The Effects of Keynesian Economics

in anarchy •  6 years ago  (edited)

John Maynard Keynes was a 20th century British economist who developed a theory about government policy in relation to private sector business. His macroeconomics approach was to use government-infused money in the private sector to spur job growth and economic output, thereby increasing a country's gross domestic product. His theory has been debated by economists and politicians for decades. Supposedly, any negative impact is outweighed by positive gains. But many have proven Keynes theory to be fundamentally flawed.

Keynesian economics theorizes that government injection of money into the economy will increase demand, therefore creating opportunity for suppliers to meet that demand. Austrian economics says that private citizens will create demand on their own, therefore providing opportunity for suppliers to "fill the gap", according to the naturally occurring needs. There is a major difference between the outcomes of the two theories, and that is that Keynesian economics causes massive booms and even larger busts, and Austrian economics achieves much more stable prices according to supply and demand.

Governments have been using Keynes theories almost exclusively for the last few decades. Politicians use Keynesian economics as an easy way of creating jobs, improving infrastructure, and spreading the wealth around (after all, the government is paying for these projects out of the taxpayers pockets). Politicians and Governments will provide jobs with promises of building new roads and infrastructure, even if the demand for them is non-existent. It's easy votes.

But the effects of these massive government projects only last so long, as once they are finished, the jobs that were "created", vanish. Non-existent "demand" was met, meaning that nothing useful has actually been produced, and the project was merely a waste of taxpayer money. The result of all of this is inflation, and lots of it. Inflation leads to higher unemployment, as well as less private investment, which leads to the government having a larger monopoly on the economy.

Keynesian economics was developed and first used during the Great Depression, and has been actively used since then.

Keynesian Economics is fundamentally, flawed.

Image Sources: Zerohedge

My Blog: Sailormann

#FMCR #SocialismSucks

Other Articles:

Socialism Sucks #1 - Greed

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  6 years ago (edited)

Keynesian economics has sense and signs of logic ... for the rulers. For the ruled only capitalism works.

Absolutely. It is a tool that has been used to steal votes, and provide short term benefit, for long term suffering.

Ehhhhhh

This post is dumb, you're mad about the economic order of over 50 years ago.

The EU is neo-liberal, the united states is neo-liberal, austrial is neo-liberal, literally most of the large capitalist economies are neo-liberal, which Milton Friedman played a big part in the development of neo-liberalism.

The world, is a lot closer to your idealism then it is to the lefts.

Do you read anything at all that isn't ideological propaganda?

Or do you just parrot what you heard on youtube incessantly?

Why are you even upset about anything? If you look at actual policy, you should be rejoicing in the success of your idea. that the market will figure it out,not complaining about the red boogie man.

"But mannnnnnnnnn. Don't yah c!?! If it ain't pure ideology, why to even bother thinking that it is mine!!! If it doesn't fit to my perception of the blandness of reality, then it's obviously some Left-wing I-Slam-Mic Gummunism XDDDD Hue hue, Gummunism? More like 1 Bazillion deaths!"

"This post is dumb"
Gee, thanks.
"Your mad about the economic order of over 50 years ago."
Im not mad about anything in this post. Im literally just talking about the effects of keynesian economics. No ideological discussion, no hating on the left. Everything I have said is factual, and you have no reason to be angry at anything.
"Do you read anything at all that isn't ideological propaganda?"
Economics is like science. There are some things we know to be true, and some things we dont. If I mentioned anything that is factually inaccurate, let me know, but so far you are just angry that what I just said doesn't mix well with your ideology.