1. Keynes and Hayek each approach the economy from a different perspective. In Keynes’ estimation, it is all about the flow of money. The economy is improving when money is moving, and thus, stability is achieved as much as is possible. Consequently, spending, and more specifically government spending, is the key to unlock the door blocking economic growth. By contrast, Hayek contends that money is not everything. What the money is used for, whether it be saved, invested, loaned, or spent, also plays an important role in the progression of the economy. Growth comes from saving and investing not consumption and spending. The stability of the economy, according to Hayek, is brought about by the forces of supply and demand. With these grand ideas …show more content…
Keynes and Hayek represent different options. Should we steer markets or set them free? “Which way should we choose, More bottom up or more top down?” (Fight of the Century). These questions reflect the opposite ways Keynes and Hayek address the economy. Keynes wants to “steer” the economy from the “top down.” From his understanding of the economy, Keynes theorizes that the market can be directed by those with the power to do so to accomplish goals leading to a prosperous economy. This is the basis in his approach to dealing with recessions where the government or central bank manipulates the economy. The other side is a free market from the “bottom up” on which Hayek stakes his claim. Instead of steering the economy, Hayek proposes to leave it alone. Do not try to control it, but let the market determine the interest rate and price level, as it eventually will, through supply and demand. In this way, control is not exerted downward, but reality is expressed from basic economic forces. Fundamentally, Keynes’s model focuses more on the spending and consumption aspects of GDP, and Hayek’s approach focuses more on the investing aspect which flows from saving. These are the options from which to choose. Keynes vs. Hayek, Short run vs. long run, controlled vs. free, top down vs. bottom up, each possibility has its negatives and positives. This debate is not wrapped up
Keynesianism and monetarism are both ways to stabilize the economy and promote growth when need. In keynesianism, government uses fiscal policy which is a list of policies that government spending and taxing can be used to improve the performance of an economy. The government produces stabilization by taxing and spending yearly plans. Taxing can occur when inflation is high and lowering taxes tends to occur during a high percentage of unemployment. By lowering taxes, it increases disposable income or the party of income that goes to financial responsibilities. When people have more money, they are able to spend more which in return goes into jump starting the economy. Monetary Policy is another policy used in Keynesianism which is a list of protocol designed to regulate the economy by setting the amount of money that is in circulation and controlled interest levels. The Federal Reserve system also known as the central banking system in the U.S. which holds control of this policy. Monetary policy has three tools used my the Federal Reserve to enforce this policy. Reserve Requirement is the first tool that determines the lowest amount of money a bank must possess and is not able to lend out. The second way to enforce monetary policy is by using the discount rate or the interest rank a bank will charge. The f...
...h he had favored central banking for most of his life, in 1970 he had begun advocating denationalizing money. In his opinion private enterprise’s that issued distinct currencies, he argued, would have an incentive to maintain their currency’s purchasing power. Which would then mean that customers could choose among competing currencies. Now, whether they would revert to a gold standard or not was a question that Hayek was too much of a believer in spontaneous order to predict. With the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe at the time, some economic consultants had considered Hayek’s currency system as a replacement for fixed-rate currencies.
Comparing Keynesian Economics and Supply Side Economic Theories Two controversial economic policies are Keynesian economics and Supply Side economics. They represent opposite sides of the economic policy spectrum and were introduced at opposite ends of the 20th century, yet still are the most famous for their effects on the economy of the United States when they were used. The founder of Keynesian economic theory was John Maynard Keynes.
Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land, more tools, etc) which will allow for even more increased efficiency and production. Both thought that this increased production was great. But Marx said that capitalism was only one stage... that every country must go through capitalism, to get that increased production, but that capitalism is unstable. It requires expanding markets and will end up creating a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, with more and more people becoming poor. Because of this instability, he thought that it would eventually collapse.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity, written by James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, Dwight Lee and Tawni Ferrarini, explains the foundation of economics and how it all works in all aspects of our lives from the role of the government trickling down to personal credit cards and savings. This book was written with clear language for the audience to understand and comprehend the large amount of information within its condensed size. The authors’ target audience for this book seemed to be for those individuals wanting to learn the mechanics of economy including economic growth and stability. Gwartney separates his book into four parts: Part I, Twelve Key Elements of Economics, Part II Seven Major Sources of Economic Progress, Part Three Economic Progress and the Role of Government, and Part IV Twelve Key Elements of Practical Personal Finance.
