• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Economics Professor Hates John Maynard Keynes

I'm taking an economics course this semester. It's Econ 110. The professor gave us a supplementary book to read along with the textbook. It's called, "How an Economy Grows and Crashes". The introduction is basically just 12 pages of the author bashing Keynesian economics and going on a rant about spending your way to prosperity.

Economies were growing and crashing long before Keynes was born! :lol: In fact, prior to the onset of the global implementation of Keynesian policy... economic downturns were both deeper and longer, while financial panics were a once in a decade event.

Should be a fun semester as I divulge more of my personal opinions during in-class discussions.

When i took my first upper level economics course, i was very pro-Austrian/anarcho-capitalist, and very outspoken. That professor, who was a staunch New Keynesian, literally rebuked and debunked every single argument we see spewing from the right. I mean, i threw everything at him, and he would destroy those arguments with such precision. That professor, whose name shall remain anon, changed my life. I took every remaining econ/finance course i had with him my last year... and it was extremely difficult. Everything was math intensive, the grading scale was set on a normalized distribution of the class, etc....

Not to say the same thing will occur with your experience, but opposing viewpoints invoke thought.
 
I'm taking an economics course this semester. It's Econ 110. The professor gave us a supplementary book to read along with the textbook. It's called, "How an Economy Grows and Crashes". The introduction is basically just 12 pages of the author bashing Keynesian economics and going on a rant about spending your way to prosperity.

A curious observation emerged before me as well.

Flagrant "liberal indoctrination" in our colleges and universities, the indoctrination that conservatives assert to be the reason why kids today aren't going for conservatism, yeah that, is all the way absent from this class. I had an idea by the way my professor lectured that he disapproves of old John Maynard Keynes, but reading the intro in this supplementary book just confirmed it.

Should be a fun semester as I divulge more of my personal opinions during in-class discussions.



Economics is the one subject in which conservatism is still alive and well.

In fact, a recent study indicated that taking college level economics courses was correlated with the development of conservative beliefs and the chances you will be a Republican.
 
Economies were growing and crashing long before Keynes was born! :lol: In fact, prior to the onset of the global implementation of Keynesian policy... economic downturns were both deeper and longer, while financial panics were a once in a decade event.
1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907 come to mind.

What the graph below was designed to show was inflation but I use it to display that after the Fed was created in 1913, the boom and bust cycles were replaced by sustained growth. Yeah, that means inflation but I'd rather have steady inflation than frequent booms and depressions.

Inflation-in-the-United-States-Since-1800.jpg




When i took my first upper level economics course, i was very pro-Austrian/anarcho-capitalist, and very outspoken. That professor, who was a staunch New Keynesian, literally rebuked and debunked every single argument we see spewing from the right. I mean, i threw everything at him, and he would destroy those arguments with such precision. That professor, whose name shall remain anon, changed my life. I took every remaining econ/finance course i had with him my last year... and it was extremely difficult. Everything was math intensive, the grading scale was set on a normalized distribution of the class, etc....

Not to say the same thing will occur with your experience, but opposing viewpoints invoke thought.
Where did you take those upper level classes?
 
Last edited:
You're filling in a whole lot of dots that are not there, simply based on your prejudice.

What prejudice are you referring to?

I have also never claimed that my first hand, anecdotal experiences with other wealthy people are universal or the rule. However, these attitudes/stances appear abundantly common.

That having been said, between this, and what the wealthy and powerful actually lobby for (and largely succeed at getting) politically, there definitely is a connect which suggests the prevalence of such attitudes beyond what I encounter at the mere personal level.


If you're talking about Greenspan, he admitted he was wrong on more than simply derivatives such as his non-intervention as Fed, the lending sector, and his naive idea that the self-interest of financiers would preclude anything like 2007-8 from happening, etc.

They did nothing of the sort. Japan was actually running surpluses when the real estate bubble collapsed and did so for years following. It was years later that they actually began running large fiscal deficits while simultaneously pushing interest rates low enough for it to stimulate their economy. In fact, it took a Japanese experiment to actually write the Keynesian stimulus playbook... and they miscalculated along the way.

