Who was in the wrong here? >free market, if its broke just

>>134183868
that doesnt look like kanye at all.

>>134184460
>The economy doesn't magically recover in a depression.

1. It does, long term. This is the crux, short term vs long term, and can you afford to wait natural growth or do you have to force it risking inflation later.
2. Depression won't occur if the system until then was ran in the Austrian model, or so Austrians argue.

File: capitalism1.png (284KB, 833x1252px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 833x1252px

>>134183868

>>134184460
>Only in a depression the government should intervene, he said.

Not at all, he would also intervene to build huge projects (bridges, highways, stadiums) that the business wouldn't build, to bail out big failing businesses, etc.
He does promote government intervention, but not government planning. The difference is easy to spot if you are looking for it.

>>134183868
The jew number 2. Anyone living under the illusion that propping up failed business helps workers should kill themselves already.

>>134184460
>The economy doesn't magically recover in a depression.
yes it does
eventually everyone with bad loans gets liquidated

>>134183893
>>134183868
The Great Depression and now recently the Great Recession pretty much proved Hayek wrong. Hayeks "theory" is pretty much the equivalent of if your doctor would tell you that your body is an equilibrium system long term so if the disease doesnt kill you then you will eventually get well. Which is true in a sense but also completely insane. Just like most wingtard ideas.

>>134183893 >>134183868
Keynes is more leftist. I wonder if he could possibly be wrong...
More seriously though, government regulations and subsidies lead to corporationism (big corporations lobbying for beneficial laws and regulations to keep newcomers and competition out) and bailing-out lead to making everybody else pay for rich people.
>>134184460
AFAIK Keynesian economy caused clusterfuck that is now.

>>134184460
The state apparatus never contracts, which is why keynes was wrong and a proto commie.

>>134184968
"Flag" checks out.

File: disgustin.gif (2MB, 330x166px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x166px

>>134184968
>artificially change interest rates
>economy crashes because false increase in capital goods
>blame the free market for socialist policies

cmon its not that hard i learnt this when i was 16

>>134185044
>government regulations and subsidies lead to corporationism
Free market leads to cartels and monopolies, like when a drug that used to cost $12 gets purchased by a new owner and now costs $250. And there are crazier real life examples too, especially with drugs, but also with other goods.

I would say corporations/lobbies cancel out with monopolists/cartels in the end, and we can ignore that side of the argument.
Both systems produce such tumors for the common man.

>>134185056
>proto commie
>he did most of his work after communist ideas were already established
How is he proto-X, if X came before him? And he is for intervention, not planning.

>>134183893
Hayek's theory falls apart if people aren't rational (they're not).

>>134185333
Depression can occur without direct state meddling with the economy, for example when we let computers drive cars and 10% of all men become unemployed in a very short time, without having other skills.
Or when you go to war and lose, historically this also causes depression, even if the state doesn't damage control horribly.

>>134185155
Think about it. Your doctor tells you

>The best thing is to do nothing! Unless you die, it usually just sorts itself out. Anyway, operations are hella risky and can actually kill you.

That's the kind of stupid shit you fall for

>>134185392
how does a true free market lead to monopoly's
i always see commies,nazis and lefties in general saying this but they never say how this will happen
monopoly can only form when governments subsidise failing business

>>134183868
>free market, if it's broke just endure it
Straw man. The cause of a boom/bust in Misesian and Hayekian theory is exogenous to the free market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efEaWB8tWak

>>134185333
The boom-bust cycle is naturally occurring, based on the fundamentals of economics and the working of the human psyche. First you're greedy and think you can actually become rich and then you're panicked and terrified you will lose everything. Your behavior in both situations is counter productive.

Sure it sorts itself out eventually. The great depression sorted itself out in World War II, with 70 million people dead. Then after that we had some pretty good years.

>>134185510
>You treat every little infection with antibiotics
>eventually bacteria become so strong antibiotics don't work anymore and you die
Replace infection with bubble and antibiotics with bail-outs and there you go.
Also
>economy is a machine/organism meme
>people aren't rational meme, but when you add regulations/taxes corporations suddenly go with the most efficient (rational) route of evading them or increased costs

>>134185594
1. Develop a high quality product. Or in the more common case, buy someone small who developed a high quality product.
2. Everyone buys it, since its genuinely good, and you buy out competition who can't handle your great and well deserved success.
>but then...
3. The quality of your services and goods diminishes, but you have no competition, so people still buy your shit.
4. If competition shows up, you just sell at a loss for a few years and kill them, since they don't have your huge wallet to be able to afford this. Then you buy them and go back to being cancer.

File: hoppean.png (758KB, 771x715px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 771x715px

>>134183868
Wannabe nazis exposed as closet leftists in this thread.

>>134185392
Intervention requires a plan, otherwise it's a bit pointless. He paved the way for the disgusting kind of socialism we're enduring now.
The free market doesn't lead to cartels, because if there is demand and you form a cartel, there will be someone on the planet who will easily undercut you. See European Economy as an example.
The example of medecine is a rather bad one because not many people have aids and the drugs are still in developemnt, which is costly. Also, thanks to 'safety regulations', patirnts cannot buy foreign drugs which are cheaper.
> the common man/ both sides
These memes must die already. Short term political pandering to the voter base is a shitty policy that leads to waste and hunger.

>>134185870
>people are rational

People will buy tobacco and alcohol, while at the same time complaining they have no money.
People will own personal automobiles instead of using public transport, and at the same time complain they have no money.

