Unlike the Classical and Neo-classical economists, Hayek included, Keynes had no faith on automatic equilibrium. Keynes proved, or should I say Hicks-Allen, that disequilibrium is the reality sometime and as a result automatic equilibrium mechanism can fail. Then, the Government must act to create more demand by investing in the public sector. This is called Keynesian demand management system by which the role of the Government must be continuous to adjust the economy through mainly fiscal policy ( public investments, taxation etc) and sometime monetary policy ( interest rate, money supply and exchange rate). Keynes puts little emphasis on monetary policy, whereas Friedman and the Chicago school of ultra conservatives, devotees of Hayek, put extreme emphasis in money supply. Karl Marx also talked about this problem of disequilibrium ( under consumption theory which causes reserve army of unemployed) and his solution was through central planning of the economy; which was supported by Albert Einstein as well. There is a different stream of economics of Feldman-Mahalanobis-Leontiev-Sraffa-Pasinneti which the Anglo-Americans do not study at all.
Monetary stimulus is another term for Keynesian only for the .01%. Fiscal stimulus that is dead is is the Keynesian for the rest. Politicians will make sure that fiscal stimulus will stay dead while monetary stimulus continue to go higher as they create the biggest gap between the richest few and the rest in history
Why is it that every time somebody tries to make even the mildest criticisms of the idea of "free markets" (which are seldom genuinely "free" at all) all sorts of people pop up to scream at you? It's really tedious. Skidelsky is well aware of Hayek, Sowell etc. etc. because anyone with even a passing interest in economics and an IQ higher than that of a house plant is aware of them. He just disagrees with them. Not surprising, given the many, massive flaws in their work. And in some cases personal ethics: Ayn Rand had a crush on a man who tortured a child to death; Rothbard was massively racist. The only "straw men" here (not "straw dogs", you blithering semi-literate idiot) are those people are projecting onto Skidelsky. Criticise his argument if you will, but at least try to do so with some reasoning, facts and an understanding of the world better than that of a teenager who has read Henry Hazlitt for the first time and thinks he has all the clear, right answers to all the hardest problems.
Oh - and de-regulated "free" markets have consistently performed worse than state-directed Keynesian capitalism. Check out this post here for a survey of the mediocre (at best) performance of neoliberal economies: unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/the-questionable-record-of-neoliberalism/ And check out this post here to see some good simple arguments that point to the excellent track record of a managed, middle-of-the-road capitalism: anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/great-neoliberal-lie-austerity.html (although they are delivered in a rather angry, forceful way that perhaps makes them off-putting to people who strongly believe in the Austrian or Neoclassical approach).
Really GDP growth, hey GDP grew at 10% during the world war, did it mean that we had more food on the table, it meant more tanks and fighter jets, refrigerators.
I can't respect people like this, people who have a view on things and take pieces of information, and line them up in such a way to prove their point. That is incredibly dishonest. The people I respect are those who come to conclusions by reasoning and evaluating with as few preconceptions as humanly possible like Thomas Sowell, a former Marxist, who after a period of time working for the government opened his mind to other views and eventually became a free market, small government, libertarian, a label that I also identify with.
Unlike the Classical and Neo-classical economists, Hayek included, Keynes had no faith on automatic equilibrium. Keynes proved, or should I say Hicks-Allen, that disequilibrium is the reality sometime and as a result automatic equilibrium mechanism can fail. Then, the Government must act to create more demand by investing in the public sector. This is called Keynesian demand management system by which the role of the Government must be continuous to adjust the economy through mainly fiscal policy ( public investments, taxation etc) and sometime monetary policy ( interest rate, money supply and exchange rate). Keynes puts little emphasis on monetary policy, whereas Friedman and the Chicago school of ultra conservatives, devotees of Hayek, put extreme emphasis in money supply.
Karl Marx also talked about this problem of disequilibrium ( under consumption theory which causes reserve army of unemployed) and his solution was through central planning of the economy; which was supported by Albert Einstein as well. There is a different stream of economics of Feldman-Mahalanobis-Leontiev-Sraffa-Pasinneti which the Anglo-Americans do not study at all.
The Q & A was really good
Monetary stimulus is another term for Keynesian only for the .01%. Fiscal stimulus that is dead is is the Keynesian for the rest. Politicians will make sure that fiscal stimulus will stay dead while monetary stimulus continue to go higher as they create the biggest gap between the richest few and the rest in history
Why is it that every time somebody tries to make even the mildest criticisms of the idea of "free markets" (which are seldom genuinely "free" at all) all sorts of people pop up to scream at you? It's really tedious.
Skidelsky is well aware of Hayek, Sowell etc. etc. because anyone with even a passing interest in economics and an IQ higher than that of a house plant is aware of them. He just disagrees with them. Not surprising, given the many, massive flaws in their work. And in some cases personal ethics: Ayn Rand had a crush on a man who tortured a child to death; Rothbard was massively racist.
The only "straw men" here (not "straw dogs", you blithering semi-literate idiot) are those people are projecting onto Skidelsky. Criticise his argument if you will, but at least try to do so with some reasoning, facts and an understanding of the world better than that of a teenager who has read Henry Hazlitt for the first time and thinks he has all the clear, right answers to all the hardest problems.
What is your point?
6:50
my DREAMS from Somalia
Oh - and de-regulated "free" markets have consistently performed worse than state-directed Keynesian capitalism. Check out this post here for a survey of the mediocre (at best) performance of neoliberal economies: unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/the-questionable-record-of-neoliberalism/
And check out this post here to see some good simple arguments that point to the excellent track record of a managed, middle-of-the-road capitalism: anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/great-neoliberal-lie-austerity.html
(although they are delivered in a rather angry, forceful way that perhaps makes them off-putting to people who strongly believe in the Austrian or Neoclassical approach).
Really GDP growth, hey GDP grew at 10% during the world war, did it mean that we had more food on the table, it meant more tanks and fighter jets, refrigerators.
I can't respect people like this, people who have a view on things and take pieces of information, and line them up in such a way to prove their point. That is incredibly dishonest. The people I respect are those who come to conclusions by reasoning and evaluating with as few preconceptions as humanly possible like Thomas Sowell, a former Marxist, who after a period of time working for the government opened his mind to other views and eventually became a free market, small government, libertarian, a label that I also identify with.
+Daniel Bibeau Hello. Democracy means accepting different opinions.
People who, in addition to their opinion accept any other opinion are ideologues.