5 ms·

> the predominant Keynesian narrative is that spending drives the economy (hint: it doesn’t - capital investments do) Without taking a side on the actual point

> the predominant Keynesian narrative is that spending drives the economy (hint: it doesn’t - capital investments do) Without taking a side on the actual point: that's not a hint, that's just you stating what you happen to believe with no argument to back it up. It doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

hummusandsushi 6y ago
It's also smugly dismissive of a particularly mainstream interpretation of the economy for a more obscure one, as if the author is privy to some information that key economists do not have. That said, I would love to see the arguments and evidence in favor of either standpoint if anyone has some useful resources to that effect.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The standard argument about the role of demand and credit is quite straightforward: the economy consists of people buying and selling stuff. Capital investment plays a supporting role in ensuring a supply of stuff for sale in future (and in distributing money to buy that stuff with), but people will invest more if they anticipate lots of demand to buy their stuff in future and less if they don't. Both demand and investment keep the economy going, but anticipated future demand is essential to investment. Therefore when demand is low across the whole economy, there is a rationale for govts/central banks either to directly boost demand by spending or indirectly lower the costs of capital investment by lowering interest rates. The evidence for and against the efficacy of certain interventions is basically the entire field of macroeconomics, but Keynes' General Theory is the starting point and something like Woodford's Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy or most undergrad macroeconomics textbooks more reflective of current practice.
  - ianai 6y ago
    Maybe there’s an argument from which markets move more quickly toward equilibrium. If you push the demand up for a slower part of it then the whole economy might tend to react more quickly than otherwise. Forgetting the specifics though.
- imtringued 6y ago
  From what I can tell there is no absolute rule that one economic theory always applies. You can consider these interpretations to be a collection of tools in a toolbox. Some salesmen try to sell their own tool box set as the best that will solve all your problems when the truth is you must use the right tool for the right problem. For example Austrian economics can be the right tool if you have an economy that is suffering from high inflation. Let's take a look at Greece [0]. Inflation peaked at 6% in 2008. You can call that high but most economies that suffer from the negative effects of inflation have double digit inflation. Inflation fell straight to -2% in 2014. It certainly doesn't look like the type of economy where Austrian economics would be the right tool. However, if you were to use Austrian economics in say Argentina [1] you could certainly speed up the economic recovery. It certainly has a place on earth but not in most first world economies. [0] https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/inflation-cpi [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/inflation-cpi
feanaro 6y ago
What does it even mean to "drive" the economy? I've always thought that's such a vague phrase that can denote a lot of different objective, mathematical concepts, depending on the speaker.
- hestefisk 6y ago
  I think the author refers to increasing economic activity, employment and consumption. The article is quite poorly written, mostly a range of statements about how Keynes was wrong because I think so. The way out of the COVID crisis has been largely Keynesian for most countries (including the US). Without this boost to counter externalities such as a global pandemic, the impact to unemployment would have been much greater.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    Way too early to say whether or not we've got our way out of covid with Keynesian inspired stimulus packages, and some point we'll all have to pay for those packages whether through taxes or inflation and we'll have to see whether or not the boost to the near term economy will stick. If we find that unemployment does not improve quickly enough coming out of this we could be in for some pretty hairy downward spirals.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > Way too early to say whether or not we've got our way out of covid with Keynesian inspired stimulus packages The cheques that were/are issued by the US Congress should not be thought of as stimulus packages (which they are not): they are disaster relief. The economy (or economies, plural, of states considered individually) were put into a coma purposefully for health and safety reasons. It would be paradoxical to 'jump start' the economies when they have been shutdown at the same time. The purpose of the cheques is that help those who cannot work, and draw an income, to pay the rent and purchase food. At least that is the opinion of folks like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman. Some people are of course labelling them as "stimulus cheques", but that is incorrect: it is probably undesirable for people to go outside of their homes and try to do 'normal' stuff. At least not until vaccines are rolled out in volume.
QuesnayJr 6y ago
It's also not really an accurate summary of the Keynesian view, which is a theory about the business cycle, i.e. short-run fluctuations in the economy. Capital investment is important for the long run.
- Retric 6y ago
  Neither are particularly critical in the long term. Economics is bound by diminishing returns, which dampens extremes. Minimal investment results in extreme returns, where extreme investment results in minimal returns. As returns compound the difference shrinks over time. Really it’s mostly a question of short vs mid term results, in a world of feedback loops either can dominate.
yourapostasy 6y ago
