Exactly, especially if the original facts aren't even facts but merely information, and if we had faulty or incomplete information, the last thing you would want to do is stick to a decision made on poor information.
There are no "facts", only scientific consensus. What Keynes is saying is that he simply parrots whatever the popular narrative is, which is hardly admirable.
Hardly. He correctly conjectured that when more money is printed people will go spend what they have since they are cognizant of the effects of inflation on purchasing power. This was a significant advancement in the study of economics.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>He correctly conjectured that when more money is printed people will go spend what they have since they are cognizant of the effects of inflation on purchasing power
And now we live in a world where everyone lives paycheck to paycheck and hopes they don't get sick or fired. Inflation makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>This was a significant advancement in the enslavement of the underclass.
There was still an appallingly wide income gap from before Keynes to post Keynes, the only thing that has changed is magnitude of numbers. Are either of you going to tell me that during the great depression every American lived like a fricking king sitting on a pile of gold? That there were no class issues? Ha! People lived paycheck to paycheck if they were lucky to get a paycheck. Now anon 060 let me fix that for you: >This was a significant advancement in the enslavement of the people who try to save money.
The federal reserve and government don't care about our purchasing power in the slightest, all they care about is GDP.
8 months ago
Anonymous
moron
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Are either of you going to tell me that during the great depression every American lived like a fricking king sitting on a pile of gold?
Even the poorest Americans usually had farms and houses. Those are out of reach for the average American now.
8 months ago
Anonymous
During the great depression home ownership was at the lowest rate for the century in America, try to look these things up before posting.
moron
Care to refute something or just keep seething?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>During the great depression home ownership was at the lowest rate for the century in America
I find that hard to believe, considering how many shantytowns I see where I live.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I find it hard to believe you're such a moron, nevertheless here we are.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The US has over double the population we had in the 30s and we're on the middle of a drug epidemic. You really expect me to believe we have fewer homeless than they did?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Just because you aren't a homeowner doesn't make you homeless. The number doesn't include renters. The total number isn't as important as the rate. If the population goes up then of course the numbers of both homeowners and homeless will likely go up as well. The % rate of homeowners was at the lowest during the great depression. This isn't that outlandish of a fact.
8 months ago
Anonymous
What percentage of Americans owned houses in the 30s vs now? That's what I've been talking about since my original post?
That's a pretty striking difference. It also breaks it down by state so you can see some interesting trends
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's funny that your stats end right before the housing crisis.
8 months ago
Anonymous
? The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes, it's because of the loans (mortgages) associated with homeownership. In fact, the housing crisis wouldn't have been such a big deal if fewer people owned homes, the problem was that people were being given homes they couldn't afford!!
The data stops because the article is from 2000, it'd be really irresponsible to project forward. Here's the rest:
Making payments on a house isn't the same thing as owning a house. Tons of Americans "own" houses that they cannot afford and will eventually be repossessed by banks.
Not "tons". Not even during the house crisis. By its very definition, being underwater is often a temporary status. It means you cannot sell your home and make a profit, but if you can still afford your mortgage then one day you will eventually build equity
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes
Anon...
you realize inflation benefits people with mortgages right? if you hold debt, inflation makes you debt smaller while the value of the house goes up.
Inflation causes people to buy more physical goods (such as houses), which artificially drives up the prices.
8 months ago
Anonymous
that's actually wrong because as interest rates go up to counter inflation house sales decline because borrowing money is more expensive. it cools off the market.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>as interest rates go up to counter inflation house sales decline because borrowing money is more expensive
Right now inflation is skyrocketing but interest rates are extremely low.
8 months ago
Anonymous
you realize the interest rate was ZERO for almost the entire obama presidency? rates are currently at a 22 year high which is to say at the highest level this century. rates are most definitely not extremely low. and as i'm sure you're aware not that the huge spike you see in the 80s was when volcker cranked rates to crush carter's stagflation.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>rates are currently at a 22 year high
So it's higher than it was during the recession and Covid? Great job, that'll help.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I really don't understand what you find strange about that.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Saying that the rates are the highest they've been in 22 years doesn't mean much since we've been in a recession since 2007. Interest rates are far too low, but the government is desperate to prolong this bubble for as long as possible.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know what's worse, that you say that we've been in a recession since 2007 or that you say that, if we are in a recession, the response should be to skyrocket rates even higher.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>we've been in a recession since 2007
Employment still hasn't gotten back to pre-recession levels, even before Covid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes, it's because of the loans (mortgages) associated with homeownership. In fact, the housing crisis wouldn't have been such a big deal if fewer people owned homes, the problem was that people were being given homes they couldn't afford!!
