In the 1930s, Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking, overturning the older ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would in the short to medium term automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. Keynes instead argued that aggregate demand determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment.
Mises argued that money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles. His other notable contribution was his argument that socialism must fail economically because of the economic calculation problem – the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy. Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive uses. If capital goods are the subject of neither rent nor exchange, as per private ownership of those means of production, then no barter terms or money prices can arise for them. Without the common nominal index of money pricing that allows comparison of costs of production to likely revenues, there can be no rational allocation of diverse capital goods in the production of diverse consumer goods whose production requires some use of scarce capital. In a socialist society, capital is not distributed according to the more efficient—thus profitable—capital structures, but rather to any use a theoretical socialist planner sees fit without the aid of monetary price signals to compare the profitability in a given use of capital.
And now, we know, I like to copy and paste stuff. There may be some truth to both the viewpoints of these men. All I know is, that humans are capable of both great good and great evil—especially in the world of socioeconomics.
@HareBall In that context, “our” has an inclusive connotation; there is an implication that by “our”, Barney is referring to the upper class, though you are right in that it could be interpereted as everybody’s streets. However, if he didn’t intend to imply possession, “the streets” would be the typical wording.
randayn about 13 years ago
1. OWS Supporters, try occupying an Econ 101 Class. It will blow your collective minds, especially if it shows Keynes as the villain he truly is.
2. Dude, take the money! But insist on cash!
Plods with ...™ about 13 years ago
Kash is King! No paper trail.
madvirgo about 13 years ago
In the 1930s, Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking, overturning the older ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would in the short to medium term automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. Keynes instead argued that aggregate demand determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment.
madvirgo about 13 years ago
Mises argued that money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles. His other notable contribution was his argument that socialism must fail economically because of the economic calculation problem – the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy. Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive uses. If capital goods are the subject of neither rent nor exchange, as per private ownership of those means of production, then no barter terms or money prices can arise for them. Without the common nominal index of money pricing that allows comparison of costs of production to likely revenues, there can be no rational allocation of diverse capital goods in the production of diverse consumer goods whose production requires some use of scarce capital. In a socialist society, capital is not distributed according to the more efficient—thus profitable—capital structures, but rather to any use a theoretical socialist planner sees fit without the aid of monetary price signals to compare the profitability in a given use of capital.
madvirgo about 13 years ago
And now, we know, I like to copy and paste stuff. There may be some truth to both the viewpoints of these men. All I know is, that humans are capable of both great good and great evil—especially in the world of socioeconomics.
HareBall about 13 years ago
@Night-Gaunt49 You need to go back and read, Barney said that they were OUR streets.
Holy Smoke about 13 years ago
@HareBall In that context, “our” has an inclusive connotation; there is an implication that by “our”, Barney is referring to the upper class, though you are right in that it could be interpereted as everybody’s streets. However, if he didn’t intend to imply possession, “the streets” would be the typical wording.
11256 about 13 years ago
well, Clyde, you tried.
randayn about 13 years ago
@madvirgo, well-stated and well-done.
randayn about 13 years ago
Really? That’s what passes for intelligent commentary by the left? Childish name-calling? Hardly surprising, but still sad.