[Youtube] Austrian vs. Keynesian Economists

I think even a permabear is right once a recession and three times in a crisis. Ron has been predicting a complete collapse of the system for many years and it still hasn't collapsed. He has been predicting a major depression for years and we haven't had one yet. This recession was bad, but it was not nearly as bad as the two predicted it would be.

The hyperinflation Ron and Peter predicted hasn't happened yet. The ultimate test of Austrian versus Keynesian economists this recession will be whether this hyperinflation actually does happen. Everyone on this board seems to think it will but I'm not so sure.

The reason why this is a key test of Keynesian economics is that a central feature of Keynesian economics is the phillips curve, the positive correlation between output growth and inflation in the short run. They think inflation is extremely unlikely in a depressed economy.
 
I think even a permabear is right once a recession and three times in a crisis. Ron has been predicting a complete collapse of the system for many years and it still hasn't collapsed. He has been predicting a major depression for years and we haven't had one yet. This recession was bad, but it was not nearly as bad as the two predicted it would be.

The hyperinflation Ron and Peter predicted hasn't happened yet. The ultimate test of Austrian versus Keynesian economists this recession will be whether this hyperinflation actually does happen. Everyone on this board seems to think it will but I'm not so sure.

The reason why this is a key test of Keynesian economics is that a central feature of Keynesian economics is the phillips curve, the positive correlation between output growth and inflation in the short run. They think inflation is extremely unlikely in a depressed economy.

Bla, bla, bla, bla...

Can you say something that makes some sense? A lot of austrians are predicting stagflation instead of hiper-inflation. Ron Paul has not been predicting a crisis forever, just warning of this one, etc...
 
A lot of austrians are predicting stagflation instead of hiper-inflation. .

2008 video, two years ago Schiff predicts hyperinflation and complete crash of the dollar is imminent. Anyone who has their wealth in dollars will be completely destroyed. The dollar will drop 5% a week. Completely blown prediction. A year from now the dollar will drop 5% a day. That year already passed. No change in policy, no hyperinflation.

YouTube - Peter Schiff 171208 - Hyperinflation
 
I demand better quality trolls.

2008 video, two years ago Schiff predicts hyperinflation and complete crash of the dollar is imminent. Anyone who has their wealth in dollars will be completely destroyed. The dollar will drop 5% a week. Completely blown prediction. A year from now the dollar will drop 5% a day. That year already passed. No change in policy, no hyperinflation.

YouTube - Peter Schiff 171208 - Hyperinflation

Hyperinflation is still a posibility. The fact that it has not happen does not show anything.

Also, Peter Schiff is not the only austrian economist. Lame try.

YouTube - RON PAUL IN 1988 TALKING ABOUT OUR CURRENT CRISIS (PART 3 OF 5)

Ron Paul predicting a depression in the late 80's and early 90s. The next president will be blamed for the depression, saying this in 1988.

Ron Paul explicitly says that he does not know when the depression will come. He is explaining the boom and bust cicle. You are lame.
 
I think even a permabear is right once a recession and three times in a crisis. Ron has been predicting a complete collapse of the system for many years and it still hasn't collapsed. He has been predicting a major depression for years and we haven't had one yet. This recession was bad, but it was not nearly as bad as the two predicted it would be.

The hyperinflation Ron and Peter predicted hasn't happened yet. The ultimate test of Austrian versus Keynesian economists this recession will be whether this hyperinflation actually does happen. Everyone on this board seems to think it will but I'm not so sure.

The reason why this is a key test of Keynesian economics is that a central feature of Keynesian economics is the phillips curve, the positive correlation between output growth and inflation in the short run. They think inflation is extremely unlikely in a depressed economy.


Yeah I am so glad that Ron Paul and Peter Schiff were proven wrong by the massive amounts of fraud, currency debasement, and quantitative easing that has been propping up the economy the last 2 years. I mean could you imagine the looks on their faces when they realized that their little theories about sound money, stable prices, and organic vs fake job growth were so easily blown out of the water?

If you are anything like me, you look forward to the continued debasement of the currency, the unmitigated fraud, corruption, and waste, and the ever increasing debt hole we are digging. Why? because ultimately, the end result will be the same. Our economy will recover one way or the other. I have given up on good theories like Austrian Economics ever working out. Instead, I just rely on the inevitable end of the ultimate cycle that is Keynesian economics. Once the economy goes through its final cycle, and the country can no longer sustain the manipulation that has been propping it up, we may see a recovery. Until then, glad its being propped up by fraud, lawlessness, and ponzi schemes.

