A rad online debate about Keynesian principles tomorrow

S

speedracer

Banned
The Economist is hosting an online debate tomorrow about Keynesian principles. The pro-Keynes guy is a Berkeley Economics professor and the con-Keynes guy is a University of Chicago Entrepreneur and Finance professor.

I don't know anything about the individuals, but UC Berkeley and UChicago represent probably the 2 strongest advocates for their respective positions in the research and higher education fields in the United States. The Economist never disappoints with this kind of stuff either. Should be a great one.

http://www.economist.com/debate/upcoming
http://twitter.com/TEdebates

edit: just wanted to add that they have transcripts up of past debates and some of em are killer. The financial crisis one and higher education ones were particularly informative and well done by both sides.
 
sounds like the Chicago dude is from the "Chicago School" (Milton Friedman) of economic thought.. I'd prefer someone from the Austrian school, since they are the only ones with a rock solid alternative to interventionism. Oh well, I'll watch cuz it should be entertaining regardless. ;)
 
[quote name='Capitalizt'] I'd prefer someone from the Austrian school, [/QUOTE]

thats what i was thinking as well. but ill still try to squeeze this in.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']sounds like the Chicago dude is from the "Chicago School" (Milton Friedman) of economic thought.. I'd prefer someone from the Austrian school, since they are the only ones with a rock solid alternative to interventionism. Oh well, I'll watch cuz it should be entertaining regardless. ;)[/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing. I think a 4 way would be the optimal debate, though how to manage something like that.. A straight up Marxist/Keynesian/Friedman/Mises 4 way debate about the current situation would be the shit.

Anyway, should be interesting.
 
Take it from someone who has studied the Keynesian model, and the Neo-classical model: BOTH of them have large flaws. Neither one of them is clear-cut correct. A blend of each of the models is most representative of what has been observed.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Feel free to join in msut. Can you defend your status quo philosophy that led us to the current global shitstorm?[/QUOTE]

You are incapable of defending anything you say here, it is not as if a different venue changed that.

Or to put in a way you might understand you really don't know jack shit.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are incapable of defending anything you say here, it is not as if a different venue changed that.
[/quote]

k..keep living in a dream world if it pleases you.

Have you considered applying at the Dollhouse clinic? You'd be a nice fit.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']k..keep living in a dream world if it pleases you.[/QUOTE]

I don't think someone who bases their entire world view on the work of a shitty sci fi writer can make accusations like that.

Not with a straight face anyway.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']You talk a lot of shit, but you never say anything of value, Msut.

Try justifying your batshit insane sound bite claims.[/QUOTE]

I think you tried this song and dance before.

You were full of it then and you are full of it now.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']You're still doing it.[/QUOTE]

Doing what? I might be wrong but I think the last time you made a comment like that directed at me was when you were attempting to defend the movie an American Carol.

I wasn't the one who had trouble backing up what I said in that thread just like I haven't had that problem in several recent threads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capitalizt asked you if you could defend Keynesian economics earlier in this thread.
You didn't even try to defend them (because you're incapable of it), and you just insulted him.

Just like you did to me when I asked you. I'm full of it for asking for justification? fuck off.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Capitalizt asked you if you could defend Keynesian economics earlier in this thread.
You didn't even try to defend them (because you're incapable of it), and you just insulted him.

Just like you did to me when I asked you. I'm full of it for asking for justification? fuck off.[/QUOTE]

First things first, I have noticed cap has a habit of running away from discussions here when he has no good response (which is often) sometimes even on the same subject.

I am not going to register at another forum just for more of the same.

Secondly it is not an insult to point out you are full of it. I pointed out this isn't the first time you made such a BS statement and it wasn't the first time you had literally nothing to back up your words.
 
Nah, I've hit my "This annoys the mods" quota for the month. Now I can get back to sucking up to them.

EDIT: Io is a handsome and virile man.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']First things first, I have noticed cap has a habit of running away from discussions here when he has no good response (which is often) sometimes even on the same subject.[/quote]

Ahem..That has NEVER happened to my knowledge. Please point out any thread in the past 2 years where I "ran away" from the debate.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Ahem..That has NEVER happened to my knowledge. Please point out any thread in the past 2 years where I "ran away" from the debate.[/QUOTE]

You were curiously silent not to long ago in a thread where I pointed out that you were wrong about which economists called the crisis and that your own beliefs namely "Austrian" Economics and Randian Pablum hardly impress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
orly? I thought I made the point that the Austrian school was the only one with a comprehensive theory of the business cycle that accurately predicted the crash. You came back with the something like "well Paul Krugman said we might go into recession too" or something like that..without providing any link or direct quote..hardly worth responding to.

