Fear the Boom and Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek - The Original Economics Rap Battle!

I think an economic hip-hop video is relevant here: "Fear the Boom and Bust" - a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem [VIDEO]

At least Glenn Beck is attempting to educate himself/his audience. Although, he'd probably do better to show everyone this (it's educational, hilarious and very well done): [VIDEO]

He's talking about the satellite photo story from a while back in which Greeks had many more (taxable) private pools than were reported to the government. [LINK] The question though is whether "more efficient tax collection" is really the cure for Greece's ailments. It really boils down to whether you think a centralized government can better allocate your dollars to your benefit, or whether you can. You could certainly make an argument that people would free ride and/or greatly underestimate the benefit that spending 10 cents of each dollar on (say) the military or roads would provide, and this furthermore justifies taking that 10 cents by force as part of the price of membership in a community. However, I personally find it less persuasive to argue that centralized allocation programs will produce greater wealth than distributed ones. A remote government simply doesn't have all the information and can't know your preferences. One thing I find interesting is that many people can come to fairly good agreement on what the problem is (bad economy, low unemployment, etc.) but disagree very dramatically on what the solution should be. frossie is likely a Keynesian and rick888 is probably a Hayekian; in my experience, Keynesianism is in the water supply and the "default belief" for most college graduates, but most entrepreneurs tend to end up Hayekian: [VIDEO]

Does anyone else think that the surge in sales of the Road to Serfdom stemmed from the viral youtube rap battle? [VIDEO]

This is a Keynesian and Monetarist view of budgets. The idea is that IF you balance the budget (they often don't think this is ever a great idea anymore) then it should be balanced over the ups and downs of the business cycle. So let's say a business cycle starts up again and somehow the government doesn't spend all that extra money before it comes in and there is surplus. Now booms are followed by an inevitable bust no matter what anyone tells you when the next one starts up. Keynes argued that you should spend during busts to keep aggregate demand up and let the economy recover. So you run a deficit during this time. If you consider a balanced budget then they might argue that you should balance it with consideration to short term gains and losses. If you're interested this video is a fun and very accurate way to learn about two different views of the business cycle: [VIDEO] For the record I'm with Hayek in this video :)

> The single most destructive force in a crash is deflationary pressure which can quickly feed on its self and spiral out of control. Well, that's part of the Keynesian view yes. I'm personally of the belief that currency-fuckery causes crashes in the first place, and that more currency-fuckery isn't the answer [1]. But let's just say Keynes is right for now. That still doesn't explain why the healthy Clinton/Bush economies had crazy-low interest rates, which was the main cause of this mess. [1] While it has a humorous spin, the Keynes vs. Hayek rap is incredibly well informed about both positions, and it's pretty easy to follow and entertaining - [VIDEO]

You take the Keynesian view. It's difficult to discuss this in more than a soundbite, but the Hayekian view is well explained by these two videos: [VIDEO] [LINK] Well worth watching if you haven't seen them. In short, the opposite/Hayekian view contends that taxation is seizure of resources from profitable/efficient entities and redistribution towards unprofitable/inefficient entities. We saw this in extremis in the bank bailout, and more controversially in microcosm with individual redistribution. If you accept this -- that "profitable" correlates with "efficient", and conversely, though the correlation is not perfect -- then taxation is not a Robin Hood sort of thing that increases well being, but rather a move that ties the legs of the efficient sectors of the economy -- those that can post a profit even in tough times -- to those that are already underwater.

What you describe is part of the Keynesian economics. There is a great deal of resources about the criticism of Keynesian economics especially from Austrian School. But i like the rap battle the most :) [VIDEO]

These are important books but obviously not a comprehensive list. * John Locke's Two Treatises of Government - It's political philosophy but it's hard to understand Classical Liberalism without having read some Locke. * Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations - He and Locke are the two main guys to read for a solid start on Classical Liberalism, which is completely different than modern political liberalism. It's like having two features in an app with nearly the same name. Confusing as fuck. * E. F. Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered - This book will shift your perspective, useful to avoid becoming an a mindless advocate for one school of thought or another. * Marx is a tough one as Capital is massive and unreadable and The Communist Manifesto is a propaganda pamphlet but I think you need to at least find some articles that summarize the basics. * Keynes and Hayek - This hip hop battle is a decent start: [VIDEO] then read Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. * Milton Friedman's - Yes, read Capitalism and Freedom. I hesitated to include it as the guy's so good at making the case that it can turn you into a market advocate bot. Please resist that. Can someone help me on this, is there a book balance Hayek and a book to balance Friedman? I'm sorry but Keynes doesn't do it for me. Look at the difference in titles between Hayek and Keynes. It's hard to motivate to read the Keynes book but nobody ever ha

