A stunning conclusion. I would say exactly the same thing, accept my conclusion is that Mises and Hayek were right, not Keynes. Too bad you didn’t put this in your original post.
So, here is economics in a nutshell: 1) the market is unstable, driven by animal spirits, 2) a commodity based monetary system is barbaric, 3) the central bank provides stability, 4) government intervention is required to prevent economic catastrophe, or, to “smooth out” the natural business cycle, 5) printing money creates prosperity, 6) deficit spending creates jobs, 7) too much saving is bad because it can cause a deflationary catastrophe, 8) the government can determine how much saving is appropriate and then enforce the correct amount of saving through democratic means.
Except the animal spirit part. I reject this notion. If that was the case then democracies don’t have a chance either and we are Truly Screwed.
Which I don’t believe!
Our spirit is much, much, much, much, much finer than animal spirits. Go read history. Nothing has changed. The only difference is we live in cities and the rate of material production is astounding! That is the only difference.
Animals did not and cannot achieve this rate of material production. We have much more knowledge than hardwired knowledge. We are now even beginning to know the process of creativity and knowledge creation ifself.
And if I have said something wrong. May god forgive me and guide us all and correct any mis-understanding I have spread!
You have argued for the past 10 pages that you believe, if left to themselves, people will irrationally hoard money out of fear. Is that or is that not true?
Listen. My avatar. You know, that picture right next to this post? If you’re too lazy to look at it, it’s a picture of a stuffed bunny being eaten. Do you know why the bunny is being eaten?
We should also warn them about the boogie monster. Whatever it takes, we must warn people about the boogie monster! CAN’T YOU SEE HOW REAL OF A THREAT HE IS???
OH NO! Just looking at him makes me shriek in terror!
Mansoor, have you read “America’s Great Depression” by Rothbard? Seems like all the answers to the fallacies you’re expression are in part 1 of the book.
von Vodka, I’m doing you a favor by telling you this. I recommended AGD already many pages ago. Mansoor does not read suggested readings. As he has just clearly explained, he has told us what he believes and why (history, facts, etc). It is futile to suggest anything other than what was outlined in “Economics in a Nutshell”, above.
Okay, so we ten pages of coherent counter-arguments to your one post and other posts of intellectual deflections/misdirections (of the OP). And all one can get out of it is a naive claim to “we’ll see!”
Sorry, but this doesn’t follow as truth. You, Mansoor, are the one asserting a faulty logic for others to follow, namely that you want others to consume more than can ever be produced. All the Keynesian prescription does is prop up unsustainable production. And in doing so you are misallocating resources that could be utilized elsewhere. You think more in dollar signs than in actual goods, resources, and production which is the root of your error. The structure of an economy dictates what that economy can and will do, not what unit of exchange that’s agreed upon.