Why Keynesian Economics will never work.... It's stupid, for starters...

in #blog6 years ago

scaled map - Copy - Copy.jpg

The Keynsian school of thought...

When the economy contracts, people argue that the government should use money (injecting stimulus) in an economy.

You only need to see the debacle of 2008 to see this does not work, but instead creates false markets. (share buy backs at no interest, anyone?)

The idea of big government spending as a national remedy, started in the 1930s when the United States was in the the Great Depression.

English economist John Maynard Keynes argued that the government could boost the economy if it borrowed money then spent it. (because borrowing money from banks and paying interest on it always works out well, right?)

His theory - known as Keynesian economics - meant that money would find its way into people’s wallets through government borrowing, and thus people would then spend the money, and thus revitalize the economy.

Following the Keynesian paradigm, Obama and Democratic Congress increased spending through the extension of unemployment benefits, the health care takeover, and bailouts of financial institutions.
Then also throw in massive increases in other spending and the funding to the of hundreds of billions of dollars.
('special interest' projects. ....corruption and socialism , anyone?).

In theory, then - all this government spending should have spurred demand. It should have created more jobs to meet to meet this new demand....mmmmm....
Demand-side economics does not create jobs, but only creates corruption through arbitrary redistribution.(socialism).

Keynesian theory looks quite impressive on paper, if only it didn’t have this one logical fallacy.

And it's quite a biggie.....oops...

Government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking it out. Doh!

As the government puts money in the one hand, it borrows money from the other.
Government spending benefits those people who receive the money, not those who produce wealth.

Quite simply - The economic model is unsustainable.
The private sector already understands that the government “stimulus” stimulates nothing( long term), and is a short term 'fix' that's only sets up further hardship in the future.

It involves borrowing from the future. From your children's earnings....Nice.

The Keynesian response is to say that there will be an increase in the overall available cash, (it's not yours however- , but your unborn child's), which will increase consumer spending. It's a gift of an empty box, if you can think past next week...

scaled map - Copy - Copy.jpg

When the government gives money , that money is taken from someone else .

.... This can only come in two forms: taxation or borrowing.

“their ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” as Milton Friedman said.

Socialists close their ears to this reality.... They live in a perpetual delusion.
Any big injection of dollars (from the government), without any increase in productivity - is purely inflationary and the currency loses its value.

Keynesianism Has Failed

In Great Depression, Herbert Hoover increased taxes dramatically. From 25% to 63% .
Protectionist policies (crony capitalism in other words), increased intervention into the private sector and - from the Keynesian perspective - boosted government spending.....
The debt increased by 47 percent in 4 years using this policy.
Growth went down and unemployment went up.

Then FDR who followed the same doctrine.
Tax rates went to 79% !! and government intervention increased greatly.

GDP, under FDR, remained fairly flat and unemployment remained high.
Staggeringly high until 1940.

There's nothing like a good war, to increase productivity though, eh...?

scaled map - Copy - Copy.jpg

Spending maniacs (known as keynesians) will say that from 1940 onwards , GDP grew and unemployment went down rather dramatically.

There's nothing like a good war, to increase productivity though, eh...?

The biggest jump in debt, and employment (and GDP) came from the participation in WWII.
It was all financed by the government through debt and the taxpayer.

GDP came from the manufacture of armaments( and all the other connected industries that grow due to this)
The war effort employed millions of active duty, and civilian members in every area.

Unemployment increased after the war.
After the years following 1945, the dust then settled.

The United States was the last man standing.

Pretty much everything was destroyed in Europe and Asia. The _ entire_world had just become America’s best customer.

....when no other country could physically do business, and supply all that was needed, America could supply.

GUESS WHAT..?

Private sector and free market to the rescue!!!!!!!

Is it clear as to why Keynsian economics is a flawed economic model...?

It's based on borrowing money to create economy, rather than productivity to create economy.

Reasoning and data show that Keynesian is a juvenile approach to economics.

An economic model designed to push the socialist agenda....

scaled map - Copy - Copy.jpg

It's absolutely nuts, in other words...

Sort:  

Earlier today I was accused of comparing apples and oranges!

And reading your post I was thinking it was all an analogy for Steemit...

DO WE HAVE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM?

I'm still trying to work that out ....

Is crypto currency built out of thin air? (or geeks dreams, whatever.)

Philosophically speaking - money is whatever people have trust in seeing as money....
Until crypto , it has always been backed by tangible goods - from salt, all the way to gold...

Crypto is a an unknown - as in never before in history, have we had this as a possibility...

Even know, it's relative to the dollar. Even now, you can't get into crypto with out using fiat money - with the unique exception of steem....

It's something I can't fully get to grips with in, all honesty, within my own head...
Tangible goods for value backing a currency is an easy concept.

Crypto?...mmmm...It is, essentially , a conceptual currency.

The only basis in real life to a value , is the cost to produce the coin - which is paid for in dollars (electricity)..

If it ever becomes a fully formed idea of how I see it, I promise I'll do a post!!

It's not a popular opinion on Steemit but I now think ALL cryptos are a whopping great scam and are even more devoid of any real value than fiat currency...

It's not a popular opinion on Steemit

Ya think? lol

The biggest 'darkside' I see, is the move into cashless and then taken over for government scrutiny...and the beginning of true totalitarianism..
Without a true value in money, the whole paradigm that we have lived by since we became tribal, changes.
now that's worrying..

The more you learn about Keynes, the more you find out he wrote a doctrine for the elite to use as a good excuse to tax, borrow and spend more.

I am pretty sure that for each "govern-cement job" that two private sector jobs are destroyed.

And, i am more and more convinced that compound interest can make one wealthy, but all we have is compound debt, where there will be nothing left.

