The End of Keynesian Economics, Hopefully

A an economist, I explain things in one or or two sentences. Keynesian economics has never had a chance of working, not in the United States and not in the world. Why? It is missing two critical ingredients which are assumed to be present but are missing. First, governments are not capable of making economic decisions. Second, a straw man is assumed but there is no such thing. That is two sentences but either statement would suffice.

So, what does a Keynesian solution actually accomplish? There is a feeding frenzy, based on personal gain, to benefit from newly available government money. Income and wealth are transferred from the bottom to the top. The free market principle of out with the old and in with the new is thrown out the window. Resources are allocated increasingly inefficiently until a recession, worse than ever occurs.

So, let us suppose the finest Keynesian model created by the most learned Ivy League economist is used. What happens in that case? The same thing happens as would, if the world’s finest astrologer came up with a plan. Neither has any utility to society. I will say that astrologers charge very little for what they do and they are a lot of fun to listen to. There might be a slight bit of utility on the part of the astrologer based on entertainment value.

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.