Keynesians often claim that the postwar Era, which I guess they define as lasting for about 30 years after the Second World War, differed from the following era in that during the former, not only was economic growth greater, but prosperity was more widespread. They say that this success was due to Keynesian policy.
What, if anything, is wrong with this argument?
In what respect are they referring to growth? Are they talking about percentage, or just raw numbers?
If they’re referring to percentage, OF COURSE it would be high, because the global economy all went to shit due to WWII.
If anyone ever tells you about the superiority of Keynsianism over Austrian (or Chicago) economics, ask them about the great recession and stagflation.
I’m not sure how they mean “growth”. Tell me more about the great recession.
Without even touching the content of the argument, its form of induction via historical precedent is subject to the problem of induction for they have to prove that it was factor A, not factors B, C, and D that led to that growth. Without a doubt, nothing can be prove by historical precedent, there needs to be a correct theory prior to any analyzing of history.
But according to keynesians, the war ending would be very dangerous to the economy, because all the bomb production kept the “agregated demand” quite high.
Keynesians are hilarious, they never predict anything bad, but when the poop hits the fan, they are the first to come with a magical solution.
Cam Nedland finally comes from the playground facebook groups [:P]
Welcome to the big leagues.