Look, I actually argue for social safety nets. I believe government's role can be defined simply as "ensure that the minimum expectations of society are met", with the full understanding that these expectations (running potable water, medical advances, etc.) increase over time and vary from place to place. I am totally fine with decentralizing government functions to the point of neighborhoods – many of you know that I'm in favor of more decentralization in general. However, even someone like me can say this article falls far short of supporting its audacious title. It's mostly a paean to Keynes and his concepts. In addition, it contains some fallacies: But, if the government covers the costs of the service, why not provide it itself? Why spend the time and money forming the partnership, and monitoring its outcomes, if it is going to pay for what is done anyway. Because when providers compete, quality goes up and costs go down. (On the other hand, when buyers compete, costs go up, which is why single payer systems lower costs.) The answers to these questions center on the greater efficiency of private enterprise and the consequent cost savings of public-private partnerships. Yet, studies of their use in infrastructure investment provide little support for this presumed cost saving Compare the VA to Medicare. Yet, many besides the users of a road benefit from it – the businesses on its route to name just a few. These would be hurt along with its users if its tolls reduced traf

On the contrary; it is our slavish devotion to Keynesianism that promises a continued future of boom and bust cycles: Keynes vs. Hayek, Round 1 & 2: [VIDEO] [LINK]

There have been a number of Hayek posts, though sadly few of them gained much traction: [LINK] For those new to Hayek, here is an entertaining overview: Fear the Boom and Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek [VIDEO] Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek [LINK]

I found a decent analogy for what I'm talking about: [LINK] With a bubble in Beanie Babies there was accompanying fraud and other criminal activity, with most consumers not wittingly participating, but they were affected by it. So with the asset bubble of the 2000's, this kind of behavior affected everyone, as everyone needs a house. In another thread I have said I don't blame the masses who may have made bad decisions in hindsight, as they did not have access to all the relevant information. So I do blame the fraudsters, but in the end I really only blame the Fed for keeping interest rates too low, and of course that can circle back around to society as well if you like. [VIDEO]

For a hilarious and sharp rap-battle comparison of Keynes vs. Hayek (which... is basically the framework for all competing conversations on this topic) check out: Just a reminder - this is a rap-battle music video about economic policy. This is why the internet is amazing: Fear the Boom and Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek - The Original Economics Rap Battle!(Youtube)[0] [0]: [VIDEO]

Not if you're invested in it. Not if you want to see blockchain technology used to replace the DTCC. Not if you think there are potentially extreme differences between crime (laws enforced by power) and justice (what is ethically right or wrong). The people who invest in crypto are rent-seeking parasites hoping to extract value while incidentally providing liquidity to the Chinese miners blowing non trivial amounts of co2 in the air. The people who transact in crypto are actually building it and working towards the crypto dream of alternative currency. It's important to understand that when a company sells a stock, they get money that they can then use to grow themselves. So there is generally some of the principal "retained" in a unit of stock, particularly because the unit of stock also creates a legal relationship with the company. By definition all crypto starts from a miner, so when you buy a unit of crypto, you are transferring money directly to the miner. So the unit of crypto retains none of the principal investment. That is an absolute terrifying property. I am not quite sure what I think of ETH yet, since it's a little different, but BTC is straight bad for the environment. There are also arguments to be made that alternative currencies not controlled by a centralized government are an important endeavor. If governments have a monopoly on management of currency, then it can be expected that they abuse monopoly power. The distance between policy and reality can be me

Well is it possible that an Alan Sokal kind of trick be pulled of in economics if it is a social science. Relevant : [VIDEO] [LINK]

The boom gets started with an expansion of credit. The fed sets rates low, are you starting to get it? That new money is confused for real loanable funds, but it’s just inflation that’s driving the ones who invest in new projects, like housing construction. The boom plants the seeds for its future destruction. The savings aren’t real, consumption’s up too! And the grasping for resources reveals there’s too few. [VIDEO] The claim being that to back a loan with new “printed” money is necessarily inflationary. Loans backed with saved/invested funds are non-inflationary, because the saver gives up their ability to consume with those funds, in proportion with the consumption the borrower takes on.

If anyone wants a fun quick summary of Hayek this throwback to the 2008 crisis is an easily consumed primer on Keynes vs Hayek: Keynes vs Hayek rap battle 1: [VIDEO] Keynes vs Hayek rap battle 2: [LINK]