Someone redpill me on keynsian economics. I have always had really liberal teachers, but from my own research Keynsian economics seem to remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth.
I also believe that the 2008 financial crash and great depression could have been avoided or reduced with a little regulation, am I wrong?
Keynes = only major figure in modern economics that wasn't Jewish.
I hope that makes you think
>>80741730
You're not wrong but you're still an asshole.
Government intervention to artificially steroid the economy is extremely harmful in the long run even if it's good in the moment.
See : fdr
>>80741792
Well, I mean regulating rating agencies wouldn't hamper the free market
>>80741588
It doesn't work because politicians/regulations stall that shit until it works against it, amplifying the booms and the busts.
>>80741806
Thats why in times of economic growth, the government stops spending and focuses on making it stable
>>80741588
Keynesian economics is just a scam. Printing money does not create wealth.
>>80741588
Most leftists are not Keynesian. They just use part of his argument.
His views: there are economic cycles that happen naturally. The government should intervene in the economy through monetary and fiscal policy to 1) when in a boom, moderate that boom and 2) when in a recession, moderate that recession. In other words, save in good times, spend in bad times. This is helped by financial markets which run to safe assets when there is a recession, which lowers the cost of financing to governments.
Modern leftists: spend more whenever you can because short-term growth guarantees long-term growth.
>>80742284
Wouldn't this just force to market to always be in spend mode like it is right now?
Keynes school adopts the theory that the government can dictate the course of the market
It can't, and any industry it tries to influence will ultimate burst or cause a depression, I.e the dotcom bubble and the housing legislation
>>80742284
Exactly, and I think that is genius
It completely depends on how you apply it.
It works if you make your country Autarkic, remove all Jewish banksters and globalist ties
any other scenario it doesn't work
>>80742284
Wrong. Its more like: say that they will always spend more to win votes and then behave like everybody else once they take office.
>>80742511
No, if the government followed Kenysian economics they would be cutting back spending right now (in the US) and focusing on regulating the economy to prevent a collapse. When the economy starts going bad, they deregulate and start spending to stimulate.
>>80742567
You are wrong. That is a Jewish lie.
Look up Hjalmar Schlacht and his economic theories.
>>80741755
BULLSHIT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht
>>80741730
It could also have been avoided or reduced through vastly decreased regulation. Regulation breeds consumer complacency, and paves the way to shenanigans that are technically within the letter of the law. The more regulation you have, the more convoluted things become, and the more opportunities there are for people to be fucked over.
Keynesian economics allows banking-government complex to rob you.
>>80742827
Thats not keynsian though. Plus, I think both republicans and democrats spend way to much.
>>80742850
So basically in bad times the market would force the ZOG machine to import third-worlders and give them a bunch neetbux so they can spend it to stimulate the economy?
>>80742684
>he fell for the autarky meme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
>>80741979
Show me one example of this. This is exactly why keyensian economics is bad in practice. Economist btw.
>>80742914
You have to admit there are some common sense regulations right?
For example rating agencies
>>80742964
Elaborate? I want to hear some real points
>>80742284
>>80741588
Moreover, Keynes was considered a conservative at the time. His ideas were proposed to save capitalism from socialists and communists.
Keynes is mostly pretty shit, and a bootlicker statist
Hayek and Friedman are based
>>80741588
Keynes was a genius and Keynesian economics are a total insult to the man.
'Keynesian policy' is a codeword for big government policy, 'justified' by ISLM-ASAD models that are imperfect and have too many assumptions behind them. Anyone who claims to be keynesian just wants to expand G and and T(ax) you a lot.
>>80743546
Compared to the overblown bureaucracy in the US today (thanks to both the left and right), I think that he still could be considered conservative.
>>80743581
B-but what about Rothbard and Mises?
>>80741588
>but from my own research Keynsian economics seem to remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth
This is the intention. Governments have been trying to do this since the Great Depression. See how well it works?
>>80741730
The 2008 financial crash was a direct result of regulations. Investment and commercial banking are both highly regulated.
>>80743796
Rothbard literally created the anarcho-capitalist theory, the biggest meme in economics of all time
But still pretty gud
There comes a point where simply lowering interest rates won't have the intended effect. Then it becomes about simply expanding the monetary supply to stimulate the economy, which results in inflation.
That is where Keynes fails. Keynesians can't conceive raising rates in a bad economic environment to curb inflation, it's why monetariasm (sp) came to the fore in the early 1980s.
The theory works well as long as you have great amount of money or people are willing to lend you money. If not, you're fucked.
Basing your thoughts on economic theories because the individual who invented it was white is silly as Fuck. During Keynes' lifetime the UK went from international superpower to bankruptcy.
>>80743581
Capitalism has one major flaw...Monopolies
All kike economist ignore this major flaw. Really makes you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
>>80743964
I dont think it was created by regulations, I think it was created by fucking morons who borrowed more money than they had and invested it in worthless shit
>>80743208
Ratings agencies can be privatized. Public offices have a nasty history of being bought off far more than the public sector parallels.
>>80743156
Japan is keeping it's deficits under control even though they are financing almost their complete deficit with printed money.
So there can be only one conclusion, Keynesianism works ... as long as you don't have Jews and shitskins.
>>80744033
Good point
>>80743964
The 2008 crash was a result of the lending to niggers and white trash. And then international Jewry got a bail out.
>>80743208
>For example rating agencies
The big three are all private businesses, what are you talking about? Do you think that without NRSROs, there would be no demand for credit ratings, or no way to satisfy it on the open market?
>>80743796
God-tier.
>>80744114
>ignore
They don't ignore it, they address it and demonstrate that it's not a real problem.
>>80742859
Schacht actually implemented Keynes General Theory's aspects before the book was written. Top man.
>>80744033
Bullshit. Keynes knew very well about the LM curve.
>>80744416
I'm not an economics major, but I assume there could be someway to prevent these agencies from being payed off and giving A+ ratings to shady derivatives.
>>80744416
Good goy.
Comcast, viacom, google, Amazon ect don't exist
>>80744114
Capitalism has its flaws but it's still better than socialism that inherently relies upon monopolies to deliver goods.
If Wal-Mart went under tomorrow some other business would just take it's place.
>>80744170
no.
laws were passed which allowed people (niggers) who should not have gotten loans to get loans. The loans were backed by the federal government, giving the jew banks no risk, basically free sales.
When niggers inevitably couldn't pay, the pieces started to fall
>>80744657
>I'm not an economics major
You can't contribute here. Go away burger.
>>80744672
Walmart is a fucking monopoly. How much market share does a company need before you consider them a monopoly?
>>80744114
But he's right. Free trade is the best defense, and most of all (save for literally 2 examples) monopolies have been propped up by government in one way or another, either by trade restriction or direct intervention. No monopoly (save for the 2 examples) has ever lasted in the long-term without government, and fell apart.
Nigger you dumb shit we operate on Keynesian economics, it caused the housing crash, the stock market crashes, and removes faith in currency. We're going to be crashing again soon and it'll only get more and more frequently.
