Why do armchair economists shit on keynes all of the time?

Guess they're not keyne on him haha

well I for one have at least lost my virginity to said underachievers

haha

Because:

1. Raw, geopolitical explanations are unfashionable outside of a very few Poli Sci and History departments, ignored in professional journalism, made fun of in politics, and outright forbidden in the field of Geography.

2. Not coincidentally, people who are very ideological in academia, journalism, politics etc. are going to find those explanations to be a hard sell. If you think in very black and white terms, recognizing a rivalry and competition as strategic > ideological will be a challenge.

That's what you came back with? Calling me a virgin? I make 6 figures working at a hospital taking and examining X-rays, because I paid attention in class. I didn't need to "be cool" to get laid you sperg. My money is more appealing than your suave stoic composure.

how many hookers u done it wit bro

>That's what you came back with? Calling me a virgin? I make 6 figures working at a hospital taking and examining X-rays, because I paid attention in class. I didn't need to "be cool" to get laid you sperg. My money is more appealing than your suave stoic composure.

None, there's plenty of nurses walking around in scrubs.

so u lost ur virginity 2 underachievers lmao

What is the most fucked up thing you have seen in the hospital so far

alri Virginia

Based

Well yeah. Fuck them. In the most literal sense.
I only do radiology and look at X-rays. The worst possible thing I can see is something that shouldn't be there. I guess the worst would have been having to stay X-ray an expecting mother from a car accident to diagnose internal bleeding. One of her ribs cracked and tore through her placenta. It didn't harm the child. You could see the babies head resting against the side of it though.
Is that a place? That's not where I work. I'm in a land locked state.

Here's the room that powers the X-ray machine. It's right next to my office and I have an irrational fear of lightning striking the hospital causing it to explode when I least expect it.

haha

Because they see educated people shitting on Keynes for reasons they cannot conceive of and tribally associate themselves with said people.

Obviously because they are ideologically opposed to him.

A large part of rational choice and public choice theory is that free market capitalism is way more useful at solving social problems than the state is, but Keynes thought it was a good idea to use the state as a tool to fix capitalism in times of market failure, which a lot of liberal/libertarian people don't agree with at all.

If the market fails it was meant to fail at that particular time, and should be allowed to fail so as to become rejuvenated through other industries; this is the type of thinking that is quite common among devotees of Schumpeter and Hayek for example.

Your IQ must be room temperature.

Anyway, most economists agree on the Neoclassical Synthesis, which incorporates Keynesianism into the corpus of Classical Economics. There's not as much bickering as you think, mainstream Economics is in agreement in most basic premises, the difference between a Neoclassical and a Neokeynesian is mostly a matter of degree rather than substance.

Then you have the fringe schools like the gold bugs, libertarians, the MMT, Marxists, bit you need to understand these people simply do not exist outside of the internet. They are fringe ideologues.

but if the gubmint spends a bunch of money it'll fix everything xD

>Marxists
literally half the econ department at my small wealthy white liberal arts school (i know) was Marxist. and the people that subscribe to these beliefs are fucking everywhere. i assure you they're not just on the Internet

Keynes said to stimulate demand by increasing spending and cutting taxes ib times of recession, but he also said governments should repress demand by increasing taxes and limiting government spending in times of economic boom, so as to flatten the boom phase of the business cycle and run a fiscal surplus, this accompanied by proper financial regulation is supposed to prevent bubbles from appearing in the first place.

It's really not Keynes' fault that people forget about him when the economy is booming and only dust off his books during a time of panic.

You are supposed to run a surplus during the boom times so that you can afford to spend during downturns. The idea is to flatten the business cycle into one of continuous moderste growth.

>art school
I meant among actual economists.

liberal arts

and the econ department had more graduates every year than any other department at the school. it was a big deal

Keynes said to stimulate demand by increasing spending and cutting taxes in times of recession, but he also said governments should repress demand by increasing taxes and limiting government spending in times of economic boom, so as to flatten the boom phase of the business cycle and run a fiscal surplus, this accompanied by proper financial regulation is supposed to prevent bubbles from appearing in the first place.

It's really not Keynes' fault that people forget about him when the economy is booming and only dust off his books during a time of panic.

