My problem is that Keynesians are impervious to logic because they claim to have math. But they don’t show all their math, tell stories that are contradicted by their own equations, use algebra tricks, and nonsense math like substituting an equation back into itself.
My other problem, is that mises.org seems to be a hotbed of Keynesianism 
Maybe Tugwit is getting to my head, but there might be a slight problem in the equations presented. They say C = Cbar + b(Y-T). However, disposable income isn’t Y-T, it’s Y-T-Cbar.
So autonomous and exogenous are the same. So what?
You just said they don’t take autonomous consumption into account.
Y is not always total income. Look around and you will find some Keynesians using it for disposable income, and doing this:
However it may be, this guy didn’t do that.
- If you look at the entire set of equations, you will find that you can’t add to any of the variables, without violating the order of operations.
I don’t think you understand the concept of plugging numbers in. Do you want me to write out an example for you?
You cannot retroactively apply b to T, it only applies to Yd.
Yd is Y-T. So if you apply b to Yd then you do b(Yd) = b(Y-T) = bY-bT
I looked at the Tugwit blog, I dont find ti credible.
There was this stuff >
Keynesians now say that if we add $1 to the $10 part, and “multiply”, the result is as follows:
Unbelievable! Three Stooges math.
but this criticism is itself false.
consider a simple equation.
Force = Acceletarion * Mass (thanks Newton)
lets say
Force = 10m/s^2 *10kg = 100kgm/s^2
lets ‘add’ a kilo to the weight and find out what the force is now given the condition that the acceleration is the same
Force = 10m/s^2 *(10+1) kg = 110kgm/s^2 (i.e. not 101)
I tried using that exact logic:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/fiscal-multipliers-debunked/19879/3
I said the guy I was talking to left “a” out of his consumption function.
The guy used Y. Without him labeling it, I don’t know whether he meant total of disposable, and he would not show the whole equation so I could tell.
And substituting Yt - T for Yd is asinine.
You are substituting the equation back into itself. The only reason they do that is to get around the problem that they can’t factor Yt out of Yt - bYd.
You retroactively apply the marginal propensity to consume, b, to Yt and T, and end up with -bT.
Here’s an example:
If Fruit F, consists of Apples A, and Oranges O, and we subtract the Oranges, we are left with the Apples:
F - O = A
F = A + O
Let’s say the marginal propensity for apples to be red is b = 0.8, so 0.8 of apples are red, and (1-b) are not red:
F = bA + (1-b)A + O
then we make the asinine substitution of (F - O) for A:
F = b(F - O) + (1-b)(F - O) + O
and multiply out:
F = bF - bO + (1-b)F -(1-b) O + O
We have now erroneously, retroactively, applied the marginal propensity for apples to be red to oranges and all fruit, and find that 0.8 of oranges are red, and 0.8 of the fruit is red.
Keynesians go further and disguise the (1-b)Yd so the scam is not evident.
Already asked and answered, but here it is again.
Y = kI is not a standalone equation. It is derived from, and must give the same answer as Y = C + I.
10 = 9 + 1
10 = 10 x 1
9 + 1 + 1 = 11
10 x 1 + 1 = 11
Keynes said 10 x 1 + 1 = 20 ! Three Stooges math.
Are there any more Keynesian zombies on mises.org?
We have now erroneously, retroactively, applied the marginal propensity for apples to be red to oranges and all fruit, and find that 0.8 of oranges are red, and 0.8 of the fruit is red.
Not at all. Nowhere does it say that 0.7 of oranges are red. They’re just numbers for calculation. The equation is correct.
F = bF - bO + (1-b)F -(1-b) O + O
bF is the red fraction of Fruit, so 80% of Fruit is red. bO is the red fraction of Oranges, so 80% of Oranges are red.
-bT is minus the spent fraction of Tax. If b = 0.8, then only 80% of Tax is spent?
They aren’t just numbers for calculation. Are you telling me that only 80% of Tax is spent?
I’m not a keynesian.
but it seems to me like if a keynesian would think that
at time t1 ; Y1=C1+I1 where Y= 10 and C=9 and I=1 (where this is descriptive of a how Y1 is distibuted)
and that this state of affairs had been brought about by an active mechanism Y1=kI1 (10=10*1) (This explain how Y1 is as high as it is)
now supposing, that I was ‘boosted’ to get magic benefits in Y i.e. 20=10*(1+1)
then this would result in a nice new state of affairs wherein Y2=C2+I2 : 20=18+2
Thats what I imagine keynesians would say about it.
I haven’t got any idea what you’re talking about, because you’re talking like a Keynesian. “boosted”, “magic benefits”, fragments of algebra
It’s simple:
10 = 9 + 1
10 = 10 x 1
9 + 1 + 1 = 11
10 x 1 + 1 = 11
Keynes said 10 x 1 + 1 = 20. Three Stooges math.
And I don’t find you credible.
And you are a moderator/administrator on mises.org
Why don’t you do a survey and find out how many members of mises.org are Keynesians. Maybe you should change the name to keynes.org.
ok, now you are just trolling.
This is just a friendly warning, which I may regret extending, but the important point is, behave and we will hear you out.
You said you didn’t find me credible. Was that just trolling?
And I’ve heard “Are you blind or just stubborn?”
If you want to kick me out, then do so.
Tugwit, the problem here is that you don’t want to take into account the objections that have been made and that you didn’t bother to respond just because “this sounds keynesian”.
What objection didn’t I respond to?
NirgrahamUK, Wheylous, and Chris S. If you disagree with them, you have to show “where” exactly they are wrong. Everyone is waiting. (and don’t tell me “I have already replied”)
I have already replied, so I can tell you that.
Tugwit, can you answer their objections without dismissing them as Keynesian nonsense? I’m not saying that they’re right, I’d just like to hear the fullness of your responses, from start to finish.
You have apparently not even read any of my responses.
And since you have no specific question, and want a “full” response “from start to finish”, then it’s all on
and on YouTube under MrTugwit.
If you don’t understand what I said on blogspot, I can’t help you.
Jargon, you’ve had time now to read Part 1 of Fiscal Multiplier Debunked on my blog.
If you have read it, do you have any specific question?
Only one question at a time.
And I’m not replying to anybody else until this conversation is over.