From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

John Maynard Keynes was a microeconomist that got a few things right in the little picture, and got virtually everything wrong in the big picture. His macroeconomic theories have been long disproven. But since the collectivists prefers comforting lies to uncomfortable truths, they ignore that and believe in unicorns anyways.

Issue Lie Truth
Keynes Keynes was a Micro-economist who thought we could tax ourselves into prosperity. All of his Macro-economic theories were proven wrong by history, and explained why by Hayek. Since the left believes in Socialism and doesn't believe in history, they still think that real Keynesianism has never been tried. Economists can't agree on anything, other than that Keynes was wrong. If it worked, then governments that spent the most would be the most successful. We could have spent our way out the Great Depression (it made it worse), Obamanomics would have worked (weakest recovery in history), there would have been a post-war depression (boom instead), there couldn't have been stagflation in the 1970, Communist China/Russia/Venezuela/North Korea would have been successes, and the free market China/Russia/South Korea would have been disasters.


There was an economics battle between Keynes and Hayek fought generations ago. But History proved Hayek the winner: things he predicted came true. Keynes scored a few microeconomic points, but history broke his macroeconomics models: the boom economy after WWI, stagflation in the 1970's, Japan's lost decades and the failure of Abenomics, China and Russia's growth after abandoning command economies, all proved Keynes wrong. And Hayek won the noble prize for explaining why: Dispersed Knowledge. If the leaders don't know more than everyone else combined, then the more decisions you make from the top, the less efficient those decisions will be, and planned economics will underperform ones where the decisions can be made closer to the problem. more...
I listen regularly to the Freakanomics Podcast (Radio). And they did a two part series on writing. Starting with, “do we really need cursive anymore”, some light discussion on cursive, it was an interesting podcast, but just for curiosity. Mostly it was a setup for the next week’s one which was far more interesting. The second podcast was on i pencil: an economics treatise by Lawrence W. Reed, founder of (circa 1958), explaining the complexity of making something as simple as a pencil in the modern world. I’d heard parts of this, in other contexts, and I was very familiar with, which I’d read a lot of their stuff. But it piqued my curiosity, and read I pencil in it’s entirety. It’s definitely worth a listen or read. more...
It would be great if Keynesianism worked, governments could manipulate economies, and our lives would be better. But history shows us the opposite: it has failed every time it has been tried. Examples: the new deal, the new new deal, after WWII (Keynesians predicted a depression cutting all those military jobs, instead we had huge growth), 1970's Stagflation broke their models completely, Japan's lost decades (Abenomics) all went the opposite of Keynes predictions. Every country that converted from centralized planning and communism to free'er economies (Russia, China, Vietnam, East Germany, etc), should have had a depression, instead of massive growth. The history of central planned economies like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, should have all outgrown places like South Korea, Brazil or Hong Kong: but the opposite happened. Heck, if it would have worked, then Obamanomics would have given us the highest labor participation rates in our history, instead of the lowest since the Great Depression. So what did we learn? Keynesians learned nothing because reality doesn't fit their desires. But the rest of us learned that Keynes was wrong. more...
Keynes microeconomics was brilliant, his macroeconomics have never worked in the real world.
  • Examples where it failed include: Japan, Venezuela, China, Russia, North Korea, U.S. in every administration since WWII
  • Keynes idea that government can borrow and spend to stimulate growth relies on the ignorance of the people to recognize that increased spending will cost them in taxes/inflation, that government will trim back as the economy gets better (which never happens), and assumes that jobs are highly mutable (they’re not any more).
  • Not all government spending is bad, it’s just usually worse than the alternatives: and the few successes are the broken window fallacy (looking at seen benefits, while ignoring larger unseen consequences) more...
These Meme's just mock Keynesian macro-economic theories. While Keynes was brilliant micro-economist, his macro-economic ideas are all mock-worthy and disproven time and time again, by history. more...
Those claiming 20 million more people are insured because of Obamacare (ACA) either don’t know what they’re talking about, or are bald-faced liars. We're around 29 million people short of the campaign promise for universal coverage. And it's well below the 20 million new people covered that the fools and frauds like to claim. The facts: about 2.8M were covered because of Obamacare, and another 4-6M because of medicaid expansion, at a cost of about $20K per new person covered. more...
We often get dire warnings about Malthusian Catastrophes, Ehrlich's population bombs and how individuals can't be trusted to manage shared interests. We need government to protect us from ourselves. History shows the opposite: individuals form small governments for common interests better than big governments, unless big government stops them. more...
The general definition is "government spending crowds out private investment" and is widely accepted. The Keynesian version is that it all has to be perfectly efficient and instantaneous, and since it isn't, they mock their re-definition of it. Keynesians prefer to see those lags, overreactions and inefficiencies in corrections (recessions/depressions) as opportunities for government to step in and spend (stimulate) to where "things should have been", to smooth out the downturns. more...
There's a name for Trickle Down Economics... it's called economics.

No rational economist will argue against the idea that if you cut someone's taxes, that they have more money. And that resulting increase in earnings will either be actively invested, saved (passively invested), or spent. And if they do any of those, that money is passed through into the economy: in other words, it trickles out (and down). Period. End.

Now there can be intelligent debates on what helps the economy more: cutting or spending, cutting at the top or the bottom. But liars (polemics, fools and the media), will perverts that debate on what helps more, into some fraud that cutting taxes at the top "doesn't work at all". more...
The idea of Keynesian spending boosting a crashing economy requires 4 things: (1) an information vacuum (no information that spending and thus taxes are going up), (2) you have to cut spending/programs as the economy gets better (3) you need to be replacing like jobs (4) you have to have near equal efficiency between government and private sector. Since none of those things happens, Keynesian promises are never realized. more...


  • Keynes said in 1930 that our grandkids would work 2 days a week and have a 5 day weekend[1], this is a typical flaw in thinking of the brightest minds on the left: (a) that people don't value work/being productive or get rewards from it (b) that people given more cash won't want to spend it on things and earn still more (that they will trade more income for more free time: while many will not),