Kill the stock trading industry, and you basically save the economy after the initial "HOLY SHIT ITS THE APOCALYPSE MUH FREE MONEY FOR NO CAPITAL MADE"
>>80744739
Umm thats the gist of what I said
People getting loans they shouldn't have and buying home and investing where they shouldn't have
>>80744798
When it starts to use price discrimination strategies.
>>80744867
thanks to the laws and regulations which allowed it. regulations are to blame
>>80743581
image saved and canada is right for once.
>>80744664
They aren't the only people on the market. Do you even understand the definition of monopoly?
>>80744657
If the credit agencies systematically give sub-par information on the markets, new agencies will arise to fill the gap left by absence of proper market credit information.
>>80744033
> The theory works well as long as you have great amount of money or people are willing to lend you money.
A country with it's own fiat currency has infinite money.
>>80744286
Japan's economy is Shit tier though. The measure of a great nation is not how ethnically.homogeneous it is. Japan's been losing ground industrially since the 1990s.
>>80745007
Sorry, but isnt that deregulation?
>>80744664
>implying literally any of those are monopolies
>>80744798
they need to be the only business within a certain field, i.e. the only provider of a good/service, to be considered a monopoly.
>>80743964
No, it was caused by removal of the essential parts of regulation in a market dominated by regulation in the main.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act in the late 1980s in a supposed "liberalisation" of banking removed an essential barrier that prevented banks from becoming unstable within a system where there were no individual rational actors.
Banks collectively were able to behave as both investment and savings - mortgages could be sold as investment portfolios - generating "huge" returns that created prolific supply of loans to people that shouldn't have got them in the first place due to individual risk being too high.
In the case of one bank being permitted to do this but no others - this would be fine, since the total overall cost of a single loan default or even an entire portfolio default would not significantly alter the financial standing of an extremely large banking institution, which undoubtedly had insurance of one form or another to cover potential losses.
The problem of the subprime crisis happened because all banks suddenly jumped at the chance to capitalise on the repeal of an onerous but extremely important barrier to investment. Thus the actions of a group of people all moving in the same direction were now dependent on each other. In just 9 years, the asset portfolios of most major banks had become so riddled with dubious loans that when the first domino fell (Lehman Bros, which were the most egregious with their leveraging of bad loans) others had to turn to national governments to prop them up.
Northen Rock and RBS in the UK were two notable banks that did the same thing that Lehman Bros. did. They were the first to go under. We even had a proper bank run on NR in 2009.
The point is that regulation is fine, changing regulation is not fine. Either have a defensively regulated industry or completely deregulate it.
>>80745055
I agree, but before they are replaced they can destroy the entire economy
just read the neoclassical school
but warning: once you cross to the austrian side, you ain't coming back
>>80744858
Bullshit, the American firms base their financing strategy on the stock market and the bond market.
In order to do that, the US must reform the financial system and transform it to a German-Italian one where firm financing is primarily made by commercial banks through secret loans.
>>80745126
deregulation would be having no law which enforced who the banks should or should not loan to.
regulation: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
Keynes didn't even use math correctly in his papers
He was a charlatan that sold a made up idea basically like a snake oil salesman for a couple checks
politicians were and continue to be retarded in regards to this simple fact that none of his math made any sense and were full of extremely obvious number fudging
>>80745197
No, the monopolist just needs to be the absolute price maker. Ignorant twat stop posting.
>>80744657
>there could be someway to prevent these agencies from being payed off and giving A+ ratings to shady derivatives
Government-run agencies are no different, and no less susceptible to corruption. At least with competition in the free market, it becomes unlikely (though not impossible) that ratings and certificaftion agencies start taking bribes.
The thing is, when it broke that they were pulling this shit, consumers should have lost all confidence in their ratings. But they didn't, because they're backed by the government.
>>80744664
Google and Amazon are not monopolies. Telecom companies are a more difficult issue because they're issued special legal privileges (exclusive use of certain radio frequencies, permission to build lines and towers, etc) in order to secure their position in the market.
>>80744917
Which they don't, because it's not a profitable business strategy. Predatory pricing is a socialist bogeyman.
>>80745302
>once you cross to the austrian side, you ain't coming back
This is very true. Austrian economics is a cult; once you cross to their side, you'll be incapable of seeing the light because your brain has been fried.
>>80745126
You're right, it is. And it failed. The market learned a lesson, and most with a brain won't do that again.
The structure they used to issue those mortgages was designed to absorb defaults and was essentially too good to be true.
>>80744798
My town of 10,000 had a Walmart. There are still 4 other grocery stores, nearly 10 other clothing stores, 2 other sporting goods stores, a ton of auto parts stores, and a couple of places that sell furniture. The only thing it doesn't have competition in is video games because no one wants to build a gamestop on the middle of bumfuck nowhere. How is that a monopoly?
>>80745326
Semantics...
When I say regulation I mean a tighter control on the open market
When I say deregulation I mean loosening control on the open market
>>80741730
There were no crashes until the deregulation. Well, there were, before it.
After the deregulation started, the banks kept getting moe predatory. The term used is 'Looting'. THere is a famous paper you should read.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/Looting.pdf
>>80741588
Depends on what you mean by 'Keynesian'. Neokeynesians, like Krugman are the result of the neoclassical synthesis, which basically destroyed most of what was good in Kenesianism and classical economics. Post-Keynesians continue on Keynesian tradition.
Also, boom and bust are dependant also on supply. Keynesian methods can easily abolish demand recessions, involuntary unemployment and the sort of overindebtedness we suffer from now.
However, growth still requires resources. That is why during the oil crisis you had stagflation.
>>80744798
It's not. You can buy anything that's in Wal-Mart online. Bricks and mortar stores are going the way of the dodo.
>>80744033
The 1980s were a result of neo keynesianism. Keynes advocates government stimulus in times of recession when labout is cheap to build up national infrastructure until the economy got back on its feet. Neo keynesians decided that they would stimulate the economy forever and be permanently in debt forever. Thats why you got massive inflation that cant be killed by reducing rates.
>>80745350
The math was right, the problem was it was all based off of theoretical markets which were totally unrealistic. The theory was good, the application was bunk.
>>80745656
True
>he fell for the use inflation to secure full employment meme
>>80741588
>Keynsian economics seem to remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth.
It does, but it's been given a bad name by liberals using it as an excuse for relentless expansion of the welfare state.
>>80741730
Yes, it could have been avoided with effective regulation. However, part of that regulation, the greatest part, has to be cultural on the side of financial institutions. Simply adding more government oversight wouldn't have been enough. Our banking culture needs to be changed, in addition to new government regulations being added.
>>80744798
Wal Mart has a large market share because it offers lower prices than the competition. What exactly is your issue with consumers paying less money for the same goods?