Cope
8 months ago
Anonymous
Making payments on a house isn't the same thing as owning a house. Tons of Americans "own" houses that they cannot afford and will eventually be repossessed by banks.
8 months ago
Anonymous
you realize inflation benefits people with mortgages right? if you hold debt, inflation makes you debt smaller while the value of the house goes up.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It sounds like you just need to do some reading on this, at every turn in this thread the data has shown you to be wrong. You may be one of the delusional people that doesn't have money and thinks they can save up to buy a house outright, you are more than welcome to try, you will likely die not a homeowner.
you realize inflation benefits people with mortgages right? if you hold debt, inflation makes you debt smaller while the value of the house goes up.
This is some boomer logic that doesn't necessarily hold water. It is true that in an inflationary environment debt becomes less of a burden due to the fact that money repaid has less purchasing power and the person who took the loan is benefiting to a degree from this. Also generally true that in an inflationary environment getting more money becomes easier, so the process of repaying debt becomes easier in theory. The values of things like houses goes up and the homeowner has equity beyond what the mortgage value initially was. This can lead a homeowner to think they "got rich" so to speak. Unless they are dying or taking the money and choosing not to buy another house they will have to buy another house. Dying means it doesn't matter if your rich or not, and choosing not to be a homeowner means you are voluntarily foregoing those benefits to keep some money that is losing its purchasing power, it is hard to say how much profit you stand to gain in the long run. If you are going to buy another house then you are faced with the rising prices of homes you benefited from, in other words, you will still likely have to pay more for an empirically better house than the one you are leaving, or accept an empirically similar or lesser house for the value of the one you are leaving, and this probably isn't really all that much of seismic leap for the homeowner. There are always other things like Market considerations to take into effect, desirability of a neighborhood can change and whatnot. If you took the total sum of the amount of the mortgage for instance and invested it prudently there are considerably better returns available from what real estate offers. Homeownership is more of a set and forget for the average homeowner, alot of them use equity for cash out refinancing which means they aren't actually profiting per se since they are just agreeing to pay it back over a longer period of time. Income generating properties and fixing up houses can be examples of more pure profit structures in real estate but both are also occupations to a degree.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It sounds like you just need to do some reading on this, at every turn in this thread the data has shown you to be wrong
What data? Almost everything you've said is conjecture. The problem with Keynesian economics is that using borrowed money to stimulate spending today reduces consumption in the future. You're creating a bubble which will inevitably pop. The rich and powerful are enamored with Keynesian economics because it creates a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because inflation disproportionately affecte poor people.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Nonsense, the Golden Age of Capitalism which overlapped with the Great Compression coincides perfectly with the period where Keynesian economic principles were most prevalent
8 months ago
Anonymous
"The Golden Age of Capitalism" was just a giant Ponzi scheme. Each generation was just accumulating debt for their kids to pay off. Now that there are so few Millennials and Zoomers it's all collapsing. Why do you think Western countries are so desperate to bring in foreigners? Because once your run out of new suckers a Ponzi scheme collapses.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Debt didn't beging to spiral out of control until the 70s aka when neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism
8 months ago
Anonymous
Our debt in the 70s was a result of the rising inflation and the subsequent raise in interest rates, coupled with the Vietnam War, the oil crisis, and the expense of the Great Society. Attributing it to Neoliberalism is like blaming Obama for the Great Recession.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No, that would be the Austrian and Chicago schools. America was at its peak when it was at its most Keynesian.
The short-term prosperity America had during its "Golden Age" was never sustainable in the long term. It was inevitable that the debt and inflation would bring us to this point eventually. It's like eating nothing but chocolate for several decades and then wondering why you're fat and your teeth are falling out.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah I guess that was a nice way of saying you are an ignorant idiot with no factual contributions to this thread who has been refuted with every post and keeps repeating the same lie over and over because it is the only lie you can accept to make sense of the world.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the same lie over
What lie would that be, exactly?
8 months ago
Anonymous
the return on saved money depends on the interest rate.
8 months ago
Anonymous
New deal propaganda
8 months ago
Anonymous
yeah before keynes no one lived paycheck to paycheck and everyone had great health insurance and paid time off. ngl this board is too stupid to engage with.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>yeah before keynes no one lived paycheck to paycheck
And after Keynes MORE people were living paycheck to paycheck. That was the entire point of him encouraging inflation.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>This was a significant advancement in the enslavement of the underclass.
this quote is apocryphal. It's actually by Paul Samuelson whose modus operandi was to read people that were much smarter than him and then vomit up some smarmy quote to summarize his understanding, in some cases actually claiming the quote was from the person themselves
Well what?
What do you do when the facts change, sir?
