Keynesian Economics

Need a little help here.

Could someone explain to me what this is all about?
- Advantages
- Disadvantages
- Which countries use them and why?

I've read some stuff about it online but I don't understand some of the terms that are being used. Thanks.

bump

http://mises.org/media/3703/What-is-the-Keynesian-approach-to-business-cycles

httx/mises.org/media.aspx?action=search&q=keynesian

choose your poison, these guys can do it better than me




but in essence its " print more money so people will consume more"
though Keynes himself would no doubt be appalled at how far his name is taken these days....as keynes believes the debt SHOULD be payed back if I am not mistaken

>>1
I sympathise with >>3 and >>4 but I believe Keynesian economics did have some positive benefits during the great depression, nameley the use of government administration to organize activities in the private sector, for instance setting up labor programs for mining, building roads and hoover dam etc... The advantage of these services is that they are both universal and mandatory which is something the private sector cannot accomplish, ideally businesses should pay the government for the services they want but in practice businesses simply form lobbying groups and get the taxpayer to foot the bill, another legacy of Keynes and his justification of interventionism.

Keynes reflects a complete inability to understand the concept of relativity, deflation and savings automatically increases aggregate demand, the same impulses that encourage people to buy luxuries and conveniences before the recession are still present and if we didn't have these impulses we wouldn't buy anything during the good times either, the less people buy the faster deflation, the faster deflation the faster people will start buying again. Artificially increasing aggregate demand through cutting interest rates, government spending and printing money to stop deflation not only waste resources but also increase the complexity of economic calculations people are expected to make thereby making the economy less efficienct.

Interest rates: Recessions are caused by previous growth turning out to be less economically productive as predicted, the solution is obviously for businesses to cut the fat and grow again in a different direction, artificially reducing interest rates encourages them to continue the activities that led to the recession.

Tax and spend: As I mentioned before government services are useful, however forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for services that the corporations that use them should be paying for is corruption. The government should only "step in" when the private sector covers the expenses.

Fiat money: A low inflation or deflating fiat currency is more or less the equivalent of an asset backed currency and thus a highly efficient medium of exchange for economic calculations, printing and artificially increasing inflation only disrupts the ability for businesses and homes to accurately assess what decisions they should be making. It is also the equivalent of a regressive flat tax diverting GDP to the state from everyone equally.

Keynesian economics extended the depression

this should clear everything up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

>>7
Keynes needs a good hard kick up the arse.

That is an oversimplification of Keynes's ideas.  Governments have since the 1930s done only one half of the things Keynes recommended.

Spend fiat money to stimulate the economy in times of recession and depression:  yes

Put surplus money in a national emergency fund during good times so that the nation doesn't have to go into debt to do that in the next recession:  no

>>9
Printing fiat money doesn't stimulate the economy any more than doing nothing, money does not have inherent value, printing money does not temporarily increase the size of the economy before the bureau of statistics next publishes the rate of inflation. Neither does this temporary delusion encourage people to spend, people were going to begin spending again anyway due to their savings and deflation and by raiding their savings and causing inflation you force them to spend prematurely on things they didn't need as much, instead of making large purchases like down payments for mortgages people have to rent apartments, instead of getting complete sets of furniture and eletronics they have to spend all their money immediately on cheaper lower quality alternatives. Central banking was supposed to put an end to wildcat banks yet now they act just like them.

and by causing inflation*
oops, I apologise

LIBERTARIANS LIBERTARIANS EVERYWHERE

>>12
What's wrong with libertarians, libertarian principles and true libertarian values? There are too many communists, why aren't you worried about the rise of Stalinism? Obviously we could use some more libertarianism in here right about now.

this is an oversimplification of keynes's ideas...he was actually waaaay more douchey then he was in the vid


BRETTON WOODS AMIRITE

>>12 blast those libertarians and thier protecting freedom and private property, and being against central banking GOSH!


how can we ever put in our robot communism with them in the way?

>>14
I know right. Why do does the left in this country love fascism so much? It's like they just read through Mussolini's speeches and used that as the basis for their economic policy.

>>13
why aren't you worried about the rise of Stalinism?
（　≖‿≖）
Nobody pushes for Stalinism, even braindead communists know it doesn't work.

>>17
So?

Spoiler: Leaders usually lie to their followers.

Besides, ideology is hot air, politicians can abuse it and twist to fit any practical policy they want, I'm talking about the pragmatic perspective, Stalinism is no different from Maoism or any other monstrous totalitarian regime. Can't you identify the 3 key components of Stalinism and compare them to the current regime?

1: Abusive political authority in the name of "the people".
2: Not just authoritarianism but also a concerted attempt to control every aspect of people's lives, totalitarianism.
3: Personality cults, extremism and psychological indoctrination, very highly centralized state and power structure.

1: The fact Obama has not instantly relinquished all his power and created direct democracy proves he is an amoral sociopath obsessed with power and doing his utmost to gain it without any respect to any ethics or ideology.
2: He is not after power for self-interest either, he's not a monarch who can be repleted with a few palaces, he wants it for power's sake, he follows it like a religion and always pushes for more no matter how much he already has for himself.
3: I'm not saying Obama is the only politician like this, republicans and democrats are both filled to the brim with them, Obama however rose to prominence within the oligarchy due to his force of personality among the masses. They actually believe he is "one of them" even though he was groomed by a political clique from infancy for the role like the aristocracy who would occasionally send their younger sons to military academies so that when they come of age they have someone within their inner circle who knows how to deal with commoners.

>>18
3: I'm not saying Obama is the only politician like this, republicans and democrats are both filled to the brim with them
At least you admit this. With that being said, Bush was far worse, his administration was bordering on theocracy. Let's not forget also other terrible things like DHS, and the Patriot Act, those alone gave him far too much power as a president.

Obama's popularity isn't exactly high, either, but isn't necessarily the lowest out of all presidents. I'll agree that he has ambitions, but calling him a communist/socialist/Stalinist/Maoist/whatever right-wingers decided to label him this week is just honestly nothing more than alarmist hyperbole.

Protip: every "notable" president has had a cult of personality of some kind, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan and Bush being examples.