Redpill me on Keynesianism, why doesn't it work?
Buying your own debt is never a good long-term prospect.
>>71749553
>>71749553
Broken window fallacy
pic related
>spending money to get out of a recession and debt
>we will cut back spending in the boom!!
>never know when boom ends
>never want to cut back when it's going well
>back to recession
>repeat
>>71749553
It does work to some degree. Countercylical economic policy is agreed upon by most economist and austerity doesn't work.
>>71749950
>never want to cut back when it's going well
That's not a failure of Keynesianism that's a failure of the government.
These are all great replies, thank you. How does something like Austrian economics compare to Keynesian economics? Is it better or just as flawed?
>>71749553
it only works when you are breaking some other assholes window
>>71750453
>Countercylical economic policy is agreed upon by most economist and austerity doesn't work.
Not an argument.
>>71750606
>Is it better or just as flawed?
If by "better" you mean "correct", then yes. Austrian economics is descriptive, not prescriptive i.e. it tells you how economies function, not "you must do X".
As for why it's correct, I recommend reading "Man, Economy, and State" by Murray Rothbard which is a comprehensive economic treatise detailing all the methodology of economics and conclusions derived from studying it.
For a significantly shorter work, read Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen".
Here it is for free:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
If even half of /pol/ bothered reading even tiny economic works instead of just wildly making shit up in their head based on whatever half baked idea they once heard in high school, maybe this place wouldn't be so painfully fucking retarded whenever economic theories are discussed.
>>71751488
>That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen"
And also an excellent derivative work, Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".
>>71749553
>>71750453
>austerity doesn't work.
Doesn't work to continuously inflate the money supply, give government an ever-increasing amount of money to spend on whatever is politically expedient at the time, and to create the business cycle through policies of easy money, yes.
>>71749553
It doesn't account for the back end cost the economic stimulus keynesian economics is predicated on.
Basically Keynesian economics says that if there is a down-turn in the economy, the government should inject artificial demand into the economy by government spending, welfare payments, temporary tax rebates on wage taxes etc. The idea being that more money in the economy means increased demand overall and more economic activity overall.
When pointed to the fact that this stimuli aren't free and cost something (usually in the form of future taxes because they tend to be funded with bonds) they try to claim that oh well the current investment yield more because it has a multiplier effect. Keynesians argue that oh if John Q. Public has $50 more a week to spend that is more than that $50 because he will spend it on going out to a restaurant, which means the restaraunt can hire more workers, and those additional workers will buy more stuff on their own causing those sellers to be able to buy more stuff etc. etc. Basically a summation of an infinite series with decreasing returns each step.
What they fail to account for is that the money they are taking away from to fund their economic stimulus also has that same effect, it is just never seen or accounted for properly because it would have occurred in the future and thus is not measured because it is difficult to measure. Because it isn't measured or quantified in some measure keynesians make the erroneous conclusion that it must not exist.
A similar scenario occurs when you hear about so-called economists favoring the hikes in the minimum wage. They erroneously assume it doesn't contribute to unemployment because that data is not measured.
>>71753778
>They erroneously assume it doesn't contribute to unemployment
I have to wonder if that actually forsake all the basic premises of economics and truly believe you can raise the minimum wage with impunity, or if they know exactly what happens but advocate whatever their political financiers pay them to advocate.
>>71755435
*they actually
In theory it works, but the stimulus is always wasted. Austrian 4 lyfe
Keynesian economics were never intended to work under a privatized, debt-based central bank. Debt-based currency throws all logic and good sense right out the window. If you could get rid of the existing Rothschild oligarchy, Keynesian systems would work great. But not until then.
>>71749553
Requires massive government control and oversight to maintain.
Does it look like we have anything like that on the banks?
Also prioritizes business, which is just a jewish game, over science and industry.
>>71753778
There are no funds taken away from anyone, because we can create money out of nothing.
>>71758024
True, but inflation is just hidden taxation. Rather than taking money, they're taking purchasing power. Same result in the end, all things held equal.
>>71758024
I get the worry about a central bank printing money to pay for debts, but the US and most developed nations do not do that at all. That is called Seigniorage, and almost no nations do that. If you are looking for examples of countries that do that or did that look at Argentina, and Zimbabwe.