I usually change my mind. Is this a Keynes thread now or are we analyzing this quote?
Depends on the facts.
Exactly, especially if the original facts aren't even facts but merely information, and if we had faulty or incomplete information, the last thing you would want to do is stick to a decision made on poor information.
I change the facts.
Her penis
Anon is a modern day Montaigne. What an elegant rebuttal, I do say. That buggerer OP has been confounded as can be!
Scientific turncoat.
There are no "facts", only scientific consensus. What Keynes is saying is that he simply parrots whatever the popular narrative is, which is hardly admirable.
he literally reinvented economics
He destroyed economics.
Hardly. He correctly conjectured that when more money is printed people will go spend what they have since they are cognizant of the effects of inflation on purchasing power. This was a significant advancement in the study of economics.
>He correctly conjectured that when more money is printed people will go spend what they have since they are cognizant of the effects of inflation on purchasing power
And now we live in a world where everyone lives paycheck to paycheck and hopes they don't get sick or fired. Inflation makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
There was still an appallingly wide income gap from before Keynes to post Keynes, the only thing that has changed is magnitude of numbers. Are either of you going to tell me that during the great depression every American lived like a fricking king sitting on a pile of gold? That there were no class issues? Ha! People lived paycheck to paycheck if they were lucky to get a paycheck. Now anon 060 let me fix that for you:
>This was a significant advancement in the enslavement of the people who try to save money.
The federal reserve and government don't care about our purchasing power in the slightest, all they care about is GDP.
moron
>Are either of you going to tell me that during the great depression every American lived like a fricking king sitting on a pile of gold?
Even the poorest Americans usually had farms and houses. Those are out of reach for the average American now.
During the great depression home ownership was at the lowest rate for the century in America, try to look these things up before posting.
Care to refute something or just keep seething?
>During the great depression home ownership was at the lowest rate for the century in America
I find that hard to believe, considering how many shantytowns I see where I live.
I find it hard to believe you're such a moron, nevertheless here we are.
The US has over double the population we had in the 30s and we're on the middle of a drug epidemic. You really expect me to believe we have fewer homeless than they did?
Just because you aren't a homeowner doesn't make you homeless. The number doesn't include renters. The total number isn't as important as the rate. If the population goes up then of course the numbers of both homeowners and homeless will likely go up as well. The % rate of homeowners was at the lowest during the great depression. This isn't that outlandish of a fact.
What percentage of Americans owned houses in the 30s vs now? That's what I've been talking about since my original post?
it's easy to look up!
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-owner/owner-tab.txt
1920s, 45% homeownership
1930s, 47% homeownership
2000s, 64% homeownership
That's a pretty striking difference. It also breaks it down by state so you can see some interesting trends
It's funny that your stats end right before the housing crisis.
? The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes, it's because of the loans (mortgages) associated with homeownership. In fact, the housing crisis wouldn't have been such a big deal if fewer people owned homes, the problem was that people were being given homes they couldn't afford!!
The data stops because the article is from 2000, it'd be really irresponsible to project forward. Here's the rest:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/detailed_tables.html
2010, 66%
2020, 66%
Not "tons". Not even during the house crisis. By its very definition, being underwater is often a temporary status. It means you cannot sell your home and make a profit, but if you can still afford your mortgage then one day you will eventually build equity
>The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes
Anon...
Inflation causes people to buy more physical goods (such as houses), which artificially drives up the prices.
that's actually wrong because as interest rates go up to counter inflation house sales decline because borrowing money is more expensive. it cools off the market.
>as interest rates go up to counter inflation house sales decline because borrowing money is more expensive
Right now inflation is skyrocketing but interest rates are extremely low.
you realize the interest rate was ZERO for almost the entire obama presidency? rates are currently at a 22 year high which is to say at the highest level this century. rates are most definitely not extremely low. and as i'm sure you're aware not that the huge spike you see in the 80s was when volcker cranked rates to crush carter's stagflation.
>rates are currently at a 22 year high
So it's higher than it was during the recession and Covid? Great job, that'll help.
I really don't understand what you find strange about that.
Saying that the rates are the highest they've been in 22 years doesn't mean much since we've been in a recession since 2007. Interest rates are far too low, but the government is desperate to prolong this bubble for as long as possible.
I don't know what's worse, that you say that we've been in a recession since 2007 or that you say that, if we are in a recession, the response should be to skyrocket rates even higher.
>we've been in a recession since 2007
Employment still hasn't gotten back to pre-recession levels, even before Covid.
>The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes
>The housing crisis is named that not because people lost homes, it's because of the loans (mortgages) associated with homeownership. In fact, the housing crisis wouldn't have been such a big deal if fewer people owned homes, the problem was that people were being given homes they couldn't afford!!
