0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
or copy the link
Go to http://econstories.tv for EconStories content and materials. Produced by Emergent Order. Visit us at http://emergentorder.com. Econstories.tv is a plac…
“Fear the Boom and Bust” a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
27,937
Like
Save
Comments
Reply to sleepyeyeguy Cancel reply
640 or It’s FREE!
){kind=link}
shut up, Republican Liberal fuck
“Money by itself has no function…” shows how little you understand the topic, and highlights how little anyone should pay attention to your comments.
Calls people “fucks” then tells others grow up. haha the Irony is wonderful.
Politicians just love Keynesian economics because it give them big bucks to buy votes; too bad it fails the people.
I love it when people who don’t know any economics argue about it on the internet.
I watched this on @FBNStossel
more or less that’s the gist of it.
dominance of Keynesian theory is here to stay, as we approach the peak of technological growth, the same principles will be used to pull in the reigns, minimize & stabilize growth, reduce opportunities in favor of ecology, sustainable development and local production.
money by itself has no function unless it has velocity, unless it flows it collapses civilizations. sustaining&aligning that flow with technical realities is at the core Keynesian theory
Keynes knew that letting the economy run-amok is a disaster in the making, the role of leadership is balancing stability with opportunity. stability for future generations and opportunity for present generations
…
Hayekians reckon the free market is some kinda holy spirit, gonna lead us all over the rainbow -and I reckon it’s a big fat hooker too dim to spot a wooden nickel.
the invisible hand is a fairytale, used to omit real solutions, by idealists who dont understand the technical side.
You fucks are all the same. Socialism, Communism, and Keynesian is just used incorrectly. How about it just doesn’t work and you grow the fuck up and think for yourself.
is that a fake moustache hayek is wearing
Perhaps, but fine in theory it has issues in reality. Also ironic that post keynesians (who take much of what he said to the nth degree) actually see issues with (or even reject) stimulus spending, and in a way is closely related to Austrian theory!
Look into debt deflation, which post keynesians have embraced, its closely tied to Austrian theory.
The broken window fallacy goes back to Bastiat from the mid 1800s!
Keynesian economics is a superior theory but it has been misused and overused for political gain and power.
Hayek rightly gets the last word.
Can’t believe I’ve only just seen this. Top class stuff.
just an abuse of hazlitt’s broken window fallacy
I think something has been lost in translation here, I am not advocating the welfare state, what Lloyd-George and Attlee created was the basis of what has become the excessive unnecessary welfare you describe, what I am saying is that a safety net would constitute welfare by definition “Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the BASIC physical and material well-being of people in need.” emphasis on BASIC, nothing more
The current welfare state is NOT about a safety net. It’s about total care and total control of people from cradle to grave. That’s not a safety net. It’s a policy that reduces people to cattle to be managed.
indeed, quite right, the government bureaucrats would run it inefficiently as well, here in the uk we have learnt of two recent cases, both the bbc and the gov. having projects run far over budget and far over schedule
Problem with this is that none of Keynes’s lines reflect his General Theory.
Hayek is wrong about everything
And the beginning is completely ahistorical: In the 80s Hayek and his ilk became the centerfold for Thatcherism and Reaganomics. This followed the financial liberalization in the 70s and then New Labor took the same trend in the 90s.
Keynesianism, meanwhile, was never adopted- cause he taught that the system was flawed- thus it was replaced by the “neoclassical synthesis”. Look it up!
Pumping the JAM
What happens to people who only plan for the short term?
“In the long-run we’re all dead.” Sure, but some us have children or care where the world is going.
A safety net not based on government force.
VISIT THIS ECONOMICS PAGE…ENJOY!
squidoo.com/the-future-of-business
“no welfare”? hayek did believe in a safety net…though many of his supporters do not like to dwell on this fact :L wonder why…
haha TOP
Best vwl 2
Watch this video 10+ more times and watch the movie Too Big Too Fail.
Its like theory + applied economics. With my notes/lectures/homework and this video helped me pass my Economics of Banking/Financial Markets/ with a GREATER understanding. Music is the really a connection to the sub conscious.
