Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Imminent_plunge

Keynes Vs Hayek

Recommended Posts

I have a "too cool for Keynsian school" t-shirt B) so i must be cool

Basically the folks claiming that Keynsianism can solve this mess are right and wrong as said above. They could have prevented it through dampening the boom and stimulating the slump, but you can't just do the second bit on its own if you already turbo-accelerated the boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a "too cool for Keynsian school" t-shirt B) so i must be cool

Basically the folks claiming that Keynsianism can solve this mess are right and wrong as said above. They could have prevented it through dampening the boom and stimulating the slump, but you can't just do the second bit on its own if you already turbo-accelerated the boom.

Plus we seem to have 'done keynes' in the worst possible manner; the entire stimulus was thrown into the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only support Keynesian intervention if it's thrown into the building of new houses. Of the order of 500,000 per year for 2 years. Need to relax planning laws.

In retrospect, hading over a couple of hundred billion to the banks and then politely asking them not to just shove it in their own pockets was not the best stimulus possible. Imagine the effect of spending that much on housing, roads, power stations, fibre optic networks, rail improvements, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In retrospect, hading over a couple of hundred billion to the banks and then politely asking them not to just shove it in their own pockets was not the best stimulus possible. Imagine the effect of spending that much on housing, roads, power stations, fibre optic networks, rail improvements, etc..

in retrospect???? RETROSPECT????? What planet are you on - it was blindingly obvious even before they did it it wasn't the best idea in the world. Shame on you.

Edited by Lepista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in retrospect???? RETROSPECT????? What planet are you on - it was blindingly obvious even before they did it it wasn't the best idea in the world. Shame on you.

It wasn't blindingly obvious at all; if it were there would have been far more vociferous debate about the bail-out at the time. And the argument about how the alternative (letting most of the banking system collapse) would have panned out will still be continuing 50 years from now. There's no consensus about the response to the 1929-32 depression despite having had 80 years to analyse it. I suspect even between Keynes and Hayek there was more comon ground than many will admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't blindingly obvious at all; if it were there would have been far more vociferous debate about the bail-out at the time. And the argument about how the alternative (letting most of the banking system collapse) would have panned out will still be continuing 50 years from now. There's no consensus about the response to the 1929-32 depression despite having had 80 years to analyse it. I suspect even between Keynes and Hayek there was more comon ground than many will admit.

Erm, yes it was. just look back at the posts on here from the day.

The old axiom that "you can fool all of the people some of the time" rings true, politicians all being given the lines to say (that they themselves didn't understand) to reassure people that it was the only course of action has led to £200,000,000,000.00 being handed over to the banks for.... precicely nothing. But now we are £200,000,000,000.00 worse off, and now back in the same situation we were a couple of years ago.

Guess what - they'll try the same thing again, and again.

Let the banks fail, decouple the banks from the state - a bank failure is not a state failure (or at least it wasn't). Let company directors be responsible to the investors, to be held personally responsible for the losses. Lets see how many are then willing to risk all, without recourse to bailouts, if it's their necks that are on the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus we seem to have 'done keynes' in the worst possible manner; the entire stimulus was thrown into the banks.

We are not doing anybody or anything, there is no theme to economic policy today, just a bunch of disparate policies under the heading of neoclassical/neoliberal, the only thing in common being they are all expedient for high finance and corporations. They want hands off light-touch when it suits, and they also want intervention when it suits.

Edited by Britney's Piers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is that there is no appetite for moneterist policy, even if it is the solution. Everyone wants instant gratification and quick fixes like splurging funny money into everything, forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in retrospect???? RETROSPECT????? What planet are you on - it was blindingly obvious even before they did it it wasn't the best idea in the world. Shame on you.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, yes it was. just look back at the posts on here from the day.

The old axiom that "you can fool all of the people some of the time" rings true, politicians all being given the lines to say (that they themselves didn't understand) to reassure people that it was the only course of action has led to £200,000,000,000.00 being handed over to the banks for.... precicely nothing. But now we are £200,000,000,000.00 worse off, and now back in the same situation we were a couple of years ago.

Guess what - they'll try the same thing again, and again.

Let the banks fail, decouple the banks from the state - a bank failure is not a state failure (or at least it wasn't). Let company directors be responsible to the investors, to be held personally responsible for the losses. Lets see how many are then willing to risk all, without recourse to bailouts, if it's their necks that are on the block.

