1
1

[–] BlowjaySimpson 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Hayek TID.

6
0

[–] RiverWind 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

If you are "against Keynesian economics" then I think that you don't understand economics very well.

From what I understand, business is cyclical, boom and bust, by nature. The main point that Keynes makes is that, during cyclical downturns, where nobody is spending, the government can step in and spend (on infrastructure projects and other helpful, stimulating activities). Spending during economic troughs helps alleviate the recession and gets the economy back on track.

This kind of cartoon is a bit stupid, as it encourages people to dismiss out of hand a well researched and tested part of economic science. It aims to further entrench people into "them and us" positions in politics, where each side is encouraged to ignore, discredit and not listen to the other side.

I just realized I am in /v/Libertarian, but I hope you won't mind my view on this.

1
7

[–] edistojim 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Spending your way our of debt? Spending your way out of a recession? You may be correct about understanding these economics, its never worked and never will work, its simply voodoo economics. A very good example is the stimulus spending bill during the last economic downturn and housing bust in the US, that little moronic move has now saddled the US with trillions more in debt and it alleviated nothing. Tell us how "cash for clunkers" worked one more time…………..

0
1

[–] issueninja 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"We will not have any more crashes in our time."

John Maynard Keynes, Conversation with Felix Somary (1927) [reported in Felix Somary, The Raven of Zurich, London: C. Hurst, 1986 (1960), 146-7.]

1
0

[–] Dortex 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

People forget that much of the economic growth in the US in the early 20th century all the way over to 1970's came specifically from the Keynes model of economics. The job surplus caused by the dead millions in WW2 wasn't unwelcome either, from an economic perspective. Spend money on infrastructure ( like Hoover did on the Boulder Dam), put money in people's pockets, have them spend, and generate revenue from the economic movement. It generated on the order of $4 of revenue for every dollar spent on because you got to tax the income of the people you paid, the shop owners, distributors, the factories, etc.

0
1

[–] intrepiddemise 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

the economic growth in the US in the early 20th century all the way over to 1970's came specifically from the Keynes model of economics

Citation needed.

The job surplus caused by the dead millions in WW2 wasn't unwelcome either

It was only welcome in the U.S., where there was by far the least damage and one of the only remaining industrial production centers in the world (and certainly the biggest). That head start is what took the U.S. from an economic power to the economic power in the world.

You are right about one thing, though: infrastructure investment is one of the few things that can help a failing or failed economy. That is why the Marshall Plan was so successful. You'll notice that we paid for that, though, for the purpose of increasing trade and building alliances and trust in Europe. Safety and security are good for business.

The problem with Keynesian economics is that it devalues or completely forgets about opportunity cost. All of those resources used "reinvesting" in things that the market hasn't invested in itself (because it wasn't a priority in order to make a profit) are mostly wasted, as the funds could have been used in more efficient ways. This inefficiency in the system actually robs the economy of growth and wealth.

The only investments that have been shown to give almost a guaranteed positive economic outcome when funds are contributed to it are 1) necessary infrastructure and 2) basic science funding. Both are often large investments that the private sector is usually unwilling to invest in because of the free rider problem ("why invest in something that everyone will end up using when we did all the work? We're not a charity; let someone else do it"). Any "investment" beyond those and the government is basically paying someone to break windows or dig holes and then fill them up again. That is wasting my tax money.

2
-1

[–] DukeofAnarchy 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Keynesian pseudoscience is not economics.