POLITICAL THEORY - John Maynard Keynes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- John Maynard Keynes was arguably the greatest economist of the 20th century. He discovered the idea that governments should stimulate demand during economic downturns - and was the creator of both the IMF and the World Bank. His ideas continue to underpin a lot of the modern economic system.
Enjoying our UA-cam videos? Get full access to all our audio content, videos, and thousands of thought-provoking articles, conversation cards and more with The School of Life Subscription: t.ly/JrTBb
Be more mindful, present and inspired. Get the best of The School of Life delivered straight to your inbox: t.ly/-vpFH
FURTHER READING
You can read more on this and other subjects here: goo.gl/4vY9Wo
MORE SCHOOL OF LIFE
Watch more films on POLITICAL THEORY in our playlist:
bit.ly/TSOLpoli...
SOCIAL MEDIA
Feel free to follow us at the links below:
Facebook: / theschooloflifelondon
X: / theschooloflife
Instagram: / theschooloflifelondon
CREDITS
Produced in collaboration with:
Mike Booth
/ somegreybloke
Dr Chris Grocott
www2.le.ac.uk/d...
leicester.acad... #TheSchoolOfLife
John Maynard Keynes opposed the creation of the London Marathon. He thought we'd all die in the long run.
@Robert Binner Mattfeldt In the short run
Nice one.
Hhaaahmhhmaa...
Economics puns is what keeps me going in life.
Point of order: the London Marathon was first run in 1981, and JMK died in 1946.
ISo say the BOSTON marathon, which began in 1897, when JMK was 14.
"When the facts change, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" 20th CENTURY BURN
avoqado89 Damn what a savage X3
It is October. As I type this, it is a fact. In a couple of weeks it won't be. Pluto is a planet. That was a fact pre-2006, then it wasn't. The truth and therefore facts change constantly.
gmackematix - "Alleged" facts. Adjectives matter
bob polo As time passes things change so the truth changes and so, by definition, facts change. Not alleged facts. Just facts.
gmackematix - Is there such a thing as objective truth?
"If the facts change, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"
I make up alternative facts.
Thanks for your insight Kellyanne
killer answer, Of course I am stealing it, LOL
That'd no solution. How can you factualize fiction? Turn lead into gold?
Never mind. I'll try to figure it out on my own. Gonna get me a magic set from K-Mart and see what happens.
@kl wies the facts are what makes me happy
I create facts on unheard and alternate logic-based As information that contradicts original hypotheses means the altercation of the entirety of hypotheses, as well as inherently stating as we suspected there is perhaps no set way to prosperity and that there are multiple perhaps some which will bring more satisfaction.
people getting super salty in the comment section
I think we need to remember that this video is not attempting to say Keynes was completely right, but simply explaining the ideas in an easy to digest way. no economist worth his salt should insist one economic idea will always work.
that said, the very field of macroeconomics basically started from Keynes, and to ignore his contributions would be willfully ignorant.
*@Faust* the fact that you think Keynes basically started macroeconomics is exactly why videos like this are so sad. If you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it.
Faust fishmans fuck yeah
Faust *"no economist worth his salt would insist one economic idea will always work"* what are you really saying here? It sounds like you're saying economics isn't science and therefore we can't talk about what's really true. Am I mistaken? If one practices "economics" detached from sound epistemology then I agree it's not really science and differentiating true from false can't be done rigorously and no doubt you'd find it difficult to apply economic ideas successfully. It's not clear at all this applies to economics generally so much as the subset of economics that isn't grounded in sound theory.
+BobWildlefish What is a sound epistemological ground for economics? For all purposes, the field works more like an advanced form of accounting rather than like an actual science. I mean, everybody acknowledges that measures such as the GDP and other aggregates are epistemological fallacies, but only heterodox thinkers from fringe left/right groups ever try to deal with this problem.
I think Keynes's greatest merit is that he never needed a coup-d'état to "prove" his theory. In science, you can't use political violence to force atoms to behave as your hypothesis expects. In economics, you can.
It is a science it's just hard to predict, I'm pretty sure he meant that you can't utilise any economic theory with every economic case and expect it to work
that last line was fire
We all need to be this open minded.
He didn't actually say that though: quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/
atenahena yeah... I wonder how long it took him to come up with it...
he meant 'fiyah'
@@matthew-dq8vk a guy that watches Shaun and hbomberguy is using homophobic slurs? Whew.
This is a pretty good video on Keynes. Usually its hyperbiased one way or the other. I would like to see more economists.
Yes, the best video about Keynes i found on UA-cam
If I make a mistake at my job, I lose my job. If a economist make a mistake, he destroy a nation and you can't even blame on him. Great Britain was made by Adam Smith, and destroyed by this economist.
The School of Life's videos on Adam Smith, Hayek, and Karl Marx are good too.
came on youtube to avoid my economic undergraduate studies and this comes on notif 😞
HalfBloodOtter esp. when you hated the prof :(
I didn't even take economics except for one class in graduate school. I should have also taken undergraduate economics, I think now. I like this. It won't function with without honourable intentions and the rule of law, though.
