economics sub-board should be removed

[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.