A Critique of Keynesian Economics...

Can I just say right now that I adore John Nash?

I'm embarrassed to say that before I watched "A Beautiful Mind" I had no idea who Nash was. And, until our current recessionary woes, I also had never heard of Keynesian Economics. Well, I have now...

The following is an excerpt from a piece (presentation, class materials, etc.) Nash has on file via his faculty website at Princeton:

"Keynesians"

The thinking of J. M. Keynes was actually multidimensional and consequently there are quite different varieties of persons at the present time who follow, in one way or another, some of the thinking of Keynes. And of course SOME of his thinking was scientifically accurate and thus not disputable. For example, an early book written by Keynes was the mathematical text "A Treatise on Probability".

The label "Keynesian" is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.

So let us define "Keynesian" to be descriptive of a "school of thought" that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30's of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a "Keynesian" would favor the existence of a "manipulative" state establishment of central bank and treasury which would contin-uously seek to achieve "economic welfare" object-ives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency and the associated effects of that on the reputation
of financial enterprises domestic to the state.

And indeed a very famous saying of Keynes was "...in the long run we will all be dead ...".

A Critique of the Science of the Keynesians

It is difficult to make a criticism here because so much of the scientific research work, particularly of American economists, in the years since, say, "the thirties", has been in the area of the study of the topic called "macroeconomics" and most or almost all of this work has a "Keynes-ian" orientation.

I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, "class field theory". In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.

So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macroeconomics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the "parallel postulate". (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.)

So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is contin-ually a certain amount of gradual inflation.)

Full Version (Click Here)

John F. Nash currently teaches at Princeton University

So you want someone to blame?

The current economic crisis has created a lot of armchair quarterbacks all pointing accusing fingers at precieved culprits. The banks, the Republicans, Democrats, Credit Card companies, your mother in law. Well, here are some folks that I think have an accurate bead on the situation:

Fred on the Economy
(Click here for a link to the site with discussion board stream.

Be sure to spend a bit of time reading through the discussion Fred's video clip fueled. It's an excellent economics primer and philosophical debate.

Here are two of my favorites posts:

just me - bob said:
It's good that this video inspired all of you to voice your opinion and think about the issue. I'm afraid some of you are too hard headed to learn anything from the discussion....The problem is that we don't have enough people creating wealth and you don't do that by flipping houses and selling worthless investments.

Our economy is strong when people focus on making things that other people need and providing services that other people need. It is weakened when schemers suck all the wealth out and spend it on imported consumable goods. The value flows out and is not replaced.

Because of the credit involved, the damage can be done over a period of years before anyone notices. Just circulating more money can stave off the effects for a while longer but at the end of the day we all need to roll up our sleeves and do a good day's work, and repeat that over and over.

And another by Boatman:

boatman said:
I will pretty much bet that those of you who think Fred is full of it has not a dime saved in the bank.

I own a company, one of the last domestic toy manufacturers that manufacturers high dollar products that caters to a male audience in the 30 to 50 year old range. I have been in business for over 25 years and have been through three of these so called "blips", except this one is not a normal blip in the economy. I have watched my business go from no charge cards to some charge cards to 100% charge cards, and now to using two and three charge cards to buy our products, and even, "try this one and if it doesn't go through put so much on this one and so on" There are many people who enjoy our products that under normal circumstances should of either saved for them or simply looked to an alternative lesser hobby, or better yet spent the money on more important things like their family needs.

As a business owner I have been watching this pattern develop slowly since the mid 80's knowing that one day this would lead to the situation we are in today. I also saved money during these times, and that was very hard for a guy like me who loves sports cars and could of pretty much purchased what ever I liked. Instead I would purchase what I thought I could afford, maybe a lesser model, not always what I wanted. Now for today, I did manage to put a good amount of savings away, lost a little bit in the market, but saw that coming last year and moved to what used to be called, constant depreciation accounts. I'll bet my brokers aren't calling them that these days.

The part I didn't count on was my two sons coming back and wanting to work in now our family business. You see I couldn't save enough to carry them through these tough times so I am doing everything in my power to make this business continue for their sake. I have also explained to them how no matter how bad you want something you can't live day by day fullfilling all your whims living on spending credit, because there will come a day that you have to pay the piper. I feel that day is here and now. It's time to stop passing the blame, our government is not at fault for our lack of control, no one from Washington has a firm grip on your hand forcing you to swipe your credit cards, or sign your name on the bottom line. I am 48 years old, and never had a major credit card out side of an AMEX corporate card, (you have to pay those kind in full monthly). They make it too easy and lessen your thought and reasoning process. Quick decisions usually come back and bite you in the ass. So I think we should all listen to Freds warning and take it serious, maybe cool it for a bit and get back on track to what is really important in life. If we all would realize our personal limitations and live within them "our means" we can and will get out of this mess. It's quality of life that matters not quantity.

So, there you go...Economics for the Layman. And this is why social media and the internet provide an opportunity to learn and communicate - and yes - even debate ad nauseum - about things that really matter. The real test comes when we see who uses new information to change the way they do things (hopefully, for the better.)

Spending? Stimulus? I prefer Suzy Orman's "Save Yourself" philosophy, thank you very much.