Writing a thousand word argumentative essay on this topic due on Tuesday, I need resources that are short, concise, and simple to base this around. I have been having an extremely difficult time finding stuff on this, even from this website.
Really? Well there are three good articles on it:
Standing Keynesian Consumption on its Head
Spotlight on Keynesian Economics
Keynes, the man
There are of course also Hazlitt's, Hutt's and Rothbard's refutations of Keynesianism, all available on the mises.org site, but they're much longer.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Lol these are too long as it is :(
Try searching the daily articles again. However, it's going to be hard to find an expose of Keynesianism that's both short and simple. Maybe one of the other members here knows of one.
I need it more simplified though, as I am having a hard time understanding a lot of what these articles say.
There's this, but I'm not sure if this counts as simpler. Hoppe doesn't use as much jargon as Reisman or Rothbard do, and he refutes Keynes on Misesian grounds as opposed to Keynesian grounds (Rothbard and Reisman refute him within his own system), so maybe it's more digestible.
Thanks, I also need to have a non-internet source, which can easily be a book off of this site. Now to find it...
I'd consider the possibility that you're having trouble because your topic doesn't quite make sense. You've set up an opposition between two things that aren't exactly opposed. Laissez-faire economics is normative economics - it's a particular idea that some policies are right and wrong. Keynesian economics is positive economics - and certainly when it comes to Keynes, the term "value-free" makes perfect sense. In any case, Keynesian economics is a methodology of economic analysis, not policy suggestions.
I understand Laissez-Faire Economics to be Praxeology, which is Misesian teaching, which is the anitthesis to Keynesian Economics.
I understand Laissez-Faire Economics to be Praxeology, which is Misesian teaching, which is the anitthesis to Keynesian Economics.
It could be a terminology issue, but I don't think this is quite true either. Praxeology is the science of human action, of which economics is a part. It gives the methodology by which economics is studied. The subject matter studied by economics includes economics proper - that is, the laws of economics, and thymology, or economic history. Laissez-faire economics is the normative idea that the government should not intervene in the economy. Many laissez-faire economists are Misesians, but many aren't, including some of the more notable and influential laissez-faire economists, such as Friedman and Hayek, although the latter was part of the broad Austrian school. Almost all Austrians are laissez-faire, but not all - Richard Ebeling speaks about a group of Austrians who think that Israel should have a socialist economy, because they believe that socialism is harmful to prosperity, and they happen to be anti-semites who wish for Israel not to be prosperous. In any event, Austrians don't derive their laissez-faire views from Austrianism by itself, but also from external value judgments, such as that prosperity is desirable, and that it is desirable enough to outweigh other considerations, such as equality. It's conceivable for someone to be an Austrian, but also to believe that equality is better than prosperity - that it really is better for misery to be spread evenly than for happiness to be spread unevenly, and so advocate for a controlled economy.
LibertiORDeth:I need it more simplified though,
You want to have your cake. You want to eat it, too.
If you want to do it right, you have to read the material. You've got all day today and after school on Monday. Did this assignment just come in on Friday? If so, then either the teacher expected you to already know this material (perhaps because it was taught in class?), or he has unreasonable expectations. If it came in weeks ago, then you've dug yourself a hole by waiting. We can't dig you out of it, the best we can do is throw you a rope. If climbing the rope looks like it will take too long, there's nothing more we can do. Just start climbing and hope you make it.
Or, you can email me the assignment requirements, PayPal me $1000, and I'll get it done for you by the end of the day today.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away,
the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care
that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need
millions of them.
The assignment is a 1000 word argumentative essay for English class, topic is our choice. This is the bes topic I came up with that I could argue for that long on.
LibertiORDeth:The assignment is a 1000 word argumentative essay for English class, topic is our choice. This is the bes topic I came up with that I could argue for that long on.
Then my suggestion would be to change it to laissez-faire versus interventionism. Also, if you only have 1000 words, you might need to narrow it down beyond that.