And the sheer size of the advertisement industry and the power of brands shows people aren't rational consumers.
Some businesses like gambling or stock exchanges prove that people act like morons, so the 99% of fools can feed the 1% of winners.

>>134185594
If there is some resource that can be hoarded and monopolized and the lack of which makes competing impossible. An obvious example is that only Microsoft Windows can offer access to software written to be compatible with proprietary Microsoft APIs. The result being a 25 year 90+% marketshare monopoly on PC operating systems.

>>134185982
>Short term political pandering to the voter base is a shitty policy that leads to waste and hunger.

I agree, but if you are appointed tzar of a state, and in your first speech demand that 2 generations of people suffer so that the third and latter ones can prosper, you will be lynched and your family killed.

>>134186050
>What are patent laws.

>>134185941
Just a random flag, I have no loyalty to ideologies.
I am also not convinced either way, which is why I am willing to discuss and can defend both sides.
I genuinely can't decide which approach is better more often.

>>134185996
So what you're saying is that majority of people is chaotic, but important people (like businessmen) are rational? In such case neither system really is right.
That, or the "80% of money spent is spent by women" meme.

>>134183868
Keynes and Hayek are both right but they need a combined economic theory that helps the weak points of both being filled with the other's strengths.

>The Fed and Kaynes both admit Hayek was right
>people still think the Fed and Kaynes were right
Pure malicious intent.

>>134184629
Depressions would still occur but they would be more mild and manageable.

What causes depressions is what austrian economists label as malinvestments or misuse of capital, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Keynessianism but it is increased.

An excess of capital flow due to low interest rates and short term motivators lead to worse malinvestments.

Like a bank that only gives loans to the ones they're 100% sure will pay back, they will lose some business opportunities but they will not crash either.

>>134186268
>Keynes and Hayek are both right

But they are making exactly opposite claims.
>short term vs long term
>state regulation vs free market
>workers security vs investors security

>>134183868
Keynes

>>134186369
>Like a bank that only gives loans to the ones they're 100% sure will pay back, they will lose some business opportunities but they will not crash either.

But if the bank next doors has a more lack policy, they will get more clients, will advertise and expand faster, and over time will kill the other bank.
So an arms race starts, who can get the most clients, and risks be damned, which leads to all too familiar issues.

Would be nice if there was some huge entity that could enforce, on threat of violence, some rules on how much loans a bank can give as a percentage of the money it owns...

>>134186087
True but then promising to improve the economy is a stupid career move anyway. It's like promising rain on a specified date.
The core problem isn't the spending of the money in bad times, it's the gathering of money in the boom times. Inevitably, you'll have to raise taxes to save for the bad times, which in turn causes bust cycles to come back earlier. Also, the massive state organs popping up during depressions would have to be scaled back, which is impossible short of an army coup.

>>134184968
>>134185778
I like how you ignore the fact that the great depression was extended nearly a decade because of Hoover and Roosevelt's socialist policies.

Unemployment never hit double digits, after the stock market crash, and was actually on the upturn, until Hoover's tariff scheme. Then, under FDR, it never hit single digits until we sent millions of Americans to die for retarded Europeans.

Governmental intervention has never worked and never will.

>>134186587
An army coup looking to play the long game and sacrifice short term to gain in the upcoming decades will have a short, bloody rule as well.
Its just hard to stay in power without doing short term reforms and policies.
Only a strong state could play the long game, and ironically a strong state demands the short game, to pay for itself.

>>134185870
>>You treat every little infection with antibiotics
This is not prescribed by Keynesians. However, Austrian School retards postulate that antibiotics are counterproductive and must never be used.

>>134186688
>Roosevelt

Is this the same Roosevelt that conquered a lot of land and created a lot of parks that payed off eventually?

>>134186514
>But if the bank next doors has a more lack policy, they will get more clients, will advertise and expand faster, and over time will kill the other bank.

If this bank is more "generous" with their loans they will need to balance their losses with their earnings better than banks that are more strict and have lower earnings but lower losses too.

It all comes down to investing skills.

>>134186815
That was Teddy. FDR came later.

>>134186754
That's why the best governement is the one that governs (and thus costs) least - Bush was right.

>>134186815
No, that's teddy. He was okay, although I disagree with the federal government owning so much land.

I'm talking about the cripple, who bought all the farmers' food in America, during the great depression, and then put them on naval ships, just so farmers' wages wouldn't go down.

Meanwhile Americans starved on the streets as all that food rotted.

>>134186117
Well those are laws protecting claimed "property". Property happens to be one of the few types of government intervention which lolbertarian and austrian school brainwashing victims are comfortable with, and somehow does not cause "distortions" (of Gods plan)..

>>134186879
>>134186988
Ah, right, my bad.
I never even think of FDR as "Roosevelt", just the way I have him indexed in my head.

>>134186765
>pumping billions into a failing economy and especially in its failing sectors is totally not the equivalent of pumping a sick body full of antibiotics instead of letting the body heal itself
retards who use antibiotics have their brains altered by the farmaceutical industry to comply.

>>134183893
>people are rational
and that's why hayek babbies will never be right

>>134187216
kek

>>134186386
You can have a socialist and a capitalist economy at the same time. It called a mixed economy

File: IMG_20170114_150022.jpg (102KB, 598x1082px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 598x1082px

Ancapistan forever you little bitches

>>134186688
>I like how you ignore the fact that the great depression was extended nearly a decade because of Hoover and Roosevelt's socialist policies.