Even if Mr. Keynes' most faithful disciple Krugman did say things had gone too far, the vast majority of mainstream economists did not. They consistently ignored the issues we were facing and thought we could live in la-la land forever..continuous prosperity built on credit expansion and rising asset prices. Those that did recognize it was not sustainable were completely ignorant of the reason WHY the bubble was becoming so large.. They didn't see the root cause of the problem, which of course was artificially low rates set by the federal reserve.

P.S. I just googled "Krugman predicts crash" and found this..lol
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/paul-krugmans-top-ten-recession.html
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I thought I made the point that the Austrian school was the only one with a comprehensive theory of the business cycle that accurately predicted the crash.[/quote]

It would be hard to say the "Austrian School" has a comprehensive theory of anything, they are the Intelligent Design crowd of economics. Whatever positions they happen to have (being for the gold standard or against the FDIC etc.) are held with religious fervor. From what I have read they can hardly even get the reasons for the current mess correct, so yes I would say you definitely never made any point you fantasize you have made.

I just googled "Krugman predicts crash" and found this..lol
Click to expand...

It is not so funny anymore, is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77'] From what I have read they can hardly even get the reasons for the current mess correct, so yes I would say you definitely never made any point you fantasize you have made.[/quote]

Read these two articles. Any layman can understand them..even if nobel prize winning Keynesians cannot..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/business-cycle.html
http://mises.org/story/3127

These pieces contain plenty of common sense logic based on historical patterns. Take 20 minutes out of your day to read them and you will have a much firmer grasp on things. Even if you don't buy every argument, at the very least you should start to question the junk economics that has been spoonfed to you over the past few years.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']These pieces contain plenty of common sense logic based on historical patterns.[/quote]

I get enough of your brand of "common sense" here what with the gaggle of posters constantly and ignorantly comparing the entire federal government to their household budgets.

Suffice to say your responses are so far underwhelming and I noticed you stop posting at the other forum as well when called out.
 
lols msut...It's been nearly 24 hours since someone called me out on TA. Oh noez...that really means I'm avoiding the argument does it? Sorry bro..I have other commitments but will respond to all detailed questions in time. Thoughtful responses take more than a few seconds to write. I'd like to see you do the same occasionally.

Why don't you stop acting superior and join in the fun? Enlighten us.. Spread your wisdom. What do you think of the articles I posted? Can you point out any flawed logic from those authors? Lets discuss it.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']but will respond to all detailed questions in time.[/quote]

I doubt that.

What do you think of the articles I posted?
Click to expand...

I am not impressed, they have nothing to do with the reasons for the current mess and what we were talking about or much of anything at all.

Forget "thoughtful response" it was hard to call your previous posts a response at all, what you did was the equivalent of hurling your cults pamphlets at me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']dammit I thought this would be a video debate.. You mean I have to READ? lol

If you want to read my attempt at debating against Keynesianism on another forum, check out the last few pages of this thread..

http://tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=514998&perpage=20&forumid=66&pagenumber=6

If I'm missing any big points, lemme know. ;)[/QUOTE]

Looks like Occrider took you to school and supplied evidence to back up his claims, then you turned into a petulant little msut, unable to do anything but call names and apply a paranoid "they're all in on it together" philosophy. Were I you in that debate, I wouldn't be showing it off to anyone.

Just sayin'.
 
Myke when not telling everyone how fucked up he is like a Junior High School student trying to sound badass can make a decent post.

I am just surprised he hasn't called cap out for trying to mock Krugman for being right (especially the article from May '05).

