Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

[Atilla]

Then cease and desist bombarding me with opinionated irrelevancies and provide the economic theory that you have been taught.

Irrelevancies ? Go back to reading your books and learn economics and what a monopoly is first. Then read politics. What a remarkable silly person you are. I'm shocked and stunned by your incredible scientific economics



Well hardly surprising, you only seem to understand a fraction of it. Your interpretation and understanding of monopoly beggars belief. Do you have any real life experience? Do you read at all or just speak your tosh cutting and pasting.

I doubt anyone can understand your associations. I'm sure it all makes wonderful sense in your brain and let's hope it stays that way for you.





Starting from the last point. Governments manipulate prices all the time: subsidies, tariffs, exchange controls, capital flows as some examples. As to restriction of supply, we already have your NHS example. Show me an example of secession in the UK? We must, if no example provided, conclude that the UK government is in point of fact...a monopoly.

You foolish person. You ramble on about Marginal Cost and Revenue and then you come out with clap trap like this. How on earth do you expect G to provide unlimited supply of NHS service given limited tax revenue. Then you claim G restricts supply and thus is a monopoly. You chop and change your tune and colours and abondone economic rational at will. CAN YOU NOT THINK OF ANY OTHER REASONS WHY GOVERNMENT MAY BE UNABLE TO DELIVER UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF ANY GOOD OR SERVICE. Wakey wakey?????

If you can't provide an example we must conclude UK government is a monopoly. YOU DENSE FOOL. NOOOOOOO GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD CAN DELIVER UNLIMITED SUPPLY MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICE. Are you aware that they can keep you alive with machines despite your heart and kidneys failing. Even if you are in brain dead in a coma they can keep you alive. You expect Governments to keep people alive as long as they want or is possible for ever. For goodness sake how stupid can anyone be????? :-0

As for price due to tax and tarriff controls they are known as controls to manipulate production of socially desired goods and services and restrict not so desired ones as well as protecting industries etc etc. No need to go into detail but the objective is not to keep prices high. You are very ignorant indeed. Government policy on tabbaco and alcohol is not to maximise profits but to protect the health of its social members. You can argue about the liberties and politics of it. But to state it is monopolistic practice is taking the ****. You are sooooo stupid and ignorant to argue otherwise I'm giving up the will to live.

YOU HAVING UNIVERSAL SCIENTIFIC ECONOMICS KNOWLEDGE - can not come up with any other reasons for taxes and tarriffs other than to raise prices? Whether they work or not is another story but you get the point right?

You clearly only look at your own very narrow minded retricted view to twist interpretations to make your silly point. You really are a stuffy pretentious snot.




Incorrect. Until you rebut my argument, you cannot claim any such thing.

Idiot. Governments are in debt. Where is the profit? Grow up or read the papers or something. You silly fool. "Prove this, rebut that - my argument" grow up for goodness sake.




Really? Your opinion - again, or do you actually have an argument?

With your knowledge of law I think you must know better than I how bills and legislations get passed into becoming laws. Often price or supply doesn't even come into the discussion in parliament or the lords. You are soooooo stupid to relate this process with monopolistic predatory pricing behaviour it is extra-ordinary.

Not only does it get debated and voted on several times, it get printed all over the press and discussed on TV programs and public awareness is raised. People can also demonstrate and object. ie Poll Tax etc. NO WAY IS IT THE SAME.

To have the audacity to throw pathetic daft remarks and draw A-level charts claiming this is a universal economic scientific fact - tells me you have something very wrong with your comprehension.

To ask me if I have an argument tells me you are itching again!

I've had enough of your arguments and proofs.



So you keep stating. Not a positivist science, not a social science, or other?



All you debate are meaningless opinions. You have yet to actually take on any argument and provide argument against it. You simply provide yet another opinion.


jog on
duc

For someone who debates Government is a Monopoly and then accuse me of - debating meaningless opinions is once again very rich and you really are taking the ****.

You can take your theories and arguments and shove it up somewhere the sun don't shine. Probably same place where your head is stuck.

 

[ducati998]

For someone who debates Government is a Monopoly and then accuse me of - debating meaningless opinions is once again very rich and you really are taking the ****.

You can take your theories and arguments and shove it up somewhere the sun don't shine. Probably same place where your head is stuck.

