Message from @slavecaste
Discord ID: 800105457422303252
ABCT is false now
It's a defense for usury
he did, where?
Feder's Theory of Interest <:chad:793675087064465449>
In his general theory and every other literature he had
He saw central bank action as barley demand responding for recessions
Keynes believed in spurring investment which open market operations precisely do
no you aren't
are you ?
No, he believed in socializing investment which is basically debt-free money to the government.
well I obviously dont think all interest is usury or whatever
Basically fiscal policy but no national debt
all interest is wrong and anti-bible
but I think what hammer and sickle is saying is that ABCT doesnt describe the nature of modern business cycles which I agree with but thats because of the government/central planners/private banks or whatever we want to call them
'hammer and sickle'
My emoji isn't hammer and sickle but call me cash plz
hammer and hammer
i assumed it was meant to represent a hammer and sickle
Austrians got lucky and only described 1 RECESSION throughout history
and that was the early 20's one
ive also seen empirical evidence to suggest it accurately described the great depression
Usury and Worldwide Austerity caused TGDP
well that may have worsened it under FDRs years but lets not forget it originally started with hoover
It started it
FDR got us out of TGDP
and then did Austerity and got us back in
idk if he got us out do you have any articles on that?
not saying "umm provide a source" im just interested cause ive never head that
Great article debunking Merchant Economics (Austrian) and Marxist economics
Did you not know that?
also Lord Keynes, the guy who runs the blog you linked, literally calls Austrians like Rothbard anticapitalists for being against fractional reserve banking (what I presume you would consider usury)
''…will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary…''