You are supposed to run a surplus during the boom times so that you can afford to spend during downturns. The idea is to flatten the business cycle into one of continuous moderate growth.

"Geopolitical" implies some degree of ideological goal-setting. It's not like the Russian regime just wants to grow a larger blob or scoring a bigger gdp to enter a scoreboard. There is an idea of Russia that motivates the bullying of other countries even thought it hurts the Russian economy (because sanctions), and a lot of the people that back that regime compete amongst themselves for a bigger slice of the pie and some even have interests opposite to the regime's (a lot of kleptocrats lost assets overseas because Russian ties can be toxic).

Because its easy to retrospectively pick apart the flaws of every economic theory that has been vaguely adopted by a large government. People who don't get info from primary sources like to sit back and voice their uninformed opinions. Same reason people strawman Friedman as wanting poor people to die when he actually just advocated for more direct welfare even for people who just refuse to work.

You must go to a really shitty college.
Sorry. I'm just telling you, Marxism is simply not an accepted Economics school.

Some Marxist ideas like the Kondratiev Cycles may be incorporated as part of upper level academic debate, but overall Marxism is completely, utterly discredited and not taught as part of Economics science.

And when I say Economics I mean Economics, not business school, management or other similar lesser degrees.

His negative income tax is less logical than UBI, though. With negative income tax you still lose state benefits when you get a job. UBI is strictly additive, so you could invest it into your own business if you started one.

What I mean is, negative income tax still risk creating incentives not to get a job, much like unemployment subsidy.

>I could watch economic gods like Friedman INTELECTUALLY EVISCERATE dumb commies on youtube all day xD

>Soviets influenced hippies and the hard left in much the same way the Russian Federation influences the alt-right.
Thank god somebody else is sane enough to see this. There was literally a military textbook in Russia from 1997 that promoted using Western nationalism to divide NATO powers and weaken the resistance against Russia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
>The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
>Ukraine should be annexed by Russia.
>Georgia should be dismembered.
>Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe.
>Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.

Of course, /pol/fags have swallowed Sergei's bullshit wholesale because Ruskis shill on this very site and pandered to the resenments of existing nationalists in the USA and Europe, but following the alt right to its logical conclusion would mean the destruction of Western hegemony, which Trump is already helping to undo. It's a shame that American and Western European cyber-propaganda efforts are not as dedicated as Ruskis, Chinks or Best Koreans, because it's really the main thing undoing us at the moment and I'm dead serious in saying that.

UBI is unsustainable. If people had a chance to get lazy, they would do it all the time.

I wouldn't. I want more wealth and status (power, in general) to do something with/for the world. I want to grow.

It would decrease the growth rate, tho. And that is bad. Most of the world hasn't catched up, and there we can still get so much more for each person if we develop more.

Anyway, my point was comparing UBI to negative income tax, not comparing UBI to no-living-subsidy.

Yeah, I know. I just want to open up ne topics regarding the feasibility of UBI. It won't go really well unless, at the very least, the world population being kind of flat/stable and the industry in full eco-friendly automaton. Never, probably.

They idealise the neo-classical school of economics and don't realise the value of short-term keynesian economics, particularly in times of recession.

Problem with UBI is the problem of incentives in general. Any behavior you incentivize you will by definition get more of.

If anything, the government should give people money for actually finding a job.

>>Prof calls Keynes a "globalist socialist elitist who wanted to cripple the working class by getting rid of capitalism"
There is no way a prof said this, fuck off.

Okay everbody calm down both of you are trilobites and need to grow the fuck up.

*Why do all economists shit on Keynes all of the time?

>getting this triggered over what some nigger on Veeky Forums said
Permavirgin detected

Dugin is basically a Russian Alex Jones and there is no proof anyone is using the book as a "military textbook".

Sounds like you go to shitty eco schools, if you didn't learn about marxism from your eco professors you should get a refund.

>this fucking meltdown
haha oh wow

I did learn Marxism but from a sociology and historical perspective, not as a valid Economics school. (It isn't)

>tfw keynes' work is integrated in the macroeconomics canon and there's nothing austrists can do about it

Because what they call "Keynesian" is not Keynes theory, but what politicians actually do in real life.

