/lit/ - Literature

>>14196935
Keynes. Austrians were right about everything.

>>14196940
This. Hayek was a good philospher, but bad economist. Keynes gave us great tools and new ways of thinking about economics, but his policies have had underwhelming results. Friedman is the gigachad's choice.

The system is one big failure.
Scrap it

>>14197006
Finally something based out of you

>>14197012
This happens every other day now. “Finally” “for once I agree with you” etc.

>>14197006
You are the one big failure kid

>>14197030
The system demands a large portion of the population be this sort of failure, fucko.

I woud like to introduce myself

>>14197040
So be it. Failures don't deserve shit, whereas the people with true responsibility will take everything.

Keynesianism literally fucked up the world

>>14197023
No it’s because ur an obnoxious tranny faggot who details and is off topic mostly.
You still don’t belong here

>>14196935
Both. Marx blows them out of the water completely

>>14197165
Retard.

>>14196935
Both are good. Hayek had a better vision for the world (lots of decentralization. free markets + basic income and healthcare).

>>14196935
both
>>14196940
even worse

>>14196935
Hayek, Keynes won.

>>14197092
4chan's main central ideology is not for losers, nerd. It's why people are calling people nerds, everyone works out, etc etc

If you are still here and are a virgin loser you belong in /lit/ circa 2014. Obviously people progress beyond who they were. Grow up :3

Also, Keynes did not make a central cohesive statement that was entirely correct. There are inconsistencies and contradictions riddled throughout The General Theory.

The Road To Serfdom meaninglessly conflates certain terms and messages/ideologies while also misusing Tocqueville, however as a cohesive work, at least it is more organized than the absolute mess of The General Theory.

I would love to have a conversation, but how many people reading this have even read both of those works? :3

I take the trad

>>14197705
Incoherent

>>14197733
YOU are the one who doesn't belong here, nerd. :3

Coherent enough for you?

>>14197728
The man literally wrote an essay "Why I am Not a Conservative"

Keynesians fear the externality

>>14197739

He's still trad though

>>14197739
Yeah he really doesn't belong in the Austrian school along with the likes of shitty economists like Ludwig Von Mises, Rothbard et al.

To be completely honest with you, the man at least understood government-installed monopolies to be not only completely necessary but also encouraged when required. He was a rational economist...

Still he didn't really understood what Tocqueville meant by that line in Democracy In America... :3

>>14196935
You can't formulate what the question is so you don't deserve an answer.

>>14196940
>"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"
Has anyone been proven more wrong ever? How can anyone seriously identify as a monetarist today?

>>14196960
>Keynes gave us great tools and new ways of thinking about economics, but his policies have had underwhelming results
Can you explain these "tools" Keynes developed and his "policies"?

>>14197205
Yes, it's a very nice persuasive vision but an understanding of Keynes will lead to some inconvenient realities of why basic income schemes would and will end in failure.

>>14197739
Was the content of the essay that American conservatives are useless and don't conserve anything?

>>14197739

Explain this

>>14197755
I do not believe basic income is mentioned anywhere throughout The General Theory. It's just mass wage manipulation, almost constantly.

There are some different Keynesian 'tools' but to be honest The General Theory is mostly just interest rate and wage manipulation. No basic income.

And also, Milton Friedman was pretty darn stupid as an economist, yes we are all aware. However, as a sociologist perhaps he was onto something as regards public education: that to a certain degree it is necessary but should be privatized with subsidies or grants given out to the schools based on attendance, which would decentralize the schooling system and make it not based on districts. :3

>>14197758
He doesn't literally believe in God, but understands God's influence throughout society. A very religious man without being fundamentally faithful: one of the flaws of contemporary social Darwinism.

Those sociological effects he describe shouldn't be 'forced' on others, it should be felt or discovered. But at least he understands the general idea. That's more than I can say for others :3

>>14197755
>Has anyone been proven more wrong ever?
Except he hasn't been proven wrong? Every inflationary crisis has been due to poor monetary policy.

>>14197825
No one is actually agreeing with you man.

I can appreciate Milton Friedman, and I don't agree with you. :3

>>14197801
This gentleman was supremely intelligent. A man of exemplary caliber.

