Keynes vs Friedman: who was the most influential economist?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Roosevelt was elected in 1932. He died in 1945. During this time unemployment declined from 23.6 percent to 1.2 percent.

totally stupid and liberal of course. You always can have 0% unemployment during war because govt employs everyone to make weapons. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, people visiting Germany during the late 1930's noted that things were getting better. Shops and restaurants were full of customers. People had money to spend.

yes dear this is why our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler. Both killed 120 million people. It figures that a modern liberal would love them too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Both did monumental works that changed the way we thought about economics.

perhaps for a moment in time that was true for Keynes but can you tell us what Keynes' most significant correct contribution to thought is, if any.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Friedman, Keynes biggest critic after Hayek, respected Keynes far more than anyone acknowledged.

In the end Friedman hated what Keynes stood for because Keynes stood for govt intervention. There was respect for his genius but not for what it produced.

Freidman HATED Keynes? Have you ready any Freidman's academic publications? Your statement is totally untrue.

if so then why be so afraid to tell us what of significance in Keynes Friedman liked. This ought to be good given the Keynes was a Nazi-like socialist apostle.

 

[Publius1787]

. Friedman, Keynes biggest critic after Hayek, respected Keynes far more than anyone acknowledged.

In the end Friedman hated what Keynes stood for because Keynes stood for govt intervention. There was respect for his genius but not for what it produced.

Freidman HATED Keynes? Have you ready any Freidman's academic publications? Your statement is totally untrue.

if so then why be so afraid to tell us what of significance in Keynes Friedman liked. This ought to be good given the Keynes was a Nazi-like socialist apostle.

I never said he liked him. I simply said that he did not hate him.

 

[Friends]

Moreover, there are important differences between liberals and Communists.

not really Obama had 3 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders an open communist.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

If Barack Obama had three parents of any persuasion, he was somewhat unusual. Everyone I ever knew about had two parents.

Can you document that either of the President's parents were members of the American Communist Party? I am confident that you cannot.

There are many different ways to organize a modern economy. I favor Scandinavian Social Democracy. It is the closest approximation to democratic socialism in existence.

Although I have been a registered Democrat since I first registered to vote, I once belonged to what was called the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.

Currently people under 30 are more likely to favor socialism than capitalism.

Young People More Likely To Favor Socialism Than Capitalism Pew

The argument that we cannot make any move toward socialism without eventually becoming a Communist dictatorship is known in logic as the slippery slope fallacy.

---------

Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following
form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Fallacy Slippery Slope

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Friedman, Keynes biggest critic after Hayek, respected Keynes far more than anyone acknowledged.

In the end Friedman hated what Keynes stood for because Keynes stood for govt intervention. There was respect for his genius but not for what it produced.

Freidman HATED Keynes? Have you ready any Freidman's academic publications? Your statement is totally untrue.

if so then why be so afraid to tell us what of significance in Keynes Friedman liked. This ought to be good given the Keynes was a Nazi-like socialist apostle.

I never said he liked him. I simply said that he did not hate him.

why not get back to us when you are not afraid to take a position and defend it about Keynes versus Friedman?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The argument that we cannot make any move toward socialism without eventually becoming a Communist dictatorship is known in logic as the slippery slope fallacy.

of course thats idiotic. When barry took over govt was far bigger than ever and all he could think of was to make far bigger still. A liberal will never say how big is big because they are communists without the IQ to know it.


Thomas Jefferson: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

 

[Publius1787]

. Friedman, Keynes biggest critic after Hayek, respected Keynes far more than anyone acknowledged.

In the end Friedman hated what Keynes stood for because Keynes stood for govt intervention. There was respect for his genius but not for what it produced.

Freidman HATED Keynes? Have you ready any Freidman's academic publications? Your statement is totally untrue.

if so then why be so afraid to tell us what of significance in Keynes Friedman liked. This ought to be good given the Keynes was a Nazi-like socialist apostle.

I never said he liked him. I simply said that he did not hate him.

why not get back to us when you are not afraid to take a position and defend it about Keynes versus Friedman?

I think they were both instrumental in how we think about economic. Keynes died out for a while but came back. C+I+G+(X-M)=Y was monumental to how we think about Macro Economics. Freidman was monumental toward how we think about monetary issues and freedom. They both are legit economists and I don't see why there is so much hate an discontent. Keynes thought FDR was crazy when FDR took his theories to such an extreme. He would likely think that of the Democrats of today who use him as an excuse to ramp up unproductive spending. Keynes is not the monster the Democrats make him out to be, and thus, Conservatives need not treat him as such.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think they were both instrumental in how we think about economic..

how is that possible when Say and others knew capitalism was best 250 years ago and now after Keynes is long gone intelligent people still know it. Keynes was an unfortunate interruption at most.

 

[Friends]

Keynes was a Nazi-like socialist apostle.

By claiming that John Maynard Keynes was "Nazi-like" you are guilty of several fallacies. I will discuss several of them.

-----------

In other words, Keynesian economic policies were not designed to deal with the different economic problems of the mid and late 1970's.

totally stupid and 100% liberal!! If you read the General Theory, not that you could understand it, you would learn that it dealt with all economic problems. What we have learned since then is that liberal/soviet interference with the economy gives you a soviet result.