Calling all econ boffins. Who can put me straight? Modern Monetary Theory as espoused by Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, William Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton:
What are the flaws in Modern Monetary Theory?
Micro or Macro?
why do you hate your prof?
"Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back"
-John Maynard Keynes
The full quote is even better : "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of
some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air,are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
Sick quote , don’t remember that from his biography.
what i hear " everyone is stupid but me and my economic theory" this is just inflammatory insults right
@@HardStickman ok this makes it sounds like a morew practical statement ty for the full quote.
Thats quite ironic quote, if you just put "Keynes" instead of "fefunct economist", no? :P
Not to be confused with Maynard James Keenan, singer of Tool
Lawrence Of Canadia pretty much the same guy
Bruh thanks for the heads up, I was all confused
@@ayumi5430 you're welcome. happy to assist
Thanks, that’s it! Couldn’t for the life of me remember the name of the guy that this guy isn’t
As a student of economics and a fan of progressive metal, I love em both
He is the main reason I became so enamored with Economics as a high schooler. The mere fact that he focused on the middle ground between socialism an capitalism is what made his work so appealing to me.
When I began college in 1957 I was taking a course in Economics 101...and I subscribed then and I subscribe now; to the John Maynard Keynes macro economics theory....it still rings true today!
@left-wingers-are-terrorists explain please
@left-wingers-are-terrorists A fucking joke which still ridicules the deception of what we have now as our holy frigging cow.
@left-wingers-are-terrorists yet, it took your ass out of the 2008 recession. Read a book.
@@userytx it made it happen which is different. IT create big bubble by priting and stimulating the economy which was not real economic progress but just growth in some sectors due to excesive debt. When that broke up people said "o its due to lord keynes oo yeahhhh". For you to know even keynes when he grew older starting doubting his theory he said that as he grew older he tended to belive more firmely in the invisible hand. That his students had taken the model to far but yet post-keynesian economists ignore the master and just use the theory.
@@cidagus1518 It produced a great amount of inflation which is one of the tool of Keynes! Very destructive in the long run and extremely socialistic in nature!
"When the facts change, I alter my conclusion. What do you do, sir?" if only more people would think that way...
Just a little interesting fact - the house shown at 1:25 is 46 Gordon Square in London, which is about a five minute walk from The School of Life. Even closer is 36 Tavistock Place, where Lenin once lived, which is about thirty seconds away. I'm lucky enough to work in this area, hopefully Alain will have his own blue plaque here one day.
As much as I like these videos, I love the comments section more!!. Many have commented that economics is not an exact science like science/engineering. I'm an engineer myself with R&D experience. I say even science/engineering is not so exact. Most of our models don't fit the experimental data which we overcome by 'calibration' that requires feedback from experiments. There are many problems that are inherently unstable and chaotic. It is impossible to develop an accurate model for them. Fluid dynamics is one such example. Any predictive model needs correction inputs from the system. There is no model that is absolutely predictive simply because you don't know all the actors and their behavior a priori or even posterior. So is economics especially when it involves as fickle as human actors involved in it. As Albert Einstein once famously said, "All models are wrong; Some are useful". When the greatest scientist waves his hand at modeling, it deserves some credit.
Indeed.To paraphrase Comte "The only science is of humans".All our thoughts and perspectives of the world are subjective,but some like science and philosophy understand that and modify themselves to the subjective world,while dogmatism shapes the world to it's narrow pigeonhole
Right! Only the quote is from George Box, not A.E. apparently
I've seen a few Engineer/Science folk try and make similar statements about the inherent uncertainty of the models/theory used.
The difference with Engineering/Science: it actually works, even when we don't fully understand.
The problem with Mainstream Economics in particular? : It doesn't work and they never understand. The assumptions involved are for more unrealistic than those of Science/Engineering etc - Homo-economicus being the biggest example. The most obvious problem with the school of thought that should have sent it to its grave was that: not only did it not forsee the Global Financial crisis 2008, it couldn't see it because of the heavily mathenatical nonsense models and assumptions associated.
Economics is a Social Science and nothing can get around that. It needs to take into consideration the other Social Sciences in order to be effective and allow different theories applicable to different times to come forward.
Physics is not dependent on other Sciences - which is what Mainstreamers really mean when they say Economics is a "hard" science, they believe it to be equivalent in status to Physics which essentially overlords all Physical Science and Engineering - the very issue with Neo-classical Economics - and most schools - is they ignore other social sciences.
I am so greatful to live in a time and place where I have free access to such intellectual knowledge. Thank you very much
The issue with Kaynes ideas, and why they cannot be implemented, especially in a world today was mentioned in the very beginning of the video: Corruption; or as it is more commonly refered to today: Lobbyism.
Keynes has this idea that the state is some sort of omniscient beign, not simply an institution run by a lot of individuals. He argues that the state will do what is best for the nation, and that makes sense, if you percieve the state as an almighty and benevolent organ. But it is not. The state is run by people, who are just as prone to corruption as anybody, that has grown up in a capitalist society, where self-interest and profits are centerpage. Think about it: Would you decline an enormous sum of money, offered in trade for simply implementing some policies that a certain company or industry was asking of you?