He foresaw a socialism without a centralized unit of control, but a web of oligarchic controls. :3

>>14197758
All he's saying is he needs the totem of liberalism, of course Hayek wouldn't be stupid enough to base his theory on anything which could be falsified. Better to trust the Gods.

>>14197776
Well if you get what the "issue" is and the theory you'd understand investment isn't just an issue injecting more liquidity to private actors can "solve". A guaranteed fixed income isn't a dynamic policy and wouldn't solve anything. Also on "sociology" there's much more brilliant men than Friedman.

>>14197825
>Every inflationary crisis has been due to poor monetary policy.
The Fed and ECB has been trying all they can to get inflation up but have largly failed because it's not a pure monetary phenomena, it has to do with fiscal policy and spending and more.
If you actually study what happened everywhere you see hyperinflation you'll see it goes back to big issues beforehand. To say Zimbabwe seizing white farm lands and destroying their national productivity is a "pure" monetary phenomena is just stupidly wrong.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799102

>>14197577
Marx would likely disagree with you. Marxism isn't about being anticapitalist or hating capitalist economists.

>>14197878
Stop using that gay smiley, you look 14

>>14197882
I'm not arguing if Friedman is or isn't the best 'man', what do you think about his stance on that issue? Don't you agree it's sensible?

That's not what Keynes is saying. Keynes is making the claim that artificially increasing or decreasing wages can alter or rectify a given situation. Typically increasing wages in The General Theory meant an increasing in consumption, and therefore investment. :3

>>14197929
It's to identify me, I don't care how I look, and you look like Anonymous, which is to say: nothing and COULD be anyone. :3

>>14196935
>the faggot who literally rapes children and thought that the government should work with corporations and central banks that said there is no point saving and preparing for the future and that you can print money to pay off your debts

Is there any real wonder why the current world government follows Keynes' ideas?

>>14197739
Right. He's a traditionalist libertarian.

>>14197908
it is

>>14198008
Where is this cartoon from?

>>14197023
You actually watch that meth head? Lol.

>>14197945
>I'm not arguing if Friedman is or isn't the best 'man', what do you think about his stance on that issue? Don't you agree it's sensible?
I really don't have a strong opinon. Some countries have went down that route and it hasn't had much more success. Probably better ideas out there but I haven't read enough on that.

>That's not what Keynes is saying. Keynes is making the claim that artificially increasing or decreasing wages can alter or rectify a given situation. Typically increasing wages in The General Theory meant an increasing in consumption, and therefore investment. :3
You seem confused. A basic income isn't a wage. Wages are paid out by employers, increasing wages should result in corporations increasing investment because they'll want to cut costs and use labour more efficiently. Companies just seeing higher nominal revenues don't have the same incentives to reinvest, they would just give back to shareholders and increase pay for executives.

>>14198008
If you want to be taken serious drop the ad hominems. Keynes isn't the guiding ideologue behind any national policy today for better or worse.
If your debts are denominated in something you control the supply of no shit you can always meet any liability, that's just a self-evident truism. You don't prepare for the future by "saving", having a huge hoard of gold won't help you in the long run but making the right investments today so you can buy anything you want in the future, even gold.

>>14198273
>SchiffGold
Ya.

>>14197083
By applying a modest Keynesianism, the US dug itself out of the Great Depression.
It didn’t fuck up the world directly.

>>14198282
You watch Fox and Friends or somthin’?

>>14198646
>By applying a modest Keynesianism, the US dug itself out of the Great Depression.
Well he's wrong but so are you. Roosevelt experimented with various corporatist schemes throughout the 1930s but they weren't particularly successful. The US was so conservative they couldn't even preform a full break with the stupid gold standard and thought fixing the price was some sort of priority worth diverting efforts to so they outlawed private gold ownership.
WWII was what finally ended the Great Depression. Public deficits ballooned, private savings went up, corporations began deleveraging and government forced investment put the private sector in a very good position after the war so private business could whine for the government to "get off their backs" over the next 25 years of relative prosperity.
WWII induced spending wasn't a "modest Keynesianism", it was extreme. Like over 50% of industrial output was redirected overnight.

>>14198646
No I watch leftists that are not conspiracy theorists. Your totally brain dead as usual.

>>14196935
Both of them

>>14198646
Butterfly what do you think of this man?

