Economics

You are currently browsing articles tagged Economics.

Keynes and Hayek Rap Video

January 27, 2010 in Economics by Greg | 1 comment

This is a great little rap video parody featuring the government intervention policies promoted by Lord John Maynard Keynes versus the free market policies advocated by Friedrich A. von Hayek and Austrian Economics.

Created by Russell Roberts, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, and John Papola, an Executive Producer/Director at SpikeTV, the video features Billy Scafuri as “Grand Master” Keynes and Adam Lustick as F. A. Hayek (Billy and Adam).

In order to put this into some context, according to one writer:

As Hayek has shown, economic crises of boom and bust are created by governments that expand credit through central banks, creating unsustainable bubbles that ultimately crash. Unfortunately, based on Keynes’s theories, governments have foolishly then further intervened with bailouts and “stimulus” spending measures of pork and war that only prolong the recovery (e.g., Great Depression as well as the current economic malaise).1

YouTube Preview Image

Lyrics:

We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits

[Keynes Sings:]

John Maynard Keynes, wrote the book on modern macro
The man you need when the economy’s off track, [whoa]
Depression, recession now your question’s in session
Have a seat and I’ll school you in one simple lesson

BOOM, 1929 the big crash
We didn’t bounce back—economy’s in the trash
Persistent unemployment, the result of sticky wages
Waiting for recovery? Seriously? That’s outrageous!

I had a real plan any fool can understand
The advice, real simple—boost aggregate demand!
C, I, G, all together gets to Y
Make sure the total’s growing, watch the economy fly

Continue reading Keynes and Hayek Rap Video »»

  1. Theroux, David. “‘Fear the Boom and Bust’: Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Video. 26 Jan 2010. The Independent Institute. 27 Jan 2010.↩

Introduction to Socialism vs Capitalism

January 21, 2010 in Capitalism by Greg | 5 comments

While this blog was being formulated, there seemed to be little debate over which type of political economy should be dominant in the United States. In fact, the economic policies of the major political candidates at that time seemed to differ from each other only by degree in terms of government intervention in the economic affairs of citizens.1 This eventually led to the series Notes on Socialism which explores that topic from a religious, social, economic and historical point of view.

Das KapitalOver time, however, it was pointed out that the U.S. economy had really undergone many changes and had passed through various stages of government intervention to what Charlotte Twight called a Participatory Fascism-type system. During this time, some have stumbled upon the site and wondered about the other side of the proverbial coin. For example, what, if anything, does capitalism have to offer?

This series of posts explores a similar set of issues related to capitalism. At first, it might not be apparent why there should be a series called Socialism vs. Capitalism. The question might be asked, Why not just discuss capitalism on its own terms? The short answer is that the term capitalist (Kapitalist) was popularized in the mid-19th century and was used frequently by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in some of their later writings.2

Over time, the term capitalist came to refer to someone with private ownership of capital and the means of production. Interestingly, some have noted that capitalism is really “a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, [and] is a misnomer for ‘economic individualism’, which Adam Smith earlier called ‘the obvious and simple system of natural liberty.’”3

From a Hegelian Dialectic point of view, capitalism is the thesis in which socialism is the antithesis. Based on this perspective, these two systems are at constant odds with each other and as proponents of each system seek preeminence, new syntheses4 are created as societies “supposedly” continue to evolve.

So it is within this dialectical context that both series – Notes on Socialism and Socialism vs. Capitalism – should be considered. Capitalism simply cannot be discussed without exploring socialism and vice versa. And although today’s political discourse seems to portray choices based primarily along these two seemingly competitive political economies, perhaps there is a third way – or better yet, other ways – that should be considered and become part of public debate.