What is the role of capital investments in economies that have evolved to a stage where highly impactful cognitive inputs are prized at ever-increasing premiums? SMEE and ASML lithography platforms differ not because one threw more capital investments at it than the other. This singular focus upon capital investments and capital flow (especially when it comes to share buyback machinations) in modern management finance practice reveals a "fight the last war" orientation. Appropriate capital investment table stakes, now. Innovation isn't a machine you put capital investment tokens into until you get a breakthrough.
loceng 6y ago
Isn't the author's statement here moot? Capital investment allows spending - assuming the recipient needs to spend the money; giving $1,000/month UBI to everyone 18+ years of age, you can bet 95%+ of them will spend it, it won't sit in a bank account, and it will lead to an ROI - even if that's personal development or quality of life improvement that will have cascading, lifelong productivity benefits to (including counter counter-productivity). Does this author have vested, financial interest-motive in Bitcoin or other crypto-"currencies" - which centralized digital currencies (legitimately fiat, a better transparent version of)? Edit to add: looks like they likely do, re: a project they list in this site's menu - oh, and in their about me: "Early Bitcoin adopter, now Bitcoin Cash supporter." Would it not have been best practice for the author to list their vested interests as they're writing about a competing product/offering? Imagine if everyone countering the positive narrative (propaganda in part) perpetuated by the "army of HODLers" was financially incentivized to counter that narrative whenever they had a chance, and not only that but proselytized their position, Bitcoin et al would have never reached its position today and many people who bought into the hype - or even killed themselves because of their losses - would have not unnecessarily, unreasonably transferred their wealth to someone else; a true centralized digital currency could take the cash you transfer into the digital currency "out of circulation" instead of giving it to someone, Bitcoin et al similarly structured - the "army of HODLers" are akin to a religion that's financially incentivized - even Fred Wilson - https://avc.com/2019/04/orthodoxy/ https://avc.com/2019/04/orthodoxy/ - stated he dislikes the cult-like behaviour of some in their community, without realizing he's in the community but just taking a priest-like role where he's in a more refined position and better controls his behaviour/image. I am glad higher profile individuals are starting to voice their opposition, dislike of Bitcoin et al - Elon Musk recently tweeting out "Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money;" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1340588909974200321 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1340588909974200321 - fiat currency can shift into a better system supported by immutable, transparent blockchain - but with centralized control so no shenanigans can occur hidden from other allied nations you're trying to fairly balance economies with, arguably who will all be democratically elected governments, democracies. Edit to add: With the growing "army of HODLers" with more vested asset holders waiting for the value of Bitcoin et al to recover and then some - while chanting the mantra "HODL!" - we need to pay attention to counter regulatory capture that this newer industrial complex will work towards.
imtringued 6y ago
The biggest irony is that this hint contradicts the rest of the article. The author complains about central banks handing out too much money to consumers and doing helicopter money. As far as I know no central bank gives you money to buy consumer goods, they give money to commercial banks who let you borrow money to buy real estate (an investment if you rent it out) or to your startup or existing business so that you can expand faster (also an investment). That's the end of the short list of things that the central bank does that had even a tiny chance of directly involving consumers and the vast majority of money does go into capital investments. Finally there is QE where the central banks introduce money into capital markets directly. Again unless you are a retail investor you are not going to transfer that new money into consumer spending. The vast majority of retail investors have a small net worth which means most of the money is going to a minority of wealthy people. Those wealthy people own businesses and would rather earn even more money (capital investment again). So, every time the author complained about the central bank following keynesian politics too much, they didn't... If anything, there is too little keynesianism. Inflation is low because money isn't reaching consumers at all. Now that we have arrived at inflation we can put another piece of the article in perspective. >Economists of the Austrian school understand, that the boom is the real problem and the economic crisis is the necessary and positive cleansing mechanism. Consumer inflation is a positive cleansing mechanism, it tells you "you have to be at least this productive to break even". Companies whose returns are below inflation have to close up shop eventually. Why is that? Because there is a shortage of goods or workers and those few precious goods or workers should be used in the most efficient way. Except this isn't what is currently happening, there is an overabundance of goods and labor and therefore there is no need for any sort of economic cleansing in the name of efficiency. It's the biggest reason why austerity policy in Greece did not work as "advertised". Their unemployment rate was so high that no job or company could be considered too inefficient. Simply getting people to work is already success. I'll take advantage of this to also talk about something unrelated to the article. Some capital owners argue that their wealth should not be taxed on inflation. Well, that would completely go against the idea of the cleansing mechanism and inflation would just be central bank money straight into the pockets of the rich (it already is to a large degree).