Narrow it down to what? Here is what I have so far, halfway through tke 1k mark.
Economics, (aka Austrian Economics, Classical Economics) is old fashioned. Followers of that system lack the
mathematical equations to be able to make sound decisions. Times have changed, thus making this economic
philosophy archaic and useless.
Inflation is good for the dollar, due to the fact that it expands the
economy and increases production, and a national deficit is good for the
Or at least,
that’s what the followers of John Maynard Keynes say. Actually, this belief system dates back
centuries, to the medieval belief that the King was empowered by God, and that
his decisions were infallible. The
modern theory of this form of economist is that the government can do no evil,
and that a large government is necessary for the establishment of a peaceful,
prosperous society. Keynes, a British
economist who believed that higher governmental control of the market would be
beneficial to the country and advocated not only a national central bank, as we
have in the Federal Reserve Bank, but a world bank, in order to establish a
Classical economists believe that the less government intervention in the
marketplace the better. They believe
that human behavior is to volatile and easily changed to be turned into
mathematical formulas, i.e. there is no
way to determine whether Mr. X will chose product A over product B, or that he
will chose product C over A and B. Because of this, you cannot control the economy,
or determine future purchasing/consumption patterns.
would work quite well if you didn’t account for human actions, which would be
effective if we were robots without the ability to think. However, this is not the case, and we cannot
determine our beliefs based on this flawed method of thinking.
In The Present State of Austrian Economics, Murray
Rothbard states (pages 2-3):
“The inflationary recession
of the early 1970s was a shock for two reasons: (1) in the Keynesian model, recessions
are supposed to be due to underspending, and inflation to overspending; how
then could both
occur at the same time? And what can fiscal (or even monetary) policy
do about it? and (2)
intervention and statist planning of fiscal policy and “growth
economics” in the
1960s was supposed to have eliminated business cycles forevermore,
to bring us, in the
naive jargon of the economic Establishment of that day: full
employment without inflation.”
That is another major flaw in
the Keynes viewpoint. How can inflation
and recessions (or depressions) occur at the same time if they both represent
the opposite ends of the spectrum(Overspending and under spending)?
Monetarists, a third economic
perspective, started by the “Chicago boys,” headed by Nobel Prize winning
Milton Friedman, holds onto many of the beliefs that Laissez-Faire economists
profess to with a few exceptions, one being his upholding of the Federal
Reserve, even though he did see many problems in their policies, stating that
(quote) "If I were to make up a balance sheet for the Federal
Reserve, I could name many credit items on the research side, very few on the
My thoughts would be, first, that you'll need to do some proofreading and take care of run-on sentences. More substantially, though, I don't see how you'll deal with the topic in sufficient depth in only 500 more words. That's why I recommended narrowing it down - free market vs. interventionism in money, in welfare, in wages, etc.
In any case, Austrian economics is not the same as classical economics. In fact, the birth of Austrian economics, with Menger's Principles, was largely impelled by the failure of the classicalists to deal adequately with the diamond water paradox. While better than neoclassicalists, the classicalists were not all defenders of the free market. The "invisible hand" may well be insufficient to establish the defense of the free market.
On the other hand, Keynesian economics is not the same as neoclassical economics, and not all neoclassicals are Keynesian - thus, not only Keynesian believe in mathematical modelling. As pointed out yesterday, Keynes as economist was describing a method of analysis, and his policy recommendations are separate from his economics. I think it is painting with too broad a brush, and simply characturing, to say that Keynesian economics is the same thing as the divine right of kings.
From the Austrian viewpoint, why is it a flaw in Keynesian thinking that it failed to predict the 70's? As Austrians, we don't accept prediction as the point of economics.
I think it is very important to be careful and correct in criticizing our opponents, otherwise we only make ourselves look ridiculous and uneducated.
Lol I am ridiculous and uneducated on this subject, which is making it difficult. I'll shift my point of view to what you said, see how that helps. That should actually make it easier for me to write, since non-interventionism in economics is more in my area of education.
