>top comment
>Top down models don't work anywhere, in anything. As a scientist, I can tell you that all processes in the world that I can think of are built bottom-up. How come people can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, but the society as a whole can be trusted to vote for people that will make decisions for everybody?
All dat retardation.

Didnt Hayek move here near the end of his life to be a parasite on the governments dime? Oh thats right he did.

the songs are catchy but i think the writers really water down both keynes and hayek's ideas, or generalize it.

>>915095
Hayek is my babe
And so is Thatcher

But i believe in trickle up theories as trickle down is god damn retarded and obviously fake,

Keynes. Hayek free wheeling capitalism is what caused the depression. The rich stayed rich during the depression. The Middle Class that wanted the quick way into the upper class, got screwed when the market crashed

Free Wheeling Capitalism is the ultimate scam of all time.

I love them.

Wow is this really a ten minute rap battle between Keynes/Hayek roleplayers?

Honestly the gayest shit I've ever seen.

>needs more auto tune

Marx

this is what happens when economics majors try to make their degree seem relevant

>>915155
>MAGICKAL ALTRUISM BUTTERFLY RAINBOWS WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING
You'd better be a troll.

Hayek's notions about the business cycle are pretty much complete crap. Not even right wing bullshit econ holds to Hayek's business cycle theory. Keynes, however, is still the orthodox treatment. I just wish it was still the orthodox policy solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
This song is better

WE BEEN GOIN' BACK AN' FORTH FOR A CEN-TU-RY
I WANT TO STEER MARKETS
(I WANT THEM SET FREEEE)

those fucking gunshot at the beginning oh my god my sides

>>915113
>tripfag
opinion dismissed

>>915176
>hayekian business cycle theory
>complete crap
lol

no

http://www.bis.org/publ/work205.pdf

>>915113
The sweet Maggie Thatcher loved his 'Road to Serfdom'.

Hail the MT

>>915176

7/10

>>915229
>implying objective truth is an opinion

Ayn Rand and Hayek both used state benefits at the end of their lives that they derided in their youth when they thought they were invincible and superior to everyone else.

The same fate awaits are young white male libertarian army that infests /pol/

>>915229

>http://www.bis.org/publ/work205.pdf

Duuude, did you read that paper? It's conclusions? The ones that are very anti-Hayekian?

"Following on these arguments, an altered framework for conducting monetary policy would
demonstrate more symmetry over the credit cycle."

That's is pretty much 100% Keynes, 0% Hayek.

hayek wins by default being that he is the defacto truthholder on economic knowledge

all other posts are simply analannihilation on behalf of kaynes/marx/retardfags

>>915325

It's not like they weren't paying into the system.

>>915325
How dare they use the state benefits that they were forced to contribute into all of their lives!

>>915325

but.. principal before person... oh wait this is /pol/ personal attacks and ad hominems always hold more weight than actual concepts.

>>915326

I find that most 'economists' who get their salary from the government are Keynesians. Everyone with a brain who is not a sponger can see that the Austrian school makes the most sense.

The boom gets started with an expansion of credit
The Fed sets rates low, are you starting to get it?
That new money is confused for real loanable funds
But it’s just inflation that’s driving the ones

Who invest in new projects like housing construction
The boom plants the seeds for its future destruction
The savings aren’t real, consumption’s up too
And the grasping for resources reveals there’s too few

So the boom turns to bust as the interest rates rise
With the costs of production, price signals were lies
The boom was a binge that’s a matter of fact
Now its devalued capital that makes up the slack.

>>915449
>. Everyone with a brain who is not a sponger can see that the Austrian school makes the most sense.

>>915449

>I find that most 'economists' who get their salary from the government are Keynesians. Everyone with a brain who is not a sponger can see that the Austrian school makes the most sense.

LOL, no. You're mistaking MBAs for economists.

>>915261
>>915176

But the opposit is true. Keynes confuses money with resources, which makes his conclusions incredibly stupid. The Austrians actually have a rational explaination for the business cycle. But because the Austrians do not advocate centralisation of power and government officials spending money on nice things for themselves and their friends the Austrian school is ignored.

>>915496

keynesians are fuckin' fa.ggots

>>915326
>It's conclusions
>That's is
lol grammar
opinion dismissed

>>915325
>still a tripfag
>still doesn't know shit about Hayek or anything he believed
>opinion still dismissed

From what I understand the ideas of Hayek lie on the premise that private investments are more efficient that government investments?