This is bullshit, but since Austrians promote pretty much Ancap policies it cannot be disproved because Austrian prescriptions were never really fully implemented anywhere. That's the beauty of believing in retarded shit that no one will ever really achieve. If you're a commie you can always blame the small remnants of capitalism you didnt root out; if you're a lolbertarian you can always blame statism, because who is stupid enough to really completely get rid of government and roads and shit..

>>134187007
property is not defined by government intervention but individual intervention. The government has nothing to do with who owns what property, it's only used as an easy means of keeping everyones property safe, which is one of the few good reason for taxes.

File: the no step boys.jpg (193KB, 590x421px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 590x421px

Keynes was wrong
And also a pervert
RIP Paul Krugman and all the federal reserve Jews preemptively BTFO by Hayek. Audit now faggot.

File: cfff89ca4616e41720138cfe46db8324--homemade-costumes-grass.jpg (41KB, 292x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 292x400px

>>134187317
>this is bullshit but I have no argument or evidence so I'll just attempt character assassination

By the way, I'm not an Austrian so pic related

>>134183868
Why can't they both be wrong.

A worker oriented state investment and conservative log term minded fiscal policy seems like a winning combination

>>134187372
>property is not defined by government intervention but individual intervention
or divine intervention

>The government has nothing to do with who owns what property
of course it does you massive twat, the laws define ownership

what makes you think you are entitled to anything that you are not personally capable of protecting? right, the social contract and law through common governance.

>>134187317
Except the institution you are defending disagrees with you. Not that you care to read it or acknowledge this post.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11482.pdf

>>134187541

Centrally planned economies invariably consume more resources than they administer.

Also, fuck you you commie bastard.

>>134187635
Is that the one where the government practically admits the stock market crash and the great depression was their fault?

>>134187541
>why can't we have both?
More government spending for gdp short term growth vs little to no government spending

>>134187735
>practically
No it flat out does it and apologizes.

>>134187372
Property is defined by "if you try to take it i will do violence unto you", and in most states the government is the biggest actor when it comes to violence, so 99.9999% of the time the state guarantees property.

>>134187596
So what claim does the government have over my property? I used it first. I found the land and turned it into a farm. What entitles a latecomer who did not originally utilise the land?

>>134187778
He will ignore it because he'll claim some shit about Ben Bernanke.

Seriously, I've had this argument before with democrats. When you corner them, it's character assassination time.

>>134187930
what argument are you even trying to make

the weak should fear the strong

>>134187400
>Audit now faggot.


This reminds me, are Austrian and ancap supporters okay with foreign actors, including maybe states or organizations subordinate to states, to purchase and run business in your country?

If you want your government to stop being so huge, it has to sell a lot of shit, and would you be okay with foreigners buying it?

>>134187596
The government does not decide who owns what. That has been decided in ages past, after that we installed rules so everyone plays reasonable. Also you're right in Europe, we're socialists here, nothing is actually your own property. Good luck trying to defend your own home when you get robbed, the cops nor the politicians give a shit and care more about the poor opressed souls who were forced due to their 'socioeconomic' situation to rob someone. The only place where you can have your own real property is a place where you can have guns and can kill anyone entering your land on sight. The social contract just means you've given away all your property to the state, they're just not interested in taking it all away from you, for now.

File: laugh-05.jpg (45KB, 644x408px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 644x408px

>>134188029
>says Denmark

>>134187200
If youre referring to Quantitative Easing it was more equivalent to giving adrenaline when someone has a cardiac arrest. It also:

>Was only partially Keynesian
>Ordered by a neo classisist (Bernanke)
and
>Worked pretty fucking well

>>134187970
I know. Same arguments. Over and over. Without end. Reminds me of the Hitler quote. The one about how even if you win an argument against a jew he comes back the next day pretending like it never happened and he has already forgotten about it.

>>134187735 >>134187778
Kek. Then they went and regulated your economy some more.

>>134188173
>Government is full of hypocrites
More news at 11

>>134188084
>The government does not decide who owns what. That has been decided in ages past, after that we installed rules so everyone plays reasonable.

I swear you lolbertarians are just mindlessly typing words hoping that they will come out in an order in which they carry some kind of meaning

File: IMG_4187.jpg (58KB, 590x355px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 590x355px

>>134188121
>Stimulus after stimulus
This is the same delusional mentality which brought italy to its knees, I thought you were responsible.

>>134188029
Do you really think that the burden of proof lies on me? You're claiming that a third party owns my property if they have the means to take it from me. How does theft differ from that concept at all?

>>134188050
Buy from whom?

>>134188121
rather the saving of the banks by governments. Fuck companies getting their asses saved for being worthless thrash, yet Keynes would cheer at this bullshit.
also
just wait and see about quantitative easing. It will work today, but you'll feel its effects tomorrow.

>>134188050
Seriously, why are you using that flag?

File: IMG_4188.png (19KB, 730x340px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 730x340px

>>134188121
Pt.2

Have fun!

>>134188050
No, the government isn't allowed to seize your property and then sell it off to foreign states. It should give the property back to the original owners.

>>134187635
Ben Bernanke is still no Keynesian; he's a freaking libertarian himself, just like his master, Greenkike

>>134187685
>Centrally planned economies invariably consume more resources than they administer.