...it's all part of the long term commie plan....(or bankers plan, the same shit, different names..)

Most people, back a half a century ago, believed in the "commie plan".

However, i thought i was above that. I learned about communism, when applied by a commune, and i learned about communism applied by a govern-cement as written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Now, i am beginning to believe in the "commie plot", its just not run by commies, its run by a group of people who feel they must control the world.

Maybe its a "crony-capitalist plot"

Maybe its a "crony-capitalist plot"

crony capitalism ends in communism...it has to...after fascism...(where we are now, increasingly)

Add to that the money that they borrow is.... Created out of thin air, but the interest is paid back in hard cold cash. lol.

Created from thin air, but backed by the future generation's, labor...

....your kids and your grand kids labors, at the current levels of debt...

(Does this then mean, that by me having no kids, that I've really screwed the system?...wooohoooo! )

Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)

Ways you can help the @informationwar!

  • Upvote this comment or Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP or Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

correct.
one small problem.
consider WWII as urban renewal
We removed their old obsolete factories.
then the Marshal plan rebuilt them.
from the sixties on they were in competition with us.
we had old factories.
they had brand new ones.

A planned strategy..

Never confuse banks with borders....

Once the wealth was extracted post ww2 to the US, and people were 'rich', it then had to be redistributed - Japan in Asia, and Germany in Europe, predominantly.

For the communist (keynesian) strategy to ascend, no one can ever be allowed to get too rich - perpetual reduction and redistribution.

The we all get poor at the same rate...it's easier to bring on the one world government, and real totalitarianism.
(In my opinion)

I have a different interpretation of the facts, which I don't dispute.
but you know that.

I think I have read or heard somewhere, that Keynes really took the credit for establishing his economic precepts that were not created by him, but by the Nazi minister of economy. I don't know if it's true or not.

I dunno, matey

The idea of big government spending as a national remedy, started in the 1930s when the United States was in the the Great Depression.

There is a big difference in printing money to pay workers to build the Grand Coulee Dam and sending Quantative Easing to banks to cover their toxic bets in the dirivative markets. Such comparisons are highly misleading in my opinion.

One will get money in the hands of the workers and help the general economy while the other made free money available for the wealthy to artificially inflate the stock market.

...the point is the borrowing off the future, or taxpayers - to pretend its a moving economy.
Short sighted and doomed to failure without something like war to reset things.

Such comparisons are highly misleading in my opinion.

It's the same end result. A sucking of people resources away from growth with production.

There's a reason the deep state have been pushing for a war anywhere they can start one..

It's the same end result.

It is not, in my opinion. The 1934 Bank of Canada Act gave the Canadian National Bank the ability to issue non-interest loans to federal, provincial and municipal governments for infrastructure projects. Such projects as the Saint Lawrence Seaway, the second largest naval fleet in the world prior to the US' late entrance into WWII and the Trans Canada Highway were a few such projects.

Even with such huge funding Canada's national debt had not been greater than
20.3 billion, which was the final year of using The Bank of Canada Act. The present Prime Minister's father, Pierre Trudeau, stopped using the national bank in this way for a seat on the G7. Canada is the only country in the G7 with a National Bank.

The practise then became making government loans from banks with compound interest. The following graph will show you the difference to the national debt this practise has made.

brief history 12.png

P.S. It should be mentioned that this was done just prior to the 80's double didget interest rates, coincidentally.

You misunderstand the big picture, my friend...

If you have to borrow and not produce, to make the economy - it's on borrowed time....
1o years or a 100 years - it's the same outcome.

Borrowed money cannot create a sustainable economy only spin plates..

...the 'hockey stick' is not just a product of the last decade or so - but the chickens coming home to roost from nearly a century... of this philosophy.

Look at the welath in the US - but it was destined to collapse because borrowed money is not a sustainable model..

Such projects as the Saint Lawrence Seaway, the second largest naval fleet in the world

A perfect example. In what way does all the money going into this project produce anything? (except war)
The money was taken from future generations labor production, via borrowing.

You seem to be missing my point. Borrowed money implies you are borrowing it from someone with interest. By today's standards that is the banks and the federal reserve in the case of the US. The debt incured through QE will eventually drag the economy down once the cost of servicing the debt increases due to the rise of rates.

In the example of Canada's National Bank there was the situation where the government owned bank prints more funds and distributed it to all levels of governments, interest free, for infrastructure projects.

If you don't feel that the Saint Lawrence Seaway or the Grand Coulee Dam have not paid for themselves many time over then we must simply see economics very differently.

Loading...

Rothchilds banks...

Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada

Rothchilds banks...

Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada

Are you suggesting that the nationalized Bank of Canada is a Rothchilds' bank?

No, I was just pointing that out...I just did a quick search, is all.

Pointing what out?

The Rothschilds are in Canada...which is a very bad omen as to 'who' is running 'what' - behind the scenes.

One will get money in the hands of the workers and help the general economy

only for a short period of time, it's not sustained, and will collapse at some point in the future - without extreme events to reset - war being the best one for that..

The grand coulee dam has been producing electricity for 2.3 million homes per year since coming online. You have a funny take on "only for a short period of time" and "it's not sustained". 😎

You have a funny take on "only for a short period of time"

1942 , until to today is 70 years - ish.

In terms of a debt based system running full throttle - lets say 100 years...

Markets without this system ran for at least 4000 years.

('This system' meaning a financial industry , central banking and usury - compound interest in this context)

So in the scheme of things, and in context of civilization - anything post ww2 is short term. This doesn't make it sustainable - it's only 2 generations away...

For comparison, do you see the fossil fuel industry as 'for a short period of time'?
It is, relative to the history of man, and this also is probably not sustainable..

.....the cost of the dam is not repaid until 2044

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 57544.06
ETH 2338.08
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.35