When Keynes said “in the long-run we are all dead”, he is referencing that the LR is made up of SR & if the economy doesnt bounce back in the SR, the LR will be affected.
My personal perspective without any economic school biases is that Keynes doesn’t want to the SR to deviate to an extreme level because that will affect the LR if the deviations are too wide. BUT SR will always have deviation level regardless because the SR is tied to more behavioral/emotional economics.
Keynes & Hayek both have valid arguments, it just a matter of perspective on where your economic views stand
Hayek provided an economic analysis, not a policy recommendation
Keynes provided a policy recommendation to a specific economic event.
In other words, Hayek looks at long-run (LR) while Keynes looks at short-run (SR)
When Keynes said “in the long-run we are all dead”, he is referencing that the LR is made up of SR & if the economy doesnt bounce back in the SR, the LR will be affected.
Maybe Im wrong here, but isnt there monetary and fiscal policy? Or to put it another way, central bank and government policy. Sure, it can make sense to have them work together, and that may be needed at times, but I hate that Austrians have a strong case for their banking theory but advocate no welfare, almost no government, gold standard etc I dont see why we can’t have no Fed (or a very limited one) but still welfare and etc
This is how I study for university
I was just going to write the same thing. It’s addictive!
I’ve probably counted as a viewer for this video 15 times.
And when you are 65, you get all the money back plus interest. There is a minimum requirement of around 140,000 SGD and once you pass that, I believe you can withdraw as much as you like. So it’s kind of like forced savings which can in a sense be a good thing. That would be good for the US citizens who have a savings rate of less than 2%. Social Security isn’t personal fund. CPF is.
FYI the Singaporean government has a lot of assets. Enough so to pay all of its liabilities. My friend lives in Singapore. He said he used to pay $45,000 in taxes in the US and now only pays around $8,000. And it’s not 20% of earned wages, it’s 20% of the first 1500SGD per month. Plus, the fund guarantees you a 2.5% interest in retur per year. That’s better than in US banks. Also it’s your own personal fund, unlike SS in the US. You can also withdraw some money for housing/healthcare.
FYI Singapore has a lot of debt. The Singapore government has a massive load of public debt owned to Singaporeans. In Singapore We have CPF, (Central Provident Fund) which is a compulsory saving program, where 20 % of our earned wages goes into and our employers add another 15 % into the Fund. The government then uses the CPF money for spending. I don’t understand why Conservatives like Singapore so when we are actually quite Socialist in healthcare, educations, housing and forced savings.
Capitalism is based on borrowing. Let say you lived in in a town in northern England in the early 19th century that has just discovered it has a coalfield near it. If your town or a local merchant plan to develop it, they will need to borrow money from banks or from other investors in order to develop the coal field. A coal mine will result in increased employment in your town and also result in increased consumer spending around town by the miners. You repay your loan slowly with your profits
VanaeCavae is being vague. He is talking about the specific institution of the national debt. It was invented by the Dutch & adopted by the British. The UK government sold bonds to the Bank of England to finance its wars. The French & other opponent governments were at a massive disadvantage because the amount of money they could spend was limited by taxation & the willingness of weary merchants to lend to Kings who had a history of not paying their debts.
You don’t make money and become more successful by taking out loans and paying tons of interest. That makes your position sound simply idiotic. If you can become successful by taking out loans, why don’t you do that, or China, or any others country today that is lending to us.
I’m not going to base all my opinions off of one documentary. In this modern era, the USA is only allowed to borrow so much because the dollar is the reserve currency and countries continue to use it. But how did we become so economically dominate? It’s because we were a CREDITOR nation up until a bit after WWll. We were the dominate nation. Only until we became a DEBTOR nation is when you see the US falling in the ranks economically. Now more free countries like Singapore are rising.
The ability to borrow money give the West the Edge over all other Rivals. Look at USA. Since day one of of Independence, America has debt. look it up on the internet. Debt is not new. But the size of it is new. You should watch this chinese documentary called The Rise of the Great Powers. There are english subtitles and it is available on youtube. It explains,besides technology, how the Western Banking system and the ability to borrow money gave the West an edge.
The West didnt rise economically because of the ability to borrow. That statement is just absurd.