Of course, this article didn't help, because instead of advancing a thoughtful discussion, it tried to use animated gifs and "clever" web design to distract people from noticing that the content of the article was both vapid and internally incoherent.
I know people are probably thinking, "why do you care", and I don't particularly, but I think this article is basically an insult to all of us. This is bloomberg essentially stating: "this is what we think of you, if you're reading this, we think you're the sort of person that can be distracted by shiny stupidity". My previous feelings towards bloomberg were mildly positive, but I suspect moving forward any articles they write I will have a more critical view towards.
That said, hats off to the people that made the images. They are really good, and obviously the people behind them are very talented. I wish it had been attached to something worthwhile.
If you think that's strange, read internet blogs based around the 'Austrian' economic school.
Anyhow, Keynes' theories weren't so much ideological as they were based on his observations of economic events and models. And they've been elaborated on in the current 'dominant' economic school, which is better called 'Neoclassical Economics', wrongly labelled as 'Keynesian Economics' by the naysayers (though of course much of it does develop on Keynes' ideas).
> while I think that rational people can certainly have differences with regard to his economic views
The problem isn't so much people with 'different' opinions, but rather those who have opinions about economics but no coherent economic models, theories or observations of their own.
And I've found many of those who argue against Keynes' theories are also the ones who espouse things like a gold-backed currency, or eliminating government altogether. I've seen blogs that equate Keynesian economics to satanism... There's far more 'kooks' in the anti-Keynesian camp than in the Neoclassical camp.
Well, I have. And I found myself mostly agreeing with them. That's neither here nor there, I wouldn't think someone was dumb if they didn't share my viewpoint.
> And I've found many of those who argue against Keynes' theories are also the ones who espouse things like a gold-backed currency, or eliminating government altogether. I've seen blogs that equate Keynesian economics to satanism...
That's not really fair though, you can find kooks in ANY subject matter. It proves nothing other than that, kooks exist. Also I don't think people that argue for a gold standard are insane. I personally disagree with them, but they do have some valid points. I actually think it's kind of weird that the modern, relatively young system of governments printing debt with no tethoring to actual economic goods or work is somehow considered "obviously" right. We're barely a hundred years into this experiment and a lot of really bad thing have happened already, it could be entirely wrong.
And that's not surprising, because most 'Austrian' economic tenets are a part of micro-economics. Opportunity cost, marginalism, consumer preference, and other concepts that form part of neoclassical economics originally come from the 'Austrian' school. No one disputes that, and these all are taught in economics courses.
The problem with modern 'Austrian' economists is that they generally don't have a coherent macro-economic model, with the more modern 'Austrian' economists (do any real ones exist?) veering into ideology, philosophy and politics. Most reject the advances made into econometrics, mathematic models, and modern neoclassical macro theory.
And that's not to say there's no disagreement in the neoclassical camp. But pretty much everyone who actually attempts to practice economics as a science, generally falls into the neoclassical camp.
Edit - there's a reason Hayek is more frequently cited by right-wingers and libertarians than by economists. Most of his writings were political, and many of his predictions false.
Still though, when I hear commentary by someone like Peter Schiff, I find it very hard to ignore. Perhaps his ideas are "out there", but so were the people that suggested that the sun does not revolve around the earth. I guess that's a long winded way of saying I don't think they're obviously batshit insane wackos, they have ideas that should be heard.
It's been shown to have failed. You can't slash spending and increase taxes and expect the GDP to go anywhere but down. Greece is the poster child.
Most of the arguments made for austerity is for countries that modestly reduced some government spending in an otherwise positive economic state.
And let's face it, every 'developed' country's government spends a vast quantity of money, far more than most will admit. Here's a list of countries' government spending as a percentage of GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce...
The US is at 42%, Germany at 45%, Sweden at 51%, and France at 56%, and Denmark at 57%. Most of the countries at the lower percentages are '3rd world' or failed states... The idea that a 'smaller' government will lead to economic prosperity has no basis in historical reality.