Economics Thread, Any Other Keynesians Here?

[Anonymous No.55765542]

Anyone else a Keynesian who believes in Progressive economic policies, high taxes, and running deficits when it's needed?

[Anonymous No.55765752]

The federal reserve should be one computer in the white house.

[Anonymous No.55765767]

>>55765542
No, I believe that the government should not partake in the economy of a country.

[Anonymous No.55765783]

>>55765767
Market failures? Monopolies, etc?

[Anonymous No.55765813]

>>55765783
Market failures should be allowed to happen, as painful as they are. It allows slow and inefficient businesses to die and be replaced by inflation. As for monopolies, they are not always a bad thing. See this talk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k

[Anonymous No.55765820]

>>55765813
I meant to say it allows them to be replaced by new and more innovative businesses.

[Anonymous No.55765909]

>>55765542
I think the government should manage the economy through a complex system of regulation, subsidies and loan allocations, because bureaucrats who have never once worked in the private economy know better than entrepreneurs and professionals how to make business decisions. also I do not see any way such a system could ever be coopted by a small group of upper-level bureaucrats, politicians and business magnates to serve their personal interest to the detriment of everybody else.

[Anonymous No.55765927]

>>55765542
Bismarkian state capitalism is the only policy that works in the long run which is why China will rule the world

[Anonymous No.55765932]

>>55765783
>Monopolies

Not that other anon, but show me a monopoly that survived for any significant period of time that wasn't enforced by a government. It doesn't happen. AT&T, for example, was a regulated/government-sanctioned monopoly. Until the government realized they were just hurting competition and consumers and decided to break up the monster that they themselves created.

[Anonymous No.55765938]

>>55765932
Standard oil

[Anonymous No.55765941]

>>55765938
Aluminum Alcoa
Amazon
Google
TSMC
ASML

[Anonymous No.55765953]

>>55765927
Business owners get too much credit. At the end of the day most of them are incompetent clowns. They see that the chips are made in Taiwan so they set up shop In nearby china. They're not going to try to make the chips in the us for the greater good, not that they're expected to. So you end up with a hollowed country that will never ever recover.

[Anonymous No.55765978]

>>55765953
very true. better to have your policies dictated by a class of greedy landowners in nepotistic union with the state.

[Anonymous No.55765992]

>>55765938

By the time government regulators got around to breaking up Standard Oil, their market share had been falling for years prior and was at 63%.

Standard Oil grew to be so big because they were just that much better than their competition. While other oil refineries were dumping "waste" from kerosene distillation (such as gasoline) in rivers, Rockefeller invested heavily in R&D to find and market uses for these byproducts (such as petroleum jelly). One of these byproducts, gasoline, would ironically take over kerosene and come to be by far one of the biggest products for these refineries. Standard Oil also pioneered vertical distribution so they could have control over all levels of the supply chain. All these innovations allowed them to sell kerosene and refined products cheaper than their competitors (but not below cost either, there was never any evidence provided that Standard Oil was selling below cost and engaging in predatory pricing).

And as mentioned, once competitors adopted Standard Oil's processes and improved their efficiency, they had started to gain back market share. The "problem" had already fixed itself by the time regulators got around to breaking any companies up.

[Anonymous No.55765993]

>>55765978
If we go under the assumption the government is corrupt then yeah nothing is possible. Every government is corrupt to an extent but I'd bet that the Chinese government is less corrupt than the us government desu.

[Anonymous No.55766009]

>>55765783
>Monopolies
Nonexistent without a government willing to make it illegal to compete

[Anonymous No.55766039]

>>55765542
>running deficits when it's needed
And apparently that's all the time kek.

[Anonymous No.55766060]

>>55765993
you will never wear the boot, you autist, and if you honestly shilling for a government that welded people into their apartment and let them starve during the covid outbreak, then go fuck yourself. you're an idiot. china has a horrible track-record in pretty much everything, and every time they screw up their response is to lie about it. there is literally no reason to imitate a country where the apex predator is the mighty escalator.

[Anonymous No.55766067]

>>55766009
It is possible without the government. I go back to microchips. Those are a monopoly. Nobody knows what sorcery is required to make that shit. Sure logic gates this and that but when it comes down to it it's making little copper tubes that are smaller than spec of dust.
They're also very expensive to make and businesses don't want to take the risk ofc. They rather make something that offers comfy returns. Why make microchips when they could sell 3d real estate instead in le metaverse.

[Anonymous No.55766096]

>>55765813
By market failures I mean situtations where the market gives us the non-optimal outcome, not if it just fails once.

[Anonymous No.55766100]

>>55766060

I get a kick out of these fucking faggots in the west whom have never left mommy’s house that think China is some kind of utopia. I spent 6 months there and it’s a fucking shithole where no one speaks english and every person you meet had every intention of swindling as much out of you as possible.

[Anonymous No.55766103]

>>55765909
Yeah sure buddy, sure.

>>55765941
None of those are monopollies.

[Anonymous No.55766114]

>>55765542
>Anyone else a Keynesian who believes in Progressive economic policies, high taxes, and running deficits when it's needed?

Nope.

https://mises.org/library/mises-keynes-1927

[Anonymous No.55766139]

>>55766103
>Yeah sure buddy, sure.
Is holding the mainstream opinion on economics really this unbelievable to you?

