economics sub-board should be removed

[bitbot]

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

[1715223029]

1715223029

[1715223029]

1715223029

[1715223029]

1715223029

[1715223029]

1715223029

[1715223029]

1715223029

[1715223029]

1715223029

[hugolp]

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

What it needs is a moderator to send all the threads of sell sell sell and buy buy buy to the trading section or wherever.

[wumpus]

This should be in Meta, this topic is about virtually the same thing:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17288.0

[evoorhees]

I actually really like this sub-board. It's okay if most people have no clue about economics, this is a great place to debate it and learn.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.

And of course, this is all expressly relevant to Bitcoin. If the economics are sound, then it will likely succeed as a currency.

[imperi]

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

Personally I wish the entire forum could be removed except for technical help. I think it drives down BTC value to see all the people or "noobs" here spouting off their opinions about how flawed Bitcoins are because they are too scared to invest, and want to justify not putting money in.

[evoorhees]

Personally I wish the entire forum could be removed except for technical help. I think it drives down BTC value to see all the people or "noobs" here spouting off their opinions about how flawed Bitcoins are because they are too scared to invest, and want to justify not putting money in.

Are you joking?! Bitcoin is WAY more important than just some neat tech innovations. Politics, economics, even philosophy have been involved in these discussions and I think it's great. Bitcoin, if nothing else, is disruptive, and there are a whole world of effects that need to be explored.

Noobs being scared about Bitcoin shouldn't bother anyone who is secure and confident about their own reasoning for standing behind the currency.

[martin]

most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing)

Welcome to the internet...

economics [is not] not a riveting subject

Rubbish! Economics is fascinating, if you don't think it is you're on the wrong forum involved with the wrong project!

[shady financier]

I actually really like this sub-board. It's okay if most people have no clue about economics, this is a great place to debate it and learn.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.

And of course, this is all expressly relevant to Bitcoin. If the economics are sound, then it will likely succeed as a currency.

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

It's like "Liberalism", the distinctive feature of 'Western culture' is liberalism, conservatives in the West are (theoretically) conservative of the Wests Liberal tradition, anyone who knows the history of Liberalism and what it means in the historical context and its relationship to the contemporary Western  understanding of the world, of the individual, and of his or her relationship with religion and the state, would not spout the word "Liberal" in the way the average 6-pack chugging Tea Party barfing Fox-New recepticle does, with the raving emotionalism of the ignoramus.

Many people do not know how to think, and many that do use their powers only to manipulate others. It's sad.

[hugolp]

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Generalizing much?

It's like "Liberalism", the distinctive feature of 'Western culture' is liberalism, conservatives in the West are (theoretically) conservative of the Wests Liberal tradition, anyone who knows the history of Liberalism and what it means in the historical context and its relationship to the contemporary Western  understanding of the world, of the individual, and of his or her relationship with religion and the state, would not spout the word "Liberal" in the way the average 6-pack chugging Tea Party barfing Fox-New recepticle does, with the raving emotionalism of the ignoramus.

Many people do not know how to think, and many that do use their powers only to manipulate others. It's sad.

But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.

[shady financier]

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Generalizing much?

You'd think.

But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.

That's a fair point, although the idea that the Democrats represent Social Democracy is laughable, they represent nothing of the sort, Wall Street maybe... if "Progressive" is American for "Big Finance" anyway. Building concepts of social-democracy inside the US political power structure is like building a snow man in hell. Full employment, rising standards of living, human rigths and the taxpayer being the same thing as tax expenditure, I'm not sure that kind of thinking exists in the society these Libertarian types come from.

Anyway it's this orwellification of language and historical context that I fnd so objectionable when I come across it; the disconnections and reversals and pavlovian fetishisation of slogans. In this way people can string together any old nonesense and call it "rational argument". Perhaps that's the point.

Freedom is Slavery people, doubleplus good.

[tsvekric]

I don't think any sub-board should be removed, but there are a few trolls around here we could do without... 

[hugolp]

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Generalizing much?

You'd think.