The US funds it's deficit spending by issuing bonds. When you hear the US deficit is like 700 billion dollars, that means the US issued 700 billion dollars worth of bonds at current face value, but means it will wind up paying back like 1 trillion dollars to those bond holders in the future to pay for the 700 billion now.
>>71758423
>The US funds it's deficit spending by issuing bonds.
And the central bank buys the bonds.
>>71758217
Inflation happens because of rising unit labor costs. More money is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion.
>>71758856
>and the central bank buys the bonds
Yeah and we will have to pay it back to the Central Bank.
You print more money hand it to robber Barron's and at some point Joe blo with 30,000$ only makes .25$ quarterly because so much has been printed it means nothing.
Go watch Ron Paul and Peter Schiff movies about the housing crash and easy money. A lot of us here spent years reading Mises institute and Dr Paul stuff before 2012.
My Opinion:
College Econ only recognizes Keynes because they greatly benefit by government printing easy money and handing it to kids who go into crushing debt for decades to pay back student loans.
>>71759401
>to robber Barron's and at some point Joe blo with 30,000$ only makes .25$ quarterly because so much has been printed it means nothing.
What if you print it and give it to joe blo so it trickles up.
>>71759358
By taking a new bond.
>>71749553
It works. Almost all mainstream economists are Keynesians to some exstent.
>>71759549
So eventually we will be crushed with debt. Meanwhile the Central Bank jerkoffs will be rich.
>>71759609
The cental bank is part of the government.
>>71749553
If by "wrong " you actually mean "the only system that is used by the majority of countries on earth for the past 70 years" then yes, you are correct.
The alternative is a failed theory by amateur economists that nobody took seriously. Hayek was a laughing stock at the end of his life and died in poverty. Ask any real economist what they think about austrian economics and you'll either be laughed at or looked at strangely.
>>71759793
Isn't it owned by the Rothchilds? I asked my cousin who has a macro economics degree and he said the Central Bank never gives money to the government.
>>71759866
If by "worked" you mean the system that U.S and Europe are doing right now then you have a really weird definition of "worked". When U.S and Europe were more Austrian it was way better.
>>71758024
>There are no funds taken away from anyone, because we can create money out of nothing
How'd that work for Zimbabwe or your nation's past retard
>>71749553
MAMA
>>71750561
Keynesianism and big government go hand-in-hand. Politicians will never cut the government and the cycle will always continue.
>>71759912
Well, it buys the bonds, it drives down short and long term interest rates - it effectively gives free money to the government.
>>71750606
Libertarians are huge on Austrian economics. Are you reading a Ron Paul book or something?
>>71760090
You mean that era Alan Greenspan was in charge? Then left the federal reserve a laughing stock and confessed everything his hero rand told him, he applied to his work and it failed come 08?
>>71760091
I answered that here >>71758856 if you were able to read.
>>71760239
So it just buys bonds over and over? That's basically just stealing money from the government.
>>71750606
Austrian economics is hardly economics. It's unscientific and has never been shown to work.
AFAIK, it works, mostly.
Supposedly one of the problems is that people started anticipating the interventions and attempt to profit from them, which counters some of the intended effects.
I guess that the US having to pay interests on the money it creates is a very significant related issue too.
But I think a worse problem in the west is severe indebtedness and very high housing prices (and other rent-seeking in general). Money just finds its way back into the hands of the few instead of driving demand for real products.
But hey, yeah why not ignore the obvious problems and focus on very high level theory nobody really understands instead.
>>71758856
>Inflation happens because of rising unit labor costs
You're putting the cart before the horse. Assume a Crusoe economy. Crusoe fishes and sells surplus to Friday, and Friday cuts trees and sells surplus to Crusoe. Suppose that Crusoe is suddenly able to produce twice as many fish as before, without any additional labor costs. Do you think the lumber price of fish will remain the same? After all, the labor cost per fish has actually fallen.
>>71760326
You do realize Keynes admitted to being a socialist right? He even said so. Socialists in America's most prosperious times was the 50s and socialists were laughing stocks and imprisoned sometimes. So I guess Keynes wasn't really right was he?
Not to mention if Keynes said what he said during Wilson Administration he could of been imprisoned, so no he's not right if he's in jail.
>>71760428
Keynesianism never ever worked ever. It failed every time it was tried.