>>80745431
there's no such thing as an 'absolute price maker', friend
>>80745302
austrian school here, can confirm you won't leave if you join us
>>80745483
>taking a different approach to social sciences is cult behavior
>>80745431
Monopolist are price-takers, not price-makers. They take the highest price the market can bare, setting a price too high causes the barrier to entry to become lower. Have you even taken an economics course in the past decade, gramps?
keynesian is some kind of ponzi scheme. while it may work pretty good for some time it eventually crashes. What's the point of creating a system that has to crash? how about create a system that is eternal and just ride the fucking waves like men. Stop being pussies trying to maintain a sweet sweet temporary numb world, just to fuck your children into a shit hole. It's the modern economic policy for the modern soulless decadent faggot. Keynesian policy is for people who wear masks and fuck each other in the ass. And have Pitbull for NYE
>>80744843
All a see in my life is a series of kike owned monopolies.
>>80744917
When Comcast charges $5 to rent a movie that cost 99 cents a decade ago is that not price discrimination.
>>80744170
Banks were compelled to give loans to people whom they would've never previously given loans to thanks to government threats and schemes.
First came the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. On the surface, the purpose of this law was to eliminate red-lining. If you're not familiar, red-lining was a policy started by the FDR administration when they created the Federal Housing Administration to keep blacks out of white nieghborhoods via regulations. The Clinton administration took the CRA and used it to threaten banks that they would not be allowed to expand, merge with other banks, or generally do things every business would want to do unless they gave loans to minorities with bad credit or no credit. The purpose of this policy was to artificially increase homeownership rates. The consequences should've been obvious, that a larger proportion of borrowers would default, but government forged ahead. Homeownership would go up until the defaults came, at which point it would go back down.
The relevant CRA policies were pushed by Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo.
For commercial banks, this is a very bad deal. They are now giving loans to people they know will default at an increased rate creating a greater potential for loss. However, the government offered them a form of relief. The government also runs two mortgage securities enterprises, commonly referred to as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These government enterprises buy and package mortgages from commercial banks, which can then be maintained or sold to investment banks. Commercial banks were guaranteed that Fannie Mae would buy their mortgage packages in the early to mid-1990s, giving them a place to offload high risk mortgages compelled by Janet Reno.
The relevant Fannie Mae policies were instituted by CEO James A Johnson.
A lot of Americans don't know what Keynesianism is. Keynesianism is just Classical Liberalism - Say's Law, because Say's Law is not factual. Keynesianists just believe that the unmet demand should be met, in part, by government. Libertarians believe the fairy of consumer confidence will fly down from the cosmopolitan-sphere (Libertarian heaven) and create demand.
>>80745483
hahaahah
somewhat correct, somewhat not, but good joke nontheless;
it is actually quite diffferent from the other economic schools - more archaically libertarian in some way,
however it would properly work only with global acceptance of it in which case it would yield great results,
while this system is in power it's goals and results can't be seen
>>80745197
So as long two business which are owned by the same 100 investors exist its not a monopoly
>>80745988
It's called monopolistic competition market structure. They are not monopolies.
>>80745988
>is that not price discrimination.
When a company charges more than you would like to pay, doesn't mean it is discriminating against you. Take your business elsewhere you entitled millenial.
>>80745350
Global warming weather models are the pinnacle of science compared to macro-economic modeling. The most math adds to macro-economics is pretension and deception.
>>80745988
>When Comcast charges $5 to rent a movie that cost 99 cents a decade ago is that not price discrimination.
Nope
>>80742284
Money don't create wealth.
It jobs do create wealth
He argued that we should spend money to sustain wealth and do not feel crisis.
HE WAS DEAD WRONG
What is crisis? A system reaction to dysfunction. A reaction to cleanse itself from parasite business that don't provide people with goods that they want
If we pay out our way out of every crisis this leaves us with undergoing stealth recession going on
People don't do valuable jobs, don't produce valuable goods anymore in Keynesian economics near fatal crash
Government shouldn't intervene during crisis, cause it won't ever let clear the system out of parasites
>>80746069
This is the problem with economists. Creating an ideal society is a retarded concept. What we need is a stable society. Homeostasis requires osccillation. this is the natural way of things. Economic idealism is just putting a dam up on a river that will eventually fuck your shit up. You need chaos and decentralization for a system that sustains itself.
>>80745938
Bullshit little one. The monopolist is the price maker. I maybe gramps but you didn't study economics at all.
>>80746054
If the rating agencies hadn't made it possible for banks to offload all those shit mortgages on investment banks and institutional investors then nothing would have happened.
They would have just been shit mortgages on bank mortgage books ... might have pulled a few under, but it wouldn't have snowballed.
>>80746294
Government spending creates jobs though...
>>80744170
>>80746054
(cont.)
Finally came easy money. In 2001, the Federal Reserve drastically lowered the interest rate in response to the dotcom bubble bursting and other economic factors in an attempt to stimulate the economy by making borrowing money easier. Even without this policy, the act of compelling banks to give loans to more people who will default would've been enough. This added fuel to the fire by making home loans even more appealing for those who might fail to pay them back. As a result of the combined policies, demand for home ownership was rising so fast that prices necessarily rose quickly to match them. Eventually, defaults started coming in too quickly for banks and the market to keep up. As more defaults were added to the balance sheets of banks, they become more desperate to offload the homes now considered on their possession. As such, they undercut the market. This helped fuel a rapid drop in the value of real estate, which led more people to become upside-down in their mortgage and choose default.
None of this would've happened if the government did not compel and induce commercial banks to give loans to individuals who they previously would not have given loans to for risks of default.
>>80745483
You don't come back because the Austrian school provides the ultimate economic red pill.
>>80746597
do yourself a favor
>>80746597
Useless jobs, that don't contribute to society as much as people take effort in them
>>80746734
Any recommendations for reading up on this?
>>80745749
And 90% of that shopping will be done on Amazon and moronic "economists" wont call Amazon a monopoly. You're as bad as SJW's who get brainwashed in African studies classes.
>>80746527
I literally took micro a year ago, macro last semester and have been studying economics in my spare time for 5 years. They're not price makers. That is an antiquated idea that nobody even publishes in a textbook anymore because it's not correct. Get off the Internet and buy a current edition gramps.
>>80746574
If it wasn't possible to offload those mortgages, commercial banks would've resisted making them in the first place. Fannie Mae guaranteed a place for the banks to offload said mortgages, no matter what other institutional investors thought of the mortgages.
The ratings agencies are to blame for hiding the risk to investment banks.
>>80746817
see
>>80746765
it's a very basic introduction to the reasoning behind austrian economics
>>80745867
My problem is that monopolies kill businesses. They only offer lower price until they knock out the competition.
I watched blockbuster do this to thousands of rental stores. They match only matched the 99 cent rental price until all the rental stores were out of business..By the time Netflix destroyed blockbuster It was 7 fucking dollars for a new release.
>>80746804
if you go by physiocratic school these problems are nonexistent
too bad it K.O. -d because of muh luxury, muh modernism, its the current year and stuff,
in reality it's quite based
>>80746887
Where did you take your courses small man?
We're arguing about semantics because we're saying the same thing. A first degree monopolist 'takes' the reservation price in a way that it 'makes' the price itself.
>>80746294
Do you know what the Prisoner's Dilemma game is? It can be applied to several situations and it clearly shows how expectations can screw everybody in the end. What you're saying would be perfectly valid if our expectations were always in line with what is happening/gonna happen. That's why economists usually distinguish short-term (where expectations are not aligned) from the long-run (where they are aligned because people and firms learn what's going on). What you're saying applies to the long-run.
