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.
There are two major views on the government’s role