Skip to comments.The Dirty Bastard Keynes
Posted on 01/29/2013 2:49:31 PM PST by ABrit
The Dirty Bastard Keynes
Keynes was a Communist. He designed a system that was intended to pauperise the Capitalist bourgoisie.
By design, his monetary policy is counter cyclical. Therefor as soon as there is surplus income leading to demand for goods and inflating their prices, the Keynesian reflex is to reduce the supply of money. This means that because of the mostly suppressed demand the occasional bout of prosperity leads to ruthless increases in interest rates and taxes, and to an inability of the middle class to save, either for the present or the future.
The state or large capitalist employees are protected by state or monopolistic funded pensions.
In fact the harder the Capitalist bourgoisie tried and succeed in creating wealth, the more the Keynesian torque tightens around their necks.
Lenin wished the middle classes capital savings ground to oblivion by inflation. Probably deliberately set it off in Weimar Germany.
Keynesianism was just another string to the bow.
Rot in Hell Bastard.
When a colleague warned the PEDOPHILE Keynes that his BS “economics” would, in the end, BANKRUPT and DESTROY the capitalist system, the miserable bastard replied “In the end, we’ll all be dead.”
This is the type of ignorance I always complain about. Keynes wasn’t a communist or even a socialist. He did all of his work, both theory and policy, under the umbrella of a market economy, with privately owned firms, private investors, private property, and prices based on supply and demand. Even the bastardized version of his work that is called “Keynesianism,” (involving stimulus spending) wasn’t even his own work and ALSO works under the umbrella of a market economy.
Keynes and his followers don’t advocate the abolition of private property or the nationalization of industry or government control of prices.
It is enough to say that Keynes’ analysis had mistakes, and it is enough to say that what is erroneously called “Keynesianism” is bad policy. There is no need to lie and say he was a communist or socialist. Same goes for Democrats—some are socialist, a handful are communist, but most of them don’t want to abolish the market. They may advocate bad policy but not necessarily socialist or communist policy.
This kind of ignorant name-calling makes conservatives look like medieval peasants who call everybody they don’t like a witch.
Too many who warn about Keynes seem to agree with him on Free Trade and Globalism
Keynes post WW I I economic ideas are still pushed by many who complain about him. Keynes was a hard core Globalist and Free Trader whose leadership at Bretton Woods still haunts world econmics today. Also Keynes was the founding father of the World Bank...which has pretty much, along with Free Trade, redistributed trilions from the US economy to foreign lands, mostly at great waste
Free Traders are still quite Keynesian
I've read on FR that since Marx endorsed free trade, then free trade is Marxist. And now [first time I've read this nugget] that since Keynes advocated free trade, then advocates of free trade are "Keynesian".
Your argument is illogical.
Marx, as you might know, also was in favor of manufacturing. So, to remain consistent, you must also claim that anyone who favors manufacturing is a Marxist. Keynes, despite his backwards reasoning, preached that, during good economic times, governments should reduce deficits.
So, during good economic times, anyone who calls for reduced deficits must be a Keynesian. Intellectual honesty would insist on it.
Economic debate must go beyond name-calling and picking plums out of complex theories.
The fact is that the freedom to trade is crucial to the rest of our liberties. Without it, property means nothing and the others are made indefensible. The opponents of free trade must explain to the rest of us why, all of a sudden, government intrusion in our lives is a good thing.
I can't wait to hear your explanation of that.
Not so much, if the word "Communist" actually means anything.
Really, you only have to think of what communism actually was in those days when Lenin and Stalin were still around to see that Keynes's policy wasn't the expropriation of private enterprises and state ownership and control.
Keynes did have it in for people who lived off investments or rents, though, and supported "the euthanasia of the rentier," -- or the gradual disappearance of the "functionless investor."
It was not to be violent expropriation, but a gradual result of economic change, replacing passive collection of dividends with active investment in the economy -- at least according to Keynes (or what I've been able to find out about Keynes's thinking in five minutes).
Keynes's hostility to inherited wealth and passive investment was strange because he and his friends and associates and the colleges he worked for all benefited from investments, dividends, and inherited wealth.
Keynes deviate socialist circle was almost completely pro-bolshevik. One month after the Revolution, J.M. Keynes wrote his mother
Well, the only course open to me is to be buoyantly bolshevik; and as I lie in bed in the morning I reflect with a good deal of satisfaction that, because our rulers are as incompetent as they are mad and wicked, one particular era of a particular kind of civilization is very nearly over.
FDR protected all the Commie fellow travellers. Same reason he went to war and gave Europe to Stalin.
I prefer what Keynes wrote privately to his mother, that he was a Bolshevik, rather that the weasel words used for public consumption. Clearly, Keynes as a senior UK Government adviser could not openly say he supported Communism, and the Soviets would have wished to give him cover with faux attacks.
“In the spring of 1905 Keynes and his lavender cohorts had been thrilled by a conference of Russian revolutionaries in London. British Fabians and Joseph Fels, an American soap manufacturer who was also a Fabian, had financed the Russian gathering and furnished them a hall in a Christian church. Key revolutionaries at this London conference included Nikolai Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. The future slaughter of fifty million civilians, and the conquest of one-third of the earths surface. rested within the shelter of this gathering. Shivers of excitement rippled down the spines of the socialist homosexuals when they heard that Lenin had openly defended the slaughter of bank guards and stealing of bank funds for the bolshevik coffers. During this time Strachey wrote to one of his intimates: At this moment Keynes is lying on a rug beside me.
Keynes and his fellow debauchees became active pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War I. The socialist position against military service dovetailed perfectly with the homosexual aversion to any kind of physical danger and the manly requirements of military training. Yet, in spite of Keynes sheltering of queer conchies, and his own refusal to serve his country, he was made the head of an important division of the British Treasury. During March of 1917 he confided privately that he supported the bolshevik group among the Russian socialists after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas.
The seizure of power by the bolsheviks in November of 1917 elated Keynes and the rest of the Fabian coterie. At Leftist parties in London, Keynes and his fellow perverts celebrated by dressing in womens clothes and performing lewd dances. He had as his consort an eighteen-year-old-boy who was ensconced as his assistant in the Treasury Department.
Just before the Bolshevik Revolution, Keynes had made a hurried trip to the United States for the British Government. Here he had a chance to make contact with the American Fabians who were similarly entrenched, via the Frankfurter-Lippmann group, in key positions of the Wilson Administration.”
There is no doubt Keynes was interested in the government “directing” the economy, but from his writings on economics another thing is also clear: he wasn’t a socialist.
A socialist believes the government should own and control the means of production, whereas Keynes believed that the government should “stabilize” the market economy. He did not advocate the abolition of private property or private enterprise or private investment.
A lot of overly eager right-wingers resort to calling people a “socialist” when there are plenty of other legitimate grounds on which to criticize somebody. Keynes’ was wrong about a lot of things, why not attack those things? Why fabricate and distort?
Keynes called, from what I understand, for government to time its spending on generally-useful things [i.e. things that benefit an open-ended set of people], to be counter-cyclical. I think that's bad policy, but it's vastly different from abominations like Cash for Clunkers, whose whole purpose was to destroy wealth. I think the fundamental point which is missed by those who suggest that government spending should increase when the economy is down is that any tax money that the government spends on any project is either money that the individual from whom it is taken can't spend on anything else, and any money the government borrows represents money diverted from useful investments. It is in theory possible for the government to spend money in ways which grow the general economy more than would anything that individuals would do with it, especially if it spends on things with positive network externalities. Unfortunately, expenditures which have essentially zero general utility are often more politically useful to those in power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.