What drives recessions is mostly fear. Most transactions in our economy are done on credit between firms (accounts receivable vs accounts payable). These simply collapse in recessions because nobody trusts each other. Since firms and individuals are liquidity constrained, this reduces transactions a lot. GDP measures the value of final transactions or the sum of value added in transaction, so this leads to a decrease in GDP.
>>80746597
This man speaks truth >>80746765
Every bullshit make-work job that the government creates by spending, is one less truly valuable job that gets created in the market naturally. You cannot get something for nothing.
>>80746817
Read this
>>80746765
>>80746197
And when Comcast charges the exact same price for on demand movies as their competitor...And they exact same price for the same bundled service of cable channels....Thats not price fixing?
>>80747257
True, but you can get something by working for it. Jobs are not a resource, they are created to answer demand.
Unemployment is a monetary phenomenon, even if idiots like you think jobs are mined out of a job mine or something.
>>80744170
>>80746721
One final note of importance. Many of the people taking loans opted for a non-traditional loan, an adjustment rate mortgage. This was done during the low interest rates of 2002-2003. Adjustable rate mortgages usually adjust to the new interest rate after ~5 years. The Federal Reserve raised the central interest rate from a low of 1% in 2003 to 5.25% by late 2006. When it came time for the mortgage rate to adjust, the monthly payments required ballooned and even more people defaulted.
I hope this helps you understand how the combined policies of the Department of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, and the Federal Reserve created the housing bubble and wave of defaults.
>>80745125
So? The only comparable economies around them are Taiwan and South Korea, who started at much lower wages in the 90s. Their economies equilibrating, with Japan losing some of it's advantage was to be expected.
I'd argue they did about as well as could be expected considering the increased local competition. Also I'd argue that without their massive fiscal and monetary intervention they would be doing a whole lot worse.
Due to lack of a directly comparable economy and time machines it's hard to prove one way or the other.
>>80747188
No.
Making a price would mean that they set a price, and regardless of market demand at that given price, that is set in stone and changes only on the whim of the monopolist.
Taking a price, on the other hand, would indicate a monopolist taking the highest price the market can bare while still maximizing demand and also maximizing market share in order to keep up the barrier to entry.
The difference is the demand. Unless the given market the monopolist is operating in has an inelastic demand curve, they will be a price-taker, not a price-maker.
Do you understand, hans?
>>80747204
Thats why keynes said government should step in to fill the gap left by uncertain players in the market for the short term. The government takes on the debt in order to capitalise instead the working man who has no leverage and will just end up a beggar on the street.
Of course the government should put the credit to making investments in infrastructure and economic growth, not bailing out banks and shit.
>>80747166
>They match only matched the 99 cent rental price until all the rental stores were out of business.
So let me get this straight: those other rental stores were charging 99 cents, while Blockbuster normally charged more, and would only price match if someone came in and demanded it? And then the stores mysteriously went out of business? It couldn't be that they were charging too little for their rentals to stay in business, obviously. It was all evil Blockbuster's fault.
>>80747303
>same price as their competitor for exactly the same product
Do you think a market equilibrium is also price fixing?
>>80747529
>Jobs are not a resource, they are created to answer demand.
Precisely. It's the pinnacle of lunacy to think that the government can "create" jobs that satisfy demand in a way that the market cannot. If there is real demand, people will allocate resources to satisfy it.
When governments sling money left and right and call it job creation, they are not doing so in order to satisfy real demand, they are doing it purely for the purpose of creating employment. It's job creation for its own sake, the actual result of which is secondary to the decision process.
>>80748386
>Do you think a market equilibrium is also price fixing?
Its not market equilibrium its five times higher then when movie rentals were on physical tapes and DVD's. The price equilibrium would be pennies if Comcast was not a monopoly.
>>80745280
This is standard disinformation. Moreover, you have basic facts wrong.
The repeal of part of Glass-Steagall, the part requiring commercial and investment banks operate separately, was done via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, not the late 1980s. Removing this barrier does not introduce instability, as evidenced by all of the other countries on Earth, namely in Europe, which has never had such a regulation and have never had problems caused by said lack of regulation.
Moreover, Lehman Brothers was never a major player in the commercial banking industry. Before 1999, they were exclusively an investment bank. Their commercial bank presence at the time of their collapse in 2008 was so minuscule that it should be considered non-existent. They were not making the millions of mortgage loans which led to the crisis.
The subprime mortgage did not happen as a result of banks taking advantage of the ability to act as both commercial and investment firm. It happened as a direct result of the federal government compelling and inducing commercial banks to provide subprime loans, even those not participating in the CRA as participation is defined.
>>80741588
>remove the booms and busts and lead to safe and solid economic growth.
There is no need to "remove" something artificially from the free market. If things go bust then they do so because there is no demand for it at the given price. If you pour money into some place to keep this product or service afloat you are wasting resources into things that are no longer needed. It's that simple.
>>80748386
>So let me get this straight: those other rental stores were charging 99 cents, while Blockbuster normally charged more, and would only price match if someone came in and demanded it?
No...They cam into a neighborhood and matched the price of the market..They were unbelievably well funded so they had stock that no other store could compete with...So when you went to your local small movie rental place and they were out of stock instead of picking something else you left and went to blockbuster. This slowly drove everyone out of business and as soon as they were gone the price of rentals started to increase.
Walmart is doing the same thing now.
>>80741588
Bumperino Chachingo
>>80748386
Few things are as destructive to a nation as large scale long term unemployment.
>>80748749
>The price equilibrium would be pennies if Comcast was not a monopoly.
You are determining this how, exactly? It seems that you're claiming you are the Knower of What Prices of Things Should Be, which is hilarious.
They are entitled to charge whatever prices they want. You are entitled to tell them to fuck off. If enough people agree with you, they go out of business.
>>80749057
> so they had stock that no other store could compete with
So you have a problem with a competitor having a better supply of goods. Damn that free market!
>the price of rentals started to increase
All prices increase yearly courtesy of the Fed. If their prices did indeed increase so dramatically (I couldn't find anything in a brief google), it only contributed to the rise of Netflix and other competitors. That's what happens in the market; you raise your prices too high, and people will just go elsewhere.
>Walmart is doing the same thing now
What with all those super high prices, it's a wonder people can afford to go to Wal Mart at all. Oh wait...
>>80748386
>When governments sling money left and right and call it job creation, they are not doing so in order to satisfy real demand, they are doing it purely for the purpose of creating employment
Incorrect
>>80748301
wew boy, you must have taken a really shitty course in a really shitty university because a price taker can't influence the market (as it takes the price) while the price-maker, which you are describing as price-taker, influences the market prices (thus making the prices).
You do know you the monopolist, as price-maker, can discriminate prices differently given a certain market? If the monopolist were a price taker it couldn't possibly make a first degree discrimination but still it can when the industry allows it.
You probably got an online degree.
>>80746597
Government spending requires government taxing. Every economist on Earth, even dedicated Socialists, agrees that money left in the private sector creates more wealth than equal government spending. The wealthy are not inclined to sit on their wealth and earn nothing with it, so they invest. This investment creates more jobs.