When the U.S. was hit by a similar shock, we were more aware of what was necessary, which is why the U.S. made such a quicker and more broad recovery.

Precisely, as Richard Koo clearly describes:



Beyond that, the Japanese approach was pretty throttled/on and off as well. The real issue there though, looking forward, is their demographic crisis, and no amount of stimulus will resolve it; only an abandonment of entrenched xenophobia and encouragement of immigration.
 
Last edited:
The professor shared with class he's also a CFO at some mid level company. So, he has some real world experience in the private sector.

It goes without saying, I will probably disagree with the leaps Schiff makes from the basic principles of economics within his "How an economy" book.

We'll see how it goes this semester. The prof is teaching class with a lean to the right, that is apparent to the previously initiated.

I have a kid in high school, a 10th grader, who just took an AP economics class last year in 9th grade (yeah, he's a little ambitious and precocious- but he also goes to a pretty expensive private school). He got a "5" on both micro and macro parts of the AP exam. That made me proud.

But his teacher leaned heavily libertarian. So now, to my horror, I have a kid who claims he too is a libertarian. What a nightmare to a liberal like me! The other day, we were talking about this as I was driving him to school, and I asked him whether he thought that his doing so well on the econ exam last year was because he was just so smart and hardworking (he did work pretty hard for that exam, I have to admit). He gave me a blank look, basically saying "well, yeah, of course". I reminded him that he was very privileged to be going to that school (most public schools don't even have AP classes, pr if they do, they may not even allow high school freshmen to take them), and there are lots of kids even smarter than him to never get that opportunity because their parents can't afford it, and not to confuse opportunity and privilege with innate talent. He was quiet and thoughtful after that, not saying anything for a few minutes. Then he just changed the topic.

He's only 15 right now, and still trying to figure out the world. I am hoping he will get over this libertarian phase as he continues to grow and mature. In fact, I hope that for all liberterians.
 
Last edited:
I have a kid in high school, a 10th grader, who just took an AP economics class last year in 9th grade (yeah, he's a little ambitious and precocious- but he also goes to a pretty expensive private school). He got a "5" on both micro and macro parts of the AP exam. That made me proud.

But his teacher leaned heavily libertarian. So now, to my horror, I have a kid who claims he too is a libertarian. What a nightmare to a liberal like me! The other day, we were talking about this as I was driving him to school, and I asked him whether he thought that his doing so well on the econ exam last year was because he was just so smart and hardworking (he did work pretty hard for that exam, I have to admit). He gave me a blank look, basically saying "well, yeah, of course". I reminded him that he was very privileged to be going to that school, and there are lots of kids even smarter than him to never get that opportunity because their parents can't afford to give that to them, and not to confuse opportunity and privilege with innate talent. He was quiet and thoughtful after that, not saying anything.

He's only 15 right now, and still trying to figure out the world. I am hoping he will get over this libertarian phase as he continues to grow and mature. In fact, I hope that for all liberterians.

A bit of advice: be understanding, be there to answer his questions, and don't act like his opinions are inherently wrong, or he'll never grow out of it - even worse, he might never grow into it, either, becoming the worst kind of walking strawman that regurgitates whatever he read in an Ayn Rand novel because his parents tried to slam on the brakes when he looked at other viewpoints. Libertarianism isn't a synonym for sociopathy, after all. You'd think that Penn Jillette might be one of you, based on his thoughts about the refugee issue.

 
A bit of advice: be understanding, be there to answer his questions, and don't act like his opinions are inherently wrong, or he'll never grow out of it - even worse, he might never grow into it, either, becoming the worst kind of walking strawman that regurgitates whatever he read in an Ayn Rand novel because his parents tried to slam on the brakes when he looked at other viewpoints. Libertarianism isn't a synonym for sociopathy, after all. You'd think that Penn Jillette might be one of you, based on his thoughts about the refugee issue.



