krugman are banker shills and the WSJ and FT are really looking out for the lower middle class?
Logan Lopez
BOOM HEADSHOT
>and the WSJ and FT They're also keynesian. Or at least semi-Chicago(keynesian lite)
Chase Stewart
>Krugman Krugman was always a banker shill m8.
He's also terrible at predicting things.
In the early 90s he said the internet was a "fad" that would never take off.
In the early 2000s he said greenspan needed to inflate the housing market to create a housing bubble.
Months ago he said Trump would never become president.
Samuel Walker
>Most economists are retarded and couldn't predict the housing market crash. Austrian economists did though. Austrian economists are always pessimists. Their "predictions" are right the same way an economic optimist is always proven right eventually because both growth and contraction are bound to happen at some point. Those ignorant of the economic cycle will always hail a right guess as a sign of brilliant insight, when out of hundreds of guesses some are likely to hit the target due to sheer odds.
Christian Roberts
% inflation seems reasonable >Define reasonable. How is losing 20% of my net worth every 10 years reasonable when I'm trying to save money for my retirement and my children's future?
It means that you have an incentive to invest money rather than just dump it in a bank
Anthony Sanders
>Austrian economists are always pessimists. No they aren't lol
Austrian economists predicting the housing market crash to a Tee in explicit detail.
You act like they've always been predicting economic crashes and muh broken clock bullshit.
But I don't give a shit about that I want to save my money. Once enough of my money is saved I could start a business because I have underconsumed enough to support a business financially.
Michael Johnson
>all these good things happened because of muh gold standard and not everything else in society counteracting it, mainly technological progress
>You act like they've always been predicting economic crashes and muh broken clock bullshit.
Yes they are a broken clock. Many of them predicted hyperinflation because of QE, for example.
> Once enough of my money is saved I could start a business because I have underconsumed enough to support a business financially.
Meanwhile there has been weak or no growth in your country and the other country is over 20% wealthier.
Most economists shouldn't be listened to outside of their area of expertise. This includes in areas of economics, aside from core principles stuff. Listen to Krugman about Trade and some absolute basics.
Logan Mitchell
>I dont care about making money if its not in a way i like i.e. stuffing my mattress with cash while its purchasing power rises during deflation
Whats wrong with bonds and stocks? They're liquid enough
Grayson Bennett
>Yes they are a broken clock. Not true whatsoever.
They were right about the housing crash while keynesians were CHEERING IT ON. Delusional.
>Meanwhile there has been weak or no growth in your country What are you talking about? A massive amount of capital goods have been produced in this time. Once savings rates start going up the economy has enough resources to actually grow.
Building businesses is inexpensive and more and more of the middle class is able to do this.
Andrew Harris
>Listen to Krugman about Trade and some absolute basics. Why would I listen to a man that wanted greenspan to create a housing bubble?
Christopher Perez
>Whats wrong with bonds and stocks? Low interest and risky.
Kevin Green
>BOOM HEADSHOT Your first posts have 11 different economic problems that you claim are unexplainable via Keynesian economists. Several of these problems have already been addressed by Keynesians several times, instead of going further into any specific argument, you attempt to get the last word in several arguments at once, making yourself look smart. I'm not a Keynesian, I just know the slightest bit about propaganda. You're a fucking political hack and what you're doing is fucking disgustingly unethical. I hope no one falls for this fucking bullshit. If you want to make a thread about Keynesian vs Austrianism, you can easily do so ethically by either focusing on the theory or a specific problem. If you actually wanted to know what Keynesians thought you would ask them or look it up. It is clear as day that this only is an attempt to convince people to your position. >HEADSHOT Kill yourself
Blake Taylor
>Several of these problems have already been addressed by Keynesians several times You're a liar.
I've argued with keynesians countless times on Veeky Forums and they can never address these things.
>You're a fucking political hack Not really I'm just bringing keynesian hypocrisy and fallacies to an open forum
William Powell
>Not true whatsoever.
Even taking the axiom that Austrians were 100% correct about the housing market and Keynesians 100% wrong, it can still be a completely true statement.