Eeehhhh... I've done a few organized trips abroad, where every one of my friends (and their friends, people that don't even know me personally) gives me money, and I plan spending according to the budget.
This is of course ridiculously low scale, but it did lead to much lower expenses. Lookup "economies of scale", its an observable effect, a planned economy would make much use of it.

So does centrally planned economy mean more efficient? In practice no, but its not inevitable. The theory is sound, we are just shit at implementing it currently (possibly forever).

>>134188029
>defending the government How does it feel to be this bluepilled?

File: they-had-to-shame-you-into-going-back-marco-rubio-and-chris-christie-exchange-debate-burns.jpg (66KB, 1190x595px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1190x595px

>>134188483

>>134188522
Have you ever heard about your promised land, the USSR?

>>134188458
>>134188344
It wouldnt be /pol/ if some nazi or lolbertarian didnt post some shitty infodump to prove the holocaust false and austrian economics true.

>>134188441
Some anon earlier accused me of using the random nazi flag, so I switched to that one. As I said, I have no loyalty, I am asking questions to get answers, not to mock.

I'll change again if its so annoying to you, I don't care.

>>134188483
>Greenkike
>Tells bush to pay off american debt with capital gain's money
>"fuck no, let's lower taxes for the rich"
>Starts war in Iraq
>6 Trillion in debt for the tax cuts
>2 Trillion in debt for the war
>2008 crysis happens
>Nigger president and bush approve a massive stimulus

That's how you crash and burn a country

>>134188679
It's only annoying because it's distracting. Just use your nation's flag.

>>134188121
"Quantitative easing' is soviet speech for printing money and giving it to banks in the hope nobody will notice the loud sound the printing press makes. Unfortunately no bank wants to invest in the shitheap that is the economy right now, so that printed money is bunkered away, waiting for the day the last idiot catches on and then getti g burned for heat.

>>134188665
>Infodump

This is your national debt, you fucking retard. Your stimulus shit crashed the country, believe it or not.

>>134188151
Look, like clockwork.
>>134188483

>>134188632
Have you read my full post?
Economics of scale isn't even a commie thing, its observable in the private sector.
And its easy to prove. Try to produce 10 kilograms of salt using seawater, calculate the production cost per kg. Now produce 10000 kilograms, and calculate cost per kg. You will see it was reduced greatly.
By involving the state, you do everything at a large scale, and you can negotiate better deals. So the theory is valid, the implementation has just always been shit thus fat. And I even admitted it may always be shit, due to the personal interests of the people involved, we may need hive mentality before the human factor is taken care of to make it work.

>>134188841
Only a Democrat would think exposing real information is a problem.

>>134188427
Well because when all the big banks collapse then everyone's money is gone and we know what happens then... Anarchy, famine, war, etc.

Unfortunately, the best option is to save the banks until the immediate crisis is over and then regulate the shit out of them. Unfortunately, lolbertarians dont believe in regulation, so they have to entertain the fantasy that all the big banks could be allowed to go bankrupt with no adverse effect and zoom back to the "equilibrium"

File: 1486115777576.jpg (35KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x600px

>mfw no-one posted these yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

>>134188841
Why dont you snoop out one which shows the debt in percents of GDP you sweetie little sleuth you?

>>134188917
> economy of scale
> not bureaucracy of scale
How come that effect is never observeable in real life governement?

>>134187400
Shove a dingo up your ass bitch

>>134189082
Corruption, self interest over group interest, private businesses abusing the fact that the government will buy at any price to hike costs, etc.

>>134189176
So - central planning btfo?

>>134189074
>current state of democrats and rabid statalists
Here you are, illiterate journalist:
>>134188458

>>134188277
>disagreeing must mean you're following a meme ideology
The government does at this point in time, not decide who owns what. Atleast not officially, officially you own your car, even though you have no right to protect it, as only the state can do so. So in reality all property owned in europe is owned by the state and nothing else. Before there was a government like there is now, we had feudalism in which most of the property, from buildings to land, were distributed to individuals by a form of government, distinctly different from our current goverment. Tracing your steps back like that and you'll find the first tribes who found this piece of land and started calling it theirs. After multiple of such groups found and claimed the lands, and after a lot of fighting, you'll eventually find yourself back into feudalism. At this point, all property has already been distributed and can only be redistributed by government due to rules (no stealing etc). How is what I said wrong? Officially the government just lays out the rules, but as the rules and regulations inevitably increase, there will come a point at which your property is fundamentally no longer your property, that is, when you can no longer protect it (or aren't allowed to). This is the case in Europe, we have no personal property here as everything is state-owned, even if it officially isn't. Of course if something is official or not means nothing as the gov can always change the rules.
>>134188277

>>134189220
No, since these aren't faults with the economy of scale doctrine, they are problems with its implementation.
You are conflicting the physics part (is it possible, will it work, will it be worth it) with the engineering part (how the fuck do we built it).

Like saying Mars colonization is impossible, because we haven't done it yet.

>>134189082
>Implying politics is about producing goods
If actual government work was just compiling paperwork that would have worked.

>>134189170
Suck on my private penis

>>134188931
Hayek going hard asf desu

File: 14_3.png (34KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x400px

>>134183868
THE MODS ARE DELETING THE /pol CLEANSNING SQUADS/ GENERALS. JOIN THE FIGHT
---
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: IT'S YOUR DUTY TO HELP CLEANSE THE KEKISTANI PEST

The Kekistan shitfest has, indeed, it's roots on /pol/, but it has mutated on it's own on reddit, facebook, and most importantly, Youtube. The_Donald and the collosal faggot and attention whore that is Sargon of Akkad have successfully opened the path to our board to normies by copying and corrupting Kek and most of the memes surrounding it. Thus, giving birth to Chanology 2.0.