Yeah, I know. Agreed. Ah, the joys of parenting...:roll:
 
Yeah, I know. Agreed. Ah, the joys of parenting...:roll:

Honestly, if he's going libertarian over economics, there isn't much to worry about, if only for the plain irrelevance of that pathway. The first rule of economics is that for every philosophy in the field, there is an equal and directly opposing philosophy. The second rule, of course, is that the opposing philosophy is also every bit as incorrect as yours is! :lol:
 
I have a kid in high school, a 10th grader, who just took an AP economics class last year in 9th grade (yeah, he's a little ambitious and precocious- but he also goes to a pretty expensive private school). He got a "5" on both micro and macro parts of the AP exam. That made me proud.

But his teacher leaned heavily libertarian. So now, to my horror, I have a kid who claims he too is a libertarian. What a nightmare to a liberal like me! The other day, we were talking about this as I was driving him to school, and I asked him whether he thought that his doing so well on the econ exam last year was because he was just so smart and hardworking (he did work pretty hard for that exam, I have to admit). He gave me a blank look, basically saying "well, yeah, of course". I reminded him that he was very privileged to be going to that school (most public schools don't even have AP classes, pr if they do, they may not even allow high school freshmen to take them), and there are lots of kids even smarter than him to never get that opportunity because their parents can't afford it, and not to confuse opportunity and privilege with innate talent. He was quiet and thoughtful after that, not saying anything for a few minutes. Then he just changed the topic.

He's only 15 right now, and still trying to figure out the world. I am hoping he will get over this libertarian phase as he continues to grow and mature. In fact, I hope that for all liberterians.
I'm not sure what the ethical ethos and ideology of your kid's prep school is. My kids all went to Catholic Preps, where a big component is social justice and giving of oneself and to those in need. The kids were constantly doing community service. That component was critical in forming my kids' worldviews, and I believe they are far better for it.

So if your kid's school does not have that component, you may want to provide it yourself.

And FWIW, my kid's AP Econ instructor was conservative as hell and managed to instill some very good monetary principles in him. Not the least of which, was to not start their lives off with student debt. Consequently, my kid decided to do a 2+2 program. Unlike yours, he got a '4' in Econ (and college credit). But I can't complain at all! I'm really proud of him!
 
Honestly, if he's going libertarian over economics, there isn't much to worry about, if only for the plain irrelevance of that pathway. The first rule of economics is that for every philosophy in the field, there is an equal and directly opposing philosophy. The second rule, of course, is that the opposing philosophy is also every bit as incorrect as yours is! :lol:
"If you laid all the economists end-to-end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion"!
 
Honestly, if he's going libertarian over economics, there isn't much to worry about, if only for the plain irrelevance of that pathway. The first rule of economics is that for every philosophy in the field, there is an equal and directly opposing philosophy. The second rule, of course, is that the opposing philosophy is also every bit as incorrect as yours is! :lol:

Again, agreed. But these things are not a matter of true or false, they are just a matter of values (that's why it's philosophy and not science). There is nothing demonstrably or factually wrong about thinking we should have a sort of Darwinian freedom of the jungle in our economic affairs, where the strong rule and the weak and vulnerable are weeded out by being killed and eaten for lunch, in a sort of survival of the fittest. There is nothing factually wrong about someone thinking that artificial, man-made concepts of justice or fairness are ultimately artificially propping up weakness and a burden to the strong and powerful from moving ahead even faster. In fact, such a society may indeed be on net be more prosperous. But it just provokes horror and disgust in someone like me. That's not true or false. That's just a value judgment and gut emotional reaction. It's like trying to argue with a cannibal about why cannibalism might be wrong. You could never factually prove or disprove why cannibalism might be wrong. The best you can do is just express disgust and revulsion at the practice.
 
Last edited:
"If you laid all the economists end-to-end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion"!

