treddas851 (July 10, 2009 at 5:14 am)

In A Theory of the Consumption Function—Milton Friedman argued that the best way to make sense of saving and spending was not,as Austrians had done,to resort to loose psychological theorizing,but to think of individuals as making rational plans about how to spend their wealth over their lifetimes.This was an anti-Austrian-and-Keynesian idea—and return to classical ways of thinking—and it worked,and remain the foundations of how economists think to this day.What have Hayek done?BesideTaxes?

losheva (July 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)

is state intervention or free market that has a debt of 800 trillion dollars of the United States against China ? and not just for cheap labor, but also for the high rate of growth, capital goes where it is better paid? ie where there is shortage of capital but also where there is a high rate of growth? very much tertiary and little secondary sector, all exported to the search for low wages, and fortunately that greed was good ... the American dream is over

losheva (July 1, 2009 at 4:07 pm)

may be that the ideas of Keynes were imperfect or rather could not explain a phenomenon like stagflation, but certainly the free market alone does not work, you say that government intervention will lead to recession, but you are sure that the recession does not because the countries that come first operating system in a closed economy are opening their doors to the free market (read China),

Visfen (July 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm)

If you knew anything about Austrian economics and wasn't regurgitating talking points you've been indoctrinated to tell in our failed school system you would know that the idea with Austrian economics is that there is no boom and bust, at least not those created by the governmentThe working conditions you are talking about already existed in the 19th century, they were just not written into law..Besides, it has nothing to do with Keynesianism.

Visfen (July 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm)

Really? The Long Depression at the end the 19th century had increased productivity, increased savings, increased GDP, increased salaries and unemployment going down. You know why it is even considered a downturn in the economy? Because they had deflation, and historians don't bother to look any closer.Keynesianism prolongs the suffering to an extent where you might never come out of it. It took the rest of the world being bombed to pieces for the US to come out of the GD.

FCmagic01 (July 1, 2009 at 11:42 am)

Keynesianism leads to big profits, for big business. While that is going on the middle class is destroyed and the poor, despite government help, drift into poverty.

FCmagic01 (July 1, 2009 at 11:40 am)

That is a little over 25 years. Hardly enough evidence to prove that his theories are correct.Free markets in no way kill freedom, you are wrong there.The ideas on Keynesianism got us in this recession, soon to be depression. The reliance on the federal reserve will lead to the fall of this nation as the world #1.

Questfortruth86 (July 1, 2009 at 9:20 am)

BloodMoney, you don't even understand Bretton Woods; you merely support it because it had a few regulations. We are more regulated now than we were in the 70s. Bretton woods was a soft international gold standard which kept the balance of payments manageable. When the world took Keynes' advice, and went into a pure fiat credit standard, everything came to shambles. This mess is nearly entirely caused by Keynes. (Friedman is also to blame)Last time we spoke I caught you lying a lot.

Questfortruth86 (July 1, 2009 at 9:16 am)

"Roughly 1945-1970. During this time western countries experienced unusually high and sustained economic growth together with full-employment."No we didn't. We experienced 3 of the worst recessions in U.S history (48,53,60), as well as a looming stagflation crises. Stagflation was supposed to put you Fabian socialists to bed, I guess not. Keynes wasn't an economist, he admitted that he didn't understand capital theory; meaning he didn't understand the role of interest rates.

Questfortruth86 (July 1, 2009 at 9:08 am)

You never say anything of value; the same old, "you're an ideologue" or, "you don't believe in statistics.""The 19th century had boom&bust economies which hurt everyone. Keynesianism softens the blows of these cycles"The period between 1880-1896 saw a 5% annual rise in real incomes across the board with no trade cycle volatility. This was right after the central bank collapsed, and right before the FED took over. The latter part of the 19th century saw the largest wealth creation ever.

BloodMoneyConglomera (July 1, 2009 at 6:21 am)

Visfen, the end result of the 19th century, in which your idea of the Austrian vision of a free market fundamentalist's utopia was supposed to have existed, actually proves that free markets do not work and are, in fact, oppressive.The 19th century had boom&bust economies which hurt everyone. Keynesianism softens the blows of these cycles. Child labor laws muckraking, and laws regulating working conditions, were the end result because free markets in the 19th cent were oppressive.

BloodMoneyConglomera (July 1, 2009 at 6:14 am)

FCmagic01, Peter Schiff is a free market fundamentalist. What I mean is that, the ideology he espouses (basically the Friedmanite vision of free markets) is simply theoretical fantasy that is almost never implemented primarily because of the existential phenomenon of the state, and rightly so. Free markets will kill the freedom of a majority of people in a variety of ways.That said, Keynesianism worked out pretty well from about 1945 to 1971, when Bretton Woods regulations on finance ended.