The assumption derived from reason, but nonetheless unproven, is that by creating more wealth through private investment than through government investment or redistribution, more jobs will necessarily follow.
Government spending always comes at a cost. Tax it today or tax it tomorrow, it must be taxed. The alternative, defaulting on your debt, is a grim prospect.
>>80749693
>So you have a problem with a competitor having a better supply of goods. Damn that free market!
No I have a problem with one company having 80% of the market share of any given market.
>What with all those super high prices, it's a wonder people can afford to go to Wal Mart at all. Oh wait.
You can already see them increasing prices on things. 10 cents here 10 cents there. Shareholders are happy because profits increased a couple percentage..Soon enough the price on everything in walmart will be just as high as before they existed. But now millions of people have lost their small stores and livelihoods.
This is how monopolies work it happens in front of you SJW economists and you ignore it.
>>80750314
>Every economist on Earth, even dedicated Socialists, agrees that money left in the private sector creates more wealth than equal government spending.
Hahahahaa
>>80744657
Why wouldn't you just pay off the government regulators then.
Jesus christ you authoritarian types are naive.
>>80750317
>No I have a problem with one company having 80% of the market share of any given market.
Why?
>You can already see them increasing prices on things.
Wal-Mart operates on a 1-2% profit margin. Prices are raised because acquisition, labor, and regulatory costs increase. If their profit margin suddenly jumped to 10% or even 5%, you would have a point. They have not.
>>80741792
Haha you bastard you made me laugh.
The only reason Keynesian economics get a bad rep is because they're attatched to leftist politicians in the US. Anyone who unironically opposes them is a paid corporate shills who advocate at the same time the replacement of US domestic workers with cheap brown labor. In a world where whites are being replaced by imported shitskins, your government's economic preferences are truly the least of your worries.
>>80741588
>>>80745350
>The math was right, the problem was it was all based off of theoretical markets which were totally unrealistic. The theory was good, the application was bunk.
Another case of the
>true X has never been applied
meme?
>>80750287
You must be dense or something
You seem to be missing the part where price-making causes loss of market capitalization, losing sales and potential profits, and where it lowers the barriers to entry by competitors by causing a larger demand for the product at a cheaper price which creates incentive for a competitor to try and enter the market.
I'm not saying that they can't dictate prices or discriminate price in different areas of a given market, but no monopolist with a brain is going to dictate a price that creates demand for competition and loses potential profit maximization. The whole argument of price-maker vs. price-taker is that price-making isn't sustainable in most markets. Therefore, most monopolists are price-takers due to the desire to maintain their monopoly, maximize market penetration and maximize profits.
Seriously, go pick up a modern edition and read it. Go take a nap, grandpa.
>>80750764
>Why?
I already explained why..The only thing that controls price is competition. When competition is gone prices are set by other reason than market equilibrium
>>80751097
No, it's the disconnect between theory and applying a theory in the real world. That is usually where most things go wrong.
>>80741588
its a system designed for the short term that ultimately fucks everything up in the long term.
its worth noting that Keynes was a homosexual that never had children and when confronted with this discrepancy he said "in the long-term, we're all dead"
if you aren't planning for long term growth, you are planning on quick satisfaction without regard for future consequences.
>>80747574
Thanks for the recap, sir. You answered questions as soon as they came to me.
>>80750969
I like you.
This guy gets it folks.
>>80749836
Absolutely correct. Name a situation where there is real demand for a good or service, and only the government can provide it (more efficiently, even) because the market is unable to.
>>80750317
>one company having 80% of the market share of any given market.
What market share is acceptable to you, and why? What should be done when the market decides to reward one firm over the rest because it offers the best price or the most goods? Should we forcefully tear it down for daring to cater to consumers too well?
>10 cents here 10 cents there
What don't you understand about inflation?
>Soon enough the price on everything in walmart will be just as high as before they existed
Because you say so?
>>80752215
What about the demand for bureaucracy? :^)
>>80752215
>Should we forcefully tear it down for daring to cater to consumers too well?
Clearly.
And not destroy the company but break it up. Everything in the capitalist model when market equilibrium stops being the motive for price.
>What don't you understand about inflation?
Its not inflation based its profit motive.
>>80752679
* Everything in the capitalist model fails when market equilibrium stops being the motive for price.
>>80752803
Market equilibrium isn't the motive for price
The fuck are you talking about?
The market equilibrium is just when demand and supply meet, the motive for price is for people on the demand side is to pay the lowest possible price and for people on the supply side to get the highest possible price
>>80751245
The online degree is showing here.
No shit the monopolist in a non extreme situation produces less than a perfect competition market and SETS higher prices. Monopolies lose consumers because of high prices. You literally discovered hot water.
You seem to be missing, instead, is the definition of monopolist. Is a monopolist worried about people entering the market? NO. Most of the monopolies/oligopolies are state backed and/or have extreme barriers to enter like economies of scale and knowledge economies behind.
You are talking about a firm that somehow found itself to be the monopolist in a market with low barriers and a product with certain characteristics, and it actually fears that others will enter. This is extremely unlikely, and it's more a characteristic of oligopolies, where certain trusts are made to prevent people from entering the market.
Anyway I'm your age, retard. I took micro a year ago. fukin frog.
>>80753062
Great...I don't need a lesson on what market equilibrium is.
Maybe motive was the wrong word how about driving force
>Everything in the capitalist model fails when market equilibrium stops being the DRIVING FORCE for price...
when you start using semantic arguments you've lost
>>80751343
If the company with 80% market share decides to significantly raise their price, the companies comprising the remaining 20% market share overtake them.
Did you know that at one time, General Motors had a 50% US market share? Not a single regulation was required for that to fall to the current 19%.
Or an even more extreme example; US Steel had 67% US market share at one point. Today? 8%. The government tried to use the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break it up in 1911, but failed. It turned out breaking it up was completely unnecessary because other companies innovated better.
On the other hand, Standard Oil was "successfully" broken up in 1911. At one point, Standard Oil had 88% market share. By 1911, it had already fallen to 64%. Standard Oil grew its market share so high by finding more efficient ways to use their raw resources which other refineries hadn't considered. By 1911, other companies had caught up and were already retaking market share. Was breaking it up necessary? It would seem not.
Every monopoly or near-monopoly loses its monopoly status over time if government doesn't interfere first. Sometimes government interferes to break a company up when unnecessary and sometimes they interfere to guarantee the monopoly by law. No private corporation can exist as a monopoly in perpetuity without force of law preventing competition. I would challenge you to name two.
>>80753213
>No shit the monopolist in a non extreme situation produces less than a perfect competition market and SETS higher prices. Monopolies lose consumers because of high prices. You literally discovered hot water.
So you're suggesting that a monopolist is going to lose profit, simply for the sake of having a higher price per unit? That makes total sense.
>You seem to be missing, instead, is the definition of monopolist. Is a monopolist worried about people entering the market? NO. Most of the monopolies/oligopolies are state backed and/or have extreme barriers to enter like economies of scale and knowledge economies behind.
