4 ms·

Indeed, here are reasons why Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism seem to dominate "political economics": it satisfys the Politician's Syllogism of "we must do som

Indeed, here are reasons why Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism seem to dominate "political economics": it satisfys the Politician's Syllogism of "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this". Telling of government that interference, recapture, bad monetary policy is probably a large reason for a crash and that it must reduce interference is no good when all voters are running saying "do something".

Iamadog19782364 5y ago
Dissolve the state.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  You can't "dissolve the state". Someone always has power. You either have a say in who that is and what they can do to you, or you don't.
  - Iamadog19782364 5y ago
    You had ought to read Graeber before making such assertions.
- tlear 5y ago
  Problem is that you can dissolve the current state, but new one will always arise after a period of epic blood letting. It is like a business cycle it seems. From chaos to some sort of order and freedom from daily threat of brutal death, to crystallization into a monstrosity, to fall and repeat. There are few example of states that lasted for some time without a regular civil war and mountains of corpses. US is one of them having only had one mountain of dead civil war in 2 hundred plus years. However it seems to approach crystallization state. Try opening a business in place like SF and NYC to see the final form of the monster. Nothing can be abolished and state just grows till the what was a necessity becomes a parasite.
  - Iamadog19782364 5y ago
    There is quite a number of extant peoples who evince me otherwise. Mondragon corporation and Linux Foundation both serve as evidence against your position as well. You most probably don't have an example of a functioning society because you've misconstrued your definition of society to be exclusive to the design of states. But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance. And I'd postulate given the wide proliferation of knowledge, the high literacy rate, the level of interdependence and so on of the modern era, that people are more able than ever to self-organize in a positive and stateless life to produce a far more egalitarian landscape and one with a greater deal of optionality to the participants therein. And if I'm being frank, what I see peering over the modern landscape is that the state is little more than a puppet for corporate interests, protecting malefactors from retribution while allowing them in turn to exploit the trust of people that the system isn't stacked. More or less it's a dissolution of the rule of law that consolidates power into the state through that means, and producing what is more or less a completely unruly class which is allowed at length to exploit everyone. I suppose you're arguing the Hegelian perspective, but I assert the apex of man or the geist, is precisely that which is described in anarchist utopian literature. It's also corroborated inexplicitly by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" towards the end. Failing to assert position that leads us to continued systems of oppression and a constancy of ennui within the zeitgeist, and a zeitgeist itself which is quite probably unhealthy as it inherits inertia and in being resistant to change it is constantly misdirected which we see everywhere constantly.
    - akie 5y ago
      If you dislike the state so much I might suggest you spend some time in Somalia and let me know how you like that.
      - Iamadog19782364 5y ago
        If you like the state so much why don't you renounce your citizenship in whichever developed nation you currently reside eschew your money, and ride out life in China? Maybe India? Vietnam?
dalbasal 5y ago
Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism (assuming this includes Friedman/Monetarism) dominate because their theories/proposals are, usually, based in the world and institutions that exist. Austrian economics is mostly the economics of utopia, masked by an inexplicably pessimistic tone. The newest keynesian variant, modern monetary theory, isn't a "modern" theory of money... it's a theory of modern money systems. These aren't based on gold coinage. Austrian macro is centred around the idea that interest rates are prices. Some people have a desire to consume now. Others have a desire to consume later, interest rates are the price they negotiate. No second order effects. No money supply. No interest in where money comes from. No money, in fact. Money is just a trade good. There were two must-do-somethings" that "killed" Austrian economics, outside of dissident goldbug circles: the great depression & WW2. Their answer to "how do we win the war?" was "we can't, not enough money." The same applied to "how do we rebuild europe & japan?" Meanwhile, post war economists were aware of these theories. Yet, they often observed "non clearing markets" in the form of unemployment in places where Austrian economics reckons there shouldn't exist.

Iamadog19782364 5y ago

Dissolve the state.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
You can't "dissolve the state". Someone always has power. You either have a say in who that is and what they can do to you, or you don't.
- Iamadog19782364 5y ago
  You had ought to read Graeber before making such assertions.
tlear 5y ago
Problem is that you can dissolve the current state, but new one will always arise after a period of epic blood letting. It is like a business cycle it seems. From chaos to some sort of order and freedom from daily threat of brutal death, to crystallization into a monstrosity, to fall and repeat. There are few example of states that lasted for some time without a regular civil war and mountains of corpses. US is one of them having only had one mountain of dead civil war in 2 hundred plus years. However it seems to approach crystallization state. Try opening a business in place like SF and NYC to see the final form of the monster. Nothing can be abolished and state just grows till the what was a necessity becomes a parasite.
- Iamadog19782364 5y ago
  There is quite a number of extant peoples who evince me otherwise. Mondragon corporation and Linux Foundation both serve as evidence against your position as well. You most probably don't have an example of a functioning society because you've misconstrued your definition of society to be exclusive to the design of states. But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance. And I'd postulate given the wide proliferation of knowledge, the high literacy rate, the level of interdependence and so on of the modern era, that people are more able than ever to self-organize in a positive and stateless life to produce a far more egalitarian landscape and one with a greater deal of optionality to the participants therein. And if I'm being frank, what I see peering over the modern landscape is that the state is little more than a puppet for corporate interests, protecting malefactors from retribution while allowing them in turn to exploit the trust of people that the system isn't stacked. More or less it's a dissolution of the rule of law that consolidates power into the state through that means, and producing what is more or less a completely unruly class which is allowed at length to exploit everyone. I suppose you're arguing the Hegelian perspective, but I assert the apex of man or the geist, is precisely that which is described in anarchist utopian literature. It's also corroborated inexplicitly by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" towards the end. Failing to assert position that leads us to continued systems of oppression and a constancy of ennui within the zeitgeist, and a zeitgeist itself which is quite probably unhealthy as it inherits inertia and in being resistant to change it is constantly misdirected which we see everywhere constantly.
  - akie 5y ago
    If you dislike the state so much I might suggest you spend some time in Somalia and let me know how you like that.
    - Iamadog19782364 5y ago
      If you like the state so much why don't you renounce your citizenship in whichever developed nation you currently reside eschew your money, and ride out life in China? Maybe India? Vietnam?

dalbasal 5y ago

Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism (assuming this includes Friedman/Monetarism) dominate because their theories/proposals are, usually, based in the world and institutions that exist. Austrian economics is mostly the economics of utopia, masked by an inexplicably pessimistic tone. The newest keynesian variant, modern monetary theory, isn't a "modern" theory of money... it's a theory of modern money systems. These aren't based on gold coinage. Austrian macro is centred around the idea that interest rates are prices. Some people have a desire to consume now. Others have a desire to consume later, interest rates are the price they negotiate. No second order effects. No money supply. No interest in where money comes from. No money, in fact. Money is just a trade good. There were two must-do-somethings" that "killed" Austrian economics, outside of dissident goldbug circles: the great depression & WW2. Their answer to "how do we win the war?" was "we can't, not enough money." The same applied to "how do we rebuild europe & japan?" Meanwhile, post war economists were aware of these theories. Yet, they often observed "non clearing markets" in the form of unemployment in places where Austrian economics reckons there shouldn't exist.