In the recent years, lobbyism has only increased, and we will never see the return of Keynesianism as a dominating economic model, or the wellfare state. Yes, modern economists might propose Keynesianistic ideas these days, but the bankers and CEOs of the multinational corporations care little for the effect their profiteering ventures leaves on the different nations.
So hayek and self sovereign anarchy then?
this is pure corruption thé no1 cause of all troubles anywhere .
It is not the "issue with Keynes" it is the issue with society itself. Corruption is present also alongside corporations run by individuals. Some ppl against Keynes ideas would say: leave it in the capable and invisible hands that govern the market.. ok right.. nothing different to any bullsh*t coming from religion. An election can potentially change who runs office, but no democracy can change the board of a bank that oversold and repackaged mortgages while making taxpayers hand the aid for the fatcats bailouts.
@@fedelang It is the issue with Keynes, because he doesn't factor that into his theory. This should be obvious..
GIGO
Just a few extra comments to add to this succinct summary on Keynes. His "Economic Consequences of the Peace" has remarkable psychological insight into Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Wilson and predicted the inevitability of WW2 nearly 20 years before it happened. A brilliant beautifully-written Tour de Force. On the minus side, he was pretty dismissive about Social Credit with economic remedies similar to his own. I think that he was rather mean in the General Theory to Henry George et al - and sneakily diverted attention from them by going back to Mandeville's obscure and ancient Parable of the Bees as a primitive progenitor of Keynesianism. He well knew the workings of Social Credit because when working on the 1929 Liberal Party manifesto he collaborated closely with a leading Social Creditor - Eimar O'Duffy - one of the few authors whose empathy and savage wit exceeded even the great Keynes himself.
I love how this video marks the passage of time with the use of Automobiles. Such a nice touch.
Could you do one on Noam Chomsky? Maybe not even on his politics but on his contribution to cognitive science and the philosophical implications of Universal Grammar. Thanks.
Daniel everett debunked Chomsky's idea of universal grammar when he was with the pirahas for 20 years and got attack by chomsky publicly for it.
@@frederick6650 such arrogance from someone who praised Chavez isn't a surprise.
@@derplol1612 I am no fan of chavez's policy, I simply recognize the coup d'état inflicted upon him and his people by the USA's CIA as disgusting
@@frederick6650 I totally agree, in against us intervention. But we cant blame all of Venezuela's failure on that fact
@@derplol1612 absolutely, I really hope they find a political system that works for them in the near future so they can benefit from all their crude ressources without US sanctions
I love it when you talk about people.
would love to see more videos like this!
theyve been doing it forever so go look through their past videos. There is a lot waiting for you there. Like, loads.
yeah! why doesn't the channel make any more videos about great minds and personalities of the world anymore? please, make more videos os these series!
Could you do Friedman next ? To complete the, Marx, Keynes and Friedman economics trilogy :)
You want to see how Friedman was utterly wrong? Read 'Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427' by David Herlihy. It's amazing how an almost 600 year old tax study utterly disproves Friedman.
Deregulate, privatize, and slash government spending. There that's Friedman.
I would say Marx, Keyness, Mises
Oh dear, Milton is the worst economist there is. He basically doesn’t give a single shit about the poor. Keynesianism provide stability while Laissez-Faire type just closes their eyes and crossed their fingers.
@@tyrush7649 I was interested in reading "Capitalism & Freedom", but I've read a lot of bad reviews about it, I've read "Wealth of Nations" and "Road to Serfdom", and I'm looking to read a third one. Do you recommend reading Friedman or Keynes?. I study Public Administration, but I love economics, in a way that I consider that's essential to my career because the State Policies related to economics tend to heavily interfere in the market decisions and also in the people's economy, because the first one "gives them job", and if the governments tend to make strictly or restrictive economics policies (taxes and regulations especially) many of them just close and go to other countries looking for some good opportunities, also considering the high tensions due to the so called "social strike" and the complete uncertainty that my country (Chile) will live during these next two years.
In the long run we are all read
That's iconic
It's not something we can say everytime but in some situation it is important
Keynes didn't believe government spending in recessions paid for themselves, neither do modern economists. He, like modern economists still do, believe governments should run surpluses during normal times to make up for the debt incurred during recessionary periods.
Also, Keynes didn't give a shit about the levels of regulation or size of the state in general. In fact, he was quite conservative. He wanted to smooth the business cycle, that is all. The whole last 2-3 minutes of this video is pretty bad. Keynes idea's weren't "discredited". They were simply updated/changed, as any incomplete scientific theory is.
Thank God, someone who isn't a complete lunatic! The only people in this comment section seem to be either ancaps or literal Marxists.
Yeah marxists like talking about economics. SURPRISE!
There are over 20,000 economists in the US. Almost zero of them are marxist, like a couple dozen. I wonder why? Because marxism is dead and irrelevant and the only people who still believe in it are economic illiterates.
So at what point, when governments fail to ever run surpluses, do we stop believing these myths?