All monopolists are worried about other people entering the market. Take for example, the actions of Rockefeller during his reign over Standard Oil, he made extreme efforts to crush and potential competition regardless of the size of the firm that was trying to compete with him. Or, another example is the actions of the US government when private enterprise attempts to deliver letter-mail in the US. This has happened several times in the past few decades, and every time they have gone after the private enterprise despite how small they were.
A key part of being a monopolist is keeping out competition, regardless of size of that competition. If it is state backed, it makes no difference, other than you have the law on your side and can shut them down through litigation.
>You are talking about a firm that somehow found itself to be the monopolist in a market with low barriers and a product with certain characteristics, and it actually fears that others will enter. This is extremely unlikely, and it's more a characteristic of oligopolies, where certain trusts are made to prevent people from entering the market.
The level of the barriers isn't the point. Any competition is threatening to a monopolist, regardless of the market conditions or any other factor. History has shown this time and time again.
Go take a nap, gramps.
Go around and break windows to stimulate the economy.
>>80741588
>Old homo jew who took his holidays in North Africa to fuck little arab boys
>expert on economics
pick one
>>80753876
>If the company with 80% market share decides to significantly raise their price,
I gave an example of a company doing just that earlier see>>80747166 but even if they only increase the price back to what it was before they took 80% of the market..You now have 1 company employing 1000's instead of the 1000's of companies employing hundreds of thousands.
>>80754178
>So you're suggesting that a monopolist is going to lose profit, simply for the sake of having a higher price per unit? That makes total sense.
It does not lose profit, retard. You equate less consumers with less profits but the monopolist MAKES the price that ensures higher profits even if part of the potential consumers is OUT. That's how monopolists get higher profits with LESS consumers. You're a retarded frog. You don't even have a degree to me.
>All monopolists are worried about other people entering the market.
WHAT THE ACTUAL HECK. Almost ALL of the proper monopolies are state backed and/or have patents the ensure no one enters.
The oil industry is an outlier and not a proper example for a monopoly you damn retard. If you took macro you would know this but you probably didn't frog.
>The level of the barriers isn't the point.
What are we talking about? Monopoly is ALL about barriers. Without them the monopoly wouldn't exist and the 'monopolist' would have to take the price, thus ending his monopolist definition.
You're an online course retard.
>>80755295
>WHAT THE ACTUAL HECK. Almost ALL of the proper monopolies are state backed and/or have patents the ensure no one enters.
This was friedman's argument..And the response is a company with 80% market share is going to have the resources to bribe politicians..Anytime is it the chicken or the egg was brought up he had some snarky jew response.
>>80755295
>It does not lose profit, retard. You equate less consumers with less profits but the monopolist MAKES the price that ensures higher profits even if part of the potential consumers is OUT. That's how monopolists get higher profits with LESS consumers. You're a retarded frog. You don't even have a degree to me.
Achieving the maximum total profit involves taking the highest price the market can bare, with the highest amount of units sold. Not making. TAKING. Arbitrarily dictating prices does not maximize profits.
>The state ensures nobody enters
They have to enforce that. Which implies they worry about competition. Are you stupid?
>What are we talking about? Monopoly is ALL about barriers. Without them the monopoly wouldn't exist and the 'monopolist' would have to take the price, thus ending his monopolist definition.
The level of the barrier of entry is not the deciding factor which the monopolist uses to determine whether or not to crush anybody attempting entry. High or low, it doesn't matter, they will crush them to maintain their monopoly. You think there is a high level or entry to delivering letter-mail? Learn to read English, grandpa Hun.
>>80754625
Other rental stores went out of business for the same reason Blockbuster went out of business; new technologies. Not a single piece of legislation was required for Blockbuster to lose their market.
I'm having difficulty finding the year by year numbers, but Blockbuster in particular had a 27% market share when they were at their peak location count. This is far short of the 80% threshold you find threatening. If you can find something to the contrary, please share.
>>80741588
His ideas about preventing the ebb and flow of business cycles come from a good place, but his theories weren't used to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression as Jews like Paul krugman would have you believe. But his ideas on animal spirits, and consumer confidence being an indicator of the future of the market is alright
>>80756707
I find one company controlling more than a quarter of any market threatening
>>80756707
And your lying with numbers..Yes in a decade they couldn't build stores and destroy every area in the United states...But the areas they went into they controlled.
>>80756917
I'm not surprised to see you move the goalposts, but I am surprised to see it by so much. If Blockbuster had peaked at 22%, would you change the threshold to 20%?
>>80757072
It's not unusual for a single store to be sufficient to supply a town, especially when a market is already in collapse and demand is dwindling. There are a lot of small towns all throughout the country with a single family-owned movie theater. Would you call these monopolies for being the only movie theater in town? I doubt it.
Austrian > Keynesian
>>80741588
The idea is that when the business cycle hits a bust (recession) we can mitigate the recession by having government lower taxes to increase spending while also having the government take on temporary debt to give to citizens to spend. When the economy recovers, the government is supposed to raise taxes to pay off its previous debts and slow the rate of growth to prevent sharp peaks. He flipped the tables on the traditional idea that production comes before consumption and said that by consuming, you can encourage production. This, of course is nonsense, and should only be used, if at all, in the short term. You can't consume what is not produced.
The US has bastardized Keynesian economics in recent decades. Currently, government keeps commercial interest rates low to encourage taking out loans and spending, but simultaneously discouraging savings. If this trend continues, there will be a lack of legitimate loans for projects and we will hit a very large recession because all the current private projects will realize that the resources for their projects are all being consumed at once. The current interest rates don't reflect the current scarcity of legitimate funds.
My take is that politics gets in the way of successfully implementing Keynesian policies, all though there is little proof that his policies even have had an effect in the past. Moreover, this basically implies that humans are like cattle that can be steered in optimal directions for the purposes of the state.
>>80741588
>Keynsian economics
>the idea that if you keep printing fiat money and devaluing the currency, you can trick people into working for more of it in the short term until it becomes worthless in the long term
>>80756917
I kept digging and found Blockbuster peaked at 41% US market share in 2001. It may have gone higher at some point afterward as rental shops went out of business, but Blockbuster was also in decline by that point. Their stock peaked in 2002 and was already collapsing by 2003.
I suppose this means you should revise the threshold you find threatening up to 40%, as 25% is no longer necessary to complain about Blockbuster.
I want to go back to university. Masters in Ancien History and Classics.
Im 36y/o and a small business owner.
Is that degenerate?
>>80756532
>Arbitrarily dictating
It's not arbitrary. Come on, I know you took micro. In perfect competition models the firm takes the price set by the market because if it doesn't, it's out. The monopolist calculates (thus MAKES) the price that ensures most profits that is always HIGHER than the perfect competition one. It drives some consumers out but the monopolist does not have to worry because it's a damn monopolist. This ensures higher profits.
>Which implies they worry about competition
State backed monopolists don't worry about competition because the State rules it out. Are you stupid?
>crush
I have to ask you what you mean by crush. Force? Violence? Are we living in the jungle? Bet you're a Trudeau loving muslim.