This is a conversation I have heard attributed to president Truman with his economic advisors:

Truman: I want a one-armed economist!
Advisors: Why one-armed?
Truman: Because I am tired of all this "On the hand this, on the other hand, that...".
 
I'm not sure what the ethical ethos and ideology of your kid's prep school is. My kids all went to Catholic Preps, where a big component is social justice and giving of oneself and to those in need. The kids were constantly doing community service. That component was critical in forming my kids' worldviews, and I believe they are far better for it.

So if your kid's school does not have that component, you may want to provide it yourself.

And FWIW, my kid's AP Econ instructor was conservative as hell and managed to instill some very good monetary principles in him. Not the least of which, was to not start their lives off with student debt. Consequently, my kid decided to do a 2+2 program. Unlike yours, he got a '4' in Econ (and college credit). But I can't complain at all! I'm really proud of him!

Well, like in many colleges, the culture of the econ department is different than that of the rest of the school.

I think it's because economists are focused on what policies lead to the most money at the end. Fuzzy issues like justice, fairness, etc... are all value judgments which their numbers can't really compute, so they seem to have a blind spot for them.

It's like someone only measuring how fast a car can go, and then telling you you need to buy a Lamborghini. They are not looking at other things like fuel mileage which may be important in your ultimate decision.
 
Again, agreed. But these things are not a matter of true or false, they are just a matter of values (that's why it's philosophy and not science). There is nothing demonstrably or factually wrong about thinking we should have a sort of Darwinian freedom of the jungle in our economic affairs, where the strong rule and the weak and vulnerable are weeded out by being killed and eaten for lunch, in a sort of survival of the fittest. There is nothing factually wrong about someone thinking that artificial, man-made concepts of justice or fairness are ultimately artificially propping up weakness and a burden to the strong and powerful from moving ahead even faster. In fact, such a society may indeed be on net be more prosperous. But it just provokes horror and disgust in someone like me. That's not true or false. That's just a value judgment and gut emotional reaction. It's like trying to argue with a cannibal about why cannibalism might be wrong. You could never factually prove or disprove why cannibalism might be wrong. The best you can do is just express disgust and revulsion at the practice.

Well I can think of a couple of reasons, namely that such a society is likely to be utterly demoralizing and crushing with far reaching and cascading effects, where fear of failure is paralyzing (there are no safety nets/reliable elements of recourse), and the winners domineer absolutely resulting in consolidations of power and wealth that are almost certainly toxic. Sounds like the perfect recipe and storm for widespread instability, misery and upheaval to me.
 
Well, like in many colleges, the culture of the econ department is different than that of the rest of the school.

I think it's because economists are focused on what policies lead to the most money at the end. Fuzzy issues like justice, fairness, etc... are all value judgments which their numbers can't really compute, so they seem to have a blind spot for them.

It's like someone only measuring how fast a car can go, and then telling you you need to buy a Lamborghini. They are not looking at other things like fuel mileage which may be important in your ultimate decision.
Well they focus on quantitative analysis of economic principles, which requires free-market assumptions to work efficiently. Take-away economic self-interest and efficient free markets, by adding-in social restraint, and the quantitative analysis goes sideways!
 
Well I can think of a couple of reasons, namely that such a society is likely to be utterly demoralizing and crushing with far reaching and cascading effects, where fear of failure is paralyzing (there are no safety nets/reliable elements of recourse), and the winners domineer absolutely resulting in consolidations of power and wealth that are almost certainly toxic. Sounds like the perfect recipe and storm for widespread instability, misery and upheaval to me.

So who cares about injustice and social upheaval if you have tons of money, right? Social upheaval is a problem only if you are one of the little people.

It's a little like telling a cannibal that cannibalism is wrong because it hurts the people you are eating for lunch. He would have no idea why that should matter and would just give you a blank stare if you told him that. If he's hungry, he's gotta eat, right?
 
So who cares about injustice and social upheaval if you have tons of money, right? Social upheaval is a problem only if you are one of the little people.