The fact that governments don't run surpluses is a failure of the government. It is not a failure of Keynes idea that you SHOULD run surpluses then to smooth the business cycle. The government not doing what the theory suggests isn't a failure of the theory it is a failure of the government.
Could you do one on Hannah Arendt? Her work is forever fascinating and ever more necessary.
What a wonderful explanation! So easy to understand and it all comes alive in the pictures :) Thank you for your videos!
I'm just going to watch the Keynes video and then the Hayek video back and forth until I solve all of the world's economic problems.
Won't happen until they make on Friedman too.
I thought I was a free market capitalist, but now sir, I believe that I am nothing other than a Keynsian in a foxhole.
I love the school of life.
I think you should be awarded for your lovely voice.
Keynes was correct that governments do have it in their power to bring about sustainable economic growth, but the mechanisms he advanced were critically flawed. A main problem with Keynes was his failure to understand that the rent of land was claiming a higher and higher proportion of the wealth produced by labor and capital goods. The escalating price of locations in major cities should have given him cause to revisit Ricardo's work in developing the law of rent, expanded beyond agricultural land into all locations, rural and urban, and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum and even take-off and landing slots at airports. His perspectives remained neoclassical, ignoring the fact that the price mechanism does not clear the markets for land as it does for labor and capital goods (and, depending on the extent of government control, for credit).
“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.” ― Friedrich A. Hayek
"You admit here and there that it is a question of knowing where to draw the line. You agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere [between free-enterprise and planning], and that the logical extreme is not possible. But you give us no guidance whatever as to where to draw it. In a sense this is shirking the practical issue. It is true that you and I would probably draw it in different places. I should guess that according to my ideas you greatly underestimate the practicability of the middle course. But as soon as you admit that the extreme is not possible, and that a line has to be drawn, you are, on your own argument, done for since you are trying to persuade us that as soon as one moves an inch in the planned direction you are necessarily launched on the slippery path which will lead you in due course over the precipice." J. M. Keynes to Hayek, 1944.
A genius in my mind! Way ahead of todays economists.
A genius, sure? Ahead of today's economists? Not really, especially since some of his ideas had to be later fixed by contemporary economists.
Just because the americans wanted to bound the exchange rates to gold in Bretton Woods. That system had to collapse, what it did in the 70s. But till this day Keynesianism was incredible successful. Today we have one crisis after another and economists who think there are non. And people who pray austerity in a crisis. Thats what got us in the biggest recession in history in the late 20s. Nowadays after every crisis neoliberals expand there theory, and still don't believe in the theory who can explain every crisis.
Most of the post war years to that point was Keynes getting into debates with Monetarists like Friedman. The school of economics we use today was a merging of the two debating fields (Keynesianism and Monetarism), into the neo-classical school. We also haven't had one crisis after another, and it's frustrating that you think so. In the last 15 years we've had one crisis, the Financial Crisis, and in the last 20 that number increases to two, with the Tech Bubble being added, but even that crisis was a minor one at best.
Also what go us into the Great Depression was the gold standard. Keynes himself even said so. And, as data shows, it was leaving the gold standard that got us out of the depression. This is shown here: www.nber.org/papers/w6060 here:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Graph_charting_income_per_capita_throughout_the_Great_Depression.svg and Friedman's famous book 'A Monetary History of the United States'. That's not to say Keynesian policies didn't help our economy, they just weren't the force to push us out of the depression.
Basically what I'm getting at is treating him like a messiah is only going to hurt your cause, and economics in general. He's human, he made mistakes. His biggest critic, Friedman, is also human and made mistakes. It's taking what they did right which is how we got to where we are today, with global poverty exponentially lower than it was even fifty years ago.
how are you liking the inflationary fruits of his ideas?
This is just such an awesome presentation on Keynes and Keynesianism, just look at FDR and USA growth in 1930's, 1940's pre world war 2, he was a witness to the madness of the Versailles agreement post WWI
The narrator was 'economical' with his explanation of how the increased public spending was to be repaid. Keynes clearly states that the borrowing was to be repaid by increased taxation - meaning higher rates of tax and not just by increased tax revenue from the increased economic activity. The higher rate of tax was necessary to avoid the economy overheating. Money was put into the economy in a downturn and was to be taken out on an upturn so as to level consumption and prevent inflation. No government anywhere has ever applied Keynes' principles in full. Almost all western governments borrowed and spent but none of them did the politically difficult bit of increasing the tax rate on the upturn.
I don't find Keynes economical philosophy attractive but I did enjoy the video as well as the opportunity to view economics from another's perspective. Thank you kindly
8:03 I imagine this complex system of accounting is a bit more complicated than quadratic equations ;)
As somebody interested in economics but trained as an engineer, the belief that feedback mechanisms in a fully free market (even theoretically) could lead to equilibrium and stability has always confused me. There's a large branch of engineering called control systems theory which deals with this. For even very simple systems, a lot of very difficult maths needs to be done to avoid instability and chaos. Feedback is a miracle and it's very easy to naively expect it to correct any errors. But if you don't understand it very deeply it will turn into chaos. For a system as complex as economics, it feels like a fantasy. Did the proponents of it ever do rigorous work to model it, or was it just a hypothesis that happened to be beneficial to those in power? I can't help thinking that the generation that grew up under Keynsian economics had a much more prosperous life than those of us suffering the consequences of Friedman.