>>80757098
I didn't set the goalpost to begin with.. the person I was responding to said 80%see >>80753876.
They were a Monopoly in my life. The city I live in should have broken them up..
>>80756532
>>80755295
Also, I'd like to add I'm not saying that less consumers equals less profit, you're just inferring that.
Monopolies rely on a balancing act between price and quantity sold to maximize profit, you're just suggesting that they can dictate the price, but companies do not dictate price.
Consumers dictate price through demand.
>>80757344
No I would not define a family owned movie theater a monopoly...I would describe AMC theaters as one.
>>80758618
The first person to set a threshold was >>80750317
Complain to them.
>>80752215
>Name a situation
Railway operators
Are you guys ready for the next financial collapse that is caused by brexit and keynesian economics that will lead to fiat currency collapse. It will be 10 times worse than the great depression and 20 times worse in the uk. Your gdp will shrinl by 30% due to hyperinflation and negative interest rates. All stocks will go down 60% and ftse 70% and dow 80%. The whole system will crash there will be no 4chan or international trade for 3 days. And the imf will call for an emergancy meeting with the g20 nations and agreeing on a world currency and a global exchange rate mechanism, which one step closer to a eorld government. Brexit wall planned all along with the elite. The eu was for bank regulation and was anti anglo elite. Thanks a lot brexitters for causing a financial doom
>>80750314
http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/G_ASSA.pdf
>>80743208
stop using common sense to describe policies it is so dishonest
>>80758603
>It's not arbitrary. Come on, I know you took micro. In perfect competition models the firm takes the price set by the market because if it doesn't, it's out. The monopolist calculates (thus MAKES) the price that ensures most profits that is always HIGHER than the perfect competition one. It drives some consumers out but the monopolist does not have to worry because it's a damn monopolist. This ensures higher profits.
See >>80758637
>State backed monopolists don't worry about competition because the State rules it out. Are you stupid?
They don't worry about competition, yet take great pains to ensure the barrier to entry prevents competition, and remove competition through litigation (in the case of state-backed monopoly) if it does appear? That seems like worry. Are you stupid?
>I have to ask you what you mean by crush. Force? Violence? Are we living in the jungle? Bet you're a Trudeau loving muslim
Isn't it prayer time? Time for you to go to mosque, hans.
>>80745627
lol and you are still unable to understand
>>80758802
So if a local family owns the only movie theater in town, that's fine, but if AMC owns the only movie theater in town, that's bad?
For the record, AMC owns 6.3% of physical movie theaters comprising 12.6% of total movie screens as of 2014. I cannot immediately find market share based on sales, but it seems you might need to revise your threshold down to 10%.
>>80744352
which was enforced by gov regulation.
economy
>doesnt work in continuous line, but in cycles
>use keyns during hard times
>dont be a lavish nigger during wealthy cycles
full on de-regulation and "freedom" doesnt work
full on latin america spending doesnt work either
>>80757956
They had most of the market share in my city. It was them and hollywood video and some small store which had to add a delivery service to stay in business.
As for AMC being a monopoly..They came into my city and built a huge 24 screen stadium seating theater...AND THE TICKET PRICES WERE THE SAME AS THE LITTLE GUYS $6. Until the little guys went out of business. Now its $20 per ticket.
Ten family owned theaters employing thousands of people either went out of business or became a dollar theater.
>>80758968
>Railway operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_companies_in_Japan#Major_sixteen_private_railways
>>80741588
> Keynesian economics
Retarded. It's just highly still in its premise
>>80758968
Read Atlas Shrugged
>>80741730
Keynesian economics is backed up by many historical examples where its ideas were used and worked successfully.
Governments are retarded and do not follow keynesian economics. They get the "bail people out during a recession" part correct, but they never do the "Raise taxes during times of economic growth" part correctly.
Keynesian economics is not the only way to think about the financial system, and shouldn't be the only way you think about it.
Boom/bust cycles have been happening for hundreds and hundreds of years, well before Keynes, and you should not overestimate the ability of Keynesian economics to override human greed and stupidity.
>>80759949
If one must read Rand, they should stick to her philosophical works. She was a godawful novelist.
>>80760471
>Boom/bust cycles have been happening for hundreds and hundreds of years
Credit expansion and fractional reserve banking have been happeningfor hundreds and hundreds of years. Coincidence, surely?
>>80759031
So under the most extreme circumstances, those only experienced once in the US over the past 150 years, government spending might beat leaving the money in the private sector.
Admittedly, I scanned the paper and read the conclusion. This thread will be dead before I finish reading the paper line by line. If I missed something important, please point me to the page.
>>80741588
He was a fucking faggot and wanted to live for the moment, he didnt care about the future.
Pretty much this>>80741806
>>80743581
>>80759810
That's the best case scenario, but how can you guarantee you get that
>>80761000
>how can you guarantee you get that
If there is sufficient demand, you get that. If there is not, you don't. I don't know why you presume to be qualified to decide what consumers "ought" to have (in this case, railroads) regardless of what they actually demand.
>>80741588
Keynes was a faggot.
Keynesian economics is literally fag-tier.
It's the future you choose.
>>80743581
>friedman
hahahaha, the kike that believes child labor and corpotate unity is justified.
>>80759712
If AMC is now charging significantly more than necessary to turn a profit in your city, I would expect alternative theaters to re-appear. Out of curiosity, how long ago did AMC show up that the prices have changed so much?
For comparison, there are no AMC theaters in my city. AMC had one location until around 5-10 years ago, but another smaller company bought the location. Ticket prices around town vary from $5-9 depending on the theater, time, age of the customer, etc. We have ~6 theaters within driving distance, the largest housing 16 screens.
The presence and disappearance of AMC made no difference in my town.
>>80761472
big fuckin deal
so what
>>80741588
>Hitler dubs
Keynes had what are considered antisemitic views by modern commentators.
>>80759785
Decided to look for AMC ticket prices online and found this: http://www.movietheaterprices.com/amc-ticket-prices/
More expensive than any theater in my city, but not $20 unless you were talking about IMAX. I doubt you had other IMAX theaters at $6. IMAX tickets in my town are $13.
>>80741588
??? 2008 wasn't a massive bust?
2008 didn't lead to a massive transfer of wealth???
Go hang yourself.
>>80761895
No moron...They came into my city with the express intention of causing a shortage by running everyone out of business. Then when all competition was gone they got 4 times the regular price because of the shortage they artificially made...Why would any of the other big guys fuck with AMC they are busy doing the same thing in other cities. Also why would any sane normal person invest their wealth into a competing theater when AMC can just lower their prices again?
>>80761169
I want commuters to get the best service possible at the lowest price possible
The market is not giving UK commuters that
>>80748283
Japan has stagnated for 25 years. If you think that's better than the alternative you have rocks in your head.
If you live in Japan you slave at your work for no apparent t benefit. It's in complete contrast to the post ww2 era.
>>80760471
>Governments are retarded and do not follow keynesian economics. They get the "bail people out during a recession" part correct, but they never do the "Raise taxes during times of economic growth" part correctly.
