Why do keynesian children like to pretend deflation is bad when

File: austrian-keynesians.jpg (71KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 720x540px

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?

File: 1416276690784.jpg (156KB, 960x613px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 960x613px

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?

File: 1481897139601.jpg (2MB, 488x5919px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 488x5919px

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?

Wakey wakey keynesians.

>>2140699
>Wakey wakey keynesians.
Wake up and smell the economic fallacies.

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

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

>>2140751
>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.

>>2140755
>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.

>>2140757
>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

>>2140759
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.

>>2140767
>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.

>>2140777
>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

>>2140585
Nice shotgun approach faggot.

>>2140781
So Stiglitz and Krugman are banker shills and the WSJ and FT are really looking out for the lower middle class?

File: 185261_10151177059066489_1380341182_n.jpg (123KB, 960x898px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 960x898px

>>2140787
BOOM HEADSHOT

>>2140791
>and the WSJ and FT
They're also keynesian.
Or at least semi-Chicago(keynesian lite)

File: 1442279011700.png (367KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 900x900px

>>2140791
>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.

>>2140757
>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.

>>2140757
>>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?

It means that you have an incentive to invest money rather than just dump it in a bank

>>2140805
>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.

>>2140809
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.

>all these good things happened because of muh gold standard and not everything else in society counteracting it, mainly technological progress

>>2140812

>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.

>>2140812

> 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.

>>2140802

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.

>>2140812
>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

>>2140826
>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.

>>2140826
>Listen to Krugman about Trade and some absolute basics.
Why would I listen to a man that wanted greenspan to create a housing bubble?

>>2140831
>Whats wrong with bonds and stocks?
Low interest and risky.

>>2140796
>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

>>2140842
>Several of these problems have already been addressed by Keynesians several times
You're a liar.

I've argued with keynesians countless times on 4chan 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

>>2140832
>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.

>>2140835

Because he got a Nobel for his work on trade. Don't play dense.

>>2140846
>Provide some evidence, particularly academic, that Austrians were right about the housing market and 'Keynesians' weren't.
Here's a list of austrian predictions:
https://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.

>>2140843
>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.

>>2140856
>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?

>>2140864
>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.

>>2140848

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: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

austrians truly infallible economic minds http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/01/where-is-the-inflation

never got a prediction wrong, practically soothsayers

>>2140879
Son,
https://www.mises.ca/hey-austrians-where-is-the-inflation/

>>2140873
>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.

>>2140872
>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 4chan you can't cry every time someone asks loaded questions.

>>2140873
>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: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Austrians have debunked caplan's shitty article many times.

https://mises.org/blog/caplan-and-responses

>>2140883

>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

>>2140908
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.

File: 1354343568422.jpg (202KB, 884x888px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 884x888px

>3 hours later

Not one person has refuted anything in OP's post and subsequent posts.

TOP JEJ

File: 1481414497922.jpg (23KB, 249x265px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 249x265px

>praxeology

>>2140939
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.

Do austrians realize how stupid and sectish they act? Who the fuck is this thread going to convince?

>>2140950
>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
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2223735?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>2140965
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/2223735?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://uneasymoney.com/2011/09/09/sraffa-v-hayek-2/

>>2140969
>the theory is valid, we just have to assume perfect forward rationality!
:^)

>>2140972
Nobody said or implied this.

>>2140978
>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

File: graph.jpg (199KB, 1390x645px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1390x645px

>>2140992
You're expecting to correctly foresee price changes? Are you kidding me?

>>2141008
Are you illiterate?

>>2140950
>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

>>2141013
I see, you're on my side of this argument. Haha.

>>2140950
>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.

File: 1481282144811.png (316KB, 3000x2139px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 3000x2139px

>>2141045
>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.

File: 76_vNbUo3tPNNyb3tB-ofXfF1HllGY5rXJTpRcsloYI.jpg (129KB, 963x768px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 963x768px

>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

>>2141058
>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.

>>2141060
>literally 0 arguments to OP's countless points

my sides

>>2141064
>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.

>Heavily interventionist
One of the most free market nations on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

Kill yourself.

>>2141060
>based on my own criteria
What do you mean own criteria? You can't even give an example of this can't you?

