Keynesianism economic

Why do people who know nothing about Keynesian economics and economics in general have such strong opinions about these topics? You never see them debate assumptions or conclusions of theories, only their (often inaccurate) assessment of the values they purportedly represent. Ask any anti-Keynesian crusader about their thoughts on underpinnings such as MiU or price stickiness and they'll be stumped.

>proven defective
how so?

yes, good goy, only (((experts))) should be allowed to discuss economics.

I'm not sure if ironic or just a blind fanboy. Austrian economics has been more prophetic than what your statist professors taught you at community college

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

in what way has it been prophetic?

Bullshit, the most prophetic economist is Schumpeter, but you will only understand this once it's too late.

State control of money supply has been the chief cause of the boom and bust cycle.
I am certain we are going into another Fed-caused bust once again. Real inflation is worse than reported thanks to heavy handed trade scuttles by the government. There is nothing new under the sun in a keysean world

>State control of money supply has been the chief cause of the boom and bust cycle.
how do you know?

>Free market
>Not a centralized system
How's it feel being such a brainlet that you can't see how a free market always evolves into a centralized system?
Tell me, what's your favorite brand of Velcro shoes, and your favorite flavor of crayon?

>State control of money supply has been the chief cause of the boom and bust cycle.
kek you think the the states (countrys) have control of the money supply or even control of the boom/bust cycle...what are you doing here user?

Its never been fully implemented as described by Keynes, he advocates running budget surpluses when the economy is booming and deficit spending on public infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, dams, power plants, etc) when its in recession to raise employment and level out the business cycle. Additionally, infrastructure improvements will increase economic velocity in the long run.

Instead what governments do is continually deficit spend and then give out welfare to corporations when the economy tanks and justify it by cherrypicking from Keynes.

yeah but keynes was a porky who only developed his theory so communists wouldn't take over, so cherrypicking from him is justified

Wrong. He was playing the markets like we all do and wanted to make sense out of all this. He was an active trader, so he had direct clash with the realities of the market.
>virgin academic Australian economics vs Chad Trader Keynes

>kek you think the the states (countrys) have control of the money supply or even control of the boom/bust cycle...what are you doing here user?
>it's not direct control as in "printing le x amount of money to increase x supply", therefore there's no control. Changing policies that are directly meant to influence money (debt) expansion is just a meme guys I swear the federal reserve and the government have no influence whatsoever because it's not technically printing lel xD

I understand why you hate "austrians" who never even read a book who assume too much, but cmon dude. Don't argue in bad faith.

You literally must be 15 years old if you want to completely ignore the correlation

You're free to talk about whatever you want, I'm just asking why you're so compelled to talk about things you know nothing about.
Keynesian theory isn't a sports team to fanboy over. It's not even a value system or a model of governance. You might wish economics to be reduced to good "Austrians" battling bad "Keynesians" but it's much more boring than that. There are no two mutually exclusive sides competing for the heart of the profession and neither Keynesian economics nor Austrian economics as you understand them exist. There's only economics and economists who disagree with each other and while there are different ways of practicing theory they aren't rooted in ideology or inherently opposed to each other. It's an academic field like any other and its points of contention are suitably dry and technical. At the end of the day it's nitpicking over assumptions or the conclusions said assumptions lead to rather than existential questions of morality. You can't seriously debate economic theory without understanding where it comes from and how it gets to where it gets.

You're half-right about my background: I do study economics but I do it at a highly ranked university and not community college. I don't only care about mischaracterization of my field because it's my area of interest but also because a misinformed public often makes it hard to translate theory into practice. I understand you might have a distorted view of economics because economists do a terrible job vulgarizing theory and shutting down charlatans but I still think you hold some responsibility in maintaining intellectual humility. I try to keep track of my blind spots and I don't speak authoritatively on topics I'm not familiar with and I think everyone should do it too. If you're interested in economics, I vigorously encourage you to learn it and to keep track of its developments. Just be careful about what you learn, pace yourself, and know what you don't know.

You must be literally retarded to think the correlation is major in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks for the guidance, senpai. No sarc

What are the cooler theories that contemporary economists discuss today?

Senpai can you help out a philosophy student with no background in economics? I want to study rational choice theory with regards to the state actor and its justification of the introduction of war economics during warfare (I want to draw from Keynes' 'how to pay for the war'). How do I properly apply rational choice theory in this subject and how can I find out possible normative motivations in this scheme?

Attached: 1532639379975.png (720x643, 554K)

Because fuck central banking monopoly. Let the private issuers take care of currency supply, just as any other fucking product or services you can buy.
Also contract the economy as you expand it and let's see what happens muuuuuh soi boi

Basically this.
People are too short-sighted - why bother even talking to these retards. Most of the people on biz don't know shit about economics and just try to tie in anti-globalist & yet somehow still anti-government (so we should isolate ourselves economically from the rest of the world...and isolate our own government from our economy...k) bullshit they hear on Jow Forums into every type of conversation.
You know what's happening right? It's a bunch of FSB agents in Russia poisoning the minds of a bunch of cucks who are angry about life and cba to learn about well-established economic theory.
In fact, they intentionally ignore "mainstream" information and seek out misinformation, likely fabricated by the same people inflaming them in the first fucking place.
But it's okay. We'll get Russia back someday, and we'll turn it into an even bigger shithole than it is now.