These crazy people like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff who have figured out how to be successful and stand up to the scam artist without ripping me off in the process need to just shut up about it, keep their insights to themselves and let the economy crash on its own. It doesn't need help from the real industrialist like RP and PS who are going to survive off of sheer brilliance.
 
Also, Peter Schiff is not the only austrian economist. Lame try.

.

This thread was started by taking one quote from Ben Bernanke and one from Paul Krugman and implying all Keynesian economics is wrong because those quotes were wrong. I demonstrated the same thing for Peter Schiff. Its called a proof by contradiction. If your method, applied to your own economist, doesn't yield the desired result, then there is something wrong with the method.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER KEYNESIAN ECONOMISTS. Apply the same standard to everyone.
 
Ron Paul explicitly says that he does not know when the depression will come. He is explaining the boom and bust cicle. You are lame.

In the video, he says that there will be a depression and it will be blamed on the next president. Thats a 4-8 year time horizon. The boom and bust cycle is a series of recessions, which represent movement in GDP of a few percent, not a full depression which is a much larger decline in GDP which still hasn't happened 22 years later.

Its not a matter of being proven wrong my QE etc., its a matter of so far being wrong about doom and gloom predictions of an imminent hyperinflation and a depression. The Keynesian economists are also wrong on many things, both have made bad predictions in the past. Neither theory is perfect.
 
Last edited:
This thread was started by taking one quote from Ben Bernanke and one from Paul Krugman and implying all Keynesian economics is wrong because those quotes were wrong. I demonstrated the same thing for Peter Schiff. Its called a proof by contradiction. If your method, applied to your own economist, doesn't yield the desired result, then there is something wrong with the method.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER KEYNESIAN ECONOMISTS. Apply the same standard to everyone.


There is a reason that the Keynesians are and were wrong about the last 10 years and there is a reason the Austrians are and were right about the last 10 years.

When you figure that out, come back and look at how ridiculous your logic arguments seem.

Peter Schiff describes the nature of hyper-inflation. By the time you realize its happening, its already over. Listen to Krugman calling for another bubble to invest in! Listen to Bernanke justifying another pump job designed to inflate that bubble.

Trouble is, the theory has reached its limits. You can't quantitative ease forever. It only works when their is excess "credit" in the market. Once that credit is gone, the bubble system fails. That credit expired decades ago, the only thing that gave us the illusion of credit being available it the economic slight of hand that the Fed was designed to perpetuate. They dumped off the bad debt on the taxpayers.

The only thing left now is debt, all the money printing QE in the world is not going to change the fact that people cannot borrow past their means to produce. They can when their is fake credit, but now that party is coming to an end. Its last call and unless and until the system goes belly up on its own, or until people wise up and reign in debt spending, we'll just have to keep pretending that Keynesians and people like leading keynesians Bernake and Krugman know what the hell they are talking about.
 
There is a reason that the Keynesians are and were wrong about the last 10 years and there is a reason the Austrians are and were right about the last 10 years.

When you figure that out, come back and look at how ridiculous your logic arguments seem.

Peter Schiff describes the nature of hyper-inflation. By the time you realize its happening, its already over. Listen to Krugman calling for another bubble to invest in! Listen to Bernanke justifying another pump job designed to inflate that bubble.

Trouble is, the theory has reached its limits. You can't quantitative ease forever. It only works when their is excess "credit" in the market. Once that credit is gone, the bubble system fails. That credit expired decades ago, the only thing that gave us the illusion of credit being available it the economic slight of hand that the Fed was designed to perpetuate. They dumped off the bad debt on the taxpayers.

The only thing left now is debt, all the money printing QE in the world is not going to change the fact that people cannot borrow past their means to produce. They can when their is fake credit, but now that party is coming to an end. Its last call and unless and until the system goes belly up on its own, or until people wise up and reign in debt spending, we'll just have to keep pretending that Keynesians and people like leading keynesians Bernake and Krugman know what the hell they are talking about.

I think thats the problem I was trying to get at. Neither Keynesians nor Austrians have been right about the past 10 years. Both have made good and bad predictions. You can make videos by choosing either side's good predictions and the other side's bad predictions. The point is that this isn't a good way of determining which theory is true unless one side gets the overwhelming number of predictions right.