Keynesians BTFO

File: 1441538584829.jpg (106KB, 1284x1057px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1284x1057px

>>2141060
>>2141064
>>2141028
>>2141026
>>2141008
>>2140992
>>2140969
>>2140965
>>2140961
>>2140939
>>2140842
ITT: People that actually unironically believe burning crops and destroying food will magically feed poor people.

>>2141067
>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.

>One of the most free market nations on earth.
Are you retarded? I'm discussing their intervention during their development, not their current economic freedom. And that index is retarded.
There a shit ton of literature that demonstrate the heavy intervention, from the world bank to the works of amsden or singh.
See:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/975081468244550798/pdf/multi-page.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1047278?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Trade Policy and Economic Performance in South Korea by Amsden
"The causes of fast economic growth in East Asia" by Singh
https://feb.kuleuven.be/public/ndaag37/1996_Some_Lessons_from_the_East_Asian_Miracle.pdf

>>2141086
Grow up, it's embarrassing.

>>2141090
>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?

>>2141101
>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.

>>2141147
>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.

https://fee.org/articles/hong-kong-a-success-story/

>>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.

>>2141147
>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

>>2141191
>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.

>>2141176
>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?

>Why do keynesian children like Paul Krugman believe that an alien invasion would help the economy?
This is my favorite.

>>2140585
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.

>>2141216
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.

>>2141240
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.

>>2141250
Krugman isn't a Keynesian, he's a monetarist and a Jew. See
>>2141240

>>2140888
>>2140888
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.

>>2141255

>krugman
>monetarist

lol? he's New Keynesian, like 100% of non retarded economists, aka 99.9% of the profession

>>2141342
"New Keynesian" is crypto monetarism. Bet you also believe Greenspan and Bernanke were Keynesian you fucking retard.

File: 1469568669048.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

>>2140757
>Austrian economists

Do you cultists never give up in preaching your dated pseudoscientific trash?

File: visualguidecrisis2.jpg (594KB, 500x2909px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 500x2909px

>>2140757
>Most economists are retarded and couldn't predict the housing market crash. Austrian economists did though.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/running-out-of-bubbles.html

File: 20090325-ek36xkmmrrf3d3dhjugtwfdaghrender.png (28KB, 747x495px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 747x495px

>>2140596
>Why did keynes shove so many cocks up his ass?

Why are Austrians such humorless autistic literalists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

File: austrian magic.png (603KB, 712x840px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 712x840px

>>2140585

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.

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.

File: laughing-chinese-man-_xk3s.jpg (20KB, 407x428px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 407x428px

>>2141565

Jokes on you! I'm a supporter of Chinese State Capitalism.

anyone who isn't a keynesian is basically communist tier retarded at this point
>b-but muh theories

>>2141583
hi 50 cent army

>>2141565
>muh Keynes

Why do austrian retards live in the '30s?

>>2141588
Take your bubbles somewhere else you government sheep.

>>2141603
>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

>>2141603
You're such a rebel, anon, what would the world do without you.

>>2141605
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.

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"

File: 1481606172159.gif (3MB, 680x567px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 680x567px

>>2141371
>NO REAL KEYNESIAN

Now you're starting to sound like the socialist all Keynesians are on the inside.

>>2141676
It depends. Do Keynesians take the blame for New Deal and general failure of all economic policies from 1929 onwards?

>>2141058
>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.

>>2141240

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?)

>>2141688
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.

>>2141676
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.

>>2141697
It got the legacy it deserves.

>Keynesianism
Adolf Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht used Keynesian policies to propel up the German efonomy almost overnight. They recovered from the Great Depression within three years.

>Austrian school and Marxism
Both created by the Jews to follow Jewish interests - destroying the European community and bringing about rootless communism.

>>2141753
Tell me more about the "powerful" and stable economy of the III Reich.

>>2141709
Just like Austrian economics is out of government and academia and relevancy in general - it got the legacy it deserved.

The economists' consensus for the time being, if there can be said to be one, will fall somewhere between New Keynesianism, New Classicism and Monetarism.

>>2140585
You are aware Keynes is making an analogy there and actually saying a pseudo-gold-rush would be good for economy and better than nothing there, right?

