This is just an introduction, as I intend to start frequenting the forums.
Background:
I have a degree in political science and economics and basically consider myself a Keynesian. ( I picture you screaming “boo hiss”) However I base my conclusions on evidence and the scientific method. Since economics is still a growing field and holds few scientific truths, I am open to other possiblities.
I enjoy healthy debate and am drawn to this site for 3 reasons:
I have been a fan of the articles on the site for many years. I have frequently linked the ones on the FAIR tax, and am a big fan of the critiques presented here.
I have many questions for actual Austrian school and Monatarist followers, and am very interested to hear their answers.
I like debating and debunking conspiracy theories. ALL conspiracy theories lead to fiat currency and jewish bankers (see Rothschilds) and since this is a havan for anti-fiat currency crowds, I hope to discover how people take a perfectly reasonable argument against fiat currency and anti-Keynesian economic policies and morph it into “the US government blew up the twin towers using advanced satellite beam weapons” (see Judy Wood).
Keynesians dont use the scientific method, Paul Samuelsons demagogery of social science attempted to frame the keynesian method of create models and comparethem to real world phenomenon is not “scientific” in the natural sense.
In your experience is keynesian economics more normative in its framework as opposed to value free?
I reread my post and I am fairly confident I was making no strawmans or accusations against the posters here. I assume that the posters here are rational people and like to discuss economics not wild conspiracy theories. But the fact remains that LOTS of conspiracy theorists link this site and its arguments against fiat currency. No insult was meant in anyway.
In terms of applying the ‘scientific method’ and economics I still believe that the basic concept works. Hypothesis → Test. With results either supporting your hypothesis or disproving your hypothesis.(You can never prove a thesis, you can only support it) It just happens to be wildy more difficult in economics because of the enormous level of variables. In terms of Keynesian versus Monatarists versus, etc etc, there will never be a conlclusive ‘winner’ imho.
In terms of my level of knowledge. Yes I have a degree in Economics. However that was nearly a decade ago, and I only use it minimally in my work. Hence I am unqualified to discuss topics like the methodology used in some of the bigger studies. (Bushs presidential advisory report on the Tax Reform comes to mind - in that I don’t have enough knowledge/information to adequetly critique their methodology)(Another example would be, I have no idea what new studies have come out on the velocity of money, and the math would probably be over my head without a lot of study, that I don’t currently have time for) [On a side note, I am considering going back and getting a masters of finance]
Ixtellor
P.S. Apologies for rambling on and on, when the norm seems to be short concise posts.
I have not read Samuelson. So I will have to get back to you.
I think your asking me if if I believe in “what is” verus “what should be”. I may be totally off so correct me if I am, but are you asking me if Keynesian economics would dictate that the price of oil should be X dollars per barrel? Or Should the economy work to make sure that everyone makes at least X Dollars per year? If this was your question, then I would answer NO. The sole purpose of Keynesian economics, imho, would be to stabilize or reduce extreme jumps in the boom bust cycle. Or to ‘manage’ the constant battle between inflation and recession. Did this answer your question? If not, apologies and perhaps you can rephrase for my atrophied brain.
Ixtellor
P.S. If any of this requires a new thread or needs to be moved, or if you dont like off-topic or meandering threads please let me know. I don’t know the etiquette.
P.P.S. On a side not there is better free forum software available. With multi quoting options coming to mind.
Don’t worry, you didn’t ramble. The posts get longer when a real debate gets underway.
Nevertheless, you will find few conspiracy theorists on the forum AFAIK, and the arguments against fiat in the articles are strictly economic-political.
Give me an example of a “macro” test you could possibly make? And do you doubt that 1+1=2?
You don’t need high level maths for economics IMO.
Those that can’t see there is a move towards world government are blind to reality.
I think you’ll find, just one instance - were all the other schools of thought ‘lost’ and where the Austrian School ‘won’ and continues to do so today. Objectively - all other schools BAR the Austrians said the value/price of Gold would fall when the US cut its ties to the gold standard, with Nixon in 1971.
The Austrians said the value/price of Gold would rise. It did exactly that. The other schools ‘lost’.
The text below addresses both of these points more clearly than I did.
What has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard
"Since the United States went completely off gold in August 1971 and established the Friedmanite fluctuating fiat system in March 1973, the United States and the world have suffered the most intense and most sustained bout of peacetime inflation in the history of the world. It should be clear by now that this is scarcely a coincidence.
Before the dollar was cut loose from gold, Keynesians and Friedmanites, each in their own way devoted to fiat paper money, confidently predicted that when fiat money was established, the market price of gold would fall promptly to its nonmonetary level, then estimated at about $8 an ounce. In their scorn of gold, both groups maintained that it was the mighty dollar that was propping up the price of gold, and not vice versa. Since 1971, the market price of gold has never been below the old fixed price of $35 an ounce, and has almost always been enormously higher. When, during the 1950s and 1960s, economists such as Jacques Rueff were calling for a gold standard at a price of $70 an ounce, the price was considered absurdly high. It is now even more absurdly low. The far higher gold price is an indication of the calamitous deterioration of the dollar since “modern” economists had their way and all gold backing was removed.
It is now all too clear that the world has become fed up with the unprecedented inflation, in the United States and throughout the world, that has been sparked by the fluctuating fiat currency era inaugurated in 1973. We are also weary of the extreme volatility and unpredictability of currency exchange rates. This volatility is the consequence of the national fiat money system, which fragmented the world’s money and added artificial political instability to
the natural uncertainty in the free-market price system. The Friedmanite dream of fluctuating fiat money lies in ashes, and there is an understandable yearning to return to an international money with fixed exchange rates. Unfortunately, the classical gold standard lies forgotten, and the ultimate goal of most American and world leaders is the old Keynesian vision of a one-world fiat paper standard, a new currency unit issued by a World Reserve Bank (WRB). Whether the new currency be termed “the bancor” (offered by Keynes), the “unita” (proposed by World War II United States Treasury official Harry Dexter White), or the “phoenix” (suggested by The Economist) is unimportant.
The vital point is that such an international paper currency, while indeed free of balance of payments crises since the WRB could issue as much bancors as it wished and supply them to its country of choice, would provide for an open channel for unlimited world-wide inflation, unchecked by either balance-of-payments crises or by declines in exchange rates. The WRB would then be the all-powerful determinant of the world’s money supply and its national distribution. The WRB could and would subject the world to what it believes will be a wisely-controlled inflation. Unfortunately, there would then be nothing standing in the way of the unimaginably catastrophic economic holocaust of world-wide runaway inflation, nothing, that is, except the dubious capacity of the WRB to fine-tune the world economy." (pg 103-106)