If Keynesian Economics had it’s way, we’d all celebrate Earth Day by burning down a tree and planting a new one in it’s place. 

Weaponized Keynesianism is still one of my favorite terms. But not in the sense that Barney Frank of Paul Krugman used it. 

I tend to think of Weaponized Keynesianism as a term that states that one can use Keynesian economic theory as a weapon of mass disruption and destruction. That one can combine fiat currency and debt into a deadly financial nuke that can wipe out any financial institution, whether it be an individual, a corporation or a country. 

libertarians-and-stoya:

I mean Bernanke isn’t the Keynesian that Krugman is.

If anything, I’d put him up there with Mankiw and honestly Mankiw isn’t as unsufferable as Krugman is.

But yeah I mean Bernanke is just mainstream.  It’d be wrong to say he’s as Keynesian as other popular economists are.

Bernanke is a typical consumption-and-debt based Keynesian. Borrow money, spend money, don’t save too much, manipulate rates to get desired results. 

Krugman is borderline insane. Create bubbles to off-set previous bubbles? Economic impact of natural disasters is good? We need to prepare for an alien invasion that doesn’t exist in order to revive the economy? 

Krugman probably drives around smashing windows and slashing tires just to try and raise the GDP. The dude’s a radical. 

(via libertarians-and-stoya-deactiva)

libertarians-and-stoya:

utilitymaximiser:

What many people don’t realise is that Keynes himself identified as a classical liberal, and believed his economic theories to be in the liberal tradition. His statements about how inflation can destroy a society weren’t him hinting at his evil plan, but trying to remind everyone that his theories shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of inflation or a denouncement of the market economy.

Keynes himself said that he read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and said:

In my opinion it is a grand book…Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement.

It has always puzzled me why Rothbardian Austrians hate Keynes so much, e.g. Rothbard’s book “Keynes, the Man” — which a YT friend of mine rightly described as dishonest propaganda. Is it a surprise to anyone that Milton Friedman viewed Keynes as being an inspiration? Milton’s son, David Friedman said:

Newton was wrong, wrong not only now but then, but Newtonian physics provided the foundation of ideas on which later generations of physicists, including Einstein, built. Keynes was wrong, but his attempt to make sense of what he believed happened during the Great Depression provided a theoretical foundation on which later theorists, including Friedman, could build. Hence Friedman’s comment on Keynes: “In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, no one is a Keynesian any longer”—misquoted by Time Magazine as “We are all Keynesians now.”

This!

Didn’t Kaynes, enar the end of his life, say that he’s more in agreement with the Austrian/Hayek school of thought and no longer believed in his own theories? 

I need to find that quote. 

(via libertarians-and-stoya-deactiva)