>>71760470
>works mostly if you ignore that every country using the strategy are in immense debt
>>71750606
It's flawed, it's never been applied and nobody outside a small fringe of lolbertarian fedoras even listen to it.
>>71760470
Sure totally.
>>71760516
If unit labor costs fall, prices fall.
>>71760620
>everything is fine guys
>everything is fine
>ignore the debt
>ignore the lost jobs
>everything is fine
>>71760620
I agree Keynesianism is flawed. It's been applied in so many countries and pretty much the plebs by into it.
>>71760620
>It's flawed
What are these flaws?
>>71760428
>>71760564
Sounds like the only answer is Neo-Classical Chicago style economics!
>>71760527
Yeah that's right buddy, Keynesian theory failed. Despite the fact that everyone uses it and nobody listens to the other theory because it has been discredited a million times.
What's the point of arguing on which model is more correct, when we're printing money out of thin air?
>>71760879
>everything is fine
>ignore the crippling debt
>ignore the spiraling inflation
>everything fine
>the other system that has never been tried is awful
>trust me
>everything is fine
>>71760879
Yeah that's totally true buddy. Keynesianism totally works. Despite the fact that it's been discredited so many times and in the 50s people who spouted it were beaten up and censored. Oh and Otto Von Bismarck imprisoned anyone who spouted the idea of printing more money and really anything socialistic.
>>71760793
The fish price of lumber fell, but the lumber price of fish rose. Now, suppose that they decide to use an intermediary commodity like seashells as a money. The prices of lumber and fish are 1 seashell per unit. Suddenly, they discover a whole trove of seashells, that results in a doubling of the supply of seashells on the island. Do you think the seashell price of fish and lumber will remain the same as before with double the money supply? The labor costs have remained identical for both products.
>>71749553
it does
the red pill is tough to swallow sometimes
>>71761172
>hur hur le economy is like a household budget
Every time. Austrians oversimplify because they don't understand the complexities of a modern economy and that we all operate on debt.
>>71760879
I think you are mistaking policies enacted by politicians because they solve current political problems to policies enacted that solve current economic problems.
When there is a economic downturn politicians face enormous political pressure to "DO SOMETHING!" so they talk about investing in blah blah, increase government yah yah. And they get that through, but whether that actually has the desired economic effect is not so certain. Look at the US economy recovery after the 07 crash in housing market. After the banks were bailed out there was enormous pressure to for the government to "DO SOMETHING!" the result were a series of stimulus packages that cost around 1 trillion dollars.
However the recovery the US experienced has been the slowest recovery the US has ever experienced after an economic downturn in its history.
Just because politicians regularly behave in a manner doesn't mean it is because it makes the most economic sense, but it almost certainly means that it makes the most political sense.
>>71761588
>le you can borrow money forever and ever and never pay it back lel
This is why Keynesians are stupid.
>>71761588
>everything is fine
>everything is fine
>the government can run on unlimited debt
>the government can run on unlimited corruption
>everything is fine
>>71749553
its based on theoretical assumptions that arent generally true in reality
unlike most of the subhumans on /pol/ think, keynesianism makes perfect sense in economic theory, lack of movement of money can be caused by having too small a money supply, inject money into the economy and see it move more
the problem is that our governments have carried this out in such a way that the negatives have outweighed the positives. and also this inefficiency creature a reinforcing cycle where the government seeks to make up for its inefficiencies by increasing its output, which in turn increases the opportunity for inefficiency
>>71761837
Shut up subhuman.
>>71761588
Look I'm not arguing that fiat currency needs to go away, and debt should be made illegal, but there is a limit to the level of debt a nation can handle. When people buy a nation's bonds they expect to be paid back as promised and they expect it to be paid back without ridiculous inflation attached to the currency their bond is paid back in.
Look at Zimbabwe, Argentina, and Greece for examples of countries that could not "debt-finance" their way to prosperity.
Sticking your head in the sand and saying debt and deficits do not matter is existentially dangerous.
>>71761682
If Britain was to le bay back debts and put £5 billion a year into paying back creditors, which is a lot in this country, it would take 250 years to pay back. Excluding interest. So no, we're not going to le pay bag debbs and never will, and neither will you. Especially when there are hospitals and schools to build
>>71755435
not saying its correct to raise minimum wage but there are economic memes and arguments that people discuss which purport to account for the common sense econ 101 understanding that price floors reduce transactions
bsically they believe there are confounding factors that make the not common sense answer correct
>>71762027
That's why you use Austrian economics, so you don't go into Debt.