Feel better now you've had your little vent? Ready, maybe, to actually provide something substantive?

jog on
duc

 

[Martinghoul]

No we have not. We simply agreed that there is nothing to prevent a monopoly takeover, should certain conditions prevail. That is a very far cry from what you assert.

Oh, come on, duc... The function of the judiciary is to provide justice to citizens. You have agreed that the private judiciary can be subverted, which can result in the miscarriage of justice. A design that permits this in principle is, by definition, "bad" and "unjust". That's all there is to it.

Incorrect.

That is exactly the purpose of an axiom: viz. to objectively identify an error. Whether that error will be, or can be corrected, is of course a different question.

The empirical case that relates precisely to your example originally provided is: "Tipping v St Helen's Smelting Company" [1865].

Arrgh, here we go again... I know what the purpose of the axiom is and, yet again, the axiom itself isn't the issue here. By construction, the application of the axiom is performed by a court/jury, which cannot be objective. That is point I am making. If you want your "incorrect" response to contain any substance, you need to address the above, rather than statements I didn't make.

Excessive regulation?

Indeed, that can be a manifestation of the issue I have described...

Individualism and independence, or the division of labour, does not lead to societal disintegration...quite the opposite.

I said nothing whatsoever about the division of labour, so let's please leave it out of this. As to your statement above, there's a whole weath of human history to suggest otherwise. Still, you are certainly free to believe whatever you wish.

 

[ducati998]

Oh, come on, duc... The function of the judiciary is to provide justice to citizens. You have agreed that the private judiciary can be subverted, which can result in the miscarriage of justice. A design that permits this in principle is, by definition, "bad" and "unjust". That's all there is to it.

What is "bad and unjust"? Not the private judiciary. Rather the "subverted" judiciary. Which is of course what we have currently.

Arrgh, here we go again... I know what the purpose of the axiom is and, yet again, the axiom itself isn't the issue here.

Fine.

By construction, the application of the axiom is performed by a court/jury, which cannot be objective.

True: it is a subjective attempt at the objective "Law".

That is point I am making. If you want your "incorrect" response to contain any substance, you need to address the above, rather than statements I didn't make.

Which is what I have tried to do. If the jury reach a subjective decision that can be identified as an incorrect application/interpretation, this provides scope/grounds for a potential appeal.

The example of Tipping v St Helen's Smelting Company 1865 is a leading case in Common Law that is binding. It already provides for this type of issue.

Perfection in practice is never going to happen. It is simply a question of which system could deliver more consistently better and more just results.





jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Taking the NHS example:

The government places a maximum price [ceiling] on the NHS. This is done via a maximum expenditure allocated.

If the price ceiling is lower than the market price, shortages will appear, as, more is demanded than supplied at that ceiling price. That is the theory. The theory accurately predicts the empirical case.

jog on
duc

 

[momothebored]

What a load of drivel.
Boooooohooooooooooooo :-0

I bowed out because you were becoming rude and it would be a waste of time to continue, because problems in your theories you like to swiftly gloss over, or not give a straight answer to and claim they have been shown, when nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. Instead you'd rather hide behind jargon and dodge the issues, while sounding overconfident that you're right.

I rebutted pretty much all of your statements, and none was proven to my satisfaction, nor judging from the comments you've received since, others satisfaction. And the same issues - albeit in a different way - keep returning with your arguments. That is - you are not convincing, ignore gaping holes in the concepts and your argument is not easily understood.

You say I offer nothing substantive. Fine, then you missed the point of our entire dialogue. You claimed you could prove something beyond all doubt with logic. I didn't make any claim of my own, nor was I trying to provide substance to any new argument, I was simply verifying whether your claim stood up. And it didn't. And when you couldn't progress and didn't have immediate agreement, you turned 'pissy'.

Is anyone convinced of your 'proof' beyond you?

 

[new_trader]

Less Marx, More Mises

Put simply, Governments have borrowed, spent and promised more than their taxpayers can afford and as borrowing costs rise, as they have in Italy and Spain, the Central Banks will be forced to monetize the debt to keep interest rates artificially low. Money creation? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

All the fṳcking economically illiterate retards arguing with me..."Keep interest rates low and print money and we will have growth in no time" they said back in 2011

Well, where is all the growth they promised? Interest rates have barely moved in the last 5 years and there has been no real economic growth! Central Bankers are now pushing interest rates into negative territory and there is even talk about "Helicopter Money".