LibertiORDeth:Lol I am ridiculous and uneducated on this subject, which is making it difficult. I'll shift my point of view to what you said, see how that helps. That should actually make it easier for me to write, since non-interventionism in economics is more in my area of education.
Yes, I think you could make a stronger case, particularly in 1000 words, by talking about interventionism vs. non-interventionism rather than mixing in the methods of analysis. The analysis might still be relevant - if mathematical models don't work, they are not a reason for intervention - but could be handled in a more cursory manner without harming the paper.
There are more fundamental points at stake though - aggression, property rights, and so on. Those are often more useful for a short persuasive essay, in my opinion.
Good luck, and let me know if I can help.
think it is painting with too broad a brush, and simply characturing, to say that Keynesian economics is the same thing as the divine right of kings.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:I think the analogy between keynesian interventionism and monarchy is perfect.
Well, I could at least provide you my signature to fit into your paper if you wish.
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
The divine right of kings theory was based on, well, the divine right of kings. Kings could take your property because they had the power of gods and all property was theirs. Keynesian interventionism, being based on (mistaken) Keynesian analysis, is based on the notion that tampering with the market will produce more utility for all. Yes, the analysis is flawed, and many of the terms don't even make sense, but there is a substantial difference. By arguing that Kings are not divine, we can defeat the first of these claims, but not the latter. To defeat the latter, we need to either delve deeper into property theory, or critique the economic claims.
Kings could take your property because they had the power of gods
Juan:And interventionists can do the same thing because the state is seen as having absolute power - it is the very same kind of political superstition, as Herbert Spencer put it. I think the comparison made by LibertiORDeth was rather insightful...
Which doesn't make it the same as divine rights. Plus, that's not really what they think. Ask your friendly neighborhood interventionist if the state would be permitted to, I don't know, eliminate gays or blacks. They'll likely say no, so it can't be that they hold that the state as absolute power. They just hold it should have certain powers which we deny.
If you want an easy topic to write on, choose the minimum wage. It's maybe not as glamorous, but it's really easy to explain. There's also a video debate with Walter Block avaliable on this site where he explains the minimum wage that you could watch if you need arguments. He's an excellent speaker.
Juan:It seems to me that our friendly interventionists think that people who try not to pay taxes, or who don't obey green regulations or any other socialist policy, should be eliminated - they see nothing wrong if the state kills people who don't submit - sorry but that's reality.
Actually, I'm not sure they think that at all. I work with a lot of very statist liberals. Want to give me odds on the answers I'll get if I suggest the death penalty for non-payment or violating green regulations?
Besides, you haven't done anything with the fact that they oppose eliminating all blacks, not just being they don't feel like it, but because they don't think the state ought to have the power to do that. So again, they think the state should have a lot of power, but not absolute power.
There's also a Ronald Reagan point to be made here. Reagan, if I recall correctly, thought that Copenhagen was in Norway. In truth, Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark. It doesn't follow that Reagan thought that the capital of Denmark was in Norway. Similarly, interventionists believe certain things A, which logically imply or rely on things B. But that doesn't mean that the interventionists believe B.
Want to give me odds on the answers I'll get if I suggest the death penalty for non-payment or violating green regulations?
Juan:Actually both right-wing and left-wing statists believe that dissenters should be eliminated. I wasn't picking on leftists. Both leftists and rightists believe that if you don't obey you can be 'lawfully' killed.
Again, I'd give the Reagan example. They hold a position which entails what you say, but haven't thought it through far enough to see that, and don't agree with what you attribute to them.
Well it fails by its own standard, doesn't it? It may be a bad standard, an impossibly stupid one, but that is still an indictment of the theory is it not?
Anyway, I agree that this topic is way over the OP's head. He ought to pick something simpler, more limited. The topic he has chosen could easily make a college level essay, and that'd be scraping the surface.