"We all die in the long run" also means "we have to think about those who will come after us and how many Hitlers and Stalins they's face in their lives" (paraphrased). Keynes is the creator of modern economics. He was also a real scholar in the field - "when the facts change ...". Among the greats like Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Marx, btw, had profound admiration for Smith and he wrote this in "The Notebooks" (that was published only in 1932 and is where he describes the methods and sources for writing The Capital). Marx understood the facts Adam Smith had were different than the facts he had like all honest scholars should do. Socialists and neo-liberals are members of faith based cults who select only the facts that prove their faith right.
'Socialism' here is the classic definition of "ownership of means of production by the workers etc .." and not the definition that is often used by Bernie Sanders, for instance (imho, the best politician alive) meaning "a preoccupation with the dignity of all people in a society". BTW, Adam Smith is blamed for things he never said like "free markets" since he was for State intervention and regulation of the economy because he believed in "free and fair competition" - the "free" means "free from distortions like monopolies and other unfair advantages".
A system that relies on the absence of corruption, shortsightedness and kneejerk policies is kind of faith-based
@@naemfield I think calling them knee-jerk policies is shortsighted. Adapting to change based on new information is perhaps one of the most commendable traits of mankind, since it permits us to thrive in situations where we would otherwise perish. It is telling that we turn to Keynesian economics when things get tough. But I suppose even an atheist will turn to god in a pinch, so maybe you weren't wrong about calling it 'faith based', just had the wrong motivations.
Have you even read one book of either marx or adam smith?
Brilliant economist! Would rather deal with 40 years of prosperity with one bout of stagflation (late 70's) Then 40 years of the boom bust mentality, and a recession every 10 years of Milton Friedman which we adopted in the 1980's. Europeans, and Japan went back to Keynes, U.S. did not, and went ahead with putting the corporate state above the civil state, a reversion back to the 1920's. Loved the comment "I guess everyone's is a Keynesian in a foxhole" I also loved the fact he was able to change his views when certain parts of his theory's were unworkable. Something modern economist should never be afraid to do.
Uh, you might want to check your facts. It wasn't 40 years of prosperity and their were tons of recessions inbetween. For instance the US didn't recover from the Great Depression until about 1940 (the specific date changes). There was then a recession caused by the influx of new soldiers returning to the workforce combined with all the industries trying to retool themselves to a civilian economy. 1953 and 1958 due to overenthusiastic monetary policy tightening, and then another recession in 1961 caused by more monetary policy problems.
Economic downturns happen every half decade to decade no matter what. There has never been a decade when the US hasn't had a downturn except for maybe the 2010's.
Also I have no idea what you're talking about people "going to Keynes". The economic policies of the US, Western Europe, and Japan, and almost identical. If anything, Ironically it was European policymakers that rejected Keynes during the Financial Crisis, pursuing austerity measures over countercyclical policies. The UK was an infamous case of this. Economists today by in large follow neo-classical economics, which is the merging of Keynesianism, Monetarism, Classic Economics, etc into one unified school.
@@wojtekthebear4958 Good points! Athough there are points you make, I have to disagree with. The entire point of the video is Keynsian philosophy "smooths out the edges, and abuses as well as the dizzying heights, and deep valleys of the wall street system" and this it does. Not that we didn't have recessions. Compared to the scope and scale from what went on before 1930, and after 1980, those you mentioned were fairly negligible. In the US for example spending remained high after the war (We were the only show in town, European and Asian factories were non existent) American soldiers were guaranteed by Congress to get there jobs back, although this did not fair well for female, and minority workers. The wealthy EU members did not abandon Keynsian philosophy on themselves, they heaved awful austerity measures on there poorer members Italy, Greece, so they can pay back there loans. Which you are right was catastrophic. There were far greater economic problems than recessions like inflation not linked to Keynes though that have occurred, for example inflation of the mid 60s due to Johnson's "guns and butter" philosophy. Unlike today though wages were attached to inflation so in comparison were also negligible.
@@sillysimion6079 The recessions weren't negligible the 1946 one was very significant, and the 1958 one was standard in terms of recessions.
Also again, you can't just look at one policy and claim that not following it negates everything else. Yes, some countries pursued austerity policies during the Financial Crisis. This was done both domestically and internationally by countries by the countries. Policy-wise though, they still by and large followed standard economics.
Wow, I love your videos! Maybe you could make some about history? I think it's very important to understand historical developments to get what is going on currently in the world.
If only Keynes had remembered what Winston Churchill had warned about the destructive impact of monopolies and monopoly privilege. In 1909, campaigning for a seat in the House of Commons Churchill told the British people that monopoly was the inherited enemy of democracy and of justice. He added that the monopoly of land is "the mother of all monopolies." Churchill's solution echoed the teachings of the Scot political economist Patrick Edward Dove. Government should impose an annual tax on those who control land equal to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held. Keynes somehow managed to ignored the growing redistribution of wealth associated with the concentrated control over land (broadly defined). Land blessed with natural resources to exploit was climbing in value. The same pattern was occurring in the cities where commerce occurred and population was increasing.