HPC is not the arbiter for whether anything was blindingly obvious, unless you're saying that there is more expertise on here than in all the Global economists and central bank's best estimates put together. Far too often economic decisions are assessed on this forum according to the political dimension/control under which they were made. So despite the fact it was admitted that the tories would equally not have let the banks fail, nevertheless the huge bailout and debt that was created is all set at the door of Brown. If I'm sounding like an apologist for labour, well I'm not - the faults were many in their lack of regulatory control. We can look back now and say of course the banks should have been allowed to fail, but there were relatively few economists with clout recommending that course of action at the crisis time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HPC is not the arbiter for whether anything was blindingly obvious, unless you're saying that there is more expertise on here than in all the Global economists and central bank's best estimates put together. Far too often economic decisions are assessed on this forum according to the political dimension/control under which they were made. So despite the fact it was admitted that the tories would equally not have let the banks fail, nevertheless the huge bailout and debt that was created is all set at the door of Brown. If I'm sounding like an apologist for labour, well I'm not - the faults were many in their lack of regulatory control. We can look back now and say of course the banks should have been allowed to fail, but there were relatively few economists with clout recommending that course of action at the crisis time.

If the UK had instead let the banks fail, put their £200 billion into gold, today we'd be sitting pretty on a near half a trillion pile. more than enought o pay off any disgruntled bond holders. (tongue in cheek, sorry).

It was blindingly obvuious that it was the wrong choice, just as it is totally the wrong choice to be bailing out Ireland, Greece, Prtugal, Spain, France et al.

What is needed, and that nobody is facing up to, is it a fundamental flaw in economic policy ofver the last 50-100 years. It is so big that it will turnt he western world upside down, which is why anybody with the slightest vested interest is not looking at the issue.

Don't you find it strange that there's a mainstram debate programme talking about Keynes vs. Hayek, as if it's black and white - one or the other? Rather than drilling down into the real root causes of the crisis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK had instead let the banks fail, put their £200 billion into gold, today we'd be sitting pretty on a near half a trillion pile. more than enought o pay off any disgruntled bond holders. (tongue in cheek, sorry).

It was blindingly obvuious that it was the wrong choice, just as it is totally the wrong choice to be bailing out Ireland, Greece, Prtugal, Spain, France et al.

What is needed, and that nobody is facing up to, is it a fundamental flaw in economic policy ofver the last 50-100 years. It is so big that it will turnt he western world upside down, which is why anybody with the slightest vested interest is not looking at the issue.

Don't you find it strange that there's a mainstram debate programme talking about Keynes vs. Hayek, as if it's black and white - one or the other? Rather than drilling down into the real root causes of the crisis?

Well as you know we could not have printed up money to buy gold, so that's a moot point. However, to your central point, you can keep on saying how obviously wrong the decision was, but to those making the decision - those in theory in possession of all the information regarding what the ramifications would be of letting the banks go - it was not obvious to them. Letting Bear Stearns go unleashed quite a series of financial crises and I don't think you - so far as I know not a world renowned economist - can say what would have happened if our banks had gone down. We could be in a much worse place than we already are. And I'm certain many economists are trying to drill down into the root cause, but even if you could discover or agree on that, solving it may be simply impossible (or politically unacceptable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as you know we could not have printed up money to buy gold, so that's a moot point. However, to your central point, you can keep on saying how obviously wrong the decision was, but to those making the decision - those in theory in possession of all the information regarding what the ramifications would be of letting the banks go - it was not obvious to them. Letting Bear Stearns go unleashed quite a series of financial crises and I don't think you - so far as I know not a world renowned economist - can say what would have happened if our banks had gone down. We could be in a much worse place than we already are. And I'm certain many economists are trying to drill down into the root cause, but even if you could discover or agree on that, solving it may be simply impossible (or politically unacceptable).

The solution is actrually easy, and it would solve a lot of issues all at the same time.

It's to tell people the truth, and let them decide what they personally want to do.

Why is there such a lack of trust in politicians and "the establishment"? it's because people have stopped believing that they are telling us what is going on, and that they are hiding the fact that they are not acting in our best interestes. Tell us what you are doing, what the other options are, and what the consequences of each action are, and

let us decide!!!

After, of course, we know the real options enough to make an informed choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 277 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.