>>71749553
Ever heard of Lock Heat Marting, Skunk Works and Nothop Grumar?
Keynesian economics is really important for super high tech industry, specially in military related companies.
Why that? Because with the infinite money stream of the gov this high tech companies can increase cost at 100% for and increase of 5% in the speed, precision, or whatever. This brutal and unlimited spending is responsable for most of our discoveries, that otherways in a total free marked would have taken decades to come since the profit margins would have been to narrow, just ask yoursefl, would you have payed twice the price of a phone just for an improve of the 2%?
>>71749553
Like all economic theory it is pushed to insane conclusions for shekels.
>>71762091
So there's no real world practical use to this theory other than hindsight and dogmatic chants of muh gold and free markets?
>>71762027
>we're in such massive debt that we can't pay it back in 250 years
>this is okay
>this is so okay we'll just spend even more!
>>71749553
>why doesn't it work?
Because it has yet to make one prediction which has matched reality.
>>71761886
It's true though, it doesn't work.
>>71749553
i think milton friedman once said that keynesians theory was wrong but it gave other economists interesting insights and most importantly tools to work with
Keynesian economics is theoretically a good idea. Boom-bust cycles do seem to be inevitable in capitalism just like how market bubbles occur. Periods of boom are driven by the private sector until a bust happens, consumer confidence hits zero and start to save rather than spend so the government invests to restore confidence in the market and return to boom. It makes sense. Only problem is the greedy fucks that run each country never seen to know when to stop spending so Keynesian economics can only be judged like communism. Respectable in theory but dogshit in practice.
>>71762341
>let's spend billions a year on paying back debt to schlomo instead of investing it in infrastructure to drive growth!
Yeah, fuck what the IMF says amirite? No reasonable country would prioritise debt repayment over infrastructure spending. And nobody has for decades.
>>71762123
I don't think that is Keynesian economics. That is more the US saying we need to spend lots of money on R&D for our military so they have the best technology and thus an edge over all the other militaries in the world because we want to ensure American military primacy in the world.
Certainly there is a factor of "oh I want jobs in my district so fund plant x" but the reason it always sails though is because the American people don't really mind the US government spending money to make sure the US military is the best equipped on the planet.
>>71762321
Austrian economics builds a nation. Keynesianism is what brings it down. Keynesianism has no practical purpose other than Muh Gibsmedats!
>>71762342
>its true though it doesn't work
But you said it does work on paper, even on paper there is so much debt.
>>71762688
Austrian economics is just corporate shill policy. It's a front for trickle down economics, which is confirmed cuckoldry post 2008
>>71761363
In the real world, money doesn't just double, and the amount of goods isn't constant.
>>71762091
debt isn't a problem if you never pay it off.
>>71749553
It does work. Here's the problem: /pol/ is filled with autists who are smart enough to get some basic economics concepts (on the level of "Economics in One Lesson") without any effort, but too lazy to ever do a real problem set and understand the Keynesian synthesis.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/trioshrt.html
That's sort of the short version of why Keynesianism works. If you can't follow the math - and I'm not saying you should - you need to go back to the beginning and start over again.
>>71762901
Keynesianism is literally Reaganomics on drugs. The only people who benefit from Keynesian economics are the super wealthy oil company, weapons manufactures, and big banks. It only benefits the 1% while Austrian economics benefits the poor.
>>71762663
>I don't think that is Keynesian economics
throwing money at the market is the fundamental of the Keynesian theory
> American people don't really mind the US government spending money
American people or any other western people have no right to say where they want their taxes to go, this is why sweden pays for niggers and you pay for high tech aviation
And what you said about this "neoexpansionism", is just the parallel growth of: more international influence = more unlimited spending
>>71762688
>But you said it does work on paper,
I didn't say that. It is a self-consistent mathematical theory though, it's just wrong.
If I have a theory of gravity where the force varies as Log[r] (Newtonian gravity varies as 1/r^2 and matches reality well), I'll have a self consistent theory but it's predictions will consistently fail to agree with reality.