>MUH DIVIDE AND CONQUER!!!! WE NEED TO REDPILLZ THEM!!1
The massive influx of normies will not integrate shall the Kekistan cancer be left to flourish. If they are attracted and stay here, the only way to redpill them is to ridiculize their unoriginal, cringy and retarded play-pretend. They will either see it for what it is and adhere to one of the real Right-Wing ideologies or fuck off.

>"WE NEED ALL THE SUPPORT WE CAN"
This cringy cancer is not helping the right-wing, but the contrary, it undermines it from inside. The Kekistani faggots have adopted a lot of libtard beliefs, such as "civic nationalism", LGBTQ support, etc. while still considering themselves "right-wing".

1/2

>>134189324
But when you try to implement the physics part you need to take the engineering aspects into consideration as well. Saying that we can shoot people to mars is nice and all, but before you do you need to make sure they don't get irradiated on the way. Same here, planned economies sound nice and all, but the implementation was always disastrous and caused death and destruction. Saying 'we need another try' is like asking people to volunteer for drug testing.

File: p2.jpg (309KB, 787x692px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 787x692px

>>134189558
Keep in mind, Kekistanis: you mouthbreathing retards are allowed to only be our useful idiots, like a right wing version of SJWs and crybabies. We want none of your Civic Nationalism, ""BASED"" XDD NIGGERS, LGBT acceptance or other libtard beliefs masked in another package. For all we know this whole shit could be a very efficent psyops to undermine the right wing's recent advancements and popularization in the world. Fuck off

>What's the battle plan?
Spread this in every thread. Make memes. Create content or take it from here and spread it all over the board, and not only. Find every opportunity to shame them. Don't respond to their replies/threads, or do it to remind them to fuck off. REMEMBER to always bump the general even if you have nothing to contribute. Exposure is key

DON'T LET /pol/ BECOME /b/ 2.0
TAKE PEPE AND KEK BACK, WE HAVE ALREADY DONE IT ONCE

DEATH TO E-CELEBS, SHITISTANIS AND SHILLS

2/2
---

>>134189379
We both know that filing paperwork is too complicated for the retards working in government.

>>134188930
which is a complete bullshit argument. Let people lose their money, they'll learn to not trust jewish banking schemes anymore. They might even actually start to see the light that banks are completely useless and should not be trusted with your money ever.
If they hunger and thirst, we're a first world country, we have too much food, they will eat and drink. You're forgetting we're a socialist continent, even our most useless thrash is apparently worth saving, so we would definitely be fine.
What should have been done was actual government intervention, that is taking away every property of the bank and nationalising it, aswell as outlawing those who participated in the profit schemes of the bank. Pretty much gas the managers, hire new ones and make it a state bank, no interest or just enough for inflation.

>>134189625
I don't disagree with this post, I disagree with the implied notion that because the engineering isn't done yet, this means the physics must be wrong.
We know the theory makes sense, we just can't put it in practice yet (or at all, future will tell).

>>134189631
> that flag
> accuses others of being useful idiots

>>134189227
Oops, well cant be bothered to really put my heart and soul into a fake outrage of 2010 that 90% of republitards and lolbertarians have long since forgotten about since they now want to pass budget busting tax cuts and Drumpf "infrastructure bill" and shit.

Anyway:

>it was a lot higher than this after WWII, immediately preceding the era which you faggots think was heaven on earth: the 1950s

>Japans debt is twice as high at 200% of GDP

Could be worse, not a big problem

>>134189727
Not to mention that people loose money anyway, just by taxes... Which never go away because government is too powerhungry.

>>134185872
>3.
There's legal entry. Entrepreneurs have to anticipate the future; declining quality of someone's goods is just a factor to anticipate. Even when are invested in one good, you still have to be aware of other potential profits in other goods.
>predatory pricing
So, customers get lower prices, and the competitor gets paid. And the good is diminished quality so a lower quality good's price is lowered.

>>134189727
>You're forgetting we're a socialist continent, even our most useless thrash is apparently worth saving, so we would definitely be fine.

Ah ok then, I hear you have it all sorted. We would be fine. Man this place is shit, even if you took away the shitposting trolling and memes. But mostly because so many people are really SHIT. You're one.

>>134183868
Keynes was smart but wrong. The Keynesian argument is founded on the idea of the multiplier and the paradox of thrift. Studies have shown that the multiplier for government spending rarely is over 1, and money that's saved during recession is most often put into BANKS,not hoarded as Keynesians will have you believe. That money is thus invested, not out of circulation.

Also fun fact: Keynes belonged to the same secret Marxist debate club at Cambridge that the Cambridge Five Communist spy ring did.

>>134189631
If you can't see how what you intend on doing is retarded, kys.

>>134190015
Aaand you confirm my suspicions that you're not much different than every other leftist. Your flag was a giveaway, but I had this little spark of hope for you. Oh well, it'll burn for somebody else.
Yes, not all people are worth saving. If they can't make themselves useful, why should we need them? Because it's the good thing to do? Then you better realise that government shouldn't make moral, but pragmatic decisions.

File: 14155996725170.png (23KB, 546x567px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 546x567px

>>134190028
>put in a bank
>thus invested

>>134189631
If I had to guess who was the shill, I'd choose you. People who are inclusive only cause a movement to gain support. People who are divisive only cause a movement to spiral into weakness.