>deflation is good for economy
>Europe went through a period of immense increase in wealth when they inflated the fuck out of their economies by flooding it with gold, silver and overpriced spices acquired with only pretend productivity (killing natives and sinking each other's boats is NOT real productivity)

>>2141778
That's fucking rich. A fantastic consensus where Paul fucking Krugman is an acclaimed economist and high taxes, endless spending, large public sector reign supreme. Thanks Labour.

>>2141753
Do stormfags have any opinion that isn't determined by memes and jews? It's pretty fucking sad.

>>2141778
Neoclassical synthesis is neoclassical cancer and rule by consensus is why we're all in the shitter.

You can't all be right, retards.

File: richardwolffgraph_460.jpg (20KB, 460x273px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 460x273px

>>2141811
Are you a brit?

Taxes are relatively low for the last hundred years or so.

>>2141771

Well, they managed to go from post WW1 Germany that had to repay something like twice it own PIB (which is an incredibly absurd amount of money to ask from a war torn country that has to rebuild itself) to the power house that was the third reich which, even if you don't like it, was powerful enough that the Jews of Europe and America worked together (protip; jewish pops aren't as united as the Israeli want you to believe, quite the opposite in fact, hell choosing the new rabbi can become a moshpit of surprising violence) had to goad the USA to come help (if it wasn't from Japan retarded idea of attacking pearl harbor the usa and Germany probably would never have started shit with one another, the usa had for the longest of time a mentality of non-interference with the affairs of the world and simply desired to be an haven for its folks, hence why it became so prosperous so rapidly compared to many others nations of the earth.)

Hell, their economy was strong enough that they had one of the best and efficient welfare program ever made that literally gutted the rate of unemployment from the double digits to single and was praised far and wide for its effectiveness, even by the usa.

>>2141811
If you are American, you actually have ridiculously low nominal taxes, historically speaking. Even if we go by effective taxes, you still used to pay more than today back when the economy was booming like in the 50s.

>>2141847
They were near colapse. War was a necessity for them. Full employment and production is a small feat in militarized state.

>>2141822
When you aren't an ideologue you can recognize that different models can be better predictors at different times and generate new models from there, melding concepts that complement each other.

This is done in most other fields of study, like in biology, but in economics and other social sciences you always get austrians and marxists pushing back against that doesn't meet their cult's dogma.

File: hillary for prison.jpg (84KB, 508x370px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 508x370px

There's nothing I love more than Federal Reserve conspiracies.

It's like the acceptable way to be upset about Capitalism, that is without talking about the circuit of production and rate of profit. All you're left to do is talk about finance and all you're left to rely on is the quantity theory of money to explain literally everything.

It produces interesting results and is always entertaining.

Not to imply that conspiracies aren't real, they are.

Two things for the neophyte:

1. No one in the mainstream actually understands Keynes - the guy is not really in the marginalist tradition but in the classical tradition(Petty, Stuart, Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Marx, Mill etc). The likes of is/lm, Hick, Samuelson and Krugman have nothing to do with him and are gross bastardisations.

2. In the era of modern capitalism all that regulates literally everything that happens is the profit motive, some institutions like finance have effects but they usually follow what's necessitated by the state of the economy with relation to profit and not the other way around. The state itself is an institution for regulating the affairs of capitalists and little else. In that sense conspiracies only exist because you don't understand the purpose of your institutions.

America has the most progressive tax system in the world.

Keynesianism in Latin America has been completely discredited because people who called themselves "Keynesian" gave massive support to the Heterodox economic policies of Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil, which utterly failed.

Good riddance to them.

>>2140757
A number a post-Keynesians like Steve Keen also predicted the financial crash. They view crises as a result of private debt bubbles bursting.

Their argument against deflation is that is literally reduces the money supply rendering growth impossible. Inflation on the other hand can reduce the private debt burden if wages also increase.

Keynesians like Paul Krugman aren't worth anyone's time. You should read Minsky to understand where modern Keynesianism is going.

>>2141240
>you know that ethnicity of successful multi billionaires that run all of the world?
>lets not listen to them when it comes to money!

>>2144626
>Post-Keynesians
Makes the MMTers look relevant

>>2140918
If we have two states, who are neighbors and rivals, lets call them X and Y.
X uses the Kaynsian principles, and Y uses the Hayek principles.