>>71763114
Debt is ONLY a problem if you can never pay it off. If you can pay it off no problem, if you can't you are screwed.
>>71763177
You're so autistic. Why are you too stupid to understand basic Austrian economics?
>>71763342
I have no idea what the fuck that means but I will accept it.
>>71763177
It doesn't matter that the maths is self consistent, it doesn't predict reality.
It does work. Americans on /pol/ don't actually know what Keynesianism is, I don't know where this broken window meme comes from. I think they've been brainwashed by monetarist scum who don't even know that stagflation is caused by supply side issues
>>71763527
>It does work.
Would you like to provide me with one example of it working?
>>71763114
Look at Greece, Zimbabwe, and Argentina
>>71763527
Keynesians are scum. You've been so badly brainwashed to understand trickle-down/Keynesianism doesn't work.
>>71763604
The entire post-WW2 era is Keynesian, the only time in which capitalism worked crisis free.
>>71763604
Golden Age of Capitalism
>>71763612
Trickle down is the foundation of capitalism. What's your leaning?
>>71763723
Then why was the post-WW2 economy shit while before world war 2 (not including the 30s) the economy was booming.
>>71763324
>throwing money at the market is the fundamental of the Keynesian theory
it is not "throwing money at the market" it is an expenditure that is very costly but gets the American military the coolest shit. Americans really, really , really like the American military having the coolest shit.
I would agree it would be keynesian if the motivation were, "we need to support these industries so people have jobs." but the main factor for why it sails through politically is because Americans really, really, really like the American military having cool shit.
>>71760168
she's somehow still alive
>>71763772
Lolbertarian. Golden age of capitalism was free markets. Trickle down is not capitalism. Capitalism would be cutting taxes on poor people and small business owners. Not raising their taxes so corporations pay less.
>>71763723
>>71763772
Keynesians claim this to be due to their economic policies yet every prediction they made was wrong.
It's like someone doing a rain dance all the time and saying they caused the rain the 1/10 times it actually rains.
>>71763928
> Golden age of capitalism was free markets
Are you having a laugh? This was the one time where the entire western world had fucking Keyneisanism. We even fixed our currencies against eachother, we were completely against capitalism. Trickle down doesn't really mean what you think it does, it just means spending gets spread and that transactions are not self contained. Come on lad, please read a book or something.
>>71764079
Can you provide some evidence? I'm not attacking you, I just want to have a look.
>>71764087
You need to read a book unless your joking. How was the golden age of capitalism keyensianism when it was before keynes was alive? Keynes started his research in the 20s.
Also trickle down is raising taxes on poor people and cutting them on rich in hopes that it will raise wages for the poor.
>>71764248
I meant the post-war golden age, sorry lad. I think I confused you. I don't know where you get your information, Keynesians don't believe in that kind of trickle down, it's more a stone hits the surface of a pond and the water ripples.
>>71758856
MV=Py, dumbass
>>71764367
Oh I thought you meant the industrial revolution - 1900. It had huge growth in standard of living.
Also how do Keynesian not believe in trickle down? Didn't Keynes support bailouts for banks? That's trickle down if I've ever seen it because the bank gets a ton of free money and the people still loose their money.
>>71764248
you're*
>>71761077
Paper money is the biggest jewery that ever existed desu
>>71763928
>Trickle down is not capitalism. Capitalism would be cutting taxes on poor people and small business owners. Not raising their taxes so corporations pay less.
>brit/pol/ left in charge of economic terminology
>>71764202
The biggest example is their predictions during the great depression.
Compare America's recovery (keynesian) vs. Uk's (not keyensian).
During the cold war the examples are all inside textbooks since most things from then have been buried in dust. Iirc New Frontiers in Economics by Samuelson had some of them.
>>71764748
Why do all you Brits seem to be so left wing?
>>71764248
>Also trickle down is raising taxes on poor people and cutting them on rich in hopes that it will raise wages for the poor.
I don't think that is what "Trickle Down" economics is. I think it is more argued on if you make the costs of production cheaper, businesses will make more stuff, at a cheaper marginal cost lowering the cost of things for most people and also increase the demand for labor because things which weren't profitable before are now profitable.