Where is that fṳcktard MartinGOOF to tell us how clever Central Bankers are and how wonderful fiat money is?

Less Marx, More Mises​

 

[tar]

All the fṳcking economically illiterate retards arguing with me..."Keep interest rates low and print money and we will have growth in no time" they said back in 2011

Well, where is all the growth they promised? Interest rates have barely moved in the last 5 years and there has been no real economic growth! Central Bankers are now pushing interest rates into negative territory and there is even talk about "Helicopter Money".

Where is that fṳcktard MartinGOOF to tell us how clever Central Bankers are and how wonderful fiat money is?

Less Marx, More Mises​

You are tense mate , apparently you've been dreaming about this discussion for years ! More importantly who is "MartinGoof" you are speaking of ?

 

[Pat494]

The major problem worldwide is over supply of goods and services. Those that can't or won't change to weather the storm will wither away. The Chinese are dumping steel around the world putting other steel makers at risk of going bust.

 

[tar]

I dont understand how dare this so called newtrader to call Martinghoul a f@@@d behind his back , Martinghoul is a good old member here and a good pro trader ...

 

[Atilla]

The problem is not the low interest rates.

Problem is all the tax evasion and lack of will to raise taxation to pay off debts transpired due to excessive fat cat salaries and shareholder bailouts of private companies, who took on excessive risk for personal greed and gains endemic in pure capitalist ideology without any forethought to regulation.

It's all very well looking at one side of the coin and ignoring the other.

If you don't want to pay tax then chop / cut all social benefits.

Anyhow higher taxes and cutting loop holes coming near you very soon. About freaking time too.

If you don't like the country or government in power and their policies, sod off to another where one doesn't pay any tax.



Life is a beach... Learn to swim

 

[chrisg]

There are no examples of anarcho-capitalism in the world today. The discussion currently revolves around theory.

Historically the Greek City States came closest to what I advocate. This would likely form the basis of any model.


duc

There are other examples.
These are taken from thelibertarianrepublic.com --

The Icelandic Godord system that operated for 300 years,
The Xeer system of northern Somalia ( being suppressed by' Marxists and intellectuals' ) ,
Carolingian Law ( Charlemagne's loose Europe ),
The Hoplites of Greece,
The Lombards of Italy.

I've also read that Ireland had something similar at one time.

all the best

 

[new_trader]

More debt, more problems

The economically illiterate retards think I will continue having the same argument with them in 2016 as I was in 2011. Interest rates are still at ‘crisis’ levels, taxes have been increase and the result is that Governments have amassed more, not less debt, more debt, much much much more debt.

Anyone with a brain who can read a chart can see this for themselves. The idea that Governments have any intention of paying down debt is so incredibly laughable you would think it came from a child, not a thinking adult.

Fṳcktard can't make up his fṳcktard mind about keeping me on ignore.

PUT ME ON IGNORE. KEEP ME ON IGNORE. GO OUT AND FEED SEAGULLS!​

 

[barjon]

The economically illiterate retards think I will continue having the same argument with them in 2016 as I was in 2011. Interest rates are still at ‘crisis’ levels, taxes have been increase and the result is that Governments have amassed more, not less debt, more debt, much much much more debt.

Anyone with a brain who can read a chart can see this for themselves. The idea that Governments have any intention of paying down debt is so incredibly laughable you would think it came from a child, not a thinking adult.

Fṳcktard can't make up his fṳcktard mind about keeping me on ignore.

PUT ME ON IGNORE. KEEP ME ON IGNORE. GO OUT AND FEED SEAGULLS!​

So how does it all end, nt?

Without anything tangible to back it up money nowadays is just a number in a spreadsheet and governments can play with numbers 'til the cows come home.

 

[darktone]

So how does it all end, nt?

Without anything tangible to back it up money nowadays is just a number in a spreadsheet and governments can play with numbers 'til the cows come home.

Our monetary system will collapse at some point Jon.
As have done all preceding monetary systems (including gold).

 

[Atilla]

 

[Atilla]

Our monetary system will collapse at some point Jon.
As have done all preceding monetary systems (including gold).

That's really cruel darktone


fwiw markets are making new highs and a global recession has receded. Everyone still making money thanks to low interest rates and life goes on as we know it.

