diametrics

[jonathankaplan]

in thinking about all the recent events politically in the US, in some sense, it comes down to two different themes. Centralism v. Federalism. ,Monetarists v. "Keynesians. So, on the second of those two themes, I was just curious where you all fall, simplistically.
Here's an easy poll.

Poll Monetarism v. Keynesians.

Comments appreciated.

Comments

[gwendally]

as in many things economic, the theory and the practice differ enough so that it doesn't matter if it should work in theory. Deficit spending in hard times becomes deficit spending in good times out of fear that the hard times will come again. Also, there is no way politicians ever win by proposing what feels like austerity measures. Ever. So they don't. And if you happen to be unconstrained because you are (temporarily) the reserve currency of the world... well... keynesian politics only works in the short run. In the long run, rather than being all dead (which is sort of handy for Lord Keynes so he doesn't have to be embarrassed) the fact is we're all in massive debt

[prock]

For what it's worth, monetarism is a naive perspective which emphasizes protecting wealth over any other social end. As such, it's not so much an economic theory as an ideology.

And of course, we all know what happens when you put a monetarist in charge of the Fed. Anyone who is a monetarist after the colossal bubble blowing of 1980-2006 isn't really a rational actor.

[prock]

And as evidence of my claim, it appears that Russian spammers are monetarists. :)

[jonathankaplan]

:)....I am sure that monetarism is more simplistic. I am not so certain on the word "naive". That belies millenia of history. Further, both of these economic doctrines are ideologies, it is just perspective.
Funny you picked 1980 as the first number of your date range. Pick 1970 (or 1913) instead, and the results look significantly different.
I prefer long term thinking whenever possible. Generational or more, if possible. In a generational sense, the concepts of Monetarism hold more water imo. Keynes had to rely on "in the long run, we are dead." to buttress is thinking.
IF the bubbles are about to become popped, I'd rather be a monetarist now than a Keynesian, for me.
Thanks!

[prock]

That belies millenia of history.

I'm not sure what this means. Price instability of currency is nothing new.

Funny you picked 1980 as the first number of your date range.

I'm not sure why that's funny. It's the beginning of the era of the credit bubble.

In a generational sense, the concepts of Monetarism hold more water imo.

I don't know what that even means.

IF the bubbles are about to become popped, I'd rather be a monetarist

How does an ideology promoting price stability of currency help you in a world where all the countries are in a slow motion race to the bottom for the most devalued currency?

You're basically asking

[ext_736599]

Whether I like exponential debt growth via government action or exponential debt growth via private/central banking action.

You might as well ask me, am I a Maoist or a Leninist. To which I would answer "neither".

Or can we solve these bean counting problems - with more bean counting?