Public policy is enormously impacted by the importance of economic beliefs about the political world. Throughout history, there have been two prominent models of economic policy; Keynesianism and Neoliberalism. The increase of authoritarianism intermingled with the rise of communism essentially started World War 2. After this, the government instituted Keynesianism until the late 1970’s. After the stagflation of the late 1970’s, the political and economic movement of Neoliberalism began.
middle of paper ... ... In summation, I am more of a Keynesian thinker than a classical thinker. Although it might be true that having a free market is the right way of having a stable economy, unemployment will still be high and might be increasing which is still one of the problems that governments face today. Plus, what happens if recession hits or even worse we go back to 1930’s where there was the great depression, it was proved then and will be proved again if it happens that the only way to solve a sort of crisis is by government intervention (basically spending).
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
I believe that it's’ important to use our constitution as a guiding tool to help appoint the correct people for the job.John Maynard Keynes was a British economist where he fundamentally changed the theory and practices of macroeconomics and economic policies of government. Although he was revolutionary most of his policies were controversial and used Keynesianism economic to get people to stay away from them . His approach to macroeconomic management was different since the previous traditional laissez-faire economists believed that an economy would automatically correct its imbalances and move toward a state of equilibrium, They expected the dynamics of supply and demand to help the economy adjust to recession and inflation without government action. Laissez-faire economics thus regarded layoffs, bankruptcies and downturns in the economy not as something to be avoided but as elements of a natural process that would eventually improve. However that was not the case for the great depression. Keynes also believed that a given level of demand in an economy would produce employment however he insisted that low employment during the depression resulted from inadequate
Regardless, in regards to applying Keynesian economic policies toward the Great Depression, Former Federal Reserve Governor Ben S. Bernanke said “You 're right, we did it. We 're very sorry. … we won 't do it again” (Federal Reserve Board, 2002). Other economic theory must be developed to address some of the shortcomings of the Keynesian economic
Hayek properly lays out the foundation to support his reasoning for supporting capitalism. He points out that capitalism cannot succeed without a proper legal framework. With legal laws and enforcement in force, classical liberalism believes that capitalism and its forces of competition will coordinate human efforts best rather than relying on a total laissez fare policy (Hayek 41). Other factors needed for capitalism to succeed are the organization of ¡§money, markets, and channels of information¡¨ (43). Those three factors are the basis for competition which is most effective in determining allocation of resources and generating the maximum amount of marginal utility. When prices and/or output are controlled, the central planners are interfering with free markets which distort the true view of the marketplace.
My research in Classical Economics and Keynesian Economics has given me the opportunity to form an opinion on this greatly debated topic in economics. After researching this topic to great lengths, I have determined the Keynesian Economics far exceeds greatness for America compared to that of Classical Economics. I will begin my paper by first addressing my understanding of both economic theories, I will then compare and contrast both theories, and end my paper with my opinions on why I believe Keynesian Economics is what is best for America. Classical Economics is a theory that suggests that by leaving the free market alone without human intervention equilibrium will be obtained. This theory was the first school of thought for economists, and one of the major theorists and founders of Classical Economics was Adam Smith.
The theory of economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique for thinking, which helps the possessor to draw correct conclusions. The ideas of economists and politicians, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." (John Maynard Keynes, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money p 383)
Our lives are greatly affected by our culture, ecological environment, political environment and our economic structure. The overarching method of organizing a complex modern society relies heavily on the founding economic theories regarding method of production, method of organization, and the distribution of wealth among the members of. This paper, specifically deals with the views and theoretical backgrounds of two dominant theories of the past century, Keynesianism and Neo-liberalism. Our social economic order is product of the two theories and has evolved through many stages to come to where it is today. The two ideologies rely on different foundations for their economic outcomes but both encourage capitalism and claim it to be the superior form of economic organization. Within the last quarter of the 20th century, neo-liberalism has become the dominant ideology driving political and economic decisions of most developed nations. This dominant ideology creates disparities in wealth and creates inequality through the promotion of competitive markets free from regulation. Neo-liberal’s ability to reduce national government’s size limits the powers and capabilities of elected representatives and allows corporations to become much larger and exert far greater force on national and provincial governments to act in their favour. Hence, it is extremely important at this time to learn about the underlying power relations in our economy and how the two ideologies compare on important aspects of political economy. In comparing the two theories with respect to managing the level of unemployment, funding the welfare sates, and pursuing national or international objectives, I will argue that Keynesianism provides far greater stability, equ...