Which one do you think will outperform the other, force people to immigrate to make more money, and overall collapse the other's economy, ensuring that is flips its principles?

Protip: protectionism and buying out businesses helps your economy eat the other economies.

>>2144639
So what?

>>2140609
But we have a gold standard. Its called United States Dollar.
The more dollars you own, the more your currency is worth.

>>2141045
>Heavy interventionist countries like south east asian ones developed much faster than laissez faire economies.
They literally only stopped being third world shitholes after liberalising their economies

>>2144647
Japan was literally brought back from the ashes by an iron government deciding what interest each individual loan will get.
>that city needs some heavy industry, if anyone wants to build there they get low interest on their loan
>this other city has too much business compared to its population, high interest loans only, so it doesn't suck people from neighboring areas
The USA only somewhat recently forced them to go for the open market approach and the yen started devaluing rapidly.

Similar case in Korea, planned development of industry brought them from an almost entirely agricultural society to a technology and IT based society in a few decades.

>>2144641

>Protip: protectionism and buying out businesses helps your economy eat the other economies.

It's the opposite if a trade war happens.

>Which one do you think will outperform the other, force people to immigrate to make more money, and overall collapse the other's economy, ensuring that is flips its principles?

They're going to flip to non-protectionism, which is why the world is like it is today.

>>2144641
>Protip: protectionism and buying out businesses helps your economy eat the other economies.
The economy is not zero sum

>>2144667
>free trade is always good for everyone because my textbook says so

This is why economics is broken.

>>2144689
Free trade is universally accepted to be a Kaldor hicks improvement

>>2144667
>your country has farmers grow potatoes
>my country has farmers grow subsidized potatoes, we took a loan for that
>people buy my country's potatoes
>your agricultural sector comes crashing down
>our country now rules the potato trade
>we can return out loan and still be ahead

Guess what, your free trade just got Mercantilism'd.

>>2144701
>Everyone gets cheaper potatoes
>People who lost their jobs are compensated and retrained
>Over time my countries farmers adapt and start growing other plants
>Your country has to deal with the increasing costs of potatoes, your government is forced to slap on tariffs and increase subsidies to protect the industry amidst political backlash and the ever looming threat for your potato industry to move to country C, innovation is dying
>My country enjoys cheap goods, greater FDI, technological innovation, greater stability, greater geopolitical ties

>>2144723
>Over time my countries farmers adapt and start growing other plants
The scenario would repeat itself.
A country protecting its trade will suffocate a country that doesn't.
The only salvation is to also start protecting your own trade, go into an arms race of sorts, and later diffuse it with international trade treaties.

>>2144731
>The scenario would repeat itself.
Something something creative destruction
>A country protecting its trade will suffocate a country that doesn't.
It only suffocates its people to protect special interests
>The only salvation is to also start protecting your own trade, go into an arms race of sorts, and later diffuse it with international trade treaties.
Let's massively increase the cost of goods for everyone. We'll be home from the trade war by christmas

>>2144698
>universally accepted

By mainstream economists.

Why is free trade good? Because it is Kaldor-Hicks superior. Why is it Kaldor-Hicks superior? Because although it does make many millions of Americans worse off, it makes enough other Americans sufficiently better off that they could compensate the losers of the deal. Have the losers been so compensated? No.

>>2144749
>By mainstream economists.
What school rejects free trade?

>Have the losers been so compensated?
They have been, although not sufficiently enough. That's the fault of your shitty government

>>2144787
>What school rejects free trade?

Marxism, obviously.

>>2144787
Post-Keynesianism criticises free trade. I've seen some economists make the point that the free trade dogma is based on Ricardo's faulty assumption that specialisation can take place without the destruction of capital.

And £100 to a bum isn't £100 to a CEO. Just because you include the word "improvement" in your model, doesn't mean that there has been an improvement in overall utility.

>>2144795
Marx never mentions free trade in any of his works

>>2144813
Free trade helps the poor more than anyone else

>>2144815
He mentions lack of property, and thus money, and thus trade, in his manifesto.

>>2144819
Lmao

>>2144821
I couldn't help but notice you didn't argue me, and I can only conclude you are agreeing.

>>2144826
Come up with an argument then dickwad. Oh wait you can't, you'll just resort to logic like

> Jesus helped prostitutes, thus supporting extortion, thus supporting slavery

>>2144818
Unless yours is the job that goes abroad.

