I agree here there are tones of fake libertarians and fake austrians out there that are really conservatives heavily invested in big corporations and corporate interest that twist the words of people like Hayek Mises and Menger to fool people.
I'm not a Keynesian. I am very much Anti-Keynes because he was a capitalist fraud. I have read works from all three, by the way. Your non-comprehension is stunning. IF you gathered I was a keynesian from all of this, then how can you be credible at all?
To argue that crony capitalism is leftist is moronic. The majority of all revenue goes into the pockets of private enterprise. Case closed.
It is fine and dandy that you have your personal belief. however, this thread was an analysis of the striking similarity that Keynes ultimately holds to other mainstream Capitalist thinkers. Your post was just some vague nonsense about how the government should be small because it is a "necessary evil". Not relevant.
And then you have to ask yourself, what good is the likes of Hayek? Has his understanding of knowledge really added to the economic approach, or has it actually been limiting (as shown by the Austrians going all blubbering when referring to the firm and the tendency towards complex hierarchy)? Keynes has had results. Capitalism continues. The anti-Keynesians, if they aren't anti-capitalist, need to have a re-think!
The Road to Serfdom was an excellent book, have you read it? It is Wealth of a Nation for a new generation. - - - Updated - - - The Road to Serfdom was an excellent book, have you read it? It is Wealth of a Nation for a new generation. - - - Updated - - - The Road to Serfdom was an excellent book, have you read it? It is Wealth of a Nation for a new generation.
I doubt you comprehended the Wealth of Nations. And Hayek? I've already summarised his main contribution to economics (and actually his curse). I do like him mind you. He has done wonders for innovations in feasible socialism. However, nothing to do with the thread. Please don't spam
Was replying to the post above. People who think they are smarter then others wear their ignorance on their sleeves.
I have said the same thing for years, good to see you agree. The political extremists on each side are a small, noisy distraction. Neither of the two types you describe want a free market, a level playing field, and government protection against corruption.
Keynes was, Keynesianism is, anti-Free market Only because your "definition" of capitalism is really statism. The free market is struggling.
I do, indeed, believe that government, at its very best, is merely a necessary evil. But you have (somehow) managed to gloss over my main point, viz.: For the record, that was from post #26 in this thread...
If this is what you understood from my post either my English is terrible or you have to put me on your ignore list. I did not in any way support the way governments are operating . "The masses in the market" don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) as proven in 2008 . The Austrian school of morons is irrelevant . You probably know very little about feudal Europe to call yarls , earls , counts and emperors "the government" .
Nope. I'm referring to the nature of the firm and the consequences for macroeconomic stability (something ignored by the fake libertarian dogma). Interventionism becomes necessary to stabilise the economy, minimising the threat of stagflation for the reproduction of capitalist profit
I see. Perhaps you still don't get it. Petty distinctions like your impression that Keynes was "left of center" are meaningless drivel. He was a capitalist and part of the capitalist machine. That is what the OP argued, you have addressed it only by restating the very same uneducated position that the OP invalidated.
The biggest friend to socialism is arguably the fellow that actually believes laissez-faire is possible. Through their ignorance, they demand that the continued existence of capitalism is threatened (usually throwing in clichés such as "yeah but, its statism" or "its socialistic" or "Keynes is a lefty"). Should I ignore them, given my socialism and the usefulness of their knowledge deficiency? Nope. First, its jolly nice to be open and honest about these things. Second, with the downfall of capitalism, there is always the alternative threat of fascism. I suspect such fake libertarians wouldn't mind that. See, for example, their previous links with right wing dictatorships.
Precisely. The poor sod that feels the true free market can really exist is the one who will seek to prevent Cronyist attempts to preserve financial hegemony, thus ushering about the swifter demise of his capitalist Utopia. Long live the fool.
He wasn't around in the 70s to see what price fixing does. We had oil shortages while Japan with no oil of its own did not because we fixed the price too low. Now they want to go the other way, which will of course limit how much labor is bought and therefore unemployment will rise, especially among low skilled individuals trying to gain experience. Next they will say crazy things like "but it will increase demand"_as if higher prices for anything ever did that.
Government intervention causes stagflation. Are two decades of stagflation caused by government intervention enough? Why are we still re-litigating the failures of these policies? Read up on the 70s economics, they have already tried your approach.
Reiver is a market socialist, if I recall correctly. In essence, you are massively oversimplifying how any pricing model would work in such a system. Its not just centralized government pricing.
Cronyism isn't capitalism. It is what happens when socialists get their way and the government intervenes in the economy. Cronyism is squarely in the leftist camp of economics.
It isn't. Cronyism arises from private enterprise and the financial class's manipulation of the economy. Calling it leftist is ludicrous and not a single credible source would back you up on that.
What are import protections for union industries? What are closed shop laws? What is "investment in green energy"? Isn't the whole fight against vouchers just cronyism for union teachers? What are bailouts? Sending cheap cash to the financial industry? Etc... There is basically cronyism in everything the left wants to do economically. The left has quite a bit of cash. Don't think they aren't rich people trying to make more. Those 10k a plate fundraiser aren't attended by the poor.
Most of protectionism originates from producer pressures. Its about maintaining producer surplus, as anyone with a basic analysis into supply & demand will confirm for you. Workers, who lose from trade liberalisation, tend to be the lower paid (as confirmed, for example, by the Heckscher-Ohlin approach to the determinants of comparative advantage). These workers tend not to be unionised
No, in the US and the UK the unionized industries get the most tariff protections, with exception of farming. Sure they march lock step with business but this all leftism, rightism (see Hayek) would be for no tariffs or industry protections. Every industry for themselves no special crony status based on who was to be affected. I take your silence on the other items as a concession that they are leftist policies.