It's a little like telling a cannibal that cannibalism is wrong because it hurts the people you are eating for lunch. He would have no idea why that should matter and would just give you a blank stare if you told him that. If he's hungry, he's gotta eat, right?

Well upheaval, mass misery and instability tends to have a way of turning on those in power...

Likewise, people who don't want to be eaten are likely to kill or injure the cannibal in self-defense, either preemptive or otherwise, nevermind the inherent revulsion others have towards the practice which might impel them to hunt down and destroy such people.

And yes, there are some (many) people who are hopelessly myopic and don't get the long term (or even short/medium term) consequences of their actions, but there are plenty of others that do.
 
Well they focus on quantitative analysis of economic principles, which requires free-market assumptions to work efficiently. Take-away economic self-interest and efficient free markets, by adding-in social restraint, and the quantitative analysis goes sideways!

Yes. But that's like someone thinking that if they work night and day at a job they hate, they will quantitatively make much more money than if they just work regular hours at a job they may love. Add in considerations of wanting some down time, spending time with family and/or hobbies, etc... and the quantitative analysis goes sideways.

But that's the problem: not all important human considerations are, or at least should be, quantitive metrics.
 
Well upheaval and instability tends to have a way of turning on those in power...

Not if you can convince them that it's the American way and anything else is Soviet un-American communism! Then they will fight for your right to as much power and privilege as you like. It's genius.

Why do you think all those ACA beneficiaries in the Appalachias voted for Trump to get rid of the ACA this last election?
 
Not if you can convince them that it's the American way and anything else is Soviet un-American communism! Then they will fight for your right to as much power and privilege as you like. It's genius.

Why do you think all those ACA beneficiaries in the Appalachias voted for Trump to get rid of the ACA this last election?

If recent elections are any indication (exceptionally low turnout, immense, historic dissatifaction with both POTUS candidates, third party voting, the rise of populism and Bernie, etc) that paradigm is fortunately starting to fail.
 
Well they focus on quantitative analysis of economic principles, which requires free-market assumptions to work efficiently. Take-away economic self-interest and efficient free markets, by adding-in social restraint, and the quantitative analysis goes sideways!

It was always sideways - things like fringe benefits (insurance, retirement and paid leave policies) have vastly different effects on different applicants/employees but are seen as a (basically) fixed cost to the employer.

Other factors such as work schedules, commute time and, of course, local cost of living also play a role in a person liking one job/employer more than another.
 
I have a kid in high school, a 10th grader, who just took an AP economics class last year in 9th grade (yeah, he's a little ambitious and precocious- but he also goes to a pretty expensive private school). He got a "5" on both micro and macro parts of the AP exam. That made me proud.

But his teacher leaned heavily libertarian. So now, to my horror, I have a kid who claims he too is a libertarian. What a nightmare to a liberal like me! The other day, we were talking about this as I was driving him to school, and I asked him whether he thought that his doing so well on the econ exam last year was because he was just so smart and hardworking (he did work pretty hard for that exam, I have to admit). He gave me a blank look, basically saying "well, yeah, of course". I reminded him that he was very privileged to be going to that school (most public schools don't even have AP classes, pr if they do, they may not even allow high school freshmen to take them), and there are lots of kids even smarter than him to never get that opportunity because their parents can't afford it, and not to confuse opportunity and privilege with innate talent. He was quiet and thoughtful after that, not saying anything for a few minutes. Then he just changed the topic.

He's only 15 right now, and still trying to figure out the world. I am hoping he will get over this libertarian phase as he continues to grow and mature. In fact, I hope that for all liberterians.

Don't sweat it. I was a hardcore libertarian as well. In fact, you should be proud. Your kid has, at a young age, taken enough interest in politics at such a young to construct his own ideas about right and wrong (politically/economically) without relying on you...his beliefs diverge from you.

I was hard core libertarian all through college, and a good ways into young adult. Now I'm a centrist...the only logical choice!
 
Back
Top Bottom