Message from @Comando
Discord ID: 599456675610755117
Almost like we lost control of our entire system, in 1936
Keynes solution? Use Government spending to increase aggregate demand to get out of the rut, then scale back involvement, during the good times so you can do it again later.
but im taking economics in a month so ill find out then
When Keynesian Econ was in it's very beginning
yeah like borrowing from the future
or saving up rather
Keynesism worked really well... until it didn't, and broke western economies in the late 1960's and 70's in the form of inflation
The problem being that there is no such thing as a Keynesian politician
it didn't break them
"Saving up" by alliance with childfuckers, and taking their criminals as asylum seekers
stagflation broke them
and keynesian schools at the time couldn't explain stagflation
it provided the impetus for the ascendance of neoliberalism
They bloody well could explain what had happened, but weren't willing to accept that Governments had over applied fiscal policy
@Comando my understanding is that it was only supposed to be temporary. To be replaced within a few decades, and it never was.
^Politicians will always have an incentive to spend and do something. This means that they will rarely cut back spending in practice. so Keynesianism is good when your in a rut, but will eventually break your economy if you continue it onwards.
Today's economists are basically complete Keynesian hacks. They do not intend to revitalize the west, only increase its dependency on internationalism
i'm pretty sure the consensus at the time was that there existed an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation
I myself fall into being a post-Keynesian.
I think that Keynes was using tools, which while not... wrong, weren't correct in their understanding.
No shit. They were designed to skirt the costs of the Second World War, not to supposed an empire
Keynes sucessfully identified that SOMETHING had changed, and that money was not being applied to the economy in the 30's and onwards
Let alone the entire world
post-keynesianism seems better than mainstream econ
but it's important to not remove the political from political economy
The way things are now, if china or Saudi crash, so does every western country
All our eggs in on fucking basket
i'm not sure that the sort of prescriptions people tend to derive from post-keynes econ would be viable in the long term in a liberal state
One of the chief differences is that... what if we completely misunderstood how money works?
Money, and debt...
Debt is supposed to be avoided. Under Keynes, it's the game
there has to be a deficit somewhere
We will likely have to adapt a completely different set of economics, and to do so will need to isolate that system, to prevent dependence
assuming net imports/exports are at zero a public sector surplus necessitates a private sector deficit and vice versa
Alliances are one thing, but allowing other nations into your economy isn't actually helpful, nor stable
What if... lending out money... creates new money...
What if, having loans repaid, takes money out of the economy?
And what if repaying loans takes out more money from the economy that it adds in? <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>
If this hypothesis were true, then there would be economic crashes, whenever there was a period of credit creation, and whenever the credit stopped being created... there was a crash.
Oh fuck
lending out money doesn't create money unless you print it