Yes, I think. I can explain you logically why keynesianism does not work and the main points why keynesiansim is wrong.

But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.

That's a fair point, although the idea that the Democrats represent Social Democracy is laughable, they represent nothing of the sort, Wall Street maybe... if "Progressive" is American for "Big Finance" anyway. Building concepts of social-democracy inside the US political power structure is like building a snow man in hell. Full employment, rising standards of living, human rigths and the taxpayer being the same thing as tax expenditure, I'm not sure that kind of thinking exists in the society these Libertarian types come from.

Anyway it's this orwellification of language and historical context that I fnd so objectionable when I come across it; the disconnections and reversals and pavlovian fetishisation of slogans. In this way people can string together any old nonesense and call it "rational argument". Perhaps that's the point.

Freedom is Slavery people, doubleplus good.

Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.

Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.

[shady financier]

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Generalizing much?

You'd think.

Yes, I think. I can explain you logically why keynesianism does not work and the main points why keynesiansim is wrong.

Go on then, explain to the people.

But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.

That's a fair point, although the idea that the Democrats represent Social Democracy is laughable, they represent nothing of the sort, Wall Street maybe... if "Progressive" is American for "Big Finance" anyway. Building concepts of social-democracy inside the US political power structure is like building a snow man in hell. Full employment, rising standards of living, human rigths and the taxpayer being the same thing as tax expenditure, I'm not sure that kind of thinking exists in the society these Libertarian types come from.

Anyway it's this orwellification of language and historical context that I fnd so objectionable when I come across it; the disconnections and reversals and pavlovian fetishisation of slogans. In this way people can string together any old nonesense and call it "rational argument". Perhaps that's the point.

Freedom is Slavery people, doubleplus good.

Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.

Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.

Here you have answered in American. In European "Social Democracy" is something else entirely, I don't think it's currently possible to articulate the concept in American.

[bitbot]

the past couple posts are exactly what I was referring to when I made this thread
everyone get lost please

[hugolp]

Go on then, explain to the people.

What part of economics are you interested on discussing?

Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.

Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.

Here you have answered in American. In European "Social Democracy" is something else entirely, I don't think it's currently possible to articulate the concept in American.[/quote]

Im from Europe. I was talking about the general concept of social-democray. Social-democray is corporatism.

[shady financier]

Corporatism, another cease-think reacto-word. I can understand the criticism of decomcratic socialism being an allegience of the rich and the working class against the middle-class (monopolies and unions together screwing the middle class consumer who is niether the major sharholder of a monopoly nor a member of a union) but you've said nothing like that. You've just said Democratic socialism is Corporatism, and that's bad, m'kay... for me that kind of argument is below par.

As for my question, I'd specifically like you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad. I'll understand if you have other things to do and can't right now.

[shady financier]

the past couple posts are exactly what I was referring to when I made this thread
everyone get lost please

you don't even like this forum, you want it deleted, so what are you doing here? you get lost, go on, delete thyself.

[hugolp]

As for my question, I want you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad.

Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.

You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.

The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.

There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.

[gigitrix]

The economics board is, in my experience, trolls trolling trolls. There are two groups of people:

1) People who don't know their economics but feel the need to voice their opinions.
2) People who know their economics and deliberately try to deceive for personal gain.

I'll let you decide what the ratio is.

[The Script]

The economics board is, in my experience, trolls trolling trolls. There are two groups of people:

1) People who don't know their economics but feel the need to voice their opinions.
2) People who know their economics and deliberately try to deceive for personal gain.

I'll let you decide what the ratio is.

That's a rather dour outlook on things. Is it so hard to believe that there are people who sincerely want to learn and discuss economics?

[shady financier]

As for my question, I want you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad.

Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.

You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.

The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.

There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.

That doesn't strike me as Keynes thinking.

Keynes idea is that demand drives the economy, I don't think that's wrong. Demand for cheap credit drove a credit bubble and feed an overheated housing market etc. Doesn't mean that Keynes is wrong, in a recession or a post-war utterly leveled Europe say; the idea that government spending can rebuild an economy or recover it from a depression does not strike me as any kind of insidious lunacy. Keynes did not say that massive government spending to drive demand should be the norm. Save in good times, spend in bad times, what's the problem bro?