But that's utter nonsense, because government investments, such as education, infrastructure, etc. tend to be far more long-term and better for society as a whole.

>>915527

>Keynes confuses money with resources, which makes his conclusions incredibly stupid.

False. Try again.

>The Austrians actually have a rational explaination for the business cycle

I think you mean "batshit lunatic" or perhaps "logically incoherent" or just "stupid". Rational implies making sense.

Love it. Youtube needs more of this and less exploding zits and spiderfights.

> > > keynes dies weeks before he could retract his bullshit theories.
> > /pol/ fa.ggaots still sucking keynes' dick

>>915573
>>915566

welp fuck this thread

>>915573

I don't think you know very much about either school of thought. But let's see. Can you give me a quick explaination of what causes the business cycle according to the Austrians?

>>915167
0/10

Try labor theory of value and commodity fetishism

>>915566

>From what I understand the ideas of Hayek lie on the premise that private investments are more efficient that government investments?

That has nothing really to do with his theory of the business cycle. His theory of the business cycle was purely monetary - that central bank money creation resulted in wasted resources that had to play out in a devaluation.

This is kinda dumb. Parts of the reasoning why this is dumb are complex, but parts aren't. it is difficult to explain in Hayek's system how economic growth doesn't cause unemployment, since both the up-swing and the down-swing in the economic cycle are supposed to represent large-scale resource reallocations, and in Hayek's system the cause of involuntary unemployment is always resource reallocation. Sraffa showed conclusively that Hayekian business cycle theory is more or less totally incoherent.

>>915628

We've laughed at the ltv too often. The joke is wearing thin now.

>>915619

See >>915646

Now explain to me what you think Keynes was on about.

>>915647
>ltv
>laughable

Ignoring LTV is to ignore the simple fact that time = money based on the commodification of labor and the measurement of labor based on time paid in wages. These wages sum up to be expenditures, which are transient to exchange value and require the producer to raise their prices due to the expenditure of paying wages out to workers.

How is this a hard concept.

So.... Hayak was opposed to the idea of a central bank? What's Keynes's position on central banking?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqWGdb5bcQk&list=FL7mSGgpIJvtdXHA8lt3NOew&index=57&feature=plpp_
video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wjnt1n9wU&list=FL7mSGgpIJvtdXHA8lt3NOew&index=59&feature=plpp_
video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWUyaEASrvM&list=FL7mSGgpIJvtdXHA8lt3NOew&index=58&feature=plpp_
video

>>915659

What you wrote is not the Austrian's explaination for the business cycle.

The basic Keynesian idea is that governments should run a surplus in boom years. Then, during depressions they should stimulate demand by spending. There is more to it, but that is my two line explaination.

>>915573
>rational implies making sense
lol what

plenty of mainstream economists (barry eichengreen, among others) see hayekian business cycle theory as a legitimate, if partial, explanation of some financial crises. maybe your econ 101 professor didn't tell you that.

but the underlying idea has been around since henry george first proposed that speculation in real estate caused the business cycle (http://www.henrygeorge.org/bust.htm) and the idea, revolutionary at that time, was favorably received. I know that people like you think you know everything, but a bit of reading never hurt anyone.

>it's time to get stimulated

>>915758
how... how is this even possible ?

>>915758
>splinter.jpg

>>915696

Not all labor is worth the same. You then need to incorporate capital into the equation. And that is just to work out the cost of producing something. The actual value of goods and services is subjective.

>>915742
Your two line explanation is shit tier.

Keynesian philosophy funnels wealth and resources from the poor to the elite, that's the purpose of it and that's what it factually did over the past century as it popularized.

It OBSERVABLY failed, all thought masturbation regarding it is irrelevant.

>>915840
Correcting myself here,

I should say it SUCCEEDED in funneling wealth to the elite, but failed in that everyone except the elite got robbed for a century and we're still getting robbed.

"Injecting money" during a surplus = "Giving taxpayer money to the wealthy."

Isn't that familiar to the bailouts? Keynesian economics is a scam to take the money and resources from the peasants and give them to the wealthy, we know this because that's what occurred.

>>915831
Yes, and how does this conflict with the LTV?

>>915840
Keynesian != the corporate welfare state. That's a bastardization of it known as "trickle-down theory".