hummusandsushi 6y ago

It's also smugly dismissive of a particularly mainstream interpretation of the economy for a more obscure one, as if the author is privy to some information that key economists do not have. That said, I would love to see the arguments and evidence in favor of either standpoint if anyone has some useful resources to that effect.

notahacker 6y ago
The standard argument about the role of demand and credit is quite straightforward: the economy consists of people buying and selling stuff. Capital investment plays a supporting role in ensuring a supply of stuff for sale in future (and in distributing money to buy that stuff with), but people will invest more if they anticipate lots of demand to buy their stuff in future and less if they don't. Both demand and investment keep the economy going, but anticipated future demand is essential to investment. Therefore when demand is low across the whole economy, there is a rationale for govts/central banks either to directly boost demand by spending or indirectly lower the costs of capital investment by lowering interest rates. The evidence for and against the efficacy of certain interventions is basically the entire field of macroeconomics, but Keynes' General Theory is the starting point and something like Woodford's Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy or most undergrad macroeconomics textbooks more reflective of current practice.
- ianai 6y ago
  Maybe there’s an argument from which markets move more quickly toward equilibrium. If you push the demand up for a slower part of it then the whole economy might tend to react more quickly than otherwise. Forgetting the specifics though.
imtringued 6y ago
From what I can tell there is no absolute rule that one economic theory always applies. You can consider these interpretations to be a collection of tools in a toolbox. Some salesmen try to sell their own tool box set as the best that will solve all your problems when the truth is you must use the right tool for the right problem. For example Austrian economics can be the right tool if you have an economy that is suffering from high inflation. Let's take a look at Greece [0]. Inflation peaked at 6% in 2008. You can call that high but most economies that suffer from the negative effects of inflation have double digit inflation. Inflation fell straight to -2% in 2014. It certainly doesn't look like the type of economy where Austrian economics would be the right tool. However, if you were to use Austrian economics in say Argentina [1] you could certainly speed up the economic recovery. It certainly has a place on earth but not in most first world economies. [0] https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/inflation-cpi [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/inflation-cpi

feanaro 6y ago

What does it even mean to "drive" the economy? I've always thought that's such a vague phrase that can denote a lot of different objective, mathematical concepts, depending on the speaker.

hestefisk 6y ago
I think the author refers to increasing economic activity, employment and consumption. The article is quite poorly written, mostly a range of statements about how Keynes was wrong because I think so. The way out of the COVID crisis has been largely Keynesian for most countries (including the US). Without this boost to counter externalities such as a global pandemic, the impact to unemployment would have been much greater.
- Guthur 6y ago
  Way too early to say whether or not we've got our way out of covid with Keynesian inspired stimulus packages, and some point we'll all have to pay for those packages whether through taxes or inflation and we'll have to see whether or not the boost to the near term economy will stick. If we find that unemployment does not improve quickly enough coming out of this we could be in for some pretty hairy downward spirals.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > Way too early to say whether or not we've got our way out of covid with Keynesian inspired stimulus packages The cheques that were/are issued by the US Congress should not be thought of as stimulus packages (which they are not): they are disaster relief. The economy (or economies, plural, of states considered individually) were put into a coma purposefully for health and safety reasons. It would be paradoxical to 'jump start' the economies when they have been shutdown at the same time. The purpose of the cheques is that help those who cannot work, and draw an income, to pay the rent and purchase food. At least that is the opinion of folks like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman. Some people are of course labelling them as "stimulus cheques", but that is incorrect: it is probably undesirable for people to go outside of their homes and try to do 'normal' stuff. At least not until vaccines are rolled out in volume.

QuesnayJr 6y ago

It's also not really an accurate summary of the Keynesian view, which is a theory about the business cycle, i.e. short-run fluctuations in the economy. Capital investment is important for the long run.