Keynes was into eugenics apparently, I'd far rather criticize him for that. But why lump his name in with the random babblings of any guy with a tie on that reckons government should bail out banks and hand out big ticket jobs to the buddies of senators and congressmen? That's not Keynes, that's just the usual matrix of power and influence in a state that does no longer (if ever) works for its owners as advertised.

[hugolp]

As for my question, I want you to summerize your own understanding of what 'Keynesianism' is and why it's bad.

Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.

You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.

The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.

There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.

That doesn't strike me as Keynes thinking.

Keynes idea is that demand drives the economy, I don't think that's wrong. Demand for cheap credit drove a credit bubble and feed an overheated housing market etc. Doesn't mean that Keynes is wrong, in a recession or a post-war utterly leveled Europe say; the idea that government spending can rebuild an economy or recover it from a depression does not strike me as any kind of insidious lunacy. Keynes did not say that massive government spending to drive demand should be the norm. Save in good times, spend in bad times, what's the problem bro?

Keynes was into eugenics apparently, I'd far rather criticize him for that. But why lump his name in with the random babblings of any guy with a tie on that reckons government should bail out banks and hand out big ticket jobs to the buddies of senators and congressmen? That's not Keynes, that's just the usual matrix of power and influence in a state that does no longer (if ever) works for its owners as advertised.

If that does not sound as keynesianism to you, then you should learn keynesianism, because Keynes was the figure that introduced aggregates into the economic theory.

I would answer what you have stated because its wrong, but I dont think you know enough about keynesianism and are just following some "talking points" instead of understanding what keynesianism is.

[shady financier]

I didn't say anything about aggregates, yes Keynes introduced the concept of Aggregate Demand, multiplier effect etc, how does that go against what I already said?

[hugolp]

I didn't say anything about aggregates, yes Keynes introduced the concept of Aggregate Demand, multiplier effect etc, how does that go against what I already said?

Are you going to address my points then?

[bitbot]

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

[cunicula]

most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics

Correct, if the posters had some training in economics, the discussion would be dull to readers. The sub-forum would rapidly empty.

Supporting evidence:

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.

[benjamindees]

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

This thread is a useful contribution to the forums and I'm likely to take your opinions seriously in the future...

 

[Cluster2k]

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

This post is a joke.  It's along the lines of 'I don't like it, therefore it should be banned'.  True, many posters don't have a degree in economics or even a keen interest.  Most are pushing their own barrel (sell sell! buy buy!), but how is that different from economic advisers you see and read about in the popular media?  Is economics a riveting subject?  It is to me, so I vote for this section to stay. 

If this forum has the power to discourage people from adopting bitcoin and using it, then it's not the forum's fault.  One forum should not have the power to seriously move an entire market if that market is actually functioning and healthy.

[amincd]

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Keynesianism has been the dominant economic ideology in the Western world since the 1930s, so I don't think it's wrong to allude to it in discussions.

It is being challenged now by people like Ron Paul, and to some extent by the tea party that the likes of Paul Krugman so scorn, but its assumptions are still widely accepted by decision makers.

Keynes idea is that demand drives the economy, I don't think that's wrong. Demand for cheap credit drove a credit bubble and feed an overheated housing market etc.

I think you are misunderstanding what 'demand' means in economics. People always demand things, in the sense that we always want things, but in economics, demand means 'a desire to purchase something, and the means to purchase it'. Demand is the resources people have and want to spend to acquire another resource.

Keynes' basic theory is that recessions are a result of the 'paradox of thrift', where every one is trying to save, by reducing consumption, which results in every one's income being reduced, and every one being able to save less.

His theory is wrong in my opinion, but its application does some short-term good in a highly controlled economy where the national currency is the only one the market can use and credit issuance is centralized, and therefore deflation results in a lack of liquidity due to the lack of alternate currencies.

What Keynes missed is that government inflation solves a problem caused by centralization of the economy, but that it promotes the very centralization that caused the problem in the first place by increasing the role of government in the economy.