Sources:

  1. For example, see Ekelund, Robert B. and Mark Thornton. “More Awful Truths About Republicans”. 4 Sep 20008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  2. For example, the phrases capitalist and capitalist mode of production appear more than 2,600 times in Das Kapital. See “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  3. Hessen, Robert. “Capitalism”. Library of Economics and Liberty. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  4. For example, the development of Market Socialism.↩

Federal Reserve and the Constitution

January 15, 2010 in Money by Greg | 1 comment

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) wrote about the role of the Federal Reserve in relationship to the Constitution. After providing a brief U.S. history lesson of the debate over paper money, its attendant danger of inflation, and the role of a central bank in society, he wrote:

Federal Reserve global tentacles The lack of respect for the Constitution even in the nineteenth century set the stage for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Fear, misinformation, and ignorance allowed government to ram bad policies down the throat of the American people. This is not unlike giving the president authority to go to war and to bail out those least deserving help in an economic crisis. The rationalization that the state’s interest supersedes the interests and the rights of the people is embedded in the arguments as to why the American people had to go along with those who hate commodity money and love central banking.

The Fed was established as a result of the public and banking clamor for an elastic currency, and an elastic currency is nothing more than one that can be arbitrarily increased in volume at the discretion of the monetary managers. Sometimes they argue over who exactly will have the authority to do so, the central bank or Congress or private banks themselves. Increasing the supply of money and credit is the proper definition of inflation, meaning that when the demands were heard for an elastic currency, all they were looking for was a legal right to inflate the currency for the benefit of whatever special interests they were concerned for at the moment.

Noble intentions are always used to justify the inflation, but the real reasons are far more sinister. Those who get the control over the money are the beneficiaries, not the people as a whole.

Economist John Maynard Keynes, before he became the champion of inflation, wrote quite correctly of the grave danger of inflation. Like Greenspan, he changed his tune as the years moved on. Keynes stated in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.1

Continue reading Federal Reserve and the Constitution »»

  1. John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1920), pp. 235-236.↩

American Welfare State

November 14, 2009 in Socialism by Greg | 28 comments

A couple weeks ago, I came across an article written about the effects of the American welfare state.1 Its provocative title immediately caught my attention since it seemed related to previous posts.2

Greetings from the Welfare State The article is a review of Edgar K. Browning’s Stealing from Each Other: How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit. Mr. Browning is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University. His analysis of the welfare state is based on the economic concept of opportunity cost. First developed by John Stuart Mill, the economic opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative foregone as the result of making a decision. Accordingly,

What do we give up by the choice to have the federal government engage in widespread income redistribution?

Browning’s answer is: a great deal of output. He estimates that U.S. GDP would be at least 25 percent larger if it weren’t for the host of programs and taxes constituting the welfare system. He regards it as a bad tradeoff and makes a powerful case for abolishing federal income transfers and adopting a “just say no” policy toward any suggestions for more of them in the future. (Browning is fine with states’ running whatever welfare programs they want; he respects the Constitution’s federalist plan.) “A non-redistributive federal government,” he writes, “would permit more of the productive potential of the American people to be realized.”

Based on this premise, the welfare system causes the economy to lose output in a number of socially destructive ways. Some of these include:

Continue reading American Welfare State »»

  1. Leef, George C. “Robbery and the Welfare State”. 28 Oct 2009. The Future of Freedom Foundation. 14 Nov 2009.↩
  2. See for example, the many similarities between Leef’s article and the themes presented in the post on the Gadianton Robbers.↩

Great Depression and Current Recession Compared

October 9, 2009 in Economics by Greg | 1 comment

Earlier this week, Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute, spoke about the similarities and differences between the Great Depression and the current recession at the Economic Liberty lecture series. Although he finds considerable differences between the two events, he feels there are only a few similarities between the Great Depression and the current recession.

Below are my notes of his presentation.

http://www.vimeo.com/6966224

There are some similarities as well as differences.

The media and journalists have rushed to see these similarities.

I was shocked.

The Great Depression was so much more horrible, devastating, than the current recession.

They were using this talk to sell some type of policy to the people who look to the government for answers.

I don’t feel the two events are fully comparable.

People would be much happier living through today’s recession than during the Great Depression.

Continue reading Read the rest of this entry »

« Older entries