Have you read Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Money, and Interest? II have not, but I have read about it. How does Keynes say a country should deal with a shortage in an essential natural resource?

Keynes' Consuming Ideas On Economic Intervention : NPR
www.npr.org/2011/11/.../keynes-consuming-ideas-on-economic-intervention
‎
Nov 16, 2011 ... "Keynes' top objective was to re-employ resources that were not being ... tostimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources.".

That is not the answer to my question. The stagflation of the middle and late 1970's was caused by oil shortages resulting from the OPEC Oil Embargo and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

If Keynes was alive at the time he would have said that we need to develop alternatives to petroleum and to automobile transportation, because automobile transportation is costly in energy consumption.

That is what liberals were saying at the time. We continue to say it.

Nevertheless, the stagflation does not expose fundamental flaws in Keynes's theories.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If Keynes was alive at the time he would have said that we need to develop alternatives to petroleum and to automobile transportation, because automobile transportation is costly in energy consumption.
.

100% totally stupid and perfectly liberal. I'm embarrassed for you, liberal.Thanks to capitalism If anyone or any group could develop an alternative they would be the richest most important person/ people in human history. So obviously everyone on earth is aware of the need for improved products!!

Do you see why we must be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? You say 2+2=4 and proclaim yourself intelligent. What better sign of ignorance is there?

 

[Friends]

I think they were both instrumental in how we think about economic..

how is that possible when Say and others knew capitalism was best 250 years ago and now after Keynes is long gone intelligent people still know it. Keynes was an unfortunate interruption at most.

In The Communist Manifesto, and in subsequent writing Karl Marx argued that the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive downturns. That is what did happen from the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Marx made mistakes about other things. He was right about that. John Maynard Keynes introduced ways the government can counteract these tendencies while preserving an essentially capitalist economy. Since 1980 Republicans have been repealing Keynes's reforms. As a result, economic inequality is increasing, and economic downturns are becoming longer and deeper.

 

[Friends]

If Keynes was alive at the time he would have said that we need to develop alternatives to petroleum and to automobile transportation, because automobile transportation is costly in energy consumption.
.

100% totally stupid and perfectly liberal. I'm embarrassed for you, liberal.Thanks to capitalism If anyone or any group could develop an alternative they would be the richest most important person/ people in human history. So obviously everyone on earth is aware of the need for improved products!!

Do you see why we must be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? You say 2+2=4 and proclaim yourself intelligent. What better sign of ignorance is there?

I am embarrassed for any civil, erudite conservative who reads your posts and who feels that he will somehow be associated with your attitudes.

Significant advances in technology usually require government subsidies. The U.S. government subsidized the Transcontinental Railroad, and additional railroads across the United States.

Government subsidies were essential in the development of air transportation, nuclear energy, and computers.

It will be along time before alternatives to petroleum become cost effective. Until then substantial government subsidies will be necessary.

Alternatives to automobile transportation require government spending on public transportation, bicycle trails, and pedestrian walks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In The Communist Manifesto, and in subsequent writing Karl Marx argued that the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive downturns. That is what did happen from the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Its way cool when a liberal steps up to defend Nazis and Communists

FYI Marx killed 120 million human beings very very slow. Its no wonder the liberal loves him!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Significant advances in technology usually require government subsidies. The U.S. government subsidized the Transcontinental Railroad,

1) so did private investors and their railroads did far better
2) if the soviets knew what to subsidize they would not have had 15% of our standard of living

 

[Friends]

In The Communist Manifesto, and in subsequent writing Karl Marx argued that the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive downturns. That is what did happen from the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Its way cool when a liberal steps up to defend Nazis and Communists

FYI Marx killed 120 million human beings very very slow. Its no wonder the liberal loves him!

Karl Marx never killed anyone. Like other political thinkers he had some valid insights, and made mistakes.

EdwardBaiamonte, I wonder what kind of person you are in your real life. Even people who are prone to agree with you politically are likely to conclude that a person with so much hostility and anger is a flawed individual.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Karl Marx never killed anyone..

Well, Stalin and Hitler never killed anyone either. Other people did it in their names.

Its stands to reason that a liberal would defend Marx after 120 million slowly starved to death in his name, but lets never forget there is some inequality under capitalism.

See why we must be positive that liberalism is based in pure deadly liberal ignorance?

 

[Friends]

Significant advances in technology usually require government subsidies. The U.S. government subsidized the Transcontinental Railroad,

1) so did private investors and their railroads did far better
2) if the soviets knew what to subsidize they would not have had 15% of our standard of living

The railroads that were profitable without government subsidies were between locations that made it possible to get a return on the investment sooner. A railroad between Baltimore and Washington, DC will return an investment sooner than one between San Francisco and Washington, DC.

Where does that 15% come from?

A command economy is good for industrializing quickly. Rapid industrialization under Joseph Staling made it possible for the USSR to build the weapons necessary to withstand the Nazi invasion.

A command economy is not good for producing consumer goods. It does not respond quickly and precisely enough to consumer demands.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Where does that 15% come from?

.

it was the soviet and chinese standard of living compared to ours when their liberals were picking what to subsidize.
Do you understand?