[hugolp]

is theory is wrong in my opinion, but its application does some short-term good in a highly controlled economy where the national currency is the only one the market can use and credit issuance is centralized, and therefore deflation results in a lack of liquidity due to the lack of alternate currencies.

What Keynes missed is that government inflation solves a problem caused by centralization of the economy, but that it promotes the very centralization that caused the problem in the first place by increasing the role of government in the economy.

Very well said.

[shady financier]

Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers.

Keynesianism has been the dominant economic ideology in the Western world since the 1930s, so I don't think it's wrong to allude to it in discussions.

It is being challenged now by people like Ron Paul, and to some extent by the tea party that the likes of Paul Krugman so scorn, but its assumptions are still widely accepted by decision makers.

Keynes idea is that demand drives the economy, I don't think that's wrong. Demand for cheap credit drove a credit bubble and feed an overheated housing market etc.

I think you are misunderstanding what 'demand' means in economics. People always demand things, in the sense that we always want things, but in economics, demand means 'a desire to purchase something, and the means to purchase it'. Demand is the resources people have and want to spend to acquire another resource.

Keynes' basic theory is that recessions are a result of the 'paradox of thrift', where every one is trying to save, by reducing consumption, which results in every one's income being reduced, and every one being able to save less.

His theory is wrong in my opinion, but its application does some short-term good in a highly controlled economy where the national currency is the only one the market can use and credit issuance is centralized, and therefore deflation results in a lack of liquidity due to the lack of alternate currencies.

What Keynes missed is that government inflation solves a problem caused by centralization of the economy, but that it promotes the very centralization that caused the problem in the first place by increasing the role of government in the economy.

I know what aggregate demand is.

Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space.  There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Keynes was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Keynes just wanted inflationary big government all the time.

Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed, and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure Keynes did not envisage inflationary government for its own sake, that would be pointless.

I would like Ron Paul to be president though, it would be a laugh, and maybe keep the US boot off the neck of 3rd worlders for awhile, give em a chance to breathe. The US itself would probably quickly degenerate into all-out post-Katrinaesque anarchy, complete with roving bands of mercenaries and starving people, but the Middle East could really do with a break.

[hugolp]

I know what aggregate demand is.

Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space.  There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Stalin was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Stalin just wanted inflationary big government all the time.

Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed, and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure Stalin did not envisage inflationary government for its own sake, that would be pointless.

Do you realize you have not say anything? Its just a big handwaving.

And you have still not answered me.

[shady financier]

I know what aggregate demand is.

Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space.  There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Stalin was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Stalin just wanted inflationary big government all the time.

Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed, and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure Stalin did not envisage inflationary government for its own sake, that would be pointless.

Do you realize you have not say anything? Its just a big handwaving.

And you have still not answered me.

What exactly is your question, I looked back and couldn't find a single question mark in your posts. As I recall it was I that asked you a question. Ask me now and I'll see what I can do, though I suspect that I won't agree with your premise.

By the way swapping out Keynes for Stalin means fuck all. If you seriously mean to imply Keynes and Stalin were basically the same, I cannot help you.

[hugolp]

What exactly is your question, I looked back and couldn't find a single question mark in your posts. As I recall it was I that asked you a question. Ask me now and I'll see what I can do, though I suspect that I won't agree with your premise.

By the way swapping out Keynes for Stalin means fuck all. If you seriously mean to imply Keynes and Stalin were basically the same, I cannot help you.

I was implying that you are pissing on us by basically not answering and saying that Keynes had very good intentions. That is unknown and basically independent of the validity of his theories. I substituted ironically the name by Stalin to prove that your same words could argue that Stalin had very good intentions... You are basically not answering anything, just handwaving.

And regarding my previous posts, it basically proves that the idea of slack capacity and lack of demand causing a crisis is wrong. And those are cornerstones of keynesian though. Without them you can not justify all that you are saying. But I get the impression (maybe a wrong impression) that you only know the surface of keynesianism, so you really can not answer.

[amincd]

Very well said.