Provide some evidence, particularly academic, that Austrians were right about the housing market and 'Keynesians' weren't. What Keynesians are we talking about anyway? Keynesian vs Austrian as some sort of dichotomy is idiotic, mainstream economics is New Keynesian now (a synthesis of Keynesian and Monetarist branches). If you want to talk about the Gold Standard, inflation, the Fed etc then you're probably better of pointing your gun towards Monetarism, they've won the war on that front.
Practically no economist is an old style Keynesian now, Krugman included, both him and someone on the other side of the political aisle like Mankiw are New Keynesian.
Savings being good doesn't really stack up for a reason that inflation is bad, plenty of people have saved and made money with it just sitting in a bank too.
Because he got a Nobel for his work on trade. Don't play dense.
Isaiah Sanders
>Provide some evidence, particularly academic, that Austrians were right about the housing market and 'Keynesians' weren't. Here's a list of austrian predictions: wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions
They've been pretty much correct on all of them.
>Because he got a Nobel HAHA Nowadays that's like saying he got a giant turd a prize. The nobel prize is a joke.
Chase Myers
>The theory of of WWII economics have never been addressed by Keynsians No, you're lying. >T-they didn't address the problems in a way that convinced me, so it doesn't count Welcome to a thing called argument retard. >Not really I'm just bringing keynesian hypocrisy and fallacies to an open forum Is this a fucking joke? Go back to /b/ with your shitty infographic tier bullshit.
Jayden Lewis
>No, you're lying. They have but they're wrong and are unable to explain what I have laid out here.
>>T-they Having trouble typing?
>infographic tier Look, if you're unable to refute ANY of the 10 points I made then just stop posting, you're ruining the board.
Why are you defending debt slavery so much?
Michael Rogers
>They have but they're wrong Thanks for literally admitting you just lied 15 minutes ago. >Look, if you're unable to refute ANY of the 10 points I made then just stop posting I refuted your posting of all of them, shifting the discussion from "the way you framed the entire discussion is blatantly unethical and unhelpful" to discussing in your blatantly unethical and unhelpful way would be really nice if you were a fucking propagandist wouldn't it? >Why are you defending debt slavery so much? Literally never defended Keynsianism you fucking shill.
Levi Richardson
An austrian site blowing its own trumpet and ignoring the hundreds of predictions of doom that never materialized? Truly shocking stuff. How about an actual academic paper maybe?
What in particular do you disagree with about Krugman's work on trade? Or any other economics nobels in the past 20 years?
Here's something you ought to read, it comes from an economist who is extremely libertarian in political approach (slash taxes, reduced government, markets in everything etc etc) but understands Austrian economics to be complete bunk: econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
>An austrian site blowing its own trumpet and ignoring the hundreds of predictions of doom that never materialized? Where are they? They never happened. Austrians didn't predict crazy shit like you're talking about. You're lying. You're a liar.
Stop being mad we were right so many times while keynesians were abysmal failures.
Jordan Davis
>Thanks for literally admitting you just lied 15 minutes ago. Okay. Most of the things I posted keynesians don't have an explanation for. Others they do but they're extremely flawed(things like pent up demand etc)
>I refuted your posting of all of them You didn't refute them at all. You're just angry that I posted them in the first place. What an embarrassment.
>unethical This is Veeky Forums you can't cry every time someone asks loaded questions.
Carter Reed
>Here's something you ought to read, it comes from an economist who is extremely libertarian in political approach (slash taxes, reduced government, markets in everything etc etc) but understands Austrian economics to be complete bunk: econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Austrians have debunked caplan's shitty article many times.
>if we define inflation in a completely different way to what everyone agreed it was, when we made predictions of hyperinflation then actually i can tie myself in knots enough to ignore you all
Jayden Miller
Some austrians who didn't quite understand the petrodollar system said there would be hyperinflation.
Austrians who understood the petrodollar system said there wouldn't be.
There are disagreements between austrians like there are disagreements between keynesians.
Evan Clark
>3 hours later
Not one person has refuted anything in OP's post and subsequent posts.
TOP JEJ
Brayden Myers
>praxeology
Blake Collins
Not all austrians are praxeologists.
