|
the John Maynard Keynes appreciation thread
|
View this Thread in Original format
| d-miurge |
I think that he was the most brilliant economist of the 20th century.
He helped to solve the crisis of 1929 (keynesians economists were the brain-trust of F.D. Roosevelt), and we "owe" him also the huge period of growth of post-war period in the world(1950-1973).
What do you think about him? |
|
|
| occrider |
I bet you're a neo-Keynesian aren't you??? I don't trust your kind. Neo-classicalists, supply-siders, and neo-keynesians all look a little shifty eyed to me ...
/monetarist
All praise to the fearless leader!
He shall lead us to salvation. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Just another big-government, tax-and-spend liberal. When will you people learn that the unregulated market is self-correcting and could never, ever fail?
(Libertarian RAAAAAAGGGGGEEEE!!! :whip: ) |
|
|
| d-miurge |
I'm actually not a neo-keynesian or so. I just consider J. M. Keynes as an important man of the past century. By the way, there are no "Friedmanian" major trend in economics, that's a sign.
I could define my approach of economics as a mix between liberalism and keynesianism.
Sometimes there is no miracle drug, the microeconomic approach - on which the monetarism is based - is only a normative model, an ideal type à la Max Weber. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
I'm actually not a neo-keynesian or so. I just consider J. M. Keynes as an important man of the past century. By the way, there are no "Friedmanian" major trend in economics, that's a sign.
|
Yea I don't really care if you are neo-keynesian or not it was just a joke. But what do you mean by major "trend" in economics? Is the Chicago School and monetarism not a major trend? And what would that be a sign of exactly?
| quote: |
I could define my approach of economics as a mix between liberalism and keynesianism.
Sometimes there is no miracle drug, the microeconomic approach - on which the monetarism is based - is only a normative model, an ideal type à la Max Weber. |
I'm sorry but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Wouldn't Keynesian theory, endorsing the end all be all solution to economic distress (by influencing aggregate demand and the ability for governments to effectively control aggregate demand) be the "miracle drug" that you are speaking of? So the rejection of monetarism, which rejects the more aggressive keynesian approach (due to the faults of recognition lag, implementation lag, and impact lag that are more prevalent in Keynesian thoery) in favor of a more laissez faire approach to simply increase the money supply with population, as being a "miracle drug" seems somewhat contradictory. I'm curious to see what your mix of liberalism and keynesianism policy entails however. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| Keynes has done far more damage to the world than Hitler, Stalin, and the A-bomb COMBINED. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Keynes has done far more damage to the world than Hitler, Stalin, and the A-bomb COMBINED. |
Wow. Hyperbole much? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Keynes has done far more damage to the world than Hitler, Stalin, and the A-bomb COMBINED. |
There isn't a :rolleyes: big enough...
Oh wait. Yes there is:
Thank-you for lending credence to my stereotyped perception of the "libertarian" ideology, Capitalizt! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
FOA anyone dissing Keynesian economics...
You come over to England and ctach a f***ing train!!!!!!!
(Then go do the same in some random European country and tell me which economic system works best...) |
|
|
|
|