Cope
Making payments on a house isn't the same thing as owning a house. Tons of Americans "own" houses that they cannot afford and will eventually be repossessed by banks.
you realize inflation benefits people with mortgages right? if you hold debt, inflation makes you debt smaller while the value of the house goes up.
It sounds like you just need to do some reading on this, at every turn in this thread the data has shown you to be wrong. You may be one of the delusional people that doesn't have money and thinks they can save up to buy a house outright, you are more than welcome to try, you will likely die not a homeowner.
This is some boomer logic that doesn't necessarily hold water. It is true that in an inflationary environment debt becomes less of a burden due to the fact that money repaid has less purchasing power and the person who took the loan is benefiting to a degree from this. Also generally true that in an inflationary environment getting more money becomes easier, so the process of repaying debt becomes easier in theory. The values of things like houses goes up and the homeowner has equity beyond what the mortgage value initially was. This can lead a homeowner to think they "got rich" so to speak. Unless they are dying or taking the money and choosing not to buy another house they will have to buy another house. Dying means it doesn't matter if your rich or not, and choosing not to be a homeowner means you are voluntarily foregoing those benefits to keep some money that is losing its purchasing power, it is hard to say how much profit you stand to gain in the long run. If you are going to buy another house then you are faced with the rising prices of homes you benefited from, in other words, you will still likely have to pay more for an empirically better house than the one you are leaving, or accept an empirically similar or lesser house for the value of the one you are leaving, and this probably isn't really all that much of seismic leap for the homeowner. There are always other things like Market considerations to take into effect, desirability of a neighborhood can change and whatnot. If you took the total sum of the amount of the mortgage for instance and invested it prudently there are considerably better returns available from what real estate offers. Homeownership is more of a set and forget for the average homeowner, alot of them use equity for cash out refinancing which means they aren't actually profiting per se since they are just agreeing to pay it back over a longer period of time. Income generating properties and fixing up houses can be examples of more pure profit structures in real estate but both are also occupations to a degree.
>It sounds like you just need to do some reading on this, at every turn in this thread the data has shown you to be wrong
What data? Almost everything you've said is conjecture. The problem with Keynesian economics is that using borrowed money to stimulate spending today reduces consumption in the future. You're creating a bubble which will inevitably pop. The rich and powerful are enamored with Keynesian economics because it creates a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because inflation disproportionately affecte poor people.
Nonsense, the Golden Age of Capitalism which overlapped with the Great Compression coincides perfectly with the period where Keynesian economic principles were most prevalent
"The Golden Age of Capitalism" was just a giant Ponzi scheme. Each generation was just accumulating debt for their kids to pay off. Now that there are so few Millennials and Zoomers it's all collapsing. Why do you think Western countries are so desperate to bring in foreigners? Because once your run out of new suckers a Ponzi scheme collapses.
Debt didn't beging to spiral out of control until the 70s aka when neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism
Our debt in the 70s was a result of the rising inflation and the subsequent raise in interest rates, coupled with the Vietnam War, the oil crisis, and the expense of the Great Society. Attributing it to Neoliberalism is like blaming Obama for the Great Recession.
The short-term prosperity America had during its "Golden Age" was never sustainable in the long term. It was inevitable that the debt and inflation would bring us to this point eventually. It's like eating nothing but chocolate for several decades and then wondering why you're fat and your teeth are falling out.
Yeah I guess that was a nice way of saying you are an ignorant idiot with no factual contributions to this thread who has been refuted with every post and keeps repeating the same lie over and over because it is the only lie you can accept to make sense of the world.
>the same lie over
What lie would that be, exactly?
the return on saved money depends on the interest rate.
New deal propaganda
yeah before keynes no one lived paycheck to paycheck and everyone had great health insurance and paid time off. ngl this board is too stupid to engage with.
>yeah before keynes no one lived paycheck to paycheck
And after Keynes MORE people were living paycheck to paycheck. That was the entire point of him encouraging inflation.
>This was a significant advancement in the enslavement of the underclass.
Economics is contingent on so many variables, it can hardly be attributed to one economic theorist
No, that would be the Austrian and Chicago schools. America was at its peak when it was at its most Keynesian.
Boy the dollar sure went up during the 1930’s. Things must have been a blast then
RETVRN
economics is a fake discipline
explain without falling into soience worship or positivism
this quote is apocryphal. It's actually by Paul Samuelson whose modus operandi was to read people that were much smarter than him and then vomit up some smarmy quote to summarize his understanding, in some cases actually claiming the quote was from the person themselves
hope these new facts change your mind!!
>Safe and effective™
>keynes
was right
but all keynesian schools are garbage