>>134190214
Socialism is the cancer, starvation and aids is the answer.

>>134184700
>Marxist economics
>Implying Marxism isnt a Jewish like
>Implying Marx wasn't a Jew
>Implying Russian Revolution wasn't lead by Jews
>Implying earliest socialist thinkers weren't Jews
>Implying that the Democratic Socialists who campaign in the US arent lead by a disproportionate number of Jews

You realize you can remove the Jew from the economy without much socialism right?

>>134190371
>Doesn't know what investment means
Don't worry Ruskie English isn't that hard to learn.

File: 14247736759840.gif (87KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 255x255px

>>134190612
>no argument
As expected tho

>>134190463
When under socialism rich and corporations can use their money to avoid taxes, whereas middle class cannot... Yeah

>>134189850
>It could be worse
>1945 economy was much different, debt was paid off entirely because of the stop of war expenses.
>Japan is stagnant since the early 1990s and multiple attempt to retart the economy didn't work.
>Not a problem

You're in deep shit, the last 15 years were terrible for your economy.
For your understanding, Bush did as much as damage as Obama if not worse.

>>134184629
>1. It does, long term. This is the crux, short term vs long term, and can you afford to wait natural growth or do you have to force it risking inflation later.
To say it's long term is an oversimplification. Keynesian policies are also better in the long term because more government spending on infrastructure now (when the money will go further and help the private sector recover) means less need to spend on infrastructure in the future.

>2. Depression won't occur if the system until then was ran in the Austrian model, or so Austrians argue.
Austrian economics relies on false assumptions, faulty reasoning, and the occasional outright lie.

The real cause of the Great Depression was the Fed trying to reimplement the Real Bills Doctrine - which is exactly the sort of insane policy the Austrians want.

>>134184886
Keynesian economics is not about propping up failed businesses; it's about preventing too many businesses from failing at once.

>>134190371 >>134190724
I'm pretty sure this means the banks take your money, loan it to somebody for profit, then give it back when they regain it. How else can they invest it... (well, stock, but it's pretty boring).

>>134190916
> preventing too many businesses failing at once
So propping up many failed businesses at once. Potato - potato. The end result is stagnation and long lasting recessions.

>>134190028
Money saved in banks rather than spent is effectively out of circulation, as it means there's less net debt and therefore less money in circulation.

File: 14156050860420.png (10KB, 477x539px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 477x539px

>>134190943
>loan it to somebody for a profit
>jew bank giving its money away during depression instead of sitting on it in case there would be a panic bank run

>>134191203
If we had good bank regulation, money saved in banks means more (and at lower interest) loans, which means more money in circulation.
But since banks loan out as much as they want randomly, regardless of what they have on stock, this is out of the equation.

>>134191224
BTW, is this chicken on Russian flag some kind of Russian meme? It's pretty funny to me

File: 14156387198880.png (19KB, 547x652px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 547x652px

>>134191505
It's proofster from kraut-chan.

>>134191505
german meme iirc, meant to make fun of russians, and eventually appropriated by russians to make fun of westerners

File: 14156050994570.png (5KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 400x300px

>>134191917

>>134191964
Do you have the "other people do it too" one?
Russians always use that u2 argument to justify dubious foreign politics, as if the USA being shit is a good reason for Russia to be shit too.

>>134192150
nope

>>134191917
Germans can't even meme right

Since the thread died down a bit, at least the relevant part of it, I am currently reading some stuff by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He seems to be the trendy Austrian, and is going waaaay into the ancap memes.

Is such a very free, private system vulnerable to foreign intervention by a centralized state?
As in, if you have a small government, privately ran country, with private healthcare, private defense contractors, private everything, can they stand their ground versus a strong government in a rival state that wants to cause them trouble?

This is an extension of my question >>134188050
Lack of centralization seems a security risk. Can someone explain to me what prevents private contractors from selling out to foreign governments?
According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, its the idea that they have their children to think of, and you wouldn't want your son to grow up in a system where you are very rich (from selling out) with a strong (foreign puppet) government over you, and a free system is preferable. Seems shaky.

>>134192579
>The king does not have an attitude 'I must loot the country as fast as possible, because if I don't, I will not be able to do it in the future'. As a matter of fact, if he doesn't loot it as much, the value of his country will be higher and his heirs will get something better.

This is Hoppe's argument for why the private sector won't sell out to foreign offers.
He is sure that inheritance laws will save the country from foreign intervention.

>>134183868
keynes is a fag
hayek is based
you're a fag
fuck socialists
fuck commies
THIS CAN BE SOLVED WITH 3 LINES OF PYTHON
EVERY
SINGLE
undergrad who studies REALTIME SYSTEMS knows: you create wrong feedbacks and shit fucks up
Hayek is talking about predictive, future based corrections, which is what you need for a smooth realtime system
Keynes is saying "FULL THROTTLE AND MAXIMUM BURN IN EVERY WHICH WAY TO GET THIS THING STRAIGHT" which fucking jerks everything around
IT'S A LIE
people who propose it KNOW IT DOESN'T WORK
it's like being invested in bitcoin and enjoying the 12 week boom / crash as you keep making fuckloads - or just having bitcoin slowly rise up once to the final tally
THEY WANT TO MAKE THE CRASH AND BURN
IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE A CRASH AND BURN
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
I AM TRYING TO MAKE IT CRASH AND BURN?
NO, THEIR _FUCKING_________GENIUS_
IS THEY SAY
> OH HELLO I AM TRYING TO HELP THINGS BE LESS CHAOTIC
BUT GUESS WHAT
THEY ARE FUCKING LYING
YOU STUUUUPPPIIIIDDIRTY NIGGGEEERRS

>>134192579
>we need a state to prevent a state
That's contradictory. Read The Myth of National Defense for more. If you accept the fundamental principle of private property, then AnCap is just being consistent.