Thank you!

I know what aggregate demand is.

Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space.  There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Keynes was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Keynes just wanted inflationary big government all the time.

Government is an agent for forced informity of action. It is a mechanism to compel people to act according to a single plan. In some areas, this can be useful, like in meeting needs that otherwise would not be met due to the free-rider problem, but when it extends it action beyond its primary responsibilities, it becomes a tool to exploit people by making them do what they otherwise would not want to.

Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed,

You over-estimate democracy. Government can become big for the role reason of the elite wanting to expand their control through its mandates.

and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it.

People build without government compulsion.

I would like Ron Paul to be president though, it would be a laugh, and maybe keep the US boot off the neck of 3rd worlders for awhile, give em a chance to breathe. The US itself would probably quickly degenerate into all-out post-Katrinaesque anarchy, complete with roving bands of mercenaries and starving people

Maybe you think Ron Paul wants to eliminate government all together..? That is the only explanation that I can think of for your assumption.

[shady financier]

What exactly is your question, I looked back and couldn't find a single question mark in your posts. As I recall it was I that asked you a question. Ask me now and I'll see what I can do, though I suspect that I won't agree with your premise.

By the way swapping out Keynes for Stalin means fuck all. If you seriously mean to imply Keynes and Stalin were basically the same, I cannot help you.

I was implying that you are pissing on us by basically not answering and saying that Keynes had very good intentions. That is unknown and basically independent of the validity of his theories. I substituted ironically the name by Stalin to prove that your same words could argue that Stalin had very good intentions... You are basically not answering anything, just handwaving.

And regarding my previous posts, it basically proves that the idea of slack capacity and lack of demand causing a crisis is wrong. And those are cornerstones of keynesian though. Without them you can not justify all that you are saying. But I get the impression (maybe a wrong impression) that you only know the surface of keynesianism, so you really can not answer.

Answer what exactly?

Look, I'm no professor of economics, but from what I do know, the Keynes-hate comes over as pretty retarded. So Keynes intentions weren't good? To my mind his ideas were a matter of practical problem solving, that's all. And his actual job at the time was a matter of post war rebuilding. So the guy considered government to have an important role in that context, big fucking deal. The concept of aggregate demand pulling everything along is a concept, it's not exactly nazi-ideology.

[hugolp]

Answer what exactly?

Look, I'm no professor of economics, but from what I do know, the Keynes-hate comes over as pretty retarded. So Keynes intentions weren't good? To my mind his ideas were a matter of practical problem solving, that's all. And his actual job at the time was a matter of post war rebuilding. So the guy considered government to have an important role in that context, big fucking deal. The concept of aggregate demand pulling everything along is a concept, it's not exactly nazi-ideology.

Ok. Its ok to not know economics. I am ignorant of a lot of stuff. You should learn more about Keynes theories and you will realize that he is basically wrong, and its not a matter of politic believes. Keynes is just wrong, no matter your political believes.

[shady financier]

 In some areas, this can be useful, like in meeting needs that otherwise would not be met due to the free-rider problem, but when it extends it action beyond its primary responsibilities, it becomes a tool to exploit people by making them do what they otherwise would not want to.

I think this right here is the crux of our difference. Nothing I have read of Keynes suggests that his ideas are about extending government action beyond its primary responsibilities. My impression is that there are people who have that agenda that invoke Keynes to justify their objectives. I just don't think this fairly represents Keynes himself or his ideas, regardless of whether you agree with the guy or not.

I happily admit that Keynes model of the economy does not represent a number of things in real life, there are fair grounds to disagree with him, but don't forget that models are just that, simplified maps of reality the purpose of which is to try and capture certain relationships or behavior. Keynes did a lot for macro-economics, he basically founded the study. I just think criticisms of his ideas should be more constructive and not just used as a banner by metalists, rightwingers, libertarians etc to rage and condemn 'Progressives" or "Liberals" or 'Socialists' or 'fiat' or whatever their problem is. He certainly did not consider inflation a good thing.