>>14199262
Expert debater. He could BTFO out of anyone here

>>14199269
How is he so good from only reading wikipedia articles

>>14198354
>Some countries have went down that route and it hasn't had much more success. Probably better ideas out there but I haven't read enough on that.

Which ones?

>You seem confused. A basic income isn't a wage.

Correct. You seem to think Keynes mentioned or worked with basic income. He never did. You mentioned basic income in relation to Keynes. Keynesianism has nothing to do with basic income.

>Wages are paid out by employers, increasing wages should result in corporations increasing investment because they'll want to cut costs and use labour more efficiently

Incorrect. Actually, increased wages increases investment, because supply has to exceed or meet demand for consumable goods. The two keys that work in tandem with Keynesianism are consumption and investment. Consumption increase? Then investment in the long-term must as well.

So after a nominal wage increase, investment goes up after a lag (because it is a secondary effect, not immediate). :3

>>14198646
The New Deal was really not Keynesianism, since John Maynard Keynes did not become (over)popularized until much after he wrote and published The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.

The New Deal's latter portion was influenced by Keynes (maybe), but it was really the other way around. There is a reason why so many acts/laws that Franklin passed are within The General Theory. :3

>>14199276
Because most people don't even read wikipedia articles

>>14199317
>Which ones?
Sweden.

>Correct. You seem to think Keynes mentioned or worked with basic income. He never did. You mentioned basic income in relation to Keynes. Keynesianism has nothing to do with basic income.
I don't think that, I'm claiming the problems with a basic income are obvious though from Keynes line of thought.

>Incorrect. Actually, increased wages increases investment, because supply has to exceed or meet demand for consumable goods. The two keys that work in tandem with Keynesianism are consumption and investment. Consumption increase? Then investment in the long-term must as well.
>So after a nominal wage increase, investment goes up after a lag (because it is a secondary effect, not immediate). :3
You seem to think Keynes was primarily an underconsumptionist and this isn't the case.
Wages aren't only income/revenue but also a cost, any increase in nominal wages will generally increase spending no doubt but it'll lead to more capital intensive investment strategies which is a good thing since we should be eliminating work. The government giving people a fixed lump-sum income won't have the same effect.
I'll quote Keynes himself:
>The full employment policy by means of investment is only one particular application of an intellectual theorem. You can produce the result just as well by consuming more or working less. Personally I regard the investment policy as first aid. In US it almost certainly will not do the trick. Less work is the ultimate solution (a 35 hour week in US would do the trick now). How you mix up the three ingredients of a cure is a matter of taste and experience, i.e. of morals and knowledge.

>>14199483
>Sweden
Wow. Very cool. Seems the results do not differ substantially from other countries' education results.

>I don't think that, I'm claiming the problems with a basic income are obvious though from Keynes line of thought.
I don't think you arrive at basic income through anything Keynes stated, no. Not even with the example of paying people to fill bottles with money and then burying them is he really approaching basic income, because even then he is simply dealing with wage manipulation.

>You seem to think Keynes was primarily an underconsumptionist and this isn't the case.
Marx had the theory of underconsumption. I actually posit that Keynes was an overconsumptionist. Under Keynes' flawed theory of economics, consumption and investment must necessarily increase in tandem.

>proceeds to quote something completely unrelated

I know the dense fabric of Keynes' nonsense can be difficult, but I hope I am helping you see that even someone who does not fundamentally agree with him can comprehend and interpret him successfully. No doubt you will understand him one day and see how flawed his system is, until then, please read more of his book and apply quotes where necessary. :3

>>14197908

You've obviously never read Marx.

>>14199549
Basic income is pumping liquidity into private hands with the intent of solving some problem, presumably the failure of private investment to utilize all available labour or provide some "liveable" income to everyone. Like I said it can't solve such problems and could just be excessively inflationary from Keynes perspective.

I don't know what you mean exactly by "overconsumptionism" but it seems more like a term that would refer to the Austrian cranks talking about "false prosperity". There's no reason you can't arrive at a low rate of investment and high rate of consumption or vice versa. That's totally possible if you understand Keynes theory of investment, investors are largly irrational gamblers.

>>14199637
>Basic income is pumping liquidity into private hands with the intent of solving some problem, presumably the failure of private investment to utilize all available labour or provide some "liveable" income to everyone. Like I said it can't solve such problems and could just be excessively inflationary from Keynes perspective.
We know what a universal basic income is, Einstein. It has nothing to do with Keynes.