1. Raising taxes is always politically unpopular. It is impossible to run any form of democracy and be able to reliable raise taxes.
2. Recessions typically begin and end quickly. By the time a government can react to pass stimulus or tax cuts and see them go into place the following year, the recession is over. This model requires a government with no checks and balances.
In short, you're appealing to the efficiency of autocracy.
>>80762703
>I want commuters to get the best service possible at the lowest price possible
This is what commuters probably demand. Producers want to offer the best service possible at the highest price possible. Where they meet in the middle determines what the final price will be.
>The market is not giving UK commuters that
Neither will the government.
>>80745197
Regional monopolies you faggoy.
You're getting Jewed so hard and you don't even see it.
Classic subhuman goyim
>>80762682
Resorting to ad hominem doesn't answer my questions. Moreover, you're making assumptions of motive. While it may be logical or reasonable to you that they came in with the goal of running everyone out of town then raising ticket prices, that doesn't guarantee it is truth.
Also, you've gone from claiming they raised prices from $6 to $20 to claiming prices went up 4 times, but I have clearly provided a link directly from the company itself which tells me the cost of tickets is under $14, not $20 or 4 times $6. Unless your specific AMC theater is a major exception to their corporate pricing, you're engaging in gross hyperbole.
>>80741588
I think you mean austrian economics.
>>80763122
>being this retarded
don't breed
>>80763029
The government can in Switzerland
>>80741588
Keynsian economics is great because it redistributes wealth and reduces the class divide while at the same time feeding the economy and improving the infrastructure
but who cares about that when you can just go full "muh sweat of a mans brow" and completely disregard the value of community as your nation turns into a corrupt shithole
>>80764382
>more state intervention in the market reduces the class divide
opinion discarded
>>80745125
>t. vegitative coma patient auto industry on government life support
>>80764382
Huh? Keynesianism has nothing to do with redistributing wealth, what are you talking about
>>80764210
No they can't. If a government has already taxed people to build a line that satisfies consumer demand, then obviously no additional lines will be built privately. That doesn't mean the market could not provide a solution, it just means the government forced its way in first. What I will grant you is that governments can act faster than the market. However, that comes with a price. How cost-effective is that railroad for someone who doesn't ride it but still had to pay for it with taxes every year?
In general, it's difficult to compete with a government-run monopoly since your client base has already been forced to pay for the service you're offering through taxation, and must be willing to pay it again just to use your private service.
>>80764652
>government spending tax money (or creating it) to pay for dem programs in a recession
>not redistributing wealth
>>80763597
I don't give a shit what the price of tickets are your city jew. they're actually $18 so the artificial shortage only increased the price 300%.
You are doing your damnedest to turn this into a semantics argument.
Here is all I want to convey...These huge corporations are going into cities and artificially causing shortages.
In what way is that not monopolistic
>>80764597
literally the main reason why not everyone are taxed equally
>>80764652
>take someones money
>give them back in form of education, healthcare, cheaper fuel etc
>OR don't: Make these money benefit someone entirely different
jesus christ the people on this fucking board
>>80765244
>thinking that giving people free shit doesn't encourage laziness and poverty
>wanting to subsidize a shit welfare state with successful peoples' earnings
>>80765658
What if you can create more successful people
>>80766297
If they'd be successful with state subsidization, I'm sure they'd be able to find success without it.
Academic scholarships, crowdfunding, and charity all exist without the state's intervention in the market. There are potentially infinite routes to success without needing the government to take other peoples' shit. (Besides, as I see it, state welfare ends up encouraging people to live in relatively livable poverty -- which fairly often causes illegal and violent behavior.)
>>80745974
/thread
>>80765658
>i will not water my flowers because if i water my flowers than they will become lazy
>i'm entitled to all of my earnings because i'm not a product of my environment and therefore owe nothing to the rest of society
>>80741588
Boom and bust is actually important to the economy. It cleans out the incompetent CEOs and companies so there will be room for new, more competent ones. Think of a forest fire. It burns away the old and weak trees so there will be room for the new trees to grow. As for the strong, healthy trees, they will simply regrow their leaves and branches.
If Obama didn't bailout the banks, the irresponsible leaders of the banks would have been removed due bankruptcy and they will be replace with more competent leadership
>>80770087
>therefore owe nothing to the rest of society
What is society? What things do you consume from this society that have to be perpetually repaid?
>>80771164
>boom and bust is actually important to the economy
You're conflating the business cycle with normal market forces. The economy as a whole does not need to suffer in order for shitty companies to go bankrupt and better ones to succeed. The boom-bust cycle is due to unchecked credit expansion, allowing those shitty firms (and unsustainable projects) to arise in the first place.
>>80770087
>flowers function exactly like humans
social sciences have never been so easy
what a fucking retarded comparison.
>people are literally only ever successful due to the people around them
that's some The Anthem/It Takes a Village type shit you've got going on in your head there, anon.
no, some people just have ambition and take risks. others don't. the people who don't are undeserving of the possessions of those who do.
if i'm unsuccessful, uneducated, unskilled, and unemployed due to my own choices, then the government shouldn't take shit from people who got an education and got a decent job only to give it to me. pretty simple shit desu
>>80765011
>>80765244
You don't even understand his theories, do you?
Keynes argued that through the multiplier, government spending into the investment section (capital stock like factories, not equities etc) of the economy would help promote growth and create jobs. Keynesianism isn't about taking government money obtained through debt and pumping it into welfare you nit-wit, it's about funding investment to create jobs. It's got nothing to do with funding healthcare, education or any kind of welfare-state activity.
Read a fucking book.
>y-you people on this board r so stuped!!1 why cant u be as englihtmented as me?
Yeah, whatever you say
>>80743581
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/07/12/the-war-on-cops-n2191290
Just because Sowell (Sowell is definitely based, and he is ma nigga)
>>80741755
>>80772351
Quantitative easing can be bad though, it gives incentive to private enterprise to lobby congress to pass bills that favor more QE solutions where they're not necessary. Even to the detriment of the population by taking on debt to achieve this.
>>80772769
It's not a fix-all solution, Keynes acknowledged this. He would tell politicians that came to him for advice (see: a fucking lot) and tell them to use this measure responsibly and only when necessary. People often forget that Keynes was very conservative, and that this was a plan designed to fit the greatest economic retraction in world history over 80 years ago. Spend when the going gets rough, save and scrimp when you're having a good go at it.
>>80767160
Academic scholarships, crowdfunding, and charity all exist ALONGSIDE the state's intervention in the market.
Having subsidies can target the people missed by the market and can lift people out of poverty
>>80774386
Subsidies don't do anything of the sort.
I want you to go look at the participation rate of people from the lowest income brackets in higher education, compared to the participation rates of the highest income brackets in higher education. Despite all the subsidization of higher education in America, such as the issues of grants, cheap loans, government funds provided to institutions to lower (at least up-front) education costs, there has been no effect on the lower class, but a consistently beneficial effect on the higher class.
In other words, your subsidies have done little to nothing to help the poor, and mostly just benefited the middle class and rich. Tax from the poor subsidizes the rich. Hows that for your state-supported education?