If I really wanted to be nothing but a trollish dick I would ask Cap when he plans on going Galt and denying all of us his genius.
 
msut..I still haven't seen one substantive response from you in the past week. How useless can you be?

and myke, what "evidence" of OC's did I ignore exactly? I have no reason to dispute any of the numbers he posted and never have. I'm just pointing out how the Keynesian school and all lovers of big government today (such as you fellas I assume) ignore the unintended consequences of interventionism. You ignore the long term consequences of your philosophy and policy makers who follow it...choosing to blame the symptoms rather than the disease itself. This sounds preachy but it is the truth. Yes, we've had growth after massive periods of monetary and fiscal stimulus..but this growth has come at great cost. We have always papered over malinvestment and mistakes of the past with cheap credit..blowing up bubbles in different areas while ignoring the underlying problems have been continually ignored.. The big government school is content to keep delaying the inevitable..propping up a failed system and buying artificial prosperity at the expense of future generations.

Our economy is much like a cancer patient who desperately needs chemotherapy (a painful correction) to be cured.. Chemo is a very unpleasant treatment that involves pain and a long period of recovery..but it is the only option to return the patient to good health. Our government has been trying a different approach. They've been giving the patient anti-regurgitation drugs and painkillers..then sending him on his merry way in hopes he can live a normal life. This might make the patient happy over the short run since he doesn't need to face any negative side effects of chemo...but it's devastating for his health over the long run. All I'm saying is we man up and take our medicine now rather than letting the problem fester and grow worse over the coming years. You guys say...f*ck it..borrow borrow borrow spend spend spend inflate inflate inflate. Party like it's 1999. This is an extremely unhealthy way to approach economics, and it's going to bring the whole world crashing down one day.

The thing about government is that all of it's actions have thousands of visible beneficiaries but millions of invisible victims. I wouldn't mind people who advocate interventionism so much if they just occasionally were honest and included the unintended consequences of those policies in their analysis..but this never happens. They always point to the visible beneficiaries of some program and say "See? Look how happy they are...It works!" while ignoring the hidden costs..the taxes and inflation that we all must cope with to benefit the few. If I can shed some light on those costs or make one casual reader of a forum open his eyes to the fact that those costs are there, it will be worth the 5 minutes it took me to type this post. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']You say...f*ck it..borrow borrow borrow spend spend spend inflate inflate inflate. Party like it's 1999.[/quote]

You're describing mykevermin?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']How useless can you be?[/QUOTE]

Considering you continuously fail to make a cogent reply? Much less than you.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're describing mykevermin?[/QUOTE]

As much as he is "describing" anything or anyone in that gibbering mess.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Look folks..a one sentence reply.. The 57th this week. What an inspiration![/QUOTE]

Brevity is a virtue.

I take your last post as an admission that you really do have nothing.
 
Still waiting for you msut.. I invited you to respond to two articles posted above.. I've asked twice for a response telling me where the logic was flawed and you ignored both requests. Please tell me where you disagree and we can go from there.

Article 1
Article 2

The problem with Keynesians is that they honestly believe they can "fine tune" people by turning knobs and pushing buttons to manipulate behavior. Anyone who has given thought to this realizes human beings are vastly more complicated than a machine or a pile of legos.. Any attempt to control them is bound to have unintended consequences and heavy costs. People act based on rational self interest and are likely to bring themselves the most happiness when left well enough alone...which is why the only rational school of economic thought is the free market school..the Austrian school. I know the idea of minimizing the role of the state and honoring free will is crazy to some people..but it makes sense. It is both economically justified and morally right. Keynesianism is neither.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can go ahead and keep on waiting Cap.

Meanwhile it has been proven that Krugman called the crisis and the only thing you have to say the "Austrian School" did were articles from the 60's.

You really have nothing.
 
Krugman called the crisis 20 times. Didn't you see the link I posted about him? lol

Like all Keynesians though..he saw the symptoms of the problem but not the disease. That is what this whole discussion has been about..the refusal of big government apologists to see the government/fed intervention that lies at the heart of these problems.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Krugman called the crisis 20 times. Didn't you see the link I posted about him? lol.[/QUOTE]

I did. I also pointed out that it is not so funny anymore didn't I?
 
msut, you've demonstrated your intellectual bankruptcy by refusing to offer a serious debate in this thread and many others recently. I'm content to let your arguments (or lack thereof) speak for themselves...and laugh quietly to myself (as I'm sure many others are doing at your expense).

Your self esteem obviously needs a boost...so if getting in the last word here will let you delude into thinking you've made any coherent point, have at it.
:wave:
 
And to think someone got mad when I pointed out you have jack shit and you run away when it is proven again and again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top