What happened in 1971?

Post Reply New Topic

There should be more concern that we no longer own our own national debt and are paying interest to banking cartels on it instead of borrowing interest free from ourselves for infrastructure projects. This bs changed in Canada in the 1970’s under trudeau sr. What a crock of s**t.

I never said the establishment of NASDAQ caused the economic dysfunction in '71 and neither did anyone else mentioning developments in microelectronics circa '71.

"Tin foil hat types" is a strong statement for somebody who defends pseudoscientific Keynesianism.

First of all the gold standard has enjoyed support from important economists throughout the years. Jacques Rueff the leading economist behind France's post-war economic growth, was a major proponent of the gold standard. Not the gold exchange standard but the classical pre-war gold standard. In fact what kickstarted the abandonment of the Bretton Woods System was precisely France's decision to exchange it's dollars for gold. The cutting of ties of the dollar to gold was introduced in order to protect dollar from depreciation and it's fall from the prominent role as an international exchange currerency. It was an arbitrary move by which the U.S. asserted itself as the world's superpower.

The gold exchange standard was not removed because the price of Gold went up in case of recession, it was moved because of dirty politics.

Also you are yet to provide a better alternative that would explain the drastic changes that occurred exactly in 1971.

As insightful as ever. Completely agreed.

Well sure anything sounds "pseudoscientific" if you put that word in front of it.

If we have a gold based currency, in recessions we will get tighter monetary policy because gold prices go up in recessions. Result: recession made much worse.

Everyone is Keynesian now. Its not really up for debate. We had a natural experiment in 2008-2009. Europe went with "austerity" and the US went with deficit spending. The result was that the US recovered quicker while Europe took longer.

The problem with Keynesianism is that politicians hear the "borrow money and deficit spend" part but not the "raise taxes and run surplus" part. You don't even have to really run surpluses, its just grow the debt slower than GDP growth.

If you are going to just throw out attacks on it, you have to be more specific in what you are attacking because otherwise it just sounds like a drunk trying to attack everyone in the bar. What, specifically, do you disagree with regarding Keynesianism? I can't really address it if you talk like you do. It sounds confident which appeals to a lot of people - but it also sounds like you can't articulate what specifically you are saying is wrong, which leads me to believe you are instead getting your info on it from right wing sources.

Nothing makes sense in Keynes assumptions. They are nonsensical like Keynes criticism of Say's law that "supply creates it's own demand". Which means that "demand creates it's own supply" according to Keynes. It's nonsensical since in order to demand goods one has to supply. In short first you work and then with the money you get from your labor, you buy goods and services. That leads to the Keynesian idea of government deficit spending in order to stimulate demand. The government demands goods and services which in turn generate further demand for goods and services from the people that have supplied the government with goods and services and so on, thus stimulating the economy. The question is though, what did the government supply in order to demand those goods and services. Nothing was produced by the government. But the government did not gather the resources in order to satisfy its demand out of thin air. Instead the government either is spending money that it has from taxes or it's spending money it doesn't have by borrowing money. In the case of the former, it's just allocating part of the aggregate supply. But that's pointless since that aggregate supply was already there creating it's own aggregate demand. In the case of borrowing money it's also the same. The government is borrowing part of the aggregate demand that was already there to begin with and allocating it. That's beating the air.

Also Keynes assumed that it was the market's production of unemployment that caused recession. His reasoning was stickiness of prices, of wages specifically. That workers would refuse to work for less. More specifically when the money wage exceeded real wage. His solution to that problem was inflation. Inflation would constantly devalue money wages not letting them exceed real wages. Devaluing the entire currency in order to adjust temporarily exceeding money wages it's like adjusting the piano to the stool instead of adjusting the stool to the piano. First of all there is no reason to assume that workers will not accept their money wages being decreased to the level of real wages. Except if you have cartels like workers unions which should be illegal like all other cartels.

In short Keynes success was due to the fact that he was telling politicians that they can actually spend as much as possible, giving money to their cronies and to the special interest groups that would vote them to power, while at the same time actually helping the economy. How convenient. It was a God sent gift for politicians. Keynesianism is the main ideological driving force behind modern liberalism and it's social engineering impulses.
He admitted himself that his economics are better suited for totalitarian systems. This is who you are liberals.