Still wating for Rothbard, Menschen!
Keynes said that in a depression we should pay people to dig holes and then fill them in. Richard Nixon said, "we are all Keynesians now."
You should do Nassim Nicholas Taleb. His legacy is still being written
I agree with this!
was literally about to ask you a few days ago to make a video about this guy. you must have read my mind
Would love to see School Of Life cover Anarchism.
There’s not really much to cover
@William Magee it never works long term and is just generally a very stupid idea in the first place. Nobody really wants anarchy.
@William Magee keep hoping he will make the video one day bro
@@donkeypuncher81 it would be nice to see why and how they think politically, there could be parts to agree with and its always good to expose yourself to different thought and theory personally i like merging beliefs of each ideal bc they are all right in some way but if they were merged you could possibly create something that is both beneficial and works with/for the people. merging beliefs is better than sticking to one simple belief honestly
Whenever I get interested in a certain topic, that topic starts to pop up in various settings such as the school of life or some online magazines I follow. It was only yesterday I asked a friend of mine what keynes brought to economics. Weird.
This guy was brilliant. This is where MMT comes from
No it isn't. Keynes did not touch monetary policy at all and didn't have much faith in monetary policy. His book focused almost entirely on fiscal policy.
@@wojtekthebear4958 I am very late indeed but Mike is talking about Modern Monetary *Theory*, not monetary policy.
my opinion is: keynes is more suited for overcoming a crisis, but after the crisis is over, we require policies that encourage a faster economic growth, since economies at that point become more competitive
I missed those maracas
Same.....😆
Keynes is a genius
My man Keynes!!!
That last line brings it home so well.
Keynes gets such a bad rap, when actually is the creator of the greatest economic policy of history. Thanks to his thought, capitalistic world (both developed and developing) grew fast and kept stable for 30 years. Severe recessions reappeared when his model was scrapped in the 1970s.
Never heard of inflation???
@@alphaohenriquez good luck experiencing inflation during a recession 👍
@@MrL702 not following
@@alphaohenriquez Reread the OP. Unhealthy amounts of inflation had not been experienced during the times of implementation of Keynesian economics.
@@MrL702 Unhealthy is ambiguous here. What do you call what in the era that we are in? All due to an overreach of government. Example that’s comes straight from mind would be government back loans for student loans and for homeowners. This has created an permanent inflation on products that were essentially the same decades ago. But the reality is that if you create money out thin air and give to people to spend it. It then creates instabilities in the market that always fosters lag from retailers, wholesalers. Only to create inadequate responses in order to catch up to the market.
When a house is on fire, You got to use the water hose to douse the fire. This analogy also applies to economics. When the economy needs stimulations and/or is in recession, the government has to step in.
In Laissez-Faire economics, the whole logic simply doesn’t make sense because it’s just like watching the house get on fire and we all will be like “Well, there’s nothing we could do.”
Well in Laissez-Faire it’s more like “well only the roof is flammable and there are winds blowing so we’ll just let nature take care”. There are still damages done tho
Keynsian thinking always made sense to me because it was driven by the idea of preventing extreme economic failures. Neoliberal thinking just seems to rely too heavily on "markets will solve everything" - a very irrational and faith, rather than evidence based, thinking.
Your videos are a godsend for capping off High School economics lessons.
Hayek under Regan/Thatcher gave us all the greatest rebellion against the establishment we have ever seen. Early punk rock. :)
Very true my friend - it also gave us a global recession, stratospheric income inequality and a new oligarchic superclass
And the Punk Rockers are now selling butter on TV. Go figure.
I thought I was a free market capitalist, but now sir, I believe that I am nothing other than a Keynsian in a foxhole.
In short: governments are not households, they are companies
no matter how much you austrian schoolers may hate him keynes will never die because you try getting political office in a recession then saying "we can't do anything believe in the free market" to a freshly unemployed person
That's why neoliberals make the claims that democracy is a bad thing...
I find it interesting that a lot of the School of Life videos go into the personal backgrounds of their subjects. This is mostly because one's life story shouldn't really affect the validity of the things they believed or argued. Accounting for someone's illogicality but supposing that they are merely trying to right the wrongs of their own personal demons is in itself a logical fallacy.
Yet, going into the background of these thinkers is still significantly important for two distinct reasons, each enlivened based on whether the argument in question is right or wrong. If an argument is correct and useful it gives us an indication of the kinds of contexts that fuel or create an impetus for certain thoughts and ideas, giving us an idea of what circumstances we might want to conjure in order to bring about similar innovations. Conversely, where a bad or illogical argument is made, it is important to try and account for why it was made in the first place. Perhaps a certain social context intoxicated a person's capacity to think logically, yet their ideas were nevertheless compelling, springing force a charismatic, yet flawed ideology or philosophy.