>>915877

The value of stuff is not a function of the labor that is used to make it.

>implying aggregate demand is what fuels the economy
>implying it isn't production
>implying taking money from some people, then giving it to others is the way to increase wealth
>implying wealth isn't created by the production of goods and services of individuals in the market

>>915964
BUT IF PPL HAV MONEY DEY BUY DA COMPANIES PRODUCTS AND THEN DEY GET MONIES!


ECOOOOOONOMICS!

Both philosophies are ahistorical and don't account for fundamental shifts in the economy due to technological advancement and hard-constraints on resource production and consumer consumption.

>>915964
>taking money from some people, then giving it to others is the way to increase wealth

Thats not keynesian. It's

>take money from people who aren't spending money, where the wealth is coagulating, and then spend it on shit that people need like bridges, roads, and other forms of infrastructure. This not only creates jobs, which in turn creates paid wages which in turn stimulates the economy back into consumption, but it also advances your country's technology and provides a higher standard of living for your citizenry

The most basic problem with Austrian economics' Critiques of Keynesian economics and Keynesian economics' critiques of Austrian economics, as is with any critical theory, is a difference in values.

Austrian economists tend to be of a more "Do it yourself why should I have to help other people" mentality, and Keynesian economists are of a "No man is an island, we're all in this together so we should help each other somewhat to ensure our own stability" mentality. at some point the debate between Keynes and Hayek breaks down into ethics.

>>916019
>take money away from the rich
>give it to the poor
>they buy things with that money
>the companies have to raise prices to offset the increased taxes though
>they get the companies more profit
>they lose more money off taxes because of their profits are higher
>they have to raise their prices
>endless liberal economics

>>916055

That's not how it typically plays out in reality

>>916075
I made a broad generality, but I was just expanding on that guys simple explanation of how the liberals think economics work.

You might have noticed that interest rates are at zero percent, central banks are printing money like crazy and governments are all running up huge deficits. They have been doing this for years, yet we are still in an economic depression. According to Keynesians that just means we need more of the same.

'If it didn't work last time' they argue ' that just means we need to do the same thing again.'

>>916131

We don't tend to think that prices always rise with taxation though.

>>916020
Do I smell Historical materialism/dialectical materialism?

Question, sir, do you agree with the statement that revolutionary breakthroughs in technology that lead to advancements in the means of production will eventually also lead to a point in which the economic MODE of production is revolutionized and the organization of labor is radically changed from its previous state (such as how technological increases in the 19th century brought about the industrial revolution and the end of such economic modes of production like mercantilism and the cottage industry)?

>>916050

>Austrian economists tend to be of a more "Do it yourself why should I have to help other people" mentality, and Keynesian economists are of a "No man is an island, we're all in this together so we should help each other somewhat to ensure our own stability" mentality. at some point the debate between Keynes and Hayek breaks down into ethics.

Austrians don't reject helping other people. The main differences between Keynesian and Austrian is the methodological individualism v. aggregates. Austrians also have a structure of capital and production.

>>916133

When you print money, it typically matters how you spend it. Our problem is we're wasting it things that don't actually improve the economy. For example, the bust of Winston Churchill that the house recently approved of. Waste of fucking tax dollars.

>>916172
Austrians have a notion of helping other people in a way of "gospel of wealth", in which private investors would donate money or invest money that would raise the standard of living, while Keynesians are less trusting of the free market to be so charitable.

>>916173

>jobs for bust makers
>bust makers spend their income stimulating the economy even more
>waste

>>916173

That is not what the Keynesians say. They argue that you could spend the money on anything. The money will stimulate demand and create employment. You can get the economy going by a preparing for a Martian invasion, for example.

If we were all preparing for the Martians to invade there would be full employment and the depression would end. Or so the Keynesians are tell us.

>>916196

I hope you're trolling.....

>>916218

Where are you getting this?

>>916245
Not the guy you're replying to, but...

Martian invasion is a metaphor for world war 2 and how increased government spending brought us out of the depression

>>916245

That particular idea cam from the nobel prize winning Keynesian economist Professor Paul krugman.

>>916191
No real Austrian supports something like the gospel of wealth, which means eliminating inheritance. Nor are they really in favor of helping people despite protesting the opposite so they don't look completely evil to the naive. I can get a fascist to throw out a couple of obligatory statements about supporting freedom, but that doesn't mean he supports it in any meaningful way or is willing to work towards a society that will allow freedom to flourish.