Is Keynes' work almost wrote in the hopes of a totalitarian regime? I mean, the whole premise revolves around heavy state direction and involves a lot of risk (not a popular term in democracies). Looking back at British governments who truly followed Keynes' dogma, such as the Attlee cabinet and Wilson's First cabinet, it seems these pursuits were either pushed forward by ambitious leaders or governments with large majorities, in other words; strong willed governments. However, it was Oswald Mosley who originally had plans to implement Keynes' philosophy into Labour party norm. The question is, was Keynes, who had his first support by future fascists, a fascist himself? Or at least was he in support of a more authoritarian regime? Because it awfully seems that way to me.

For the same reasons psychologists shit on Freud.

Because he write some convenient bullshit that don't work but make the Establishment happy?

>uni prof
>not commie

Things that actually happened. Now please tell me how burning your house down is good for the economy. Without getting into too much mental gymnastics.

You will have to take a loan, employ people to clean the debris, to build a new house and work more to pay the loan. This way you employ people, work more and make investments (loans) more profitable.

>make 6 figures working at a hospital taking and examining X-rays

Congratulations you became more of a parasite. Get a real job.

Burn some random houses, create the need for new houses, employ people building houses, these people consume and production grow because of this new demand...

>literal plebs who haven't heard of the broken window fallacy

>confusing neo-keynesians with Keynes

>when things are good, government don't spend and pays debts
>when things are bad use this money and take loans to build things
>government build things you create jobs
>jobs are created, people will have more money to consume
>people consuming more, mean industry can produce an sell more
> industry producing more make things get better
>when things are better government cut spend and pay debts
In theory it's great, but politicians continue to spend and take debts even when the crisis has been solved...

miss me with this gay shit

Interesting, thanks for your input.

>The idea is to flatten the business cycle into one of continuous moderate growth.

Which really never happens, even though several heads of state have taken his advice the last 75 years.

So basically his idea is just to keep the market relatively stable in a way that avoids big booms or busts?

I'm not well versed in economics, my point is merely that people shit on every economic theory because its inexact and highly politically charged. Its a kind of intellectual high ground from which you can claim to have established a supremely informed political framework and blast any opposition that can't be readily quantified. Obviously most people aren't well informed on economic theories, but they sure love feeling like they are sitting on that bluff.

>if you ever learn about Marxism at college your school clearly is shit
sounds like you went to some backwater Christian school with 300 people nobody cares about.
i hate Marxism as much as the next guy but any school with an economics department worth its weight in salt will teach Marxism at least somewhere. it's far too popular and pervasive as a school of thought to simply be ignored.

In a nutshell, yes. You flatten out the curves of boom and bust cycle. WHere it often breaks down is that governments don't stop spending and start stockpiling in times of plenty. So when the next bust rolls around, you have too little to soften the blow.

>ignored in professional journalism, made fun of in politics, and outright forbidden in the field of Geography.
what did you mean by this?

Childhood is thinking that Hayek was right
Adulthood is realizing that Keynes was right, but inevitable rent-seeking political behavior means that his ideas will never properly be implemented

I didn't say they didn't teach Marxism (they did, see: ), I said that having Marxist econ professors is a surefire sign of a shitty school, since this is not an accepted school of Economics according to any self-respecting economist.

Which ones, really? The post-war economic boom was ended by a supply
-side shock (OPEC cartel rising oil prices), which Keynesianism was really unprepared to deal with.

But the recent 2008 Great Recession could have been prevented or at least softened with more Keynesian policies in the years before. Most of Europe and America was running fiscal deficits and thus was caught with its pants down when the crisis struck.

Likewise, the repeal of Glass-Steagall could be placed at the doorstep as the main cause behind the housing bubble, inflated by Bush's taxcuts and excess liquidity in the years prior - All of which is against Keynes' ideas.

Lol, virgin

The fact that private companies got an 800 billion dollar bailout by the government is an example of Keynesianism.

That's not the kind of demand stimulation Keynes advocated, so no. A real Keynesian government would have seized over the banks temporarily, jailed the top executives, go over their finances, clean them up and reprivatize them again under new management. It would have also come up with a major road and infraestructure building program to stimulate demand, not some banker bonuses.