So cutting taxes on the rich, if that means lower marginal tax rates at higher levels, and lower corporate tax rates then yes that is what it means. But it doesn't mean increasing the tax on the poor.
>>71764532
Not that I'm aware.
>>71764807
Britain didn't recover until the war build-up, though. Building up your army is semi-Keynesian
>>71764862
because their (great) grandpas all worked for Stalin
>>71764862
it all started with the Spice Girls. Then they started watching American media without the requisite jadedness it's childish messages of "what it means to be good"
>>71764862
Keynesianism wasn't really left wing. It was the economic method of our fascist party.
>>71764509
The idea that a money supply controls inflation is logically and empirically wrong.
>>71764961
I said compare with America.
>>71764961
>Britain didn't recover until the war build-up, though. Building up your army is semi-Keynesian
building up your army is only keynesian if you define it based on "total expenditures" and not the actual lifestyle experienced by the people in the economy.
>>71764997
I don't understand? Do a lot of Brits descend from spies or something?
>>71764874
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
>spending continues as a justifcation, from bailouts, payoffs, buy pols with macination
That's a direct quote.
>>71761077
Money has always been printed out of thin air. Sure at one point countries actually gave away gold for these bank notes, but then they realized that they are releasing gold in exchange for paper.
Gold could be used as a currency, but it is deflationary in nature, meaning that people are more likely to hold onto it than actually spend it(note governments eliminating the gold standard as an example). If people don't spend it then that means it is rather useless as a means of exchange.
Therefore all of our money has naturally evolved into scraps of paper that is only really held together by confidence in the government.
>>71765144
>The idea that a money supply controls inflation is logically and empirically wrong.
It being not true in all circumstances doesn't mean it is never true in all circumstances.
Again look at Zimbabwe with their Quadrillion dollar notes. You want to tell me Money supply had no effect on inflation there? Or look at Germany in between WWI and WWII?
>>71765144
>MV=Py is logically and empirically wrong
evidence? this is news to me and I've been in an ECON program for two years
>>71765150
I'll have a look for some sources.
>Austrian education
>>71765539
>Keynesian education
>>71765203
>joined in against Germany, enabling Stalin to gain a crushing victory everywhere else
>not working for Stalin
Jesting aside, I have no idea why they became so left-wing.
>>71765437
>>71765144
>inb4 sticky prices
>inb4 QE
>>71765606
There's literally nothing wrong with Keynesianism.
>>71765437
The factors of the quantity equitation are only the result of the economic process, but they don't control it. All factors are ex ante unknown.
>>71765679
Other than the political realities of creating industries and groups of people that can avoid moral hazzard for their economic decisions which leads to long term structural misallocation of resources in turn leading to lower economic growth over an extended period of time.
>>71765679
Yeah there is. If you're Keynesian you're not Austrian
>>71765663
>i have no idea
Probably because right wing talk is banned over there.
>>71749553
the individuals in charge of implementing such a system are not all knowing and don't have access to all information
on another level, it's also not necessarily right to never bust, and this could lead to bubbles
>>71765348
>You want to tell me Money supply had no effect on inflation there? Or look at Germany in between WWI and WWII?
I already explained here >>71758856 that more money is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion.
>>71765896
>>71765877
t. Ron Paul
>>71751488
I like you anon, I could see myself having a beer and talking for a few hours with you about economics.
>>71765679
there are several things wrong with Keynesianism
>TANSTAAFL
>myriad incorrect predictions
>at no point in economic history has any significant Keynesian said "ok, let's start contracting our fiscal stimulus now"
>the interest rate makes whatever benefit going into debt to stimulate the economy not worth it
>the coordination problem
>>71765856
I see what you mean, but relating it to the CPI isn't a very good comparison--GDP deflator would be better, shouldn't you know the weakness of the CPI?
Also, you are implying that there should be a perfect correlation between M and P, which completely ignores the y section of MV=Py.
This thread exemplifies the fact that /pol/ is constantly undersold as only containing edgy social rejects posting Third Reich feels threads.
>>71766586
>>71765856
>>71766390
t. JFK
>>71766376
I agree money supply can't be the only thing that causes inflation. US monetary policy has been very, very loose for the past few years and inflation has been negligible, so monetary policy can't be the only thing that controls inflation.