>>916133
>central banks are printing money like crazy and governments are all running up huge deficits. They have been doing this for years, yet we are still in an economic depression. According to Keynesians that just means we need more of the same.

Printing money has ended the depression (except in America where they gave all that money to the wealthy rather than pump it into the economy).

The real problem now is some European countries who had an anti-Keynesian spending habit before the financial crisis.
They should have saved up during the good times, as Keynes told them.

>If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal-mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.

>>916262

Sorry, it was an alien invasion. But the point stands. It does not matter what the money is spent on, so long as it is spent, according to the Keynesians.

>>916263

He literally said spend it on anything and everything? That doesn't sound like the Krugman I know......

>>916277

That's nice and all, but I'm still curious as to where you're getting this, or if you've just misinterpreted what they've said.....

>>916284

No, he said we need to prepare for an alien invasion. He was very specific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Fzzs7oVaA

>>916301

That's strange. I've never heard that from him before. At least, in all of the times I've watched him speak. Though I've always found him a bit eccentric.

>>916218
And they are right.

But spending it on beneficial programs is obviously better for the country as a whole.

I'm Dutch.
I wished my country used the economic crisis to prop up our dykes.
Now they continue to rot away and we'll probably have a huge flood in a few decades. - thanks, "fiscal conservatives"

>>916299

Take a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbf5RO6TfxA

There's also this other great web page I know about. Check it out -

www.google.com

>>916218

The Keynesian belief is that Government intervention is the only way to keep Capitalism from destroying itself.

The markets are naturally unstable and therefore creating safeguards (much like the Canadians did) prevents the markets from creating incidents that could destroy themselves and those around them.

What are some of the Keynesian Ideals?

Getting rid of too big to fail banks in order to prevent a collapse that has such wide spread affects.

Stimulus by Government in order to get things moving again.

The last stimulus didn't work because the majority of it were tax cuts that don't get spent on projects. If you have Infrastructure projects funded you create a money multiplier since the money is put into the hands of workers who but products which means companies hire workers and those workers get paid.

The money multiplier is the basis of how the market works. Money doesn't just vanish when it gets put into the economy it gets moved around and in the right places multiplies.

>>916313

>living below sea-level
>relying on government to maintain the dykes

>>916313
In america the ruling party intentionally puts the dykes down.

>>916321

He's using that as an example of preparing for a financial disaster. Probably not the most poignant example, I will agree. Other than that, nothing very telling.

>>916353

If we are ever invaded by little green men with ariels on their heads we will all wish we had listened to Krugman. In the mean time governments are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on complete shit, just as Keynes prescribed. Yet somehow unemployment is still 10% or so. Care to explain that?

>>916391

Liquidity trap.

>>916337
For hundreds of years we had a separate government that looked after the dykes.
They were given money and a single mission.

But the "fiscal conservatives" changed that and now dyke maintenance is handled by the same government department who build and maintains roads.

Building better roads with higher speed limits earns you more votes than maintain dykes.
So they basically cut all funding to the dykes.

Shame.
But we knew our country had to be given back to the sea one day.

Hey Keynesians, how's that Pigou effect working out?

>>916391

Easily. We're spending it in the wrong places. Keynes never envisioned a military industrial complex as a sinkhole in which billions of dollars would be poured into, let corporate subsidies. Any Keynesian worth their salt knows that such expenditures are a fool's game.

>>916218
>>916218

>preparing for the Martians to invade

your great, great great grandson will choke on those words as has his guts are spilled by a nanite sharpened bayonet after the Martian colonies finally rebel and there is little to no preparation made to repel any invasion forces.

>>916391
Keynes: the government ought to PAY people to do things (spend money on interstate highways, bridges, other forms of infrastructure for example). This will create jobs

Pseudo-Keynesian retarded trickle-down corporate welfare 21st century american economics: Give big business a blank check for a hundred billion dollars

Now the difference is in keynesian economics, the money is for a purpose and you get a product out of it, thus creating jobs. In the latter, big business uses the money to buy out another big business in the same industry, splits the money with the other big business they just bought, gives their CEO a bonus, and not only fails to invest this money in anything to create jobs, but instead lays off a few thousand workers and reroutes their savings to bonuses for their CEO, president, etc. (see: the conglomeration of banks in the last 20 years after several "bailouts")

>>916397

Interest rates are at zero percent. Savings are negative. How can that be a liquidity trap?