Playing around with the interest rate is admittedly Keynesian, but giving everyone a UBI is assuredly not, that would be Marxian.

>I don't know what you mean exactly by "overconsumptionism" but it seems more like a term that would refer to the Austrian cranks talking about "false prosperity
I have no idea what you are talking about. I tend to stay away from the Austrian school of economics.

>There's no reason you can't arrive at a low rate of investment and high rate of consumption or vice versa. That's totally possible if you understand Keynes theory of investment, investors are largly irrational gamblers.
Consumption is, by its Malthusian nature, always going up. Can you not see this? In the long-run, although short-term inequivalent trends exist as you've stated, investment must go up to meet the Malthusian consumption increase. :3

>>14199678
>>14199637
And, by the way, just so we're clear, Keynes isn't an overconsumptionist because of Malthus, he is one because of himself: whenever Investment goes up, depending on what is being invested in, the consumption will go up (due to increased employment). And whenever consumption goes up, depending on the investment multiplier, the investment must go up by an equivalent amount which fuels the cycle.

Keynes' system is hilariously unsustainable. :3

>>14199678
>Playing around with the interest rate is admittedly Keynesian, but giving everyone a UBI is assuredly not, that would be Marxian.

confirmed for brainlet, stopped reading right there.

>>14199724
Apparently you don't know your economists, then. I'm glad you stopped, I would only want actual economists to read the rest of my two part expose on Keynes. :3

>>14199678
>Playing around with the interest rate is admittedly Keynesian, but giving everyone a UBI is assuredly not, that would be Marxian.
Keynes would say the natural rate of interest is zero in todays world and Marx would abolish all income and wages.

>Consumption is, by its Malthusian nature, always going up. Can you not see this? In the long-run, although short-term inequivalent trends exist as you've stated, investment must go up to meet the Malthusian consumption increase. :3
>the long-run
There's your problem, think in the short term.

>>14199713
>...whenever Investment goes up, depending on what is being invested in, the consumption will go up (due to increased employment). And whenever consumption goes up, depending on the investment multiplier, the investment must go up by an equivalent amount which fuels the cycle.
Do you think Keynes theory boils down to increased demand leads to investment without reference to the rate of return?

>>14199739
>Keynes would say the natural rate of interest is zero in todays world
Point disregarded. Two of the most common remedies within The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is artificially increasing/lowering wages and artificially increasing/lowering the fed funds rate.

Briefly he does talk about some other minor tools like creating treasury notes for the government to purchase (the forerunner of the QEs are literally in The General Theory) and buying farm stocks (inspired by The New Deal).

>There's your problem, think in the short term
I'm thinking in terms of sustainability. You're thinking in terms of the federal reserve chairman.

>Do you think Keynes theory boils down to increased demand leads to investment without reference to the rate of return?
Do you think the rate of return is uncorrelated to the demand?

>>14199348
So true. People want to get into advanced shit before getting 101.

>>14199770
The institutional monetary regime today is totally different than in the 1930s.

http://moslereconomics-kg5winhhtut.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-Natural-Rate-of-Interest-is-Zero.pdf

>Do you think the rate of return is uncorrelated to the demand?
No obviously from a micro prospective you want to maximize demand and have a monopoly ideally but just injecting a bunch of liquidity and hoping consumption will follow or increased investment isn't the "solution".

>>14199831
I'm not giving you a solution or trying to tell you how things work today, I'm trying to help you understand The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.

You read the book right? :3

>>14199883
Yes, Keynes wrote in an overt verbose style which lead to much confusion but his ideas are simple enough. G.L.S. Shackle in this interview does a good job getting the idea across to some Austrian newsletter:

https://mises.org/library/interview-gls-shackle

>>14199041
This is why I called it modest Keynesianism. And the war effort was just about enough government spending the nation needed. So when did we pay off what we deficit spent there?
So yeah, saving capitalism did fuck the world up.

>>14199254
Jimmy Dore isn't a conspiracy theorist. He's just a dumb guy doing a show out of his garage with a great bullshit detector.
What leftists you listen to, anon?

>>14199262
>destiny.png
I donno who that is

>>14196935
Mishan

>>14199731
UBI has very little to do with Marx