I think you left out the part where he recommends that, in good economic times or upswings of growth, that governments should decrease spending, and allow the markets to do their thing, maintain or increase taxes and pay down its deficits...woeful and/ or willful obfuscation?
All politicians left and right are wankers.
And this is where Hayek was right. The people making these decisions will always become corrupt at some point as we see with most politicians today. It's extremely wishful thinking, the boom and bust cycle lives on!
@@ricksanchez243what an idiot😅😅
Long-story short, stimulating short-run demand through stimulus really only has the effect of inflation, whereby those who would otherwise have jobs without such stimulus are effectively taxed by having their currency worth less, which is unavoidable, since demand is increasing without a proportionate increase in supply.
I will have to watch this a few more times. Thanks, I feel inspired by you all the time to make a report on a variety of topics just for fun.
Education is key to success. NICE
It's kind of ironic how the world bank and IMF have since been used to enforce austerity and prevent countries from implementing Keynesian reforms.
Austerity measures and what Keynes believes aren't mutually exclusive. It depends on the shock that led to the downturn in the first place. Obviously if the shock was to demand that austerity measures are stupid as you're only going to hurt demand even more, but if the shock was a supply shock, then no increase in demand will fix that, and austerity measures would actually be useful. That, and lenders like the IMF and World Bank most likely don't want to take any more risk by lending a failing country even more money.
He was indeed a great thinker -unfortunately his ideas are often twisted and abused by governments and modern economists, who naturally will stick to the theories that grant them more leeway and power, creating a good dose of human suffering in the process.
❤
Hello, thank you for good content! I highly appreciate your channel
Nice, have been waiting for a Keynes video.
An economy with a high frequency of economic downturns/upturns is not necessarily a problem. It is a symptom of taking on risk, which is absolutely necessary for economic growth. So, the question should be, is the return adequate for the levels of risk we are taking on. One thing is certain: no risk = no growth.
Keynes' most serious analytical failure was to discount out of hand the power of land markets and land speculations as a fundamental driver of cycles of boom-to-bust. He ignored changing land use; and, in particular, the rising rents extracted by owners of centrally-located or resource-laden lands.
Please come to America... we need you now more than ever, SoL.
How often do you read and can you give a tour of your library/what you read.
Also can you talk about Neoliberalism.
These school of life videos are a revelation! Philosophy has always been beyond my ken but I see now that philosophers and theorists are as human as I am, only with slightly bigger brains perhaps.
"In the long run, we are all dead"
In the short run we get the results of previous long runs, ergo that is a stupid falacy
Thanks! Right a week before my economic studies exam!
Keynes's ideas were prophetic. Behavioural economics (scientific evidence about how human actually think) supports and complements many of his initiatives.
How? I would seriously like to see some connections between BE or BF and Keynesian economics.
I don't know too much about theses school but I know that orthodox economics has been criticized a lot for its view of rationality, homo-oeconomicus, and their hypothesis in general.
Holly Richter-White I work in a behavioral economics lab at my college, but apply these principles to drugs of abuse. I would definitely agree that there's a connection and application, but it depends what you're talking about. Some great behavioral economic literature includes Hursh and Roma (2015), Hursh and Silberberg (2008), and Bickel (2014). Usually behavioral economics in a drug context involves how responses change in relation to a certain unit price of a commodity, such as an animal responding on a lever for ethanol solution in an operant chamber. However, in these contexts it depends if a commodity is delivered in a delayed fashion, the price of the commodity, the individual, type of commodity, delivers multiple drugs, have substitutes or complements available, have environmental enrichment, etc., which is really applicable to how individuals with substance use disorders may behave to obtain drugs of abuse. :) It's really quite fascinating
holylightbulb sounds like marketing to me
It's rubbish. Academic pondering and meddling with no idea what actually occurs out in the real world. Technocrats governing is the greatest social disaster we have allowed in our history. Allowing economics to work out the drug problem...FMS. Please...Keynesian economics with it's utopian BS connected.
The empire necessary to control world finances is the essence of a society of rich governments and equally poor citizens who do not fall in line.
when you get attacked in the comments from both the far left and the far right you're doing something right
Nah, it's the idealogues on both sides exerting their stupidity.
that’s stupid and doesn’t make any sense
You guys dont get the joke do you?
Well change it to "you may be doing something right" for the far right and left also fight one another.
r/enlightenedcentrism
Always been fan of Milton Keynes.
Stagflation could have had nothing to do with the OPEC oil embargo...
Missed this kind of videos, the ones that actually brought me to the channel 😃
Because of him, he spawned a banking system that perpetually feeds itself through a debt/growth paradox.
Now every economy has a central bank
To control : money employment and interest
The multiplier effect sounds good in theory but it doesn't work that well in the real world when velocity of money is low. Japan is experiencing this for 20 years they had 7 recessions during that time so much for "smoothing the economy"
Their situation is quite weird as well
Do one on Milton Friedman !!!
A moron who brought povertry to every country where his ideas were tried (see Pinochet's Chile).
what the fuck are you talking about? chile pre-Friedman had a 4000 USD percápita. now is 24.000 USD percápita with the same GINI and if you see by cohort the youth are more equal and rich than ever! our HID is super high unlike the rest of latin america. check your facts before to talk.
