7 votes

Anyone else find people saying "Keynesian Economics" as strange?

With Rick Perry mentioning Keynesian Economics in the debate and this video of Paul Ryan (below), I get a strange feeling every time people say the word. Anyone else think its weird when politicians other than Ron Paul talk about Keynesianism?

http://youtu.be/pI2ca2_sxeg

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Didn't I read..

where Rick Perry got a D in economics? Isn't that just a wonderful thought...

I wonder just how long it took him to pronounce Keynesian. :O)

rick haybail perry

got a D for Democrat.....LOL

Rick Perry-Economically Challenged

Yeah you did...i have an image of his report card. Texas A&M Principles of Economics - D . Pretty sure most schools teach Keynesian economics...perhaps this is why he doesn't like it?

Status Quo candidates remind me of Jon Lovitz liar skits...

"Yeah...that's the ticket....if it had been Mises, he would have aced it....also...He's seen Morgan Fairchild..naked!..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4

I hear it mentioned on

Sean Hannity's radio show, as well as Rush Limbaugh all the time....not that I listen to them all the time but when i do hold my nose and tune in to hear what the enemy is thinking I hear that word tossed around alot....it had me scratching my head too

Hey all! My thoughts on the matter:

I find it kind of discomforting when I hear people on the air throw around "Keynesianism" to describe what we're doing. Now it's certainly a watered down version, but I don't know a Keynesian economist who would say that we're doing the right things. Keynesian economics isn't surviving in Ivy League universities because it's shallow and dumb, and it certainly isn't true that every Keynesian economist is a brainwashed statist. It's a fully fleshed out theory (though I believe an incorrect one) that has reasoning behind each of its positions. Now Keynesians would advocate bigger works, for sure, but I guess they would be "targeted" to make the best use of all of our "idle resources." (I put things in quotations because I certainly don't buy into their liquidity trap argument, and I'm simply trying to put forward where I believe they're coming from.) What worries me, with all of the talking heads throwing the term around somewhat incorrectly, is that actual Keynesian economists will be able to (justifiably) put down the pseudo-Keynesian label and use it to scoff at the ignorance of the "non-Keynesian economists." If we are going to use the term, we should use it in correct circumstances, because we certainly wouldn't like it if people started to aggregate all non-Keynesian policies as "Austrian." We want an intellectual battle (which we can and WILL win), not a strawman war. All I'm saying is that we should respect each school of thought for what it actually is.

I'm dedicated to the Austrian school, but it's crucial to actually understand our opposition. When we understand it, we can tear it down much easier than attacking strawmen. Just watch Austrian economist Robert Murphy's recent debate against Karl Smith. Murphy is a renowned Austrian AND he truly understands the Keynesian positions and their inherent flaws. He convincingly wins the debate and even got Dr. Smith to admit defeat in his blog! Here's the URL to the debate in case you're interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPxzE2XM1TY&feature=mh_lolz&l...

"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rick Perry Invoking Keynes

Oh! That's what Perry meant. I couldn't figure out what Perry meant every time he said "Keen-zun".

Funny how Reaganoids are denigrating Keynesianism yet Keynesianism is EXACLTY what Reaganomics was: fiscal deficit spending, make work schemes, corporate welfare boosting "aggregate demand".

Reagan = fraud.

Actually

I doubt PERRY even knows what he meant.

I find it refreshing...

like a gourmet mint. :p

"Here, try one of these Austrian mints. Delicious!"

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Doug Wead calls it, "Paulista language"

My feeling: They want my vote, that's all it means to me, when anyone says what Ron's been saying, they want my vote, your vote, our vote. They have to do better than employ "Paulista language". After all, the rEVOLution already has the real deal! YEAAAAA!!!!

heart heart heart Ron Paul 2012 heart heart heart

"Capitalism" "Austrian economics" "keynesianism" "Freedom"

The conformist and the irrelevance of a term that that is misinterpreted, not understood, and eventually perverted.

The Idea that a term is used because of its popularity means nothing to the observer, or reader. It is simply a term with a definition that says "fill in the blank" . The layman see's a term that he does not understand as follows:

Keynesianism: Economic theory.
Freedom: what we currently enjoy in America because of gov't
Austrian Economics: Economic theory
Economy: Jobs and Prices
Government: USA, Freedom, Law, Police

These definitions that the layman conformist would most likely conclude are completely legitimate, the problem, however is that they do not care to *Investigate the true meaning and understanding of the specific differences in the definitions they conclude. i.e both keynesian and Austrian theories to the layman are just that, economic theories so to the conformist layman, they are one in the same until the rest of the population accepts one or the other theory as correct.