But monetary policy can affect inflation. If the US central bank declared that it was planning on paying off the US debt in the next 8 years by printing more money to pay off bond holders, I would expect US inflation to go up quite bit, interest rates on newly issued US bonds to go up quite a bit, and the purchasing power of the dollar to go down quite a bit.
>>71766586
>>at no point in economic history has any significant Keynesian said "ok, let's start contracting our fiscal stimulus now"
this is important. If only semi-political economic eggheads can't say "Ok, let's stop" what chance do you think a politician has?
>>71766586
>>71766804
I wrote before, if you want to know about inflation, look at unit labor costs.
>>71766690
Hey fuck you I don't mind the third reich.
>>71749895
kek'd, but the last truck is just a recolor of the second one.
>>71767084
Using ULC to depict inflation for the entire economy is inaccurate, for reasons you should be familiar with. The GDP deflator is the most inclusive and representative of the whole economy (that I know of) and should be used for monetary policy.
>>71749553
Austrian Economics is voodoo.
Real economic sciences use metrics.
Science Tier
>Keynes
>Chicago school
>Classical
>Neo-Classical
Retard Tier
>Marxism
>Austrian Econ
>>71767466
The inflation in the graph I posted is the GDP deflator. And it correlates with the change in unit labor costs more than anything else.
>>71767883
Oh, I couldn't tell. Most definitions of inflation match up pretty close to each other...
Anyway, correlation doesn't change the fact that it is by definition not representative of the entire economy
how do you name the system where you support free trade but you also support a goverment regulation to avoid the free market from fucking up in some cases while having the goverment take care of public services and spending money on big infraestructure projects too expensive for the private sector?
>>71768752
it's called,
"take a bath and get a job, you coke-monkey"
>>71768814
it has to have a name.
>>71768882
oh yeah, I just remembered. it's called,
">colombian """"""""""intellectuals""""""""" "
>>71769258
I don't get this meme.
>>71769313
>colombian """"""""intellectuals""""""""
>>71767667
>Austrian Economics is voodoo.
No, you just don't understand it.
>>71749895
This is only a meme because of the third truck, but it's just shopped. If it was just a small crane that fell in, then a larger one came and it also fell in, it wouldn't be significant. Add in a THIRD truck and everyone slaps forehead so hard as to cause retardation, and then they spread it. That's you faggot.
>>71749553
Keynesianism works in that it accurately describes what happens. It's not prescriptivist, so when you hear idiots say "hurr just burry money in mine shafts and dig it back up", no, it's not a prescription, just a description of what gold mining is the equivalent of.
>>71749553
The same reason perpetual motion doesn't.
what is the opinion of the mainstream economics over marxism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-vA2GFVNMk
>>71762123
>Lock Heat Marting, Skunk Works and Nothop Grumar
hearty kek
>>71770090
my opinion is, you are a subhuman ape whose children it wouldn't be a terrible thing to molest
>>71770090
Meme tier economics.
Centralized planned economics is an utter failure, unless you want to live in a 30' era country.
If we have infinite money we can invest in what we want, even though it's shit. There's a moral hazard in theory, and in real life everyone forgets you're supposed to cut back the spending when the going is good.
>>71770424
you seem extremelly butthurt and seems paranoid.
can't even understand the nonsense you're speaking.
you seem mentally unstable, seek help.
>>71749553
The theory has government CUTTING spending and taxes during boom times, and as more people are working, and fewer need welfare, pay down previously accumulated government debts incurred to float economy through bad times. The problem is they NEVER do the cutting and spending of tax dollars. It is misinterpreted to mean "government can keep borrowing and spending eternally", when it means nothing of the sort.
>>71770424
Colombia is right man
>>71765877
>when Austrians repeat nonsense just because they think it sounds smart
Reminder to you global warming-denying evolution-rejecting anti-vaccination lolbertarian American morons that in Europe the far right embraces Keynesianism as part of their rejection of austerity policies.
Once again Americans look like dumb niggers compared to us.
>>71764367
But where does the stone come from?
>>71770507
are marxists are majority in economics, are they a minority?
how are they even viewed by the majority of economics?
why did his economic system fail?
>>71762314
This
>>71767235
Oh me neither, I'm just pointing out that these things aren't mutually exclusive. /pol/ culture doesn't necessarily mean that we're all stupid and ignorant.