Anywaaay,
Praxeology is merely the a priori fact that all human action has some sort of purpose, and because it has purpose, it is comprehensible and logical and therefore economic laws can be universal and objective and economics is a real science. It is not meant as a replacement or a rejection of empiricism, but as a complement to empiricism. Praxeology is also not used as a handwave to avoid reason or refutation, praxeological systems and axioms can be refuted by refuting the chain of reasoning that they are based on, empiricism can establish the appropriateness of a theory's application to a particular concrete event but is not effective to completely falsify praxeological theories. Economics cannot be considered a scientific discipline without praxeology, and while it may be a dismal science it is a science nonetheless. Austrian economics has plenty of analytic proposals and empirical evidence behind its theories as well, Hayek's theory of production/prices for example is not strictly praxeological but it is a falsifiable analytic proposal that has yet to be falsified. The catastrophic failures of centrally managed economies in contrast to the success and abundance of laissez-faire historically is also empirical evidence that reinforces and complements the Austrian school's praxeological basis.
Ryder Garcia
Do austrians realize how stupid and sectish they act? Who the fuck is this thread going to convince?
>the theory is valid, we just have to assume perfect forward rationality! :^)
Jeremiah Flores
Nobody said or implied this.
Isaiah Clark
>Sraffa did demonstrated that there was no single natural rate of interest in a disequilibrium, but he did not do so for an intertemporal equilibrium in which price changes are correctly foreseen. >price changes are correctly foreseen
Angel Perry
You're expecting to correctly foresee price changes? Are you kidding me?
Isaiah Garcia
Are you illiterate?
Justin Hughes
>Economics cannot be considered a scientific discipline without praxeology
kek
>The catastrophic failures of centrally managed economies in contrast to the success and abundance of laissez-faire historically is also empirical evidence that reinforces and complements the Austrian school's praxeological basis.
no, it shows central planning to be awful, it says nothing for austrians vs keynesians or monetarists or their academic contributions to the field of economics
Henry Jones
I see, you're on my side of this argument. Haha.
Jace Jenkins
>The catastrophic failures of centrally managed economies in contrast to the success and abundance of laissez-faire historically Heavy interventionist countries like south east asian ones developed much faster than laissez faire economies.
Matthew Peterson
>Heavy interventionist countries like south east asian ones Like communist Vietnam and maoist china? lol they were underdeveloped shitholes.
Last time I check these nations developed much faster when they opened up their economies to global trade and created an environment that was business friendly.
Also how about Hong Kong and Singapore? You're an idiot.
Lincoln Smith
>hey man you need to prove that your view is valid to me based on my own criteria and working within an arbitrary frame that I set up that invalidates your view from the start hahaha can't do it huh well looks like I win again
>muh austrian school in a nutshell
Gabriel Flores
>Like communist Vietnam and maoist china? lol they were underdeveloped shitholes. No, those were central planned. I'm talking about the asian tigers.
>Also how about Hong Kong and Singapore? You're an idiot. Heavily interventionist, although not as much as South Korea and Taiwan.
Zachary Foster
>literally 0 arguments to OP's countless points
my sides
Aaron Lewis
>No, those were central planned. I'm talking about the asian tigers. Yes, like I said they grew once they opened up their economy to free or mostly free trade. It worked quite well.
>based on my own criteria What do you mean own criteria? You can't even give an example of this can't you?
Noah Lee
Keynesians BTFO
Aaron Fisher
ITT: People that actually unironically believe burning crops and destroying food will magically feed poor people.
Ayden Nguyen
>Yes, like I said they grew once they opened up their economy to free or mostly free trade. It worked quite well. Both are following the asian model of development.
>Both are following the asian model of development. Yes. Opening up trade and allowing western businesses in their country. It's works quite well.
>Are you retarded? Are you angry at objective facts by several independent organizations?
>I'm discussing their intervention during their development During the time they grew exponentially Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely free market.
>There a shit ton of literature that demonstrate Why don't you try having an argument instead of wanting me to read an entire paper?
Ian Morales
>Yes. Opening up trade and allowing western businesses in their country. Sure, along with policies like subsidies, credits, financial repression, exchange rate manipulation, coercion against business owners, wage repression, state investments, five-year plans, protectionism, selective commercial restrictions, etc.
>Are you angry at (...) No, i'm calling you retarded because you can't seem to follow an argument and respond accordingly. Your post was irrelevant.
>During the time they grew exponentially Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely free market. False.