>>2144835
Marx literally wrote in his manifesto that he wants no property and no trade. Read the damn thing.

>>2144839
Literally not an argument to what I said

>>2144842
Karl Marx has only ever mentioned free trade once, and that was supporting it, albeit in perverse ways. If you're going to worship a retard no one takes seriously at least know something about him

>>2144842
Karl Marx has only ever mentioned free trade once, and that was supporting it, albeit in perverse manor. If you're going to worship a retard no one takes seriously at least know something about him

>>2144846
>>2144847
>if you disagree with me you are a communist
How should I say this... lmao.

>he supported it
As a lesser evil, not as a part of his ideal system, which he outlined in the manifesto.
Saying A is not as bad as B doesn't mean you support B. Especially when you write a detailed description of a C you suggest to anyone.

>>2144844
Free trade means job losses and communities changed or destroyed. That is bad for the poor people with those jobs and in those communities.

>>2144858
So what? Free trade means jobs in other sectors and cheaper goods. Free trade benefits the poor more than anyone else. Saying some people lose jobs is not something I am disagreeing with

>>2144866
Cheaper prices, yes.

But you state the central fallacy of the free trade dogma. That by destroying jobs in one sector, you create jobs in another. But this process involves the mass destruction of capital, wastes skills and requires capital to train individuals in new skills. These have huge economic costs that mostly are not taken into consideration by free trade models.

>>2144880
> But this process involves the mass destruction of capital, wastes skills and requires capital to train individuals in new skills. These have huge economic costs that mostly are not taken into consideration by free trade models.
They literally are

File: images.jpg (29KB, 464x317px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 464x317px

>>2144598
Good riddance to those faggots.

>>2144889
Not all of them.

>>2140950
>Economics cannot be considered a scientific discipline without praxeology

Economics isn't a science though. Praxeology takes it even further from one.

t. STEMlord

>>2144903
Economics is a science, although is a young science with much room for improvement

>>2144908
Economics isn't nearly empirical enough to be a science.

>>2144919
The majority of papers use empirical data

>>2144923
Observing the past is a bad way of predicting the future.
Sciences can see HOW and WHY things work, not just assume how they will work based on how they worked last century.

>>2140596
>stiglitz points out housing bubble in 05/06
>why do keynesians love bubbles??!!??

It's startes because of monetarist policy

>>2144932
Ok and?

>>2144934
Stiglitz is a new keynesian, and new keynesian is closer to monetarism than keynesianism

>>2144938
His point is that developing a predictive model to fit the observed data isn't very scientific. Especially when the entire mainstream fails to predict a huge financial crisis.

>>2144966
>Economics is not a science because people were wrong
>I specifically mention that it is a young science
Ok wow

>>2144967
>strawman

File: tmp_6068-14804349324171220903931.jpg (225KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1920x1080px

>>2140757
>Most economists are retarded and couldn't predict the housing market crash.
Plenty of them did, the fucking IMF did.

>Austrian economists did though.

Ahahahahaahahshhshsahahahah

>>2144637
>billionaires don't want to dupe you, they all want the best for you

>>2145021
Just give up, they're cultists who get all their infornation from mises.org, I legitimately believe they never read non-Austrian authors.

>>2145192
hey that's not fair

I bet they've also watched quite a few molyneux videos

>inb4 autists spamming "not an argument"

File: tmp_6068-14804542174631387250377.jpg (226KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1080x1080px

>>2145200
Molymeme isn't even a right libertarian anymore, he's a full alt-right trump supporter because that gets him more views.

>>2145217
Has he also abandoned his terrible attempt (cheap knock off of kant) at proving secular morality with UPB?

>>2145192
All education up to uniersities, mainstream textbooks and media focuses only on Keynesian mediocrity. Mostly because of them people had the wrong idea of things like the Great Depressio and post-war boom.

>>2145258
>calling every mainstream view Keynesian
It's like arguing with creationists at this point.

>>2145258
Weirdly enough the post war boom also coincided with extremely high public spending.

File: 9780190293000-029-zoom.jpg (45KB, 400x608px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x608px

>>2145286
The I'm sending you to this wonderful book.