Retric 6y ago
Neither are particularly critical in the long term. Economics is bound by diminishing returns, which dampens extremes. Minimal investment results in extreme returns, where extreme investment results in minimal returns. As returns compound the difference shrinks over time. Really it’s mostly a question of short vs mid term results, in a world of feedback loops either can dominate.

yourapostasy 6y ago

What is the role of capital investments in economies that have evolved to a stage where highly impactful cognitive inputs are prized at ever-increasing premiums? SMEE and ASML lithography platforms differ not because one threw more capital investments at it than the other. This singular focus upon capital investments and capital flow (especially when it comes to share buyback machinations) in modern management finance practice reveals a "fight the last war" orientation. Appropriate capital investment table stakes, now. Innovation isn't a machine you put capital investment tokens into until you get a breakthrough.

loceng 6y ago

Isn't the author's statement here moot? Capital investment allows spending - assuming the recipient needs to spend the money; giving $1,000/month UBI to everyone 18+ years of age, you can bet 95%+ of them will spend it, it won't sit in a bank account, and it will lead to an ROI - even if that's personal development or quality of life improvement that will have cascading, lifelong productivity benefits to (including counter counter-productivity). Does this author have vested, financial interest-motive in Bitcoin or other crypto-"currencies" - which centralized digital currencies (legitimately fiat, a better transparent version of)? Edit to add: looks like they likely do, re: a project they list in this site's menu - oh, and in their about me: "Early Bitcoin adopter, now Bitcoin Cash supporter." Would it not have been best practice for the author to list their vested interests as they're writing about a competing product/offering? Imagine if everyone countering the positive narrative (propaganda in part) perpetuated by the "army of HODLers" was financially incentivized to counter that narrative whenever they had a chance, and not only that but proselytized their position, Bitcoin et al would have never reached its position today and many people who bought into the hype - or even killed themselves because of their losses - would have not unnecessarily, unreasonably transferred their wealth to someone else; a true centralized digital currency could take the cash you transfer into the digital currency "out of circulation" instead of giving it to someone, Bitcoin et al similarly structured - the "army of HODLers" are akin to a religion that's financially incentivized - even Fred Wilson - https://avc.com/2019/04/orthodoxy/ https://avc.com/2019/04/orthodoxy/ - stated he dislikes the cult-like behaviour of some in their community, without realizing he's in the community but just taking a priest-like role where he's in a more refined position and better controls his behaviour/image. I am glad higher profile individuals are starting to voice their opposition, dislike of Bitcoin et al - Elon Musk recently tweeting out "Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money;" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1340588909974200321 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1340588909974200321 - fiat currency can shift into a better system supported by immutable, transparent blockchain - but with centralized control so no shenanigans can occur hidden from other allied nations you're trying to fairly balance economies with, arguably who will all be democratically elected governments, democracies. Edit to add: With the growing "army of HODLers" with more vested asset holders waiting for the value of Bitcoin et al to recover and then some - while chanting the mantra "HODL!" - we need to pay attention to counter regulatory capture that this newer industrial complex will work towards.

imtringued 6y ago

The biggest irony is that this hint contradicts the rest of the article. The author complains about central banks handing out too much money to consumers and doing helicopter money. As far as I know no central bank gives you money to buy consumer goods, they give money to commercial banks who let you borrow money to buy real estate (an investment if you rent it out) or to your startup or existing business so that you can expand faster (also an investment). That's the end of the short list of things that the central bank does that had even a tiny chance of directly involving consumers and the vast majority of money does go into capital investments. Finally there is QE where the central banks introduce money into capital markets directly. Again unless you are a retail investor you are not going to transfer that new money into consumer spending. The vast majority of retail investors have a small net worth which means most of the money is going to a minority of wealthy people. Those wealthy people own businesses and would rather earn even more money (capital investment again). So, every time the author complained about the central bank following keynesian politics too much, they didn't... If anything, there is too little keynesianism. Inflation is low because money isn't reaching consumers at all. Now that we have arrived at inflation we can put another piece of the article in perspective. >Economists of the Austrian school understand, that the boom is the real problem and the economic crisis is the necessary and positive cleansing mechanism. Consumer inflation is a positive cleansing mechanism, it tells you "you have to be at least this productive to break even". Companies whose returns are below inflation have to close up shop eventually. Why is that? Because there is a shortage of goods or workers and those few precious goods or workers should be used in the most efficient way. Except this isn't what is currently happening, there is an overabundance of goods and labor and therefore there is no need for any sort of economic cleansing in the name of efficiency. It's the biggest reason why austerity policy in Greece did not work as "advertised". Their unemployment rate was so high that no job or company could be considered too inefficient. Simply getting people to work is already success. I'll take advantage of this to also talk about something unrelated to the article. Some capital owners argue that their wealth should not be taxed on inflation. Well, that would completely go against the idea of the cleansing mechanism and inflation would just be central bank money straight into the pockets of the rich (it already is to a large degree).