We've had the seagulls feeding and now it's only a matter of time before this thread reverts back to good old throw your toys 'outta' your pram tantrums again.

:whistling

 

[new_trader]

Less Marx, More Mises

Haunting Pictures Of A Transportation Recession As Freight Rail Traffic Plunges
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...tation-recession-freight-rail-traffic-plunges

I happen to stumble upon this article on Zero Hedge which strongly supports my view that there has been no real economic growth since the great recession began circa 2009.

However, I always like to do my own research. Using google maps I searched for the area in question and found it. I took my own screenshot.

Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis supports my research. Central Bank policy has been a dismal failure, as always.

 

[new_trader]

Egg on face

fwiw markets are making new highs and a global recession has receded. Everyone still making money thanks to low interest rates and life goes on as we know it.

Fed (and T2W dunces!), again, left with egg on its face as recovery falters
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/fed-again-left-with-egg-on-its-face-as-recovery-falters.html

Expectations for a summer rate hike fell into a sinkhole Friday after the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls grew by just 38,000 in May, amounting to the worst monthly jobs growth in five years.

 

[TraderCL]

Keynesian Economics has its draw backs but Hayek for me just simply advocating for full employment was a killer. The unemployment rationale simply does not allow for full employment. There clearly cannot be a job for every man in the UK not when we consider that the employment pool now includes migrants, women and other ethnic minorities, who would not have been allowed easy access to the job pool in the 50's and 60's post war era. This notion gives Keynes the ammo he needs to make the case for government spending and welfare. Full employment may be a possibility if the government itself provides the extra jobs the private sector can't deliver.

Keynes on the other hand advocates government spending and welfare and sites the great depression as evidence that in the absence of government spending the private sector fails to sustain the economy. I am sympathetic to this notion. As a business owner, I want to pay people less to improve my bottom line and I also want to pay less taxes to get more take home, so I am only concerned about my own welfare and not the welfare of others. Only a government can be altruistic. So this behaviour eventually leads to low wages, low consumption (in this decade debt has kept consumption high) and eventually low tax receipts and economic failure all round. So government cannot remove itself.

The problem with Keynesian Economics is how it enables government spending. The model desires to pay government workers liveable wages at the same time creating poor legal frameworks to enable the same reform in the private sector. So you end up with a government created middle class of civil servants who all end up Tory due to the British class system. This eventually leads to a big class divide, where you have the working poor (private sector) and the middle class (government workers) that can acquire property and continue to increase wealth. This eventually erodes the socialist ideal.

The solution is a middle ground. More rights for employees, lower taxes for business particular small business and a higher minimum wage structure. This ensures that people can live and work happily. Keynesian economics is definitely winning the fight. The higher debt levels to sustain consumption is clear indication of a Hayek failure. By default those high debt levels have constrained the coffers to the point government must remove itself, this means leaving the people to the mercy of corporation. It is no wonder a bitter row has developed over migrant labour and the EU. It is as a result of the importance people attached to work in a world where government is removed from the frame work.

Now let me take you to Switzerland. Government is the people. Lower taxes have brought large amounts of wealth. The key here is tax reduction. Everything is expensive in Switzerland but people pay virtually no tax. The EU enables for consumption to take place outside of Switzerland meaning it is a win, win for all. I am not advocating we become a Switzerland but they are an example of how tax is a great inefficiency to economic welfare. This government increased taxable allowance acknowledging that fact but the British tax system is brutal.

Business pays 20% on profits + Part of employee NI + 11% on share holdings. Directors pay according to PAYE, a possible additional 20 -40% on top. A small business can't exactly separate corporate from personal.

People pay 20%-50% + 11% on NI.

So the tax system is designed to keep the poor poor. Hence so many want to trade but again unless you have the resources to go offshore, your gains will be eating by the tax man as you will be forced to declare or not even a mobile phone you will be able to take out. I understand this dilemma fully well. So again most traders need a full time job, which eventually means poor trading and losses.

Small businesses are hurt the most by taxation as you can see from above. If you are successful you would think of off-shoring. This will protect the 11% and the 20% but the Directors side you will have to pay, so your liability is reduced. So small business are being hurt the most. This directly affects wages and employment so again Hayek can't achieve his full employment in these circumstances.

We could go on.... I majored in economics and finance, it has been a while but I love the discussion. Hope no one is offended but I am more of a centre guy than a left or right.