>Why don't you try having an argument instead of wanting me to read an entire paper? If you are too stupid to read "an entire paper" you can control+f. Let's see for example the interventions on singapore according to the world bank (which defends the neoliberal position): >The revisionist school has provided valuable insights into the history, role, and extent of East Asian interventions, demonstrating convincingly the scope of government actions to promote industrial development in Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, China. >Hong Kong and Singapore undertook massive public housing programs; and in several economies, governments assisted workers' cooperatives and established programs to encourage small and medium-size enterprises. >The first step was to recruit a competent and relatively honest technocratic cadre and insulate it from day-to-day political interference. The power of these technocracies has varied greatly. In Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan,China, strong, well-organized bureaucracies wield substantial power. >The major instruments used to build a secure, bank-based financial system were strong prudential regulation and supervision, limits on competition, and institutional reforms In Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan, China, postal savings systems lowered transaction costs and increased the safey of saving while making substantial resources available to government.
Christopher Robinson
>Sure, along with policies like subsidies, credits, financial repression, exchange rate manipulation, coercion against business owners, wage repression, state investments, five-year plans, protectionism, selective commercial restrictions, etc. These things are STILL more economically free than these countries socialist pasts.
>False. Are you legitimately fucking stupid. EVERYONE knows this about Hong Kong It was owned by the british and they basically left them alone with low regulation which resulted in massive economic growth.
>>Hong Kong and Singapore undertook massive public housing programs; and in several economies, governments assisted workers' cooperatives and established programs to encourage small and medium-size enterprises. >The first step was to recruit a competent and relatively honest technocratic cadre and insulate it from day-to-day political interference. The power of these technocracies has varied greatly. In Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan,China, strong, well-organized bureaucracies wield substantial power. >The major instruments used to build a secure, bank-based financial system were strong prudential regulation and supervision, limits on competition, and institutional reforms In Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan, China, postal savings systems lowered transaction costs and increased the safey of saving while making substantial resources available to government.
Everyone knows about hong kong's bullshit housing regulations. The rest of these things are minor compared to the rest of their free economies.
Hong Kong especially proves you wrong. They were free market as fuck in the 1970s when Milton Friedman made his free to choose documentary on them and traveled there.
Levi Moore
>Some governments also used a variety of more interventionist mechanisms to increase savings. Singapore and Taiwan, China, maintained unusually high public savings rates. Malaysia and Singapore compelled high private savings rates through mandatory provident fund contributions. >In some economies the government owned or controlled the institutions providing investment funds, in others it offered explicit credit guarantees, and in still others it implicitly guaranteed the financial viability of promoted projects. Relationship banking by a variety of public and private banking institutions in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan, China, involved the banking sector in the management of troubled enterprises, increasing the likelihood of creditor workouts >each of the HPAEs made some attempts to direct credit to priority activities. All East Asian economies except Hong Kong give automatic access to credit for exporter. Housing was a priority in Singapore and Hong Kong >Most East Asian governments have pursued sector-specific industrial policies to some degree. These policies included import protection as well as subsidies for capital and other imported input Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, China, and even Hong Kong have also established programs-typically with more moderate incentives-to accelerate development of advanced industries
Alexander Diaz
>Singapore shifted from a policy of repressing wages to one of promoting rapid wage growth, finally concluding by coordinating the increase in wages with rising productivity. >Most also offered subsidized credit, often performance-based, for exporters. In Hong Kong and Singapore, where international prices guided the domestic economy, massive public housing programs helped to keep down labor costs. >Some HPAEs tackled problems of scale and externalities by setting up mechanisms through which business and government could exchange information and coordinate investment decisions. Japan and Korea, and later Singapore and Malaysia, developed institutions and market relationships that facilitated this process Anyway, i'm like a third of the way in the document and i'm already bored. I assume you get the point, there's a shit ton of intervention, even in one of the less interventionist SEA countries and in a world bank report.
Adrian Sanchez
>These things are STILL more economically free than these countries socialist pasts. Who said the opposite? For some reason you seem to be assuming that a marginal increase in interventionism is either always positive or always negative. Moderate, rational interventionism is better than no interventionism, but a lot of retarded interventionism is worse than no interventionism.
>EVERYONE knows this about Hong Kong Great argument. See how you are quoting meme websites while i present you papers from all over the economic spectrum? Interesting, isn't it?
