anonymous asked:

I think you're great, but your view of economics is so twisted, it makes me sick. This experiment with Keynesian economics and central planning has sent the country trillions of dollars into debt. And you think handouts will help this? People respond to incentives, so why would people contribute to society when they can get things for free? And the minimum wage? I hoped you'd be smart enough to realize how horrible it is for low-skilled workers.

It was nice to receive this ask because the rest of tumblr thinks I am such a proletariat-hating capitalist. 

But anyway:

1. The question of whether a minimum wage is bad for low-skilled workers is far from settled, and anyone who claims that it is either unambiguously good or bad just hasn’t done much reading on the topic.

2. Why would people contribute to society when they can get things for free? Well, people are slightly more complicated than you’re giving them credit for, but no matter. Welfare is not a rational alternative to work in the United States or anywhere else in the industrialized world, and instituting a minimum income would not make it a rational alternative to work, because those checks would go to people who have jobs as well as those who don’t.

3. Just as a general point, I think there is a habit among a lot of people (myself included) to take one economics class in college and think that we are experts, but generally it’s better just to do some research and understand that even economists who do this stuff for a living disagree all the time. Economics is not a science like other sciences: No one is definitively right. (That said, Keynes came out of the Great Recession looking pretty damned good, even according to his detractors.)

Economics Joke

Keynes and Krugman are walking. Keynes says, “I’ll pay you $5,000 to eat a dog turd.” Krugman does it. Keynes doesn’t have any evil savings and didn’t think Krugman would do it: The next day he begs for the money back. Krugman says, “I’ll give it back if you eat a turd.” Keynes does it. Krugman says, “That was stupid: No one made money and we’ve both eaten sh*t.” Keynes says: “But we boosted GDP by $10,000.”


Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

Whenever I see this come up on tumblr or on my youtube feed I always have to watch it.

(via Financial Terrorists On The Road - Krugman And Rogoff Peddling Toxic Advice | Zero Hedge) Image from The Evil Queen.


From the article, yo:


So, yes, in the year 2014 we have a Harvard professor running around trying to do Franklin Roosevelt one better. FDR took the people’s gold in 1933. Now Professor Rogoff wants their cash—–the last refuge where citizens can anonymously safeguard their wealth from the depredations of the state.


‘Fear the Boom & Bust’ : Hayek vs Keynes rap anthem.

If there is no change in the propensity to consume, employment cannot increase… The economic system may find itself in stable equilibrium [though not necessarily a socially desirable one] with N [volume of employment] at a level below full employment, namely at the level given by the intersection of the aggregate demand function with the aggregate supply function.
—  John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Pretty good video depicting the differences between Hayek and Keynes.