[quote=Arraya][quote=sdduuuude][quote=Arraya] … throwing money at where the system is seizing up.[/quote]
Dude – that IS Keynsian economics ![/quote]
Yeah, in a very general sense. Then again, it is avoiding a revolutionary change/collapse. Just letting the “market” work things out would not manifest how the laissez faire advocates think.[/quote]
Almost a strawman argument. You suggest that most such advocates think the market would be beautiful and stable. I’m not one of them. I do think, however, it would be better in the long-run.
[quote=Arraya]Keynes essentially said the state has to invest at certain times to avoid certain serious instability. He was correct. If it was not for intervention unemployment levels would be double and there would be serious unrest. Not to say, it’s not coming – but that has little to do with government intervention – the USG is keeping the whole thing from imploding.. The difference with fiat/fractional reserve vs gold backed/non-fractional reserve is the size and frequency of the crises[/quote]
If we weren’t so far in debt, we wouldn’t need the intervention.
The cost of short-term stability is long-term disaster.
Two analogies I like:
It’s like putting a patch on a hose as the pressure builds. Then a stronger patch, then a stronger patch. Eventually, the patch loses.
Also, it’s like jumping off an elevator that only goes up. Not jumping now means more pain later.
That’s Keynsian economics. Keynsian econ seems to work, but the current credit/debt situation is going to throw it for a loop, to everyone’s detriment.
Also, having unemployment at double the current level may be the right thing if it recovers to half the current level more quickly.
