wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,833
- Reactions
- 13,053
Last edited by a moderator:
Keynes versus Hayek: Big government versus individual rights
- Thread starter wayneL
- Start date
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,736
- Reactions
- 6,645
Watched the second video.
Good win by Keynes.
Seriously though, quoting Keynes to allow the George Bush cronies to hand the money to the fat cats doesn't wash with me.
And using the war as an example is wrong also.
We saw Hoover try to rely on free market forces for a few years and that failed miserably leading to a severe depression. How can anyone also say that pumping of money reduced the effect of the recession. The problem is that governments all ran deficits which means they didn't have the money and so are now in deeper debt. Australia recently staved it off using Keynsian tactics but we were running a surplus.
Hayek isn't well represented either. All he says in this video is let self regulation control everything and don't use a top down approach. He is an important figure that works on trying to obtain fair prices without distortions in the economy and it is true there are many stupid extortions, Australia has heaps of them.
He is right to say that the top down approach can fail causing bubbles.
We have seen that especially in the USA and how the setting of interest rates was conflicted due to the neo classical economists saying that self regulation was working and there were no problems.
Neo-Keynsians look at debt and other issues and would have raised interest rates earlier. Finally, there are no self professed Keynsians advising the President , they are mostly neo-classical fools who have a fetish with neo liberlism. Idiots as far as the eye can see in my view. When was the greatest growth? When governments had Keynsian outlooks in the 60s and 70's. Some neo liberlism is necessary but you can't say it has helped the USA over the last 15 years. The average Joe is worse off.
Good win by Keynes.
Seriously though, quoting Keynes to allow the George Bush cronies to hand the money to the fat cats doesn't wash with me.
And using the war as an example is wrong also.
We saw Hoover try to rely on free market forces for a few years and that failed miserably leading to a severe depression. How can anyone also say that pumping of money reduced the effect of the recession. The problem is that governments all ran deficits which means they didn't have the money and so are now in deeper debt. Australia recently staved it off using Keynsian tactics but we were running a surplus.
Hayek isn't well represented either. All he says in this video is let self regulation control everything and don't use a top down approach. He is an important figure that works on trying to obtain fair prices without distortions in the economy and it is true there are many stupid extortions, Australia has heaps of them.
He is right to say that the top down approach can fail causing bubbles.
We have seen that especially in the USA and how the setting of interest rates was conflicted due to the neo classical economists saying that self regulation was working and there were no problems.
Neo-Keynsians look at debt and other issues and would have raised interest rates earlier. Finally, there are no self professed Keynsians advising the President , they are mostly neo-classical fools who have a fetish with neo liberlism. Idiots as far as the eye can see in my view. When was the greatest growth? When governments had Keynsian outlooks in the 60s and 70's. Some neo liberlism is necessary but you can't say it has helped the USA over the last 15 years. The average Joe is worse off.
He's been winning since like 1920, politically that is.Watched the second video.
Good win by Keynes.
Free market forces like the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act? The question is why did the crash not result in a short recession and recovery, like after the crash of 1920. Following the 1920 crash, there was no interference by the government, indeed the government 'tightened its belt'. The Fed did, however, persue a loose monetary policy throughout the 'roaring 20s', leading to the 1929 crash (as Hayek indeed predicted).
Had FDR never been born, the 1929s 'great depression' would probably now just be called 'the 1929 crash'. I think Rexford Tugwell summed it up about right: "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."
Secondly, could you explain the mechanism behind Australia 'staving off a recession' by throwing money at random wasteful projects? Indeed, if this is purely a 'correlation implies causation' statement, why did it not work in the US given that the amounts of stimulus were far higher? Why has the massive and prolonged stimulus (is it about 20 years now?), both monetary and fiscal, of Japan, not succeeded in returning its economy to health?
Only economists and politicians argue in favour of Keynesianism. Protecting their jobs, and increasing their power.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,736
- Reactions
- 6,645
What about Minsky?
Hayek is only one part of the picture.
Also you sa y economists are Keynesians - there not - all the main ones in control are anit Keynesian including Bernanke - who doesn't accept the theory and instead uses his own version of neo-classical to make poor decisions.
What you are now seeing is that the fat cats have persuaded governmentws to bail them out and now they wasnt no regulation so they can be free to return to their bad behaviour so now they will trot out Hayek.
Hayek is only one part of the picture.
Also you sa y economists are Keynesians - there not - all the main ones in control are anit Keynesian including Bernanke - who doesn't accept the theory and instead uses his own version of neo-classical to make poor decisions.
What you are now seeing is that the fat cats have persuaded governmentws to bail them out and now they wasnt no regulation so they can be free to return to their bad behaviour so now they will trot out Hayek.
There was, and still is, massive regulation. The idea that somehow there was no regulation before 2008 is wrong. Indeed, look at the markets that failed first - the mortgage market and the banking market. The former was distorted by government via Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, to create a housing bubble especially via the sub-prime market. The latter is outright socialist - no industry is more controlled by the government.
The fat cats, and any politician who was involved in the bailouts, should be in jail, that is my position. There are no 'bail outs' in a free market. But blaming the market for what happened, is wrong. To blame capitalism, one first needs capitalism.