KINCHIK

Because resources around the globe have been misallocated, we are possibly facing the greatest depression in history. A surplus of savings serves as a buffer which cushions the economic correction which occurs due to the misallocation of resources. Thus, the sooner we start saving again, the sooner our economy can begin to recover.

Keynes' reductionist tendencies are the cause of the weakness in his theory. He wanted to employ latent saving, but instead his general theory encourages its liquidation. We have been able to put off the bust which follows the artificial boom by extorting resources from third world countries through a complex system of mercantilism eg. IMF, World Bank work with third world countries to build infrastructure - when debts cant be repaid, corporations assume ownership of these countries; resources

I AM very disturbed, by you, the thickest little twat with whom I've ever had to deal on youtube. Admit that Keynes was an imbecile or stop pretending to know economics.

You are a very disturbed person, and I am through discussing with you. Good luck with your issues. Some people can have civilized discussions, and others are too immature to have a discourse. You are clearly the latter.

You should be shot. You are the most stupid person I have ever met. Keynesian economics were disproved hundreds of years before the bastard was born. You support credit expansion, central banking, tax and spend, all forms of displacement of capital and intervention, you support fiddling with currency and interest rates, which is like decreeing prices, you disagree with letting the market make sustainable banking and sound money, you support govt theft, you are a disgrace to humanity.

You, in fact, know nothing but a bunch of outmoded, dated, nonsense that was disproved 70 years ago. Its a testament to the endurance of ignorance that people still say the things you say. And by devolving into brutish and childish name calling, you have admitted that you know nothing and concede the argument. Well done. I should have expected such immaturity from someone who holds such undeveloped opinions. Get a clue, and read some real economics.

Floating exchange rates means that the various currencies are not readily redeemable in a common denominator. The inflation allowed by money backed by no specie always destroys these currencies: gold is still the world currency and will always be, and paper money should be claims on GOLD! You know nothing of economics and especially not on monetary theory: why do we cling to sound money and actual specie, think about it numbnuts!. Seriously, apologise for being born you mercantilist twat.

It's a shame that you don't realise that I actually know my stuff. Everything you say is BS. Keynes supported an end to sound money, he believed in credit expansion that makes boom&bust, and coerced FRB, he despised laissez-faire and world trade was ruined by protectionism and lack of sound money that deterred financial investors (if you had a brain you would see that this is apodictic and inarguable yet you call it nonsense,) Now fuck off back to the seventeenth century you naive mercantilist!

Nonsense. I am glad you will admit that Keynes was a free trader, and you are wrong about his effects on world trade. The gold standard was ended because it was unsustainable in the Great Depression (it did enough harm). There is nothing wrong with floating exchange rates, but for what its work Keynes advocated keeping a reserve of gold by governments to stabilize exchange rates if needed. And world trade was ruined by the diplomatic destruction following the world wars.

Keynes advocated free trade, yes well no economist will directly slander it but Keynes policies indirectly ruined world peace and international trade: he was a demand sider, he supported national economic interventions and he helped end the Gold Standard which meant Fiat money could be limitlessly manipulable by governments seeking to ease their national debts: this reduced lender confidence, led to floating exchange rates and lack of financial investment and ruined world trade.

Keynes advocated free trade, and said that his General Theory would allow nations to stop fighting one another for market share in colonies (mercantilism). In In Essays in Persuasion, he describes is support for free trade. And Austrianism claims that markets never fail, whatever they do is correct. Keynes realized that is savings exceeded investment, employment would fall, and stimulus was needed. Seriously, read the General Theory.

Are you taking the piss? Don't say you didn't ask to be absolutely clobbered: 1YOUR reasoning completely IGNORES the causation of the business cycle. I explain why and how the market fails, Keynes doesn't, but explains false methods of reviving it that make the problem worse. Keynes was a mercantilist. He believed that if aggregate consumption rose, employment would also rise. This is the fundamental flaw behind credit-expansionary policies. In his General Theory Keynes PRAISES mercantilism!

All of these concerns are relevant, and have, fortunately, been discussed many times. For answers to your questions (and refutations to your accusations,) read the General Theory, it is all explained in there. I don't have time or space to explain it here, if you want to learn, read what Keynes wrote. Also, his Essays in Persuasion contains good material about this stuff.

Your reasoning fails to account for recession and depression conditions. If the market never faltered, than yes, no government action would be necessary. But it does. And Keynes was not a mercantilist, you would know that if you'd read any of his works. Educate yourself.

@hoodoo961 Another problem with your idea about government spending, as well as that government shouldn't waste taxpayers' money on public works that aren't just wasteful, but are destructive and anti-social because they consume more capital than they create and this is why the market won't do them, but government using force can do it and more's the pity-especially since it doesn't care how much yield the spending accrues, is that government borrowing prevents private borrowers having access.

@hoodoo961 Keynes was a mercantilist simpleton-'aggregate demand' does not need to be raised to create jobs but indeed capital accumulation and saving is required for sustainable growth-it os not just me who says this 'is the sign of a good economist.' I'm all for smashing taxation-but government spending needs to fall as well; individuals seeking profit must allocate capital or perhaps save as they will, to allow market recovery after a boom caused by monetary 'stimulus.' NO THEFT!

If Hoodoo thinks that Austrian Economists think that unemployment is a good thing, then no one can argue with him. You win every argument and just go away a happy man as no one will be able to explain anything to you. You understand Austrians perfectly! Just go advocate for the government to go into more debt and employ everyone that way there will be no unemployment problem and everyone can go out shopping.

u'd better don't rat on debts, Americans ！

The keynesian reasoning is flawed in general.

If I was wrong then how could Keynes, a so-called economist, blame the act of saving for causing recession, when it is clearly overheating caused by misdirection of activity by central banks (not 'animal spirits', christ almighty!) He blamed saving for not putting the economy at full employment, but any such planning to increase 'aggregate demand' makes the boom and therefore the bust. LEARN! And fear scum like Keynes who criticise liberty.

Um, no that's abolsutely wrong. Keynesianism is a rejection of economics because it believes that : a. consumption and investment in human action are the same thing, and boy oh boy they are not b. that drops in consumption and investment make endless liquidity traps. Austrians consider their economics the way to gaining high employment and rightly so. You Keynesians are to blame for entrenching poverty by propping up failure, putting ruts in the house of cards and causing perma-recession.

No, Keynes said recessions are caused by a simultaneous drop in both consumption and investment, which he called "effective demand." Austrians think that real and extended unemployment is a good thing because it...I can't even think of a rational reason, but thats why its not considered real economics.

The problem with Keynesianism is that it blames 'underconsumption' for recessions, when the bust in fact occurs because of the boom, because government induces overconsumption through mass fraud via central banks and fiscal measures which Keynes ignorantly praised. Youtube the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle (business cycle) When Keynes mentioned tax cuts, he did so in a naive assertion that the rich wouldn't spend so much as the poor and that their saving needed to be taxed. Keynes=bubbles

@hoodoo961 True but Keynesians generally do not advocate tax cuts. Most keynsians i know detest private citizen's and generally view them as incompetent to do what is in the best interests of society. Since they fear that private citizens will not spend, rather, save, the money that the government gives back to them. Keynsians prefer the government just increasing spending without any tax cuts, except on the poorest citizens, ones they know will be forced to spend that money.

Is this Austrian Economics? Peace!