Valley Oak
10-15-2014, 03:30 PM
You can have illuminating conversations with total strangers at "omegle.com." The following conversation is about economics and how different policies affect the United States:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You both like economics.
You: hi
Stranger: hey
You: so you like economics?
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: you?
You: i would like to know more about it.
You: for example, what is your favorite economic policy(ies)?
Stranger: keynesian policies
You: interesting. whats that about?
Stranger: government intervention in markets to achieve the best social outcome
You: cool. i like that. i dont like allowing a free market to devour people and our economy, just like letting a pack of wolves devour the entire flock of sheep! thats what happened under both bush presidencies.
Stranger: yeah right wings dont like keynesian policies much
You: are there primarily only two tendencies in economics? those that support GI and those that oppose it? is there a 3rd way?
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: well
You: ?
Stranger: there's new keynesianism, post keynesianims, neokeynesian, monetarism, institutionalism, new classicism, neoclassicism, austrian school, chicago school and stockholm school economics
You: but arent all of those merely variations on the two original tendencies?
Stranger: all support intervention sort of but differently
Stranger: yes and no
You: which are not?
Stranger: new keynesianism, post keynesianims and stockholm school economics all support intervention for the best social outcome
Stranger: monetarism, , new classicism, neoclassicism argue against government spending as intervention and say free markets deliver the best so minor, sometimes monetary policy intervention is best
You: fascinating
Stranger: austrian school, chicago school all intervention is bad because free markets deliver the best outcome but dismantelling the entire system cant be done immediately so just decreased intervention over time
Stranger: institutionalism i have no clue actually
You: so institutionalism would be the 3rd way (if there is one) or, in other words, the only school that is not a variation on the 2 main positions?
You: that is, the 2 main positions being pro GI or anti GI.
Stranger: well no not really, it's one of the two, i think pro intervention, i just dont know how it's different, there are only those 2 ways though
Stranger: yeah it's sort of like neokeynesian which is both classical and keynesian at the same time
You: ah, okay then. its clearer then. Obviously, it is simple and easy for me to understand that there are 2 main economic theoretical tendencies and that all other policy shifts are variations on those 2 themes.
Stranger: yes, except keynesian policies are the only theoretical views that have empirical evidence supporting them
You: now that is very interesting. Because that means that all of the laissez-faire assholes are basically practicing dogma and voodoo economics. When in reality what they are doing is being self-serving and supporting corporate greed. and of course, they expect to share in those spoils.
Stranger: essentially yes, they think it's the right thing to do because it seems right and looks good on paper but whenever they get into power, say bush in 2000, they always cause a crisis like the GFC [Global Financial Crisis] a few years down the track when their ideas dont pan out
You: GFC ?
Stranger: there's nothing wrong with laissez fair though in the long term, keynesianism only advocates short term intervention to correct market failure rather than continued long term government control alla socialism because that can be just as bad as laissez fair
You: and how can they think its the "right thing to do?" Is there actually some moralistic dogma packed into their bullshit ideology as well?
Stranger: well some of them yeah
Stranger: uh let me think good figures to look up hmm
Stranger: OH!
Stranger: 'keynes v. hayek' on youtube econstories is a very good introduction to the contrasting ideas
Stranger: the first is mostly theory but the second tries to show what the problem anti intervention people have empirically
You: oh, im pretty clear now that youve set the context for me. i have been reading the news for years now and the different administrations have always been advocating some form or other of the 2 central theories.
Stranger: other than that milton friedman who's the founder of monetarism gives 'great' speeches, there's one of him basically 'schooling a student' as the video title says when he's talking about how minimum wages are the most racist policies ever
Stranger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
You: okay.
Stranger: try that one, i remember first watching it, it's all correct but they favour hayek
You: What is "GFC?"
Stranger: global financial crisis
Stranger: 2008-09
You: ah
You: well, we are still, technically, reeling from the GFC. And not just here, either; europe and other areas around the globe continue to be affected.
You: for example, just the other day, the germans admitted that their economy is shrinking.
You: and that is due to chancellor merkel's laissez-fair, govt spending cutbacks insanity.