Facts are everywhere
www.latercera.com/voces/chile-segun-pnud-mas-prosperos-e-iguales/
PNUD
CEPAL
FMI
etc.
since 2000-2015 the 10 decil growth their income by 150% and the 1st decil by 30% this means that the poorest increase 500% fastest their income than the richest. Stop talking little boy.
Lol, just because the amount of money per capita has increased does not mean that ordinary people are better off, just that the rich are richer.
Read this to see how disastrous Friedman was for Chile:
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html
You source an anarchism site? lol
I was waiting for one on Keynes! yay! finally
Doing an essay on the National Minimum Wage and I'm doing a section on Keynesian Wage Theory. This was extremely helpful, thank you School of Life :D
2008 was a result of Keynesian economics.
The stock market crashed.
Lowered interest rates to 1% and increased the money supply, the government was keen on pushing people into houses even when they couldn't afford it (Subprime mortgages) and it created a housing bubble that many Free market economists understood would burst.
We have yet to really reverse all the policies inspired by Keynes and if anything we are currently overloaded with them.
2008 was a result of neo liberalism which was a backlash against Keynesianism.
might I suggest a book: 'Keynes: The Return of the Master,' by Robert Skidelsky
“In the long run we’re ok. The next generation are dead” - Keynes on how the debt burden of his model is paid by a cost of living crisis in future.
A video about John Stuart Mill in the "political theory" playlist would be great
Been waiting on this one for a while
Word.
banditoooranntttiitooo
to the bird
Nice vids.
Genius Fucking Christ , latter.
truth and lies are too Grey these days. the basement is a bunker
It's so great you took the high road and stayed positive with both the Keynes and Smith videos. Very well done. Also you might wanna do an update after the stimulus of the Corvid bailout, haha.
I mean, why wouldn't they be? Both of them were mostly right and modern economics still uses many ideas which were popularized by both men.
A video to introduce Hayek's economy will be interesting now...
Mr. Keynes Philosophy was a great concept, but what we all refuse to see, is the things we ignore because of how the design feeds the people, that help them lose their power. We have create a political life of me, me, me, which is a dictators life, no matter if it looks good, but me, me, me is not right. Who ignore representing what they suppose to do, and set around trying to solve the problem they create, by the me, me, me theory the system always put down. Who use their dictators theory to move things different ways, which by doing it, they have to take something out, and we all know what will happen with the system they take out. I myself believes when one get in politic, the first four years they should have the run of the system about how the me, me, me plays. Who came from a community that they see, and hear many things that not flowing right in the system, by being deprived that been there just as long as the birth of the community creation. Where most join the me, me, me concept because the sound takes over what they really supposed to be representing. That when every party reaches control of any political office, the bad, or good dictatorship will come in place. That they all forget about the blueprint that were put in place. Who create all kinds of talk show to bring the people along with the me, me, me concept, so they will not get the true understanding of the real rules in what our political system supposed to be doing. That's not a new thing because we the people are naturally conditioned to breaking the rules in how things were setup. The religion life of all kinds will tell us, and the so called the way of life theories. They all get head strong to take on the me, me, me concept. Where their theory is power, and no challenges are greater than what they put down. They only have the rule in words, not in action, is why we see the violent reaction taking place in everywhere throughout the country, and world. We are living proudly to go against the grain of nature, meaning nature going one way, and we the people going the opposite way, but for a life time our representative know it. I wonder why they know it, and refuse to change the course. Is it because the me, me, me have put one of the greatest addiction in the political life.
Interesting choice of the verb 'discovered' in the description when referencing his ideas- it is a whole other philosophical argument whether ideas and mathematical laws are discovered or invented.
For Kant,Mathematics is synthetic
8:57 that's ridiculous to point to that as result of establishment of IMF. Those changes were more in spite of his ideas, than their direct results.
Well explained. Thank you!
Thank you so much for making keyens video and hayek video !!!!!!!♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Roosevelt's New Deal and Kynesian economics gave US and UK 30+ years of economic boom and huge development. Since Hayek's ideas came to prominance, Friedman's economics of neoliberalism, Thatcher and Reagan, everything has been slowly going to 💩
Lol. Keynes still supported Capitalism and was an anti marxist/communist/socialist.
Keynes also hated illegal immigration in Europe and North America.
Keynes just hate free market capitalism and supported regulated welfare government intervention capitalism.
Search up Post Keynesian Economics and Veblenian Institutional Economics which is heterodox compared to neo classical economics.
This is an excellent and well-made video and of high quality for such a short film it is certainly worthy of my acclaim.
I had always wanted to learn about Keynesian economics for months now but forgot about it or postponed it. I watched a video about it produced by Khan Academy but the video was exceptionally boring and too slow-paced for my liking and I exited after a couple of minutes of watch time. This video however was amazing and it got me hooked and easily explained the entire concept of Keynesian economics without boring me or using complex terms I don't know the definition of, thank you.