>>2145328
*then

File: tmp_6068-1480201695041926423116.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2145236
I think so

>>2145236
No, he is still refusing to debate people, while claiming he has won all debates against it.

>>2145187
Literally this.

Why do Americans equate financial success with a person's integrity?

File: austrian.png (127KB, 795x400px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 795x400px

>>2145593

I was thinking.

In order to bring back jobs to America, Trump has to either manipulate the currency so that the dollar tanks making it cheaper to make goods locally, or he puts tarrifs on everything imported so American goods are cheaper.

Either way, it isn't very Austrian of him.

>>2147069
except that's exactly what you just did just in the reverse direction

>hurr double standards are only okay when they're MY double standards!!!!!!

Nope. Billionaires are h. sapiens too, despite what /leftypol/ conspiracies you choose to bite down on. Reality bites. Deal with it.

Anyone here (including OP) read Keynes yet? Like his book General Theory, for example? Please tell me what is the formula at the end of chapter 4? It seems like it is gross process plus the product of the aggregate supply function and the user cost function, would be how I would word the concept of the Output function.

File: P1-BU706_BRAZIL_16U_20150827184205.jpg (224KB, 1280x2178px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1280x2178px

>>2144598
>Keynesianism in Latin America has been completely discredited because people who called themselves "Keynesian" gave massive support to the Heterodox economic policies of Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil, which utterly failed.

>Resource boom starts

>Resource boom ends

>DAMN YOU KEYNESIANISM!!!

???

>>2147116

To be honest most Billionaires aren't Austrian economics persons.

>>2147121
Keynes explain how firms price their goods and employs labor. He introduces the z-curve.

It simply shows that firms demand labor based on expected profit derived from an expected demand for their goods. Firms plan their production based on demand for their goods on the goodsmarket, and employ the labor it finds necessary to facilitate this production, and still erning a planned profit. In this sense Keynes presents a status quo in the labormarket (wages etc.) as a product of the goodsmarket (firms demand/supply).
(In mainstream theory this causality is seen as being the other way around. The wages is given, and then the firms decide their labor demand).

the p = ... equation shows that the price of the good is based on the expected cost of labor (wages paid) based on the planned procution and a markup (the Z (proceeds from net user cost)). Changes in costs (wages etc.) changes the Z. Howeve´r changes in demand for labor depends on which effect is dominating; The cost-effect or the demand-effect. If the cost-effect is dominating, the demand for labor declines as wages increase. This happens because the planned markup (profit) is held constant by firms - and as a result they have to cut costs.
If the demand-effect however is dominating. the increase in wages, increase private consumption and thereby raises aggregate demand. This leads firms to produce more, and demand more labor.
Keynes wrote this in the 30'ies. In modern times, the cost-effect seems most likely to be dominating.

>>2141058
>and created an environment that was business friendly.
>China
>Vietnam
>business friendly

>>2141067
Are you purposefully being retarded?

1945-1990 South Korea literally had a controlled exchange rate. That's as interventionist as you can get.

>>2140585
>2016

>still dividing economics into schools

>not just having a postivist disposition using empirical evidence to direct policy decisions

its like you guys want to keep failing

>>2141101
>During the time they grew exponentially Hong Kong and Singapore were extremely free market.
Hahahahaha /his/ "facts"

>>2141176
>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.

Lol Hong Kong didn't have free elections until 1994 and never had self-rule.

>>2144889
>They literally are

In which?

I only recently began seeing a few models that account for lost capital.

>>2147537
I don't understand. Nowhere in the equation is the demand. The only variables determining the output function are the aggregate supply function and the user cost function. Am I wrong?

>>2147565

If we would use empirical evidence to direct policy decisions we'd just use the austrian school.

>>2147911
>using empirical evidence
>Austrian economics
I don't think you understand the economic school you are advocating for

this is some good and NICE autism
ps. fuck Keynes
t.Hayek

>>2141270
sure I guess some people sure but you are obv misrepresenting it like a huge retard that doesn't know much

>>2141486
yeah everyone with differing opinions is a cultist LOLOL what a stupid buzzword

>>2145200
lol great strawman yeah every austrian is just a Molyneux viewer

this thread seems to be bursting at the seems with great arguments. /his/ posters sure are the cream of the crop