>>916434

Sinkhole?

Fools game?

The military employs hundreds of thousands of people.

>>916476

And contributes to about 50% of the deficit.

>>916050
wealth does not stagnate
wealth is not a zero-sum game
wealth is created through the labor of individuals
anyone and everyone can accumulate a surplus of wealth for themselves.

>>916512
Wealth, like matter, can neither be created nor destroyed, in a proportional sense, it can only be converted and moved throughout society. this is the distribution of wealth.

>itt no one has heard about Say's law

>>916457

Do you even know what a liquidity trap is? Interest rates unable to go lower is precisely what the trap is.

>>916548

>supply creates its own demand

>>916545
wealth is an abstract concept of value

of course there is always going to be a certain amount of gold on Earth, but the value of it can fluctuate based on what value people place on it.

Compare a well built city to an empty grassland
The city was built up through many years of labor and work, the labor of the people who built up the city being the value of wealth which the city has. The empty field has no such value because no work was done to make it valuable in comparison to the city.

And say if the city was destroyed by a tornado or some other natural disaster, or maybe a large bomb explosion. The value of the city resorts back to zero, even a negative since to rebuild, more work would need to be done for cleaning up the debris and fixing the damages.

>>916611

>>916567

You think the Fed to force interest rates lower than 0%? Paying people should to take out loans might get them to buy more cheep Chinese plastic crap. I don't think that would really benifit the economy, though.

Housholds already spend more than they are paid. That is why everyone is in debt. Government is spending plenty too. And the fed has forced interest rates down to 0%. Personally I see this as a failure of Keynesian economics. It was tried and it hasn't worked. Time for a new approach.

>>916636

>>916632
Also don't forget the abstract nature of "value" itself, which is dependent on mutual consent. There's a lot of people who would prefer vast tracts of untouched or marginally-developed nature to a big, built-up city.

>>916688

>implying Keynesian is the mainstream
>not monetarism

>interest rates
>0%

Wait a second how do you make any profit with that? What incentive does anyone have to loan money under these conditions?

>>916722

Easy. You lend 'money' you don't have. Then you are repaid in real money, of course.

>>916722

I don't know. Maybe because of a possible rise in the future? (Who the fuck am I kidding. I'm no economist)

>>916632
That's why I said proportionally. There will always be more and more commodities, but the location of those commodities and their utility in society are what makes up wealth. Wealth grows with society. If society were to remain in a stagnant position, wealth could only be redistributed. Wealth is the collection of commodities that exist in society, and is proportional to the standards of living between each class

>>916722
reelection.

>>916722
when you can create money out of thin air, you can just print off as much as you want and give it to your friends

it's all about nepotism. what better way to help your friends out by loaning them money with no interest?

>>916722
Gubmint is a very safe place to put money.

>>916770
To better illustrate the point: you can't fix the problem of poverty by just printing more money; the value of the dollar will go down and the people who you just gave money to will still be stuck where they are. This is because there is a fixed amount of wealth in society, but not a fixed amount of value on the dollar.

>>916823

Exactly. You have to spend it appropriately. Distribution alone can not do the job.

>>916823
>This is because there is a fixed amount of wealth in society

who the fuck are you trying to kid?
wealth is created through labor

A bunch of cut lumber is not going to be worth as much as a desk or table. The carpenter pours his labor into creating a product, and the fruits of that labor is the wealth which is created in society.

http://mises.org/books/puretheory.pdf

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

>>916871
But there is a proportional amount of wealth to the average standard of living. The problem is that both of these things are either too large to measure, or are largely categorical data

>>916763

Wait but.........huh..........what?

How is that not fraud?

>>916924
Exactly, and now society and the standards of living in it have changed because there is now one more commodity added to the pile of society. The standard of living is an inkling higher, and so is wealth. They remain proportional to one another

>>916943
Cause the government says so

>>916943
Because the people accepting the not-money know that it's not real money. We don't actually owe any money to China -- they simply "invest" in our economy. So they bet the money that doesn't exist on progress we haven't achieved using money we don't have, and in return we ackowledge the Chinese economy as stronger based on its accumulation of investments in nonexistent fortunes.