Luis Foster
>Why do keynesian children like Paul Krugman believe that an alien invasion would help the economy? This is my favorite.
Isaac Garcia
Literally the only thing that matters in economics is whether the economist you listen to is a Jew. If he is, put it into the trash.
This is not a shitpost. I'm 100% serious about this.
Justin Watson
Never heard of it. But even without it I need to thank Paul Krugman for being such a ridiculous failure making Keynesians more pathetic than they already are.
Wyatt Cox
I have no doubt you are serious about that. You are an idiot though, and would not be able to engage in the level of debate currently going on.
Nicholas Scott
Krugman isn't a Keynesian, he's a monetarist and a Jew. See
Nathaniel Cox
I don't know whether he counts as an economist, but Peter Schiff is such a gigantic horseshit peddler I don't even know where to pegin. Considering a ton of Austrian fanboys love him because of his housing market prediction while ignoring every instance of him being wrong, it's safe to say this is a cultist behavior.
Aaron Green
>krugman >monetarist
lol? he's New Keynesian, like 100% of non retarded economists, aka 99.9% of the profession
Nolan Parker
"New Keynesian" is crypto monetarism. Bet you also believe Greenspan and Bernanke were Keynesian you fucking retard.
Ayden Davis
>Austrian economists
Do you cultists never give up in preaching your dated pseudoscientific trash?
Grayson Hall
>Most economists are retarded and couldn't predict the housing market crash. Austrian economists did though.
I didn't live it first hand, but from my understanding working and economic conditions weren't that great in the 1890's compared to say the 1940's-1950's.
Michael Moore
Is this board really full of Keynesian Social Democrat wannabes? Or are these cavemen just more vocal? Maybe others are busy in other threads bashing easy targets like communism or FDR.
Aiden Cook
Jokes on you! I'm a supporter of Chinese State Capitalism.
Liam Sanchez
anyone who isn't a keynesian is basically communist tier retarded at this point >b-but muh theories
Grayson Clark
hi 50 cent army
Xavier Cruz
>muh Keynes
Why do austrian retards live in the '30s?
Ryan Baker
Take your bubbles somewhere else you government sheep.
Sebastian Mitchell
>any economic system >capable of subverting economic crashes
LOL keep chasing that pie in the sky pipe dream while you doggedly disregard ~centuries~ of economic data you fucking retards
Benjamin Flores
You're such a rebel, user, what would the world do without you.
Levi Taylor
Occasional crashes wouldn't be a big problem by themselves. The real problem is prolonging them and making them unnecessary severe by implementing wrong policies.
Eli Russell
While I completely agree that there needs to be a paradigm revolution in economics, I don't think Keynesians are to blame when half of his theory is thrown out due to "muh can't cut spending ever"
Jaxson Garcia
>NO REAL KEYNESIAN
Now you're starting to sound like the socialist all Keynesians are on the inside.
John Harris
It depends. Do Keynesians take the blame for New Deal and general failure of all economic policies from 1929 onwards?
Joshua Edwards
>Last time I check these nations developed much faster when they opened up their economies to global trade and created an environment that was business friendly. They are state capitalist. China has very heavy government control of the economy. It's business friendly in the sense that the state intervenes in favour of the party's cronies. On the other hand, environmental and health regulation is extremely lax which goes to explain why China is absolutely filthy.
Luis Allen
The folk of Abraham/Cain/Esau really shat the bed as of late, doesn't it? Even going back to the worship of the golden calf(i.e; The Rothschild are probably the most blatant exemple I can think of, also there is Soros and Bernanke), such a disappointing state of being for such a mythical, wise and wondrous civilization. They could be ruling the world in wisdom yet prefer to rule small chunk of sand and hills, they allowed themselves to becomes goys and not of the nice kind, of the ones that you make golem out of (what, you think its a coincidence Golem and Goyim sound similar?)
Josiah Phillips
They usually go hand in hand with politicians. That's why it simply won't die. Ever. It's better to just "do" something even if it just makes things worse.
Eli Jenkins
Traditional Keynesianism didn't obsess over MUH GROWTH and ten gajillion regulatory mechanisms like these Krugman retards do. Keynesianism was largely abandoned after the early 70s stagflation, Austrotards just use the term as a strawman buzzword nowadays, probably because of decades old Mises' butthurt.
