>1930s
>high levels of inequality, massive unemployment, growing threat of fascism
>implement keynesian economics
>result is a healthy, booming economy and a robust and flourishing democracy
>keep it up for a few decades
>1980
>decide to ditch test-proven method for 'muh free market reforms'
>result is soaring levels of inequality, mcjobs and spread of neo-fascism
How retarded can the west be?
Other urls found in this thread:
>1980
1973*
Fix'd
Look up the oil crisis.
>1930s happens
>growing war drums across europe
>only allied power with factory production
>nationalize factories to optimize wartime production
>sell hundreds of tons of war goods to russia and UK daily
>win ww2
>factories still online and have only grown exponentially from these sales
>everyone still needs our shit
Wow i guess that was just because of keynes and animal spirits.
this guy looks like a child molester
youtube.com
that alone can't explain it, the price has fluctuated since
ww2 post-war boom way into the 70s? can't be the only reason
The fuck view of history is this. Keynesian economic policy is still implemented by all countries that know what they're doing. All governments spend during recessions and (try) to save during booms.
The modern economic consensus is a synthesis of Keynesian, monetarist, classical etc. thought and is making everyone's lives better, even if there is rising inequality.
and what about ridiculous levels of wealth inequality?
>what is the Phillips Curve
>what is stagflation
>what were the 1970s
so why haven't wages grown substantially
Its simply the nature of the beast that growth will tend to lead to inequality. Only a couple of people can ever be privileged/smart and only privileged/smart people can capitalise on growth opportunities through technology, trade, immigration etc.. The trade off will always be better overall standards of living for a less equal world. The government should try to remedy this as much as possible so you don't end up with a rent-seeking elite but if you want living standards to rise you do have to sacrifice some wealth equality.
I feel most of these have little to do with economics. Most are due to rapid technological advancement from the 70s onwards with the development of a the microprocessor and the vast majority of poverty reduction is due to China and it's massive state-controlled economy.
Economists taking credit for basically the rise of mass information processing and the technological rocket take off due to it is like how Governments take credit for less road deaths due to speed limit reductions, when in fact it's that car design has got far safer.
>The trade off will always be better overall standards of living for a less equal world
how does that sentence make any kind of sense? how does less equality mean "better overall standards"
>The government should try to remedy this as much as possible
that's my point
technology in itself shouldn't lead to inequality. work itself surely would change, but that doesn't have to impact the living standards
Increase of the domestic labor pool through mass migration & feminism + moving jobs to the turd world through retarded free trade agreements. Government spending isn't going to fix that.
I'm talking about reductions in poverty and such. The fact is we are dozens of times more productive today thanks to the rise of computers than we were in the 60s or 70s.
Saw in recent months that there are now starting to open fully automated farms controlled by drones and automatic combines and such. Nothing like that could have been imagined in the 60s, most of the world still lived on substance farming by hand.
>Most are due to rapid technological advancement from the 70s onwards with the development of a the microprocessor
It depends on the exact metric. In the case of vaccinations and education its probably mainly technology related but I don't think you could talk about the fall in poverty without mentioning both trade reforms that took place globally in the late 1900's as well as technological process.
> the vast majority of poverty reduction is due to China and it's massive state-controlled economy
China only began to exit poverty under Deng XiaoPing in the 80's when it granted Shenzhen and other areas special economic status and opened up trade to the world.
>Economists taking credit for basically the rise of mass information processing
If they take the sole credit then they're wrong. But an efficiency gain due to improved access to markets and a consumer base is fundamentally no different than an efficiency gain of the same magnitude due to new technology.
erosion of social safety systems surely wouldn't help the average person
The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy is a book that covers the changes in economic policy over the last century. Must read.
but the way you are talking about it, techonological development means less jobs for the average guy becuase of automation. this only contributes to the problem
(((Paul Krugman))) argues no holds barred free trade will make America richer than if we had tariffs, which is probably true, at least in the short run. He acknowledges it contributes massive income inequality as well. His solution is to go ahead with free trade, tax the rich, and make everyone else dependent on the state.
I'd rather have free and equality citizens not ruled by the (((government))), even if it means slower economic growth. What's the point of gains if it goes to the rich, or gets wasted on niggers
thanks for the recommendation
>how does that sentence make any kind of sense? how does less equality mean "better overall standards"
People aren't better off because people are more equal I'm just making the point that when there is growth there is also a corresponding rise in inequality.
>that's my point
By what measures?
>That faggot mouth
This socialist degenerate queer to his (((vacations)) in North Africa in the 1930s to get easy access to the local wog children
government power has clearly decreased in favor of megacorporations. they are your true masters today, they are the ones you depend on, not govenrment bureaucrats
Are you implying fascism is a bad thing?
>economic equality does not necessarily mean better off
yes, if we are talking about some bumfuck village where nobody has shoes and that's just the way it is. but our societies are not like that
>by what measures
workplace democracy. we shouldn't stop at democratsising political processes, if what we spend most our life doing is controlled by private individuals. we need to democratise the economy to make sure the average person has more say in working conditions
yes, I am
Yes it is, Fascism is just a slightly retarded version of communism.
>even if there is rising inequality.
uh, yeah, about that minor detail...
He was gay so it's likely that he was.
The long run that Keynes died before seeing happened, nothing more.
>muh perpetual magic inflation machine will end the boom bust cycle
Except that it didn't.
Oh and don't forget to thank Keynes for not being able to afford a home because inflation is good for you goyim.
there's only so much the inequality can go - the levels remained steady until relatively recently with the kikes and you at the forefront, their kike puppet supporters, decided to shill everywhere. Now omnicide is the only option as they have ruined everything
you can't afford a home because prices are high compared to wages, not becuase money is worth less
inequality has been steadily rising since the 80s
The dystopic corporate hellscape that is the world of the 21st began with Reagan.
21st century*
When women decided they needed to work to be equal to men the labor force doubled which drive wages into shit tier territory.
b-but at least we have ebin menes :DD r-right? X-DDD
actually, the real minimum wage started decreasing during the 80s, when women were already part of the workforce. if there was a direct correlation, it would have started declining much earlier
Home prices don't detach from inflation until the 90s.
so? for most people they are still unafforable
The rise of renters relative to homeowners begins long before the 90s when prices detach from inflation and get even more retarded.
so then what keeps them high?
>growing threat of fascism
Is this good or bad.
About being retarded: You are aware that Keynsianism doesn't work in a globalized economy, right? Because all the money spent goes to (foreign) lowest bidders on public construction jobs. What that does is boost foreign economies, not the one that's spending the money.
subbly and command :DDDDDDD
>>implement keynesian economics
>result is a healthy, booming economy and a robust and flourishing democracy
This is factually wrong.
The success of keynesian economic principles is all due to WW2 spending. Without the second great war it would have been a disaster.
Also keep in mind that when the war ended and the war time spending stopped Keynesian economists were sure it would end in disaster - while in reality the American economy soared after WW2.
Because of free markets. NOT because of Keynesianism
>About being retarded: You are aware that Keynsianism doesn't work in a globalized economy, right? Because all the money spent goes to (foreign) lowest bidders on public construction jobs. What that does is boost foreign economies, not the one that's spending the money.
but they only started liberalising markets in earnest in 80s. so what happened between ww2 and 1980?
how many windows have you broken today OP?
Also keep in my mind most European economies were destroyed after the war. The US was on easy mode with all the world consumers and no competitors for a while
Nisam radikalni moj prijatelj
Its like the market was scared of communism so it was much fairer to the people...
Free market reforms were beefed /needed at the time, but shouldn't have been permenant.