Stranger: yep
Stranger: no not at all
Stranger: mostly due to the fact keynesianism wasnt implemented properly
Stranger: look at australia for instance, they used it sport on and were keynesian at the time and they're going great, havent been in recession for over 20 years
You: you sure seem to know a lot of this stuff really well. are you in the university?
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: plus i like economics so you just pick up stuff
You: now that is great to see that australia is a living example of how keynesian econ theory works, at least in the short term. why dont other countries follow suit?
Stranger: because like everytime keynesian economics works the opposing schools find some way to ignore it, there's a good quote by paul krugman i think let me find it
Stranger: "The intellectually insecure ... have created for themselves [an] alternative intellectual history in which John Maynard Keynes was a fraud."
You: awesome quote!
Stranger: and politically keynesians are relatively unpopular, neoclassicist hold most influential gov positions and tend to reject keynesian intervention
You: and i have been hearing for years from right wing jerks and sources that "the New Deal was a mistake."
Stranger: well they can believe what they want but the fact is all the evidence shows it wasnt and if they claim it does usually what's happened is they've transformed data to work for them and then if you apply their methods to anything else it returns some ridiculous result
You: when is the stubborn, pathological, ideological extremism ever going to stop!?
Stranger: thing is the economy exists to serve society not the other way around, keynesians acknowledge that while most others see it the other way round, or see society dominating the economy, they're linked but both equally influential so some management is needed to ensure society is no. 1
Stranger: so long as there's a mainstream view they'll be a counter
You: so most economic theorists are GI oriented?
Stranger: yeah but most are not keynesian
Stranger: monetarists or classicists mainly
You: but both monetarists and classicists are against GI and keynesian policies?
Stranger: mostly a problem with the education system, indoctrination and such, if you dont ask questions you're just taught neokeynsian which is inherently flawed and then those who look at it and relise think neokeynesian is actually proper keynesianism and so shift to monetarism or classicism
Stranger: well they're against keynesianism and most intervention, they dont mind minimal intervention like monetarists think central bank management is best rather than actual goverment intervention while classicists think minimal regulation is alright but they want free markets in the short term ultimately
Stranger: anyway g2g, later
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You both like economics.
You: hi
Stranger: hey
You: so you like economics?
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: you?
You: i would like to know more about it.
You: for example, what is your favorite economic policy(ies)?
Stranger: keynesian policies
You: interesting. whats that about?
Stranger: government intervention in markets to achieve the best social outcome
You: cool. i like that. i dont like allowing a free market to devour people and our economy, just like letting a pack of wolves devour the entire flock of sheep! thats what happened under both bush presidencies.
Stranger: yeah right wings dont like keynesian policies much
You: are there primarily only two tendencies in economics? those that support GI and those that oppose it? is there a 3rd way?
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: well
You: ?
Stranger: there's new keynesianism, post keynesianims, neokeynesian, monetarism, institutionalism, new classicism, neoclassicism, austrian school, chicago school and stockholm school economics
You: but arent all of those merely variations on the two original tendencies?
Stranger: all support intervention sort of but differently
Stranger: yes and no
You: which are not?
Stranger: new keynesianism, post keynesianims and stockholm school economics all support intervention for the best social outcome
Stranger: monetarism, , new classicism, neoclassicism argue against government spending as intervention and say free markets deliver the best so minor, sometimes monetary policy intervention is best
You: fascinating
Stranger: austrian school, chicago school all intervention is bad because free markets deliver the best outcome but dismantelling the entire system cant be done immediately so just decreased intervention over time
Stranger: institutionalism i have no clue actually
You: so institutionalism would be the 3rd way (if there is one) or, in other words, the only school that is not a variation on the 2 main positions?
You: that is, the 2 main positions being pro GI or anti GI.
Stranger: well no not really, it's one of the two, i think pro intervention, i just dont know how it's different, there are only those 2 ways though
Stranger: yeah it's sort of like neokeynesian which is both classical and keynesian at the same time
You: ah, okay then. its clearer then. Obviously, it is simple and easy for me to understand that there are 2 main economic theoretical tendencies and that all other policy shifts are variations on those 2 themes.
