Why does everyone think that French Health Care is the best? Sure they run a 12-14% deficit but a lot of the French people say that its worth it, just so that they can get good health care and everyone is insured.
It seems Health Care is a disasterous problem in both costs and ethics no matter what [:S] Generally, it seems like just about any Liberals support mainstream policies despite the negative financial effects.
As Keynes says, “We’re all dead in the long run”.
I don’t think most people really care about the financial ramifications of the future. Just as long as they get as much stuff now for as little as possible.
Weirdly enough, most people are quite happy to spend billions “solving” climate change problems which won’t exist for at least a century.
The government is obviously the main problem, but it also doesn’t help that people today seem to think their health care plans should cover every little scrap, bruise, and check-up and at the same time wonder why it costs so much.
As Hazlitt said, “Modern economists look at the benefits in the short-term but ignore the long-term”. Keynes’ pessimism will harm the survival of future generations. The Austrians want to logically and economically implement an economy that will serve everyone for all future generations.
Well, Keynes was an elitist as well as a hedonist. Hence his economic ideas spawn from these philosophies.
No wonder the ruling elites love his work…
Who is everyone?
Again, what French people? I have met francophiles who love it because it is ‘french’ and all things french must be defended, and citizens that loath the expense and inefficiency. Not to mention the NHS pays more than the french system, driving away talent (I guess before all the talented NHS doctors emigrate to the US).
I think Keynes focuses more to appeal to the spiritual sense. He’s opposed to ethos and logical reasoning, and that his policies as well as the negative results will survive us until the end of civilization.
Keynes is more of a “Lets just enjoy life, and everything while we are still around”
Where Austrians are like “Lets dedicate our entire lives to contributions that will eventually create a near-perfect way of living”.
That may very well be the case in terms of mentality, but comparing the two schools of thought, I would have to say the Austrians have a more workable system and an ethically superior system.
Mises was a proponent of hedonism too, there is nothing wrong with that.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Economics professor study Keynesianism is because it is the most mainstream kind of Economics. Even professors with a Ph.D sound stupid because they have only studied one kind of economics for years, where they can just use reasoning to refute their arguments. Keynesianism is presented in schools as the perfection of all Economic theory.
Pretty much. Most people learn mainstream things and only know mainstream things. The largest community is the mainstream community. That’s what most people get exposed to, so that’s what most people know.
I think what a professor studies will largely depend on the professors he himself studied under during his doctorates program. This was largely depend on the school you attend. There are Chicago School monetarists who are slightly “free-market” (maybe in the same sense Friedman was), and new professors who studied under professors belonging to this school of economic thought will certainly hold these views. And so, it holds that if the majority of schools teach a more Keynesian approach to economics then the majority of new doctorate students will have studied Keynesian economics.
It’s interesting to note that Keynesian economists and professors usually present abstract theories muddled in mathematics, which makes it more difficult for people to actually understand what they’re talking about. Even Keynes, to a larger degree, was like this. His theoretical works are very difficult to understand, as his very ambiguous. But, when they say something clearly more often than not they commit a very elementary mistake. You can take, for example, Krugman and Stiglitz, who are “Nobel prize” winners: sometimes they present very abstract and elegant theories, but when they explain it like they should (through logic) it is obvious that they are wrong. It’s only the mathematical veneer which protects them from showing the dishonesty in their work.