My own belief is that both Keynes and Hayek have something to say worth thinking about, I'm not interested in the kind of stop-think demonization used by "Keynsianism!" shriekers that replaces what should be enlightening debate.

[hugolp]

I think this right here is the crux of our difference. Nothing I have read of Keynes suggests that his ideas are about extending government action beyond its primary responsibilities. My impression is that there are people who have that agenda that invoke Keynes to justify their objectives. I just don't think this fairly represents Keynes himself or his ideas, regardless of whether you agree with the guy or not.

I happily admit that Keynes model of the economy does not represent a number of things in real life, there are fair grounds to disagree with him, but don't forget that models are just that, simplified maps of reality the purpose of which is to try and capture certain relationships or behavior. Keynes did a lot for macro-economic, he basically founded the study. I just think criticisms of his ideas should be more constructive and not just used as a banner for metalists to rage and condemn and project their issues with their father or whatever with.

My own belief is that both Keynes and Hayek have something to say worth thinking about, I'm not interested in the kind of stop-think demonization used by "Keynsianism!" shriekers that replaces what should be enlightening debate.

I think you are indirectly refering to me and its offensive. I have dedicated a whole post to criticize one aspect of Keynes theory and you have been unable to answer. You have been answering the whole thread with generalizations that dont say anything, that its just like political discourse, and now accuse me of not being able to say something of worth?

You dont understand the ideas of Keynes and yet you support them but accuse others of being ilogical.

[Earthlite Organics]

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

What it needs is a moderator to send all the threads of sell sell sell and buy buy buy to the trading section or wherever.

Or we could have a specific "Speculators" board. Really consolidate all the stuff.

[amincd]

I think this right here is the crux of our difference. Nothing I have read of Keynes suggests that his ideas are about extending government action beyond its primary responsibilities.

But Keynes either does not believe the government's responsibilities are solely to solve the free rider problem, or he thinks that a decline in aggregate demand is a result of the free rider problem, without providing an adequate explanation for why.

His 'paradox of thrift' theory makes a number of assumptions, like prices dropping discouraging production, people not being able to use alternate currencies to carry on trade when the supply of a particular currency deflates, gold production not increasing in reaction to a decline in the money supply, etc.

It's a sloppy theory, that aims to find evidence to fit a neat and highly speculative conclusion, rather than find a conclusion that fits the evidence.

I happily admit that Keynes model of the economy does not represent a number of things in real life, there are fair grounds to disagree with him, but don't forget that models are just that, simplified maps of reality the purpose of which is to try and capture certain relationships or behavior. Keynes did a lot for macro-economics, he basically founded the study. I just think criticisms of his ideas should be more constructive and not just used as a banner by metalists, rightwingers, libertarians etc to rage and condemn 'Progressives" or "Liberals" or 'Socialists' or 'fiat' or whatever their problem is. He certainly did not consider inflation a good thing.

I don't think Keynes' ideas can be criticized enough. They are immensely destructive.

As one example:

The Second Coming of Keynes

You see, the fiscal stimulus might as well be literally filling holes, since according to Keynes's ridiculous understanding of how an economy works, it doesn't matter what the government spends money on; even digging up holes just to refill them would qualify as beneficial stimulus. You might think that this must not be literally true. "Keynes may have been wrong on some things," you may protest, "but no economist as prominent as him would believe something so foolish!" Read the man's words for yourself:

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

The above passage is not some off-hand note written to a colleague in a fit of academic speculation. It is part of Keynes's chief contribution to economics, upon which his reputation rests: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. I don't care how prominent, credentialed, or "accomplished" an economist is. If he says that burying cash in the ground can be a boon to society, then he should be immediately dismissed from public and academic discourse.

The simple fact that Krugman regards such a fellow as an exemplar of economic scholarship would be highly telling by itself. "Okay," you might think, "Keynes was a bit extreme. But Krugman himself wouldn't go so far as to believe something like that."

Wrong again. In April, Krugman actually bemoaned the fact that Obama's stimulus projects were under budget.

