Are Keynesian economics a meme?
>>1217021
No. Take something above 101 econ before trying to discuss such things, child.
>>1217021
>that OP
this is what you get for failing macro 101
>>1217021
No you retard.
>it's a dumb libertarian thinks all non-Austrian economic policies are Keynesian episode
>>1217021
no you are of the fucking retards yo retardeded peace of shit
raisin the minimum wage will make everyone give more omoneys fo demm programs
tru sojilasism(tm) has never bin tried.
>>7613646
Not everything is a meme you cum drizzling faggot piece of shit
>>1217565
Top kike, do you have the assburgers friendo?
>>1217562
So which part of Keynes' general theory proposed raising the minimum wage?
>>1217578
>raisin the minimum
No bud, we are not having this conversation.
If you think that what I posted was actually a serious argument against Keynesian economics you need to take it easy with those MMR doses.
Plane
>>1217021
badly executed it causes horrible damage.
>14 of 22 posts are by the same retard shitposting
I hope you got b8 you faggot.
>>1217021
Not at all. In fact, neoclassical synthesis largely accepts Keynesian principles at the macro level. But like >>1217640 says, it can often be implemented poorly (though so can all policy). I just find it funny that so many Chicago/Austrian fags on 4chan (not legit ones, just the ones who took intro to micro) "prove" how Keynesian policies are wrong by resorting to "common sense" supply and demand models, despite Keynesian theory also being supported by the exact same kind of models at a macro level.
You shouldn't rely on models to decide what's best for society.
![5183225_orig[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/sjIzpDC.png "5183225_orig[1].png")
>>1217668
Exactly. If you asked me a few years ago whether minimum wage negatively affects employment I would have absolutely said yes, because that's what micro and macro actually states (pic related). But after actually reading some papers it's the exact opposite. Increasing mimimum wage actually increases employment, because poor people spend more.
Same goes with taxes. In recession, increasing government spending and taxes is actually more beneficial than lowering taxes and lowering government spending, because plebs want to save some of that extra disposable income they get.
Keynes was naive for thinking monetary and fiscal policies, without taking extra-monetary aspects of the economy into account, are capable of alleviating all economic ills of capitalism without altering its basic social structure.
Buying and selling contains a crisis element already since a seller is not forced to buy but may retain his wealth in money form. Money if not large enough to serve as capital will result in a period of hoarding. A lack or abundance of capital may lead to economic difficulties which appear as a crisis of the money system. The banking and credit system largely eliminated the need to amass money by hoarding in order to accumulate it as productive capital but this just further increased the more speculative character of capital production and enhanced the irrational aspects of capital competition by producing malinvestments and overinvestments.
>>1217021
Post-Keynesian economics is the only valid school of economics.
>>1217686
>In recession, increasing government spending and taxes is actually more beneficial than lowering taxes and lowering government spending,
No. Increasing government spending is good in a recession but raising taxes is pro-cyclical as it destroys financial wealth in the private sector. You would lower taxes.
>unemployment
Higher government spending, lower taxes.
>inflation
Lower government spending, higher taxes.
>>1217692
>a seller is not forced to buy but may retain his wealth in money form.
Inflation induces investment.
>A lack or abundance of capital may lead to economic difficulties which appear as a crisis of the money system.
Which is why you maintain high aggregate demand through fiscal policy.
>enhanced the irrational aspects of capital competition by producing malinvestments and overinvestments.
Which is you regulate to produce desired outcomes.
>>1217710
>Inflation induces investment.
Not necessarily as history shows. Inflation is another form of subsidization of big business by government; it's the means by which the non-profitable character of government-induced production by way of deficit-financing finds its partial compensation in higher prices.
>Which is you regulate to produce desired outcomes.
Easier said than done, to much vested interests benefit [not just capitalists but also elements of the middle class benefit when real-estate and stocks keep going up in value] who control political power benefit which makes it next to impossible to really implement regulations to serve more utilitarian ends.
>>1217710
>No. Increasing government spending is good in a recession but raising taxes is pro-cyclical as it destroys financial wealth in the private sector. You would lower taxes.
Ah, yes. Forgot to say that if you were forced to pick one of those 2 options i.e. having a neutral effect on government budget. Other than that you're correct.
>>1217686
I love the Card and Kreuger studies on minimum wage you're likely referring to, but the jury is still out because there's also a large body of evidence that shows it decreasing employment.
I'm still more inclined to trust the former though because their methodology is like the paragon of empirical social science research.
>>1217735
>Not necessarily as history shows
Inflation is inherently beneficial to the borrower. It means people are going to be looser with their money. More money flowing into the economy is a boom to the economy. The problem is that it can lead to a bubble, but the economics behind it are sound.
Keynes also said only to use the extremes of his theory in recessions/depressions.
>>1217021
The problem isn't the economics of it, the problem is money (vehicle for trade) is basically just glorified credit not based on any tangible asset. Meaning much like credit it is created out of thin air. If you don't know why this is a problem educate yourself I'm not going to baby NEETs
>>1217686
I know about that study, but I bet even you think raising min wage to $30 would be retarded.
>>1217787
Yeah, we'll see how it develops. Personally I'm leaning towards Krugman and his findings, but I'm not above changing my opinion when I'm wrong.
>>1218089
Of course, drastic raise can only create a shitstorm. But incrementally it shouldn't create that much of a disturbance in the labor market.
>>1218186
My point is that raising minimum wage eventually impacts employment at high numbers. But even in small numbers it could, that one study be damned
The biggest problem with Keynes is that he makes the "the market" to be an end rather than a means. The whole concept of velocity of money is stupid and no human good is derived from it in and of itself. Trading is not made more useful the more steps it takes, Bastiat covers that pretty well shoots all that down with his works on opportunity cost. The one good thing that can be gotten from Keynesian economics is the supreme value of liquidity. Infinite debt isn't a problem if it all gets paid off eventually.
Austrian Master-race.
>>1217793
>what is fischer equation
inflation BEYOND EXPECTATION helps borrowers
>>1218216
>The whole concept of velocity of money is stupid and no human good is derived from
are you saying that no human good is derived from stable prices?
And the whole concept of money and velocity of money gets muddied because regular people are thinking if m1 when discussing money, b ut for inflation m2 matters.
of course it's a meme, I just read a few articles on mises institute and for sure keynes was shit.
