|
|
12-31-2007, 07:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
The Church of Keynes
The Church of Keynes
By Garet Garrett "Probably no other book has ever produced in so little time a comparable effect. It has tinctured, modified, and conditioned economic thinking in the whole world. Upon it has been founded a new economic church, completely furnished with all the properties proper to a church, such as a revelation of its own, a rigid doctrine, a symbolic language, a propaganda, a priestcraft, and a demonology." Full Article Here
__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer 
|
| Sponsored Links |
| Red Cross - Donate Today Save the Rainforest |
|
01-21-2008, 03:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
01-21-2008, 07:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Many people bow before the alter of Keynes. But it's just another religion.
__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer
|
|
02-02-2008, 08:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
religion. (noun) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects No sensible person should be a sheep, whether the originator of their economic beliefs is Keynes, Smith, Friedman, or Marx.
__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device." Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.
|
|
02-03-2008, 06:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can any of you give me a brief overview of Keynes? I am very curious at this point.
|
|
02-03-2008, 08:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
About what in particular? The person or his views?
__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device." Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.
|
|
02-03-2008, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So he is just another believer in state intervened economies. Have we not seen the ill effects of this right in our faces? Right now we have rampant corporatism across the world were corporations have state sanctioned rights to trample on individual rights!
Then again is it even possible for politicians to not be in bed with the richest campaign contributers? We can have the freest market in the world but it still requires honest politicians. Are we doomed to suffer the tyranny of corporate and state monopolies on our lives?
|
|
02-03-2008, 09:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would hardly substitute the views of Keynes with corporatism. He attacked neoclassical theorists (correctly) for not coming up with a valid argument that addresses macro-economic trends. Keynes reasoned that during recessionary times deficit spending would bring the economy back onto its feet; the debt could then later be payed off during stimulated growth periods. He also favored government-sponsored work programs to ensure almost full employment and economic productivity.
You're being intellectually dishonest by calling all those who believe the market requires government assistance a corporatist. It's a well established fact, both historically and empirically, that laissez faire can produce some terrible results: business cycles in the 19th century were much more volatile than they are now. Major depressions occurred every twenty years, with minimal growth in comparison to the welfare state boom. All property rights are "state-sanctioned," not just corporations. Even Ayn Rand addressed the necessity of a state for capitalism to properly function: without it property "rights" are unenforceable without reverting to barbarism. Many of today's woes in the business and labor world originate from the persistence of neoclassical theorists. For example if corporations are so dreadfully entrenched in state affairs (which I agree, they are) then why not allow every employee working at a corporation the right to organize? I am asking logically; theoretically this could be very devastating by leading to a mass strike.
__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device." Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers. Last edited by GeneCosta; 02-03-2008 at 09:48 AM.
|
|
02-03-2008, 09:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to apologize for making that post in the heat of capitalist passion. Personally I don't believe a true market has every been implemented. Do I believe it to be possible? I'd like to think so. I personally have nothing against Keynes himself. He may have had the noblest of intentions but the really of implementing massive federal intervention leads to corruption and inefficiency. I believe the job of the government is to arrest crooks who trample rights in their quest for economic power. In short:
The larger the bureaucracy, the more corruption. We should allow the people to speak with their money. An economy is so complex that one person or a group of people cannot manage it without a fiat system which in turn hurts the middle class. I am defiantly not alone in this and the fight has been going on ever since the formation of the bourgeois.
|
|
02-03-2008, 10:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe you added an edit(or my mind is going bad) so let me address that.
You might have misconstrued my position with respect to government intervention. In a theoretical government with me as some kind of dictator it would be my job to protect the rights of individuals rather than that of corporations. In that sense, all citizens have the right to form unions(no mob connections please) but in turn all companies have the right to hire people willing to work. I am also against giving full power to certain functions that are of utmost importance to the nation such as transportation systems. I am for the regulation of the utility industry without subsidization(I believe subsidization creates complacent industry without reason to better its business practice) What does this leave for the market? Healthy competition! Healthy competition does not mean I would stand by and let injustices occur.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
Linear Mode