>>134194275
>we need a state to prevent a state
I meant a foreign state. We need a state to prevent that other state from taking us over.
Just clarifying.

>Read The Myth of National Defense for more.
I am reading Democracy: The God That Failed from that guy now. Currently just reading selected snippets, will read the whole thing in the weekend.
He does make sense, but doesn't answer my security concerns, perhaps he does so in the book you are listing.

>>134194464
It doesn't matter. An aggressor is an aggressor. A domestic state even being preferable over a foreign one is no argument for a domestic state over stateless. There's just the assumption that statelessness can't defend against states as well as states defending their turf. The argument for private property includes all goods; defense against organized crime isn't excluded.

>Democracy
There's an argument for anarcho-capitalism in the intro. Really, it's just a matter of adhering to consistency.

>>134191198
>So propping up many failed businesses at once. Potato - potato. The end result is stagnation and long lasting recessions.
Nobody's suggesting the failed businesses would be propped up. The point is that by improving conditions for all businesses, fewer businesses would fail.

The lack of demand in downturns causes many otherwise viable businesses to fail due to short term cashflow problems. And that benefits nobody. The much vaunted creative destruction process doesn't work properly in downturns because there's already a surplus of workers so more businesses failing brings no advantage.

And it's the Austrian policies that result in stagnation and long lasting recessions. Keynesian policies can get out of any recession very quickly, and the only time they result in stagnation is when there's a supply shock. Austrian policies prolong every recession, and produce stagnation a lot of the time, yet don't do anything to protect against the effects of supply shocks.

>>134191356
You seriously think good bank regulation means interest rates should depend on how much money is saved rather than what will keep prices stable???

>>134196817
>Nobody's suggesting the failed businesses would be propped up.

Keynes is, when these failed businesses are important to the economy and employ very many people in a given area. Their failure would collapse the micro economy there, and if they are very large, the whole state economy, in the short term.
Long term they will be replaced, but short term their failure will be a disaster, so Keynes who prefers short term solutions and values them higher, will suggest they are saved by the public wallet.
Almost every state on the planet will agree, and often resorts to such measures.

So...
>Nobody's suggesting the failed businesses would be propped up.
Almost every government is, and does, because in a democracy short term matters more, since you need to get reelected.

>>134196987
I mean that if a bank can only loan out X% of the money its keeping, the bank will be forced to adjust their percentages more carefully, since they can only offer a limited amount of loans, and they don't want to blow their load on a low percentage one on one side, but they also don't want to sit on potential for too long, and have the money not work on the other.

I haven't given it much thought, just seems to make sense, if you have an elaborate critique of the idea I will hear it.

>>134185464
>>134185996


You fucking retards

>>134183868
Maximum freedom is always the answer. Those of you who enjoy being slaves can work my farm.

>>134197340
Maximum freedom? Does this mean I am free to keep others as slaves, or others are free from the concept of slavery since its not allowed?
Do I have the freedom to deny freedom?

Am I free to own and sell people? Is pedophilia allowed? Am I free to take other people's property, or is this freedom denied from me?

You have to establish some framework, just using "freedom" as a meme doesn't work. Even pure anarchists agree on some base rules.

>>134197224
Ah, you've fallen for the Fractional Reserve Banking myth.

In reality the amount banks can lend out is based not on how much money they have in their keeping, but on the Basel capital requirements. And if they have no trouble meeting those, it's based on how much they can lend profitably.

See http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

>>134197892
>In reality
But I am not talking about reality, I am suggesting a change to reality, and speculating that such a change would be beneficial.
What I explained isn't so at the moment, I am saying I wish it were so.

I am sympathetic to hoppe and hayek but I disagree with the presumption that humans are rational.
Keynesianism is corrupted when put into practice.

As for 2009 meltdown the goverment had no choice to give the banks money. The US would have erupted into civil war when everyone retirement balance said 0.
There is no recovery if we look at labor participation rate and still super low rates.

>>134197065
Do you have any actual examples of Keynes advocating that?

>>134198449
The government could have chosen to preserve their function (and protect deposits) but not bail out the institutions.

>>134197718
You don't seem to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Since under maximum freedom "everything is allowed" it's up to YOU to not be a slave, or defend your property, etc. Does that mean people can't cooperate? That is a voluntary interaction. Government=being told what to do=slavery. Pretty simple (but also much more difficult).

>>134198459
Every text of his I've read is 100% focused on the short term, and that problems must be treated right now, to get results and resurgence right now.
This is what the philosophy behind bailouts is. Kick the bucket, push problems away, when you reach them again you can push them again.
"In the long run we are all dead" - Keynes on sustainability.