The same goes for the term "government" vs. "freedom", most if not all conformists believe that these two terms are co-dependent, which is the greatest of all American fallacies. In realty the term "freedom" means absence of government, "government" and "freedom" are polar opposites in terms of their true definitions. Although America is not and was not founded on anarchy, which is another term that has been perverted to suggest evil, but in reality is the purest form of freedom; the purpose of the U.S government was to govern its self, and not to govern the free people. The rule of law, The U.S Constitution is the universal to be enforced the people, against the government, when the institution of government cannot or refuses to govern itself. The role of government is to protect this country against invasion, and to bring justice to those who have had their inalienable, and or property rights violated, therefore having their freedom violated. in other words, to govern the threats to ones freedom, and not to govern them directly.

These fundamental differences are understood by the free thinker in the society because the individualist, may arrive on this conclusion based on history and evidence. But the conformist who is never taught, explained to or simply is not interested in the inner workings of "principles" or terms that they themselves blindly promote happily accept any term, regardless of the philosophy and meaning behind the term which will put them in the good graces of their party, ethnicity or peers in general.

In conclusion, The usage of terms that principled and Intellectual individuals such as us have come to champion, can be easily twisted to fit any definition the orator who Is a conformist pleases. As we have witnessed with the tea party. As the terms government and freedom have become synonymous, they can easily convince the layman that Keynesianism is compatible with the austrian school and that the "Austrians" have to compromise sound money, etc. etc.

Words are but the representatives of meanings. The use of a term should only bring joy to a fan, or dread to an opponent unless they are used to convey the correct meaning to an audience that is not familiar with that particular term.

First Thought

on Bachmann's "Status Quo" and Perry's "Keynesian Policy" remarks...
xxx://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

hehe, Perry used "Status Quo"

hehe, Perry used "Status Quo" as well during the debate. Now I'm not saying they can't use these words. But anyone else here think their campaign strategists are playing back Ron Paul speeches and trying to figure out what makes him so popular? I bet they think if they can adopt his language they can steal his voters.. LMFAO. So lame isn't it.

That also bothered me!

I was going to bring that up too. He probably has hired some staff to find all of the words Dr. Paul uses most often.

"We don't need a Department of Energy; we need a Department of Freedom" - RP
"We need to defend liberty.. and liberty!" - RP

Reason magazine covered this issue...

He likes small government and free markets (he's a pseudo-Austrian who's well aware of Mises and Hayek), but is politically in the neocon camp and voted in favor of TARP.

Here's the article...

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/10/paul-ryan-radical-or-s...

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

Keynesianism

Not really, I think anyone who has taken a senior high school economics course would know what this is.

BUT...they would not have a clue of who Hayek was lol

donvino

Sure, it's strange

Up until recently I've never heard anybody use the word on TV aside from Ron Paul. Obviously these folks are doing a bit of studying up on the terminology. I'm not so sure how many of the rest of them know what it is, but they've got to learn to say it anyway. Just one more of Ron Paul's contributions to the U.S. political lexicon.

freedom and prosperity vs. serfdom and poverty

Keynesianism is based on violence and theft and yields bad economic outcomes (serfdom and poverty), whereas Austrianism is based on peace and yields optimal economic results.

Austrian economics demonstrates how the system of non-aggression, private property and voluntary exchange yields freedom and prosperity.

If you add violence into this system (interventions such as regulations, taxation and a violent monopoly on currency) you will:

1. Decrease prosperity for everyone in the long run.

2. Increase prosperity for those who stand to gain from the intervention, in the short run; and

3. Decrease prosperity for those who have been threatened by laws, looted and aggressed against.

Actually, no, I think it is

Actually, no, I think it is great. Ron put a name to this and now others know about it--AND they know there is another approach. If they read about the Austrian approach they will see something better and maybe "get it". Personally, as far as Ryan's speech goes, I have much more interest in what Obama says he will CUT, to pay for this. I do not want to see lowered taxes without substantial government reduction.

Yes....

and Hannity has been using the term a lot lately....the game is to use the word and then attach it to Obama to lead the sheeple into believing that Obama started Keynesian economics. The truth is that we have been practicing Keynesian economics since 1913 in part and fully since 1971.

Question I would love to ask Hannity:

Caller: hey Sean, I hear the term Keynesian used a lot. Sean, can you explain to us listeners what keynesian economics is and when we started practicing it? Also, could you tell us what alternative exist to Keynesian economics and what candidate or candidates support the alternative theory?