What are Australian economics? The economics of the Emu?

Because they think we are dumb and dont see the connections around the frankfurt school and the leading economic philosophys that came out of it. It's all about control, get ready for economic collaps.

>government should have more revenue than spending during the boom period
>government should have more spending than revenue during the crash periods

OMG GUYS KEYNESIAN STATISTS ARE TURNING US INTO SOVIET RUSSIA

this is why everybody in real life thinks libertarians are dumbasses

>just the tip honey, just the tip

The best thing about lolbertarians don't even understand anything even when you literally write it.

Keynesianism does not support unrelenting government spending and debt grow, and the fact that so many people here assume it does already says a lot about the average Jow Forums poster.

Keynes himself was an elitist aristocrat, fiercely attacked communism and wrote about how much of a failure communism was, but you never hear lolbertarians comment on htat, well, lolbertarians never read anything, aal they do is just repeat what lolbertarian idols say. And what they say is that Keynes is evil, so the idea that Keynes did really support capitalism and had some good ideas is foreign for them, that image just does not fit with the preconceived image that lolbertarians have been told they should have about keynes.

its extremely effective for the state. dont forget centralised currency is an apparatus of the state, and keynesian theory its modus operandi vis a vis the currency.

Who gives a shit what he intended. What it was used for is what's important, and if it diverged from his intention, it only proves that his theory wasn't as sound as he thought.

The "Federal" Rerserve IS a private issuer. It's literally just a consortium of privately-held banks.

It only worked once under certain circunstances. Each country that tried it again after failed and faced a crysis.

Attached: new-deal-300x300.jpg (300x300, 14K)

i think you meant the (((chicago school)))

only intelligent post so far. t. econ undergrad

>undergrad
>thinks he knows anything

;)
also you didn't check my trips

It took a while for CAPTCHA to realize I wasn’t a bot. I hope some of you are still keeping tabs.
You’re welcome. I wish economics wasn’t so politicized, but we have to deal with every other information out there being misleading. You really shouldn’t snub “establishment” economists such as academics and policy experts because they (usually) do know what they’re talking about and really are the best source of learning in economics. Non-economic authors and commentators usually don’t have adequate education in the matter or at the very least often have an agenda of their own and therefore can hardly be trusted. This is a field people spend years to only grasp the basics of and you won’t find a shortcut in a book or a video made by a supposedly enlightened non-expert. If you actually engage with “establishment” economics, you’ll find it’s actually quite neutral and very rarely does it neatly fall on one side or the other on the political spectrum.
It’s hard to make a comprehensive list because economics is a broad field going from the individual level all the way up to the global level. Even inside this continuum, there’s another continuum in the level of abstraction, some economics leaning towards the practical and other economics leaning towards things so abstract they might as well be theoretical mathematics. I think there are interesting paths of research all over the spectrum, although most of them are motivated by theory and therefore their interest is hard to convey. Some institutions of economic persuasion (e.g. central banks, regulatory bodies, international organizations, etc.) release summaries of their research that are written in such a way they can be understood by anyone. (Cont’d)

Apologies, congrats on the beautiful triples

I find the Minneapolis Fed’s The Region blog to be one of the most digestible sources. Unlike what you might think, their subjects aren’t limited to monetary policy. Your mileage may vary for other places, but don’t hesitate to visit official websites because a lot of them have content tailored for the general public. Some economic professors also run blogs, but you need to be careful because some of them mix personal opinion with academic opinion. I’m only a student and am not sufficiently integrated into the field to be fully up to date with its developments, but here are two currently popular topics of research that are fairly mainstream and interest me off the top of my head: behavioral economics (limits of rationality and their implications on economic outcomes) and secular stagnation (in regards to innovation, investment, trade, etc. which have had tepid growth since even before the 2008 crisis for reasons still not fully understood and whose effect may be temporary or perhaps the indication of a new normal). Still, even basic economics have fascinating and sometimes paradoxical conclusions. Game theory tells us knowledge isn’t always power in regards to imperfect information: you might be better off not knowing something if your knowledge can be used against you. Public finance tells us one should not tax intermediary goods, one can justify subsidizing monopolies to induce more socially optimal outcomes, and one can justify setting a zero marginal tax rate on the most productive members of society (all of these argued mathematically). As you go deeper down the economic rabbit hole, way beyond introductory classes, things get much more interesting although they require some mathematical formalization. I’d like to continue talking about this but I have work to do and Jow Forums’s character limit is bugging me. You can ask me more questions and I’ll get back to you if I can.

This sounds vague to me, so I can’t give you a concrete answer (for now). I can tell you that the economics of Keynes isn’t the economics of today, so your analysis will be very outdated from an economic standpoint if you draw from Keynes. Perhaps there’s still value in looking at the book from a philosophical standpoint though.