I think Keynesian and Austrian economists would agree that hyperinflations have always been a monetary phenomena. We will have a hyperinflation if the Federal Reserve chooses to monetize a large portion of the debt. If they only monetize a small portion of the debt, it should lead to a little bit higher inflation but not a hyperinflation. In the short run, inflation doesn't have to be linked to monetary growth if prices are sticky, but in the long run it does.

Keynesian economists would agree with you that monetary policy has no long run effect on the level of output. It seems like you would agree with Keynesian economists that monetary policy can have a short run effect on output as implied by your post above. So far, its not clear where you disagree with Keynesian economics as a positive theory of the economy.

Its a different matter entirely to disagree with the normative policy implications of some Keynesian economists. The consensus of mainstream economists is that monetary policy has a role in stabilizing the economy. Even if it can't affect output in the long run, monetary policy can lower the peaks and raise the troughs of a business cycle. They do not believe that monetary policy should be used to permanently prop up an economy forever. The consensus is that the stagflation of the 70's proved that expectations matter, and even if a phillips curve exists in the short run, it can't be used to permanently raise output with higher inflation. This is the type of economics which Ben Bernanke subscribes to.

Because your portrayal of Keynesian economics is not this mainstream idea of it, I think you are attacking a straw man.
 
This thread was started by taking one quote from Ben Bernanke and one from Paul Krugman and implying all Keynesian economics is wrong because those quotes were wrong. I demonstrated the same thing for Peter Schiff. Its called a proof by contradiction. If your method, applied to your own economist, doesn't yield the desired result, then there is something wrong with the method.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER KEYNESIAN ECONOMISTS. Apply the same standard to everyone.

You have demonstrated nothing about Peter Schiff as I already pointed out. Peter Schiff never predicted that in 2010 there would be hyper-inflation.

In the video, he says that there will be a depression and it will be blamed on the next president. Thats a 4-8 year time horizon. The boom and bust cycle is a series of recessions, which represent movement in GDP of a few percent, not a full depression which is a much larger decline in GDP which still hasn't happened 22 years later.

Its not a matter of being proven wrong my QE etc., its a matter of so far being wrong about doom and gloom predictions of an imminent hyperinflation and a depression. The Keynesian economists are also wrong on many things, both have made bad predictions in the past. Neither theory is perfect.

In the next president as in when the crisis comes, not literally the next president. I think you dont understand Ron Paul words because you dont understand the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. If you did you would understand the assumptions Ron Paul is making and would make the right interpretation of his words.

Just some seconds after he says that he does not know when exactly the crisis will come. If he knew it makes no sense saying when he does not know...
 
Keynesian economists would agree with you that monetary policy has no long run effect on the level of output

Austrians believe that money is not neutral and thus monetary policy has an effect in production short AND long term.
 
Austrians believe that money is not neutral and thus monetary policy has an effect in production short AND long term.

So what about the old thought experiment that we double prices and double money overnight. What impact would that have on output?
 
So what about the old thought experiment that we double prices and double money overnight. What impact would that have on output?

Depending in the way you inject that money in the economy and how the market reacts.
 
Depending in the way you inject that money in the economy and how the market reacts.

I'm just asking about the pure thought experiment. Every wage is doubled, every bank account, every asset is doubled in price. All currency is worth twice as much. All prices are twice as high.
 
I think if I rephrase my earlier statement to be that Keynesians and Austrians agree that monetary policy cannot raise the level of output indefinitely, then we can continue the discussion as it was going before. Is that an accurate portrayal of the Austrian view of monetary policy?
 
I think if I rephrase my earlier statement to be that Keynesians and Austrians agree that monetary policy cannot raise the level of output indefinitely, then we can continue the discussion as it was going before. Is that an accurate portrayal of the Austrian view of monetary policy?

Yes. Also note that austrians dont see the increase of GDP (what keynesians call growth) as the objective of the economy.
 
Yes. Also note that austrians dont see the increase of GDP (what keynesians call growth) as the objective of the economy.

The same thing is true for Keynesians, they do not see the increase in GDP as the objective of the economy. They see it as maximizing welfare, generally thought as the discounted value of all future consumption and leisure.
 
Back
Top