Stranger: yes, except keynesian policies are the only theoretical views that have empirical evidence supporting them
You: now that is very interesting. Because that means that all of the laissez-faire assholes are basically practicing dogma and voodoo economics. When in reality what they are doing is being self-serving and supporting corporate greed. and of course, they expect to share in those spoils.
Stranger: essentially yes, they think it's the right thing to do because it seems right and looks good on paper but whenever they get into power, say bush in 2000, they always cause a crisis like the GFC [Global Financial Crisis] a few years down the track when their ideas dont pan out
You: GFC ?
Stranger: there's nothing wrong with laissez fair though in the long term, keynesianism only advocates short term intervention to correct market failure rather than continued long term government control alla socialism because that can be just as bad as laissez fair
You: and how can they think its the "right thing to do?" Is there actually some moralistic dogma packed into their bullshit ideology as well?
Stranger: well some of them yeah
Stranger: uh let me think good figures to look up hmm
Stranger: OH!
Stranger: 'keynes v. hayek' on youtube econstories is a very good introduction to the contrasting ideas
Stranger: the first is mostly theory but the second tries to show what the problem anti intervention people have empirically
You: oh, im pretty clear now that youve set the context for me. i have been reading the news for years now and the different administrations have always been advocating some form or other of the 2 central theories.
Stranger: other than that milton friedman who's the founder of monetarism gives 'great' speeches, there's one of him basically 'schooling a student' as the video title says when he's talking about how minimum wages are the most racist policies ever
Stranger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
You: okay.
Stranger: try that one, i remember first watching it, it's all correct but they favour hayek
You: What is "GFC?"
Stranger: global financial crisis
Stranger: 2008-09
You: ah
You: well, we are still, technically, reeling from the GFC. And not just here, either; europe and other areas around the globe continue to be affected.
You: for example, just the other day, the germans admitted that their economy is shrinking.
You: and that is due to chancellor merkel's laissez-fair, govt spending cutbacks insanity.
Stranger: yep
Stranger: no not at all
Stranger: mostly due to the fact keynesianism wasnt implemented properly
Stranger: look at australia for instance, they used it sport on and were keynesian at the time and they're going great, havent been in recession for over 20 years
You: you sure seem to know a lot of this stuff really well. are you in the university?
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: plus i like economics so you just pick up stuff
You: now that is great to see that australia is a living example of how keynesian econ theory works, at least in the short term. why dont other countries follow suit?
Stranger: because like everytime keynesian economics works the opposing schools find some way to ignore it, there's a good quote by paul krugman i think let me find it
Stranger: "The intellectually insecure ... have created for themselves [an] alternative intellectual history in which John Maynard Keynes was a fraud."
You: awesome quote!
Stranger: and politically keynesians are relatively unpopular, neoclassicist hold most influential gov positions and tend to reject keynesian intervention
You: and i have been hearing for years from right wing jerks and sources that "the New Deal was a mistake."
Stranger: well they can believe what they want but the fact is all the evidence shows it wasnt and if they claim it does usually what's happened is they've transformed data to work for them and then if you apply their methods to anything else it returns some ridiculous result
You: when is the stubborn, pathological, ideological extremism ever going to stop!?
Stranger: thing is the economy exists to serve society not the other way around, keynesians acknowledge that while most others see it the other way round, or see society dominating the economy, they're linked but both equally influential so some management is needed to ensure society is no. 1
Stranger: so long as there's a mainstream view they'll be a counter
You: so most economic theorists are GI oriented?
Stranger: yeah but most are not keynesian
Stranger: monetarists or classicists mainly
You: but both monetarists and classicists are against GI and keynesian policies?
Stranger: mostly a problem with the education system, indoctrination and such, if you dont ask questions you're just taught neokeynsian which is inherently flawed and then those who look at it and relise think neokeynesian is actually proper keynesianism and so shift to monetarism or classicism
Stranger: well they're against keynesianism and most intervention, they dont mind minimal intervention like monetarists think central bank management is best rather than actual goverment intervention while classicists think minimal regulation is alright but they want free markets in the short term ultimately
Stranger: anyway g2g, later