Message from @Reprehensibletrash
Discord ID: 599457136262512641
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...
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
Uhh
i mean that's basically what happens
the only way it wouldn't mean that is if you had a reserve ratio of 100% i believe
@n meowzers What do you do with money from a loan? You apply it to the economy immediately.
Either way the system we have now isn't looking to be replaced. If anything, they want more debt, and they want to spend more of that debt on migrants
<:ahegon:566797166258028548>
yes
No longer is it a cushion which someday will not support us. Instead, the support is going entirely to minorities, and the very countries who we hold debt to.
If anyone can understand more technical documents
This is how money actually works, according to the Bank of England in 2014.