President Obama hails the fact that stimulus projects are coming in ahead of schedule and under budget. Yay — but boo.
Ahead of schedule is good. Under budget — well, ordinarily that's a good thing. But the point of the stimulus is to increase spending!

That's right: Krugman would, all other things being equal, prefer government stimulus spending to be inefficient. He then goes on to quote the very same ridiculous passage from Keynes's General Theory, which I quoted above, but favorably. And the title of the piece in which he made this complaint? "Time for Bottles in Coal Mines."

[shady financier]

The difference is Keynes emphasis on distribution and consumption of wealth, versus those that emphasize saving and investment. Keynes seems to be more interested in how income flows around the economy, even through make-work projects that everyone gets to wet their beak in. You'll probably disagree with that if you beleive that spending should not take place unless it is efficient and profitable. One could see this as a matter of paying as few people as little as possible for as much work as possible. But that may undermine the ability of people to buy the stuff you've invested in making. In the Depression the income stopped flowing, seems this affected Keynes thinking.

Krugman sounds like a dick, the bail-outs have not circulated through the economy in any way I would describe as Keynesian, welfare for the banks is all it was. Would have been more Keynesian to just hand the money directly to households. I understand that some of the money made its way to local government spending (building roads and so on) but mostly in a retarded kind of way. But covering the banks asses so they can sit on it and not lend it out into the economy isn't Keynsian in my opinion, and that's not even assuming Keynsianism is a good thing.

[hugolp]

The difference is Keynes emphasis on distribution and consumption of wealth, versus those that emphasize saving and investment. Keynes seems to be more interested in how income flows around the economy, even through make-work projects that everyone gets to wet their beak in. You'll probably disagree with that if you beleive that spending should not take place unless it is efficient and profitable. One could see this as a matter of paying as few people as little as possible for as much work as possible. But that may undermine the ability of people to buy the stuff you've invested in making. In the Depression the income stopped flowing, seems this affected Keynes thinking.

This make absolutely no sense, as I have tried to explain to you. You need to go deeper into keynesian though to understand its flaws. You just took a quick course and took it as faith and that is a problem.

Even in the case that you are paying people less, you are also producing cheaper, thus the level of consumption of the people does not get affected. In reality what happens is that because prices are somehow more sticky than other prices, the prices of the goods go down quicker than the wages, thus benefiting the poor people. Keynesianism is the contrary.

Krugman sounds like a dick, the bail-outs have not circulated through the economy in any way I would describe as Keynesian, welfare for the banks is all it was. Would have been more Keynesian to just hand the money directly to households. I understand that some of the money made its way to local government spending (building roads and so on) but mostly in a retarded kind of way. But covering the banks asses so they can sit on it and not lend it out into the economy isn't Keynsian in my opinion, and that's not even assuming Keynsianism is a good thing.

But this is another problem of keynesianism: not taking into account how the political system works. You can not give power to the government and then when the political system does not act exactly as you have prescribed complain. Politicians have their own self-interest, and if you give them power they will use it, not necesarely how you have prescribed. Maybe the only realistic solution is for the politicians to not have so much power.

[amincd]

The difference is Keynes emphasis on distribution and consumption of wealth, versus those that emphasize saving and investment. Keynes seems to be more interested in how income flows around the economy, even through make-work projects that everyone gets to wet their beak in. You'll probably disagree with that if you beleive that spending should not take place unless it is efficient and profitable.

Keynesianism believes in the broken window fallacy, which is seductive to those with political influence/power, as its implication is that a government action they propose (e.g. digging ditches and burying old bottles filled with bank notes, government spending programs, etc) could actively improve people's lives. If widely accepted, it would make their role in the eyes of the public potentially much more important and positive.

Being solely the arbitrator of disputes, and balancing the rights of various constituents as they decide on the use of public goods, is less glamorous and more laborious, but IMO, that is the most a government can do to contribute positively to society.

[ene]

this section is a joke
most of the posters here (all of them) know very little (absolutely nothing) about economics
even if they did it's not a riveting subject
I do like some of the threads that cause people to sell but they could easily be in the bitcoin discussion

If the section was closed people would just post the same crap somewhere else.