[Anonymous No.55766150]

>>55765783
>Market failures? Monopolies, etc?

https://youtu.be/oli8L5zbBpQ?si=a5-mztIFF6FqJ7yf

https://youtu.be/mBYopktmL6Y?si=6o2WZWHjalpGWoiv

[Anonymous No.55766151]

>>55765767
Government cannot exist without involvement in the economy and you are going to have a government one way or another, so this is a moot point.

[Anonymous No.55766161]

>>55765813
>Market failures should be allowed to happen,

Try and find a "market failure" that does not have a state intervention at its root. Usually in an attempt to make things more equitable.

[Anonymous No.55766171]

>>55766151
>Government cannot exist without involvement in the economy and you are going to have a government one way or another, so this is a moot point.

You sound like someone that works for the government (parasite).

[Anonymous No.55766184]

>>55766171
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.55766205]

>>55766139
Yeah, because the claim is totally that bureaucrats "know more" than business owners about their business, sure.

[Anonymous No.55766217]

>>55766100
It's not an utopia they're just not blinded by lolbert ideology. They see a problem and they fix it.
Look at the homeless situation for example. The us government has access to public land, they can build cheap housing units, but they don't, why?
Because that goes against the lolbert ideals

[Anonymous No.55766221]

>>55766205
well obviously. why else would you have them dictate business practice?

[Anonymous No.55766230]

>>55766217

[Anonymous No.55766276]

>>55766230
I don't know the details but they're doing something about it atleast.
>Why should a politician
Well in china politicians are based on their level of competence not popularity. That's too much of a radical change for the us however. But either way the way it works is a politician sub contracts the business owners anyways.

[Anonymous No.55766309]

>>55766221
Because they represent the people's interest as they report to elected politicians rather than profit-obsessed shareholders.

Teddy Roosevelt may not have known as much about economics than the CEO of Standard Oil, but because Roosevelt represented the people while Standard Oil represented the shareholder, it was still in the economy's interest for Roosevelt to break the monopoly.

[Anonymous No.55766343]

>>55766309
>Because they represent the people's interest as they report to elected politicians rather than profit-obsessed shareholders.
so ... translated to normal english: they know better than business owners because 'they are enlightened and know whom and in what way a business has to service'.

[Anonymous No.55766359]

>>55766343
I never once ever claimed they "knew better" than business owners ever.

The business owners objectively know more, but that's what makes them so scary, they can use that knowledge to siphon a disproportionate amount of societies resources.

[Anonymous No.55766364]

Keynesians tongue my anus.

[Anonymous No.55766382]

>>55766364
His networth is way higher than yours

[Anonymous No.55766390]

>>55766382
I'd rather be a young middle class gentile than a (((Boomer))).

[Anonymous No.55766398]

>>55766364
He made a prediction about ai too. Why does he insist on making tech predictions.

[Anonymous No.55766412]

>>55766359
>I never once ever claimed they "knew better" than business owners ever.
no you did. at the base of everything you said is that business-owners do busines wrong - otherwise why else intervene? whether this claim of wrong-ness is based on an argument about efficiency or an ideological basis as to what a business is supposed to be or to do doesn't matter- in the end it all boils down to 'they do it wrong' (because again: if they didn't there' wouldn't be a reason to intervene).
and since they do it wrong, and you're arguing for your party to take over even if only in terms of having the last word, you are 'obviously enlightened' and know better - and that is exactly what 'the interest of the people means':

'businesses are supposed to serve the common good and not the business-owner'

[Anonymous No.55766457]

>>55766412
It's not that they do it wrong, they want to play it safe while not risking too much. Apple did design a new chip though, but it's made in Taiwan still. The m1 cost hundreds of millions to design I think. But a chipfab cost billions for example. The government sometimes can have an advantage in economies of scale. If Elon musk is being sincere about going to mars for example it's a fools errand to do it via the market because the cost would be astronomical even though he's filthy rich. The public ofc wants to do that while refunding nasa because the American public is in large part lolbert bugs.

[Anonymous No.55766460]

>>55766412
>no you did. at the base of everything you said is that business-owners do busines wrong - otherwise why else intervene?

I never once said that ever holy shit can you stop lying for two seconds?

They are doing business RIGHT, which contradicts the interests of the people at large. Their goal is to MAXIMIZE PROFITS, not improve society.

>'businesses are supposed to serve the common good and not the business-owner'

I never once said that ever.

[Anonymous No.55766480]

>>55766460
>Their goal is to MAXIMIZE PROFITS, not improve society.
so you're saying 'business should improve society' ergo 'you know better than them'?

>I never once said that ever.
ffs what do you think the interests of the people is if not the common good?

>>55766457
fuck off. I don't care for your pol-level china-shilling.

[Anonymous No.55766506]

>>55766480
Businesses should maximize shareholder wealth, but government regulators should ensure they work in the common good.

It's like how a gazelle should run from a lion, but a lion should chase the gazelle.

[Anonymous No.55766512]

>>55766506
you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.55766612]

>>55766512
You're literally dumb white trash. I can't believe you even figured out how to get here.

[Anonymous No.55767478]

Why is the guy on the left drinking pee from a bottle?

[Anonymous No.55767484]

Why is the guy on the right drinking pee from a bottle?