>>134183868
Holy shit, you must truly be uneducated. I suppose it's self-evident by that memeflag.
>free market, if its broke just endure it
First fuckin' point and you're already way fucking off mate. The free market isn't just "broke" by itself, you illiterate cuckold. Government intervention and economic central planning/government monetary policy cause such depressions, which I guess invalidates your next point.
>too big to fail is just a phrase, let the big companies die
It literally is, unless you're so big that you influence politics into adopting some Keynesian model that would mean bailing your ass out. Again, corruption and involvement in Government to the market.
>save for the future
Nothing wrong here.
>pro investors
I don't get how this is bad. That's literally what sets everything in motion

>too big to fail is real, we can't afford this spike in unemployment
Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. If the investments which offer temporary employment to workers are shit so then the worker's money, in the form of taxes, has to be used to bail out their employers from the consequences of their shitty choices what is even the point..
>pro workers
Yes, implementing inflationary policies which devalue the workers' savings as well as using their own tax money to bail out big business who made the wrong choices. Sooo pro-workers

File: Smile2.jpg (48KB, 362x310px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 362x310px

>>134183893
>people are rational

>>134198062
Which brings me back to my earlier question.

Why do you think it would be beneficial to make interest rates depend on money saved in banks rather than price stability?

>>134198809
>holy shit, you must be truly uneducated if you think that the system that 99% of economics classes teach isn't garbage

?
Keynes is the status quo. How am I uneducated for not dismissing it?
The more educated you are, as in the more you have engaged in academia, the more you will lean towards Keynes and away from the Austrians, since this is how academia and education are trending today.

>>134198624
I'd rather sign the social contract and give up my freedom to kill other people so I can benefit from the promise of not being killed, that the state will enforce with its security force.

Now, I like a short, simple social contract, but I sure as fuck want one, and I am okay with threats of violence, and perhaps actual violence, being used to enforce it.
Some things should be unacceptable for our group, and we should physically remove or otherwise punish and disable people who engage in such unwanted activities.

>>134198988
Educated as in.. actually fucking educated, not having received propaganda from universities. The way you define education a Womens' Studies graduate would be considered "educated". Hell, by that token we should all be SJWs, considering this is the dominant culture within Academia. True education is not supposed to make you lean towards anyone, it's simply supposed to provide you with the tools so as to make a choice for yourself. Therefore, if you've truly been educated, meaning if you truly have received the proper "tools" so as to be able to make a proper decision, and you've ended up being a Keynesian then I'm truly sorry for you.

>>134198977
High availability of money allows banks to rent out the money cheaply, since the volume is so high, I guess we are in rich times and a lot of people have a lot of money, just rent it out cheaply.
Low availability of money, money is prized at the moment, either we are poor or in a boom and everyone is investing, so you can charge more rent for your money and have high interests.

Correct me if I am wrong, just explain how and where so I can understand.

>>134199369
>you are only educated if you disagree with the majority of economists

Mate, you are acting from the assumption that you have the truth, and all the specialists lack it.
You are being very arrogant about it too, and insulting me for not believing you. Other posters ITT make arguments before insulting me, follow their example.

>>134199342
At least you would be signing it. Actually everyone does now, but under false pretenses. That's why you hear/see the word COMPLY so much. The thing is, it's up to YOU to comply or not. It's a way for the dark forces to trick you into "voluntarily" doing what your told, but in the end YOU CHOSE TO COMPLY. That's how they justify it. The world is not an easy place and "utopia" is unattainable on Earth in my opinion due to the variety of thought, culture, etc. That's why they are trying to collectivise thought, culture and race and murder anyone else who doesn't COMPLY. Look we have governments all over the globe and I certainly don't see them making things better.

Anyway, I have to get going, I'll read any responses tomorrow. Thanks for the thread to anyone who engaged in actual discussion. I'll read some of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work this weekend.

Cheers!

>>134199592
>Other posters ITT make arguments before insulting me, follow their example.

You have to be joking me, right? I literally addressed the majority of your points in the OP, but yet you conveniently didn't address any of them and instead grabbed my first line from a post of 1300 characters and responded only to that. Also "The majority of specialists support X, therefore X is best" that's not an actual argument. Sounds more like Argumentum ad populum coupled with an appeal to authority.

>>134198701
>Every text of his I've read is 100% focused on the short term, and that problems must be treated right now, to get results and resurgence right now.
>This is what the philosophy behind bailouts is. Kick the bucket, push problems away, when you reach them again you can push them again.
>"In the long run we are all dead" - Keynes on sustainability.

No, that's not Keynes on sustainability - that's Keynes on why we shouldn't just wait for the market to sort everything out.

Keynes focused his work on the short term because;
• There was a huge short term problem
• The government was able to address it in the short term
• Fixing the short term problem wouldn't preclude the ability to respond to long term problems; it may well enhance it.

And there is genuinely no limit on the number of times the government can revive a stalled economy.

File: wait-what-meme.jpg (34KB, 291x372px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 291x372px

>>134185508
>without direct state meddling
>go to war and lose

>>134190563
The Russian Loan - karl marx
Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.

>>134199486
The amount of money is not fixed, and as long as they meet the Basel capital requirements, they can always get their hands on more. It's not the availability of money that's the limiting factor, it's the cost.

Governments/Central banks can control the cost of money (interest rates) in multiple ways:
• Setting the interest rate at which they lend to commercial banks
• Paying commercial banks interest on excess reserves
• Open market operations (buying and selling on the money markets)
• Issuing government bonds (Though on its own this won't make much difference while they stick to the policy of matching debts with bond issuance)

By varying the interest rate, the private sector can be encouraged to borrow more and save less, or to save more and borrow less.
If instead it depended on the amount of money saved in banks, there would be no way of controlling how much money goes into the economy, so price stability would not be achievable.