Iceland was keynesianism, not America.
Stop falling for right-wing talking points.

>That's not the kind of demand stimulation Keynes advocated, so no. A real Keynesian government would have seized over the banks temporarily, jailed the top executives, go over their finances, clean them up and reprivatize them again under new management.

Bitch please. Keynesianism isn't totalitarianism. Making sure private companies don't go bankrupt by bailing them out is fully in line with the theory.

Who said anything about totalitarism?
How is the justice system investigating people for fraud a totalitarian move?

>Who said anything about totalitarism?

What do you call this then?

>A real Keynesian government would have seized over the banks temporarily, jailed the top executives, go over their finances, clean them up and reprivatize them again under new management.

Who said a bust cycle and a recession is necessarily caused by illegal or unethical procedures? Are you saying securities derivatives, which were one of the major causes of the recession, were illegal?

Because news flash. They weren't.

You’re an imbecile if you think Russian influence is responsible for “nationalism” (if that’s what you must name the trend of believing what was completely normal at the time that book was written.)

>Who said a bust cycle and a recession is necessarily caused by illegal or unethical procedures?
Not all of them are, but 2007 had a lot of financial fraud going on.

>Are you saying securities derivatives, which were one of the major causes of the recession, were illegal?
No.
Read.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416645594

>blocks your path

Picketty is not a Marxist

Depends on where you live and what school you go to there
Marxism is usually part of japanese econ curriculum's (even more so during the cold war), but the study of Marxism there, beyond some token weirdo maoist groups, is mostly non-political. It's just something learned on the way to being a normal everyday salaryman.
The US, I assume you'r from there, was at the heart of the cold war, and having both real and imagined communist threats from within and without. Teaching marxist economics in such a political climate would be like teaching Bastiat's economic views at Moscow State: you're just not gonna do it.

And that aside, teaching 19th century economic systems, with only a few niche exceptions or for historical reasons, isn't popular in anyones economics departments.

Not a Marxist, he simply advocated high taxation. And he said himself he never bothered reading Marx.

His problem, like Marx's, is that he fails to see the obvious conflict of interest central planners have when given that much power. Sure, they can use it to flatten the cycle, or they can use it to make sure they and their buddies stay comfy.

That doesn't mean communism is without merit.

>destruction of Western hegemony
That's not a bad thing, West does need to be destroyed. It's not the same West as 300 years ago, it's pretty much synonymous with faggotry, trannies, materialism and democracy right now.
That's not to say Russia is the answer with their shit ethnic Russian fertility and rabid islamization, but the West has became a tumor.

Hang yourself

The historic inevitability of communism to prevent itself from turning into an oligarchal society that's more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie that preceded it combined with the lack of free flowing goods and capital which are necessary on a fundamental level to prevent shortage does mean it's without merit though.

>but that's because my specific brand of communism hasn't been tried
Even assuming communism as stateless socialism requires an oppressive element to prevent individual workers from selling their labor or goods. In the event this does not exist, the society ceases to be socialist but simply anarcho-communitarian in nature. Stateless socialism is a paradox.

Every time some faggot born in 91 starts talking about a Red Scare my blood boils

>>when things are good, government don't spend and pays debts
>>when things are bad use this money
Why would things turn bad if there's no debt?

You're reading it incorrectly. Things don't necessarily turn bad because there's no debt. It's an if-then, not necessarily cyclical.

Assuming there's no wage labour involved, the selling of personal production has never been outlawed in any of the historically "socialist" nation-states. I mean, you couldn't do it full time, but one could get some pretty nice side hustles going.

>faggots, trannies
So basically, personal freedom and tolerance for the existence of widely disliked people. Oh no.
>materialism
People care more about decent living standards than appreciating artsy fartsy philosophy and theological nonsense in poverty, boo hoo.
>democracy
As opposed to being tyrranized by a small group of unaccountable people who can abuse their underlings without repercussions and censor all scrutiny against them.

Notice how ALL the countries that lack these things are basically shitholes. Russia is third world pride personified.

Nice non-argument, butthurt child.

See above.