By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 10 August 2011
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

A)  Well actually, Charitable giving had been down ever since the stimulus... up until 2010 when the stimulus started slowing down.  Whether it's related or not I Don't know.

B) It's worth noting Friedman and Hayek aren't exactly best of friends ideologically. Or personally, it's often said that Friedman actually went out of his way to blackball Hayek preventing him from getting a job in the USA.

The irony of the Keynes vs Hayek debate, is that the leader of the Federal Reserve is a Monetarist.  As are most economists.  Quantiative Easing is actually out of the monetary playbook during economic Crisis.  The Stimulus was Keynsian, but QE was Monetarist.  We essentially have gone all in with both theories, and combined they haven't even been able to push the needle that far.

The reason why of course i'd say is the average person.  The people aren't reacting how the Keynsians and Monetarists thought they would.  Give a guy a few extra bucks and he's going to sit on it.  Not spend it... times are too uncertain for everyone who aren't upper middleclass are above and people are waiting for the government to fix things.

C)  Hayek on the otherhand would basically agree with Happy Squirrel, in that, as long as their is things like a minium wage and government controlled inflation there will be a false buildup of jobs and money in the wrong sectors, and the number of jobs will be low.

The divides in economic theory aren't simple at all, as is also the case with political views to.  In this age, there is a desire to end up saying there are just two camps (red and blue) and then you have to get into one or the other.  I do see, with the situation remaining what it is, there is a continued looking back at the Austrian school, to see what is going on.  Way too much belief the government can throw a switch, and blammo miracles are supposed to happen, which isn't the case.   In that case, there are wars between camps, that battle for the mind.

A lot of mals going on here.  I take Malinvestment theory to other side effects, like malproduction and malconsumption, which burned in my mind when I saw a robot rodent on a clearance table at a clothing store that sung Blue Suede Shoes.  Who in their right mind would end up making this and thinking it be a good idea, unless resources with misallocated in an economy.  I would then say it has to do with economists BADLY modeling economic activity without the use of currency, and totally forgetting that under all economic activity is barter, and that Say's Law is still relevant.  Keynesians believe in stimulating the economy (with or without resources properly aligned) and Monetarists believe that the right flow of money makes all the difference.  Neither one seems to ponder about whether or not resources are in the right place.  Of course they wouldn't, if they believe that government can throw a switch and make things suddenly work.


I would point to the fact that Hayek was against government controlled and raised interest rates specifically because he was afraid it would lead to an aritifical increase in jobs in proucts and fields that didn't really have demand and therefore could not exist normally.  So i'm sure he'd agree with you there, though not use those words.

I really wouldn't disagree with anyting here.

Except that most economists don't really forget Say's law is irrelevent so much as believe it never was by mischaracterising it.

Which is fairly common in academic circles when it comes to theories because you can't learn them all, and usually get the trunicated text book "learning it for a text" version, which is usually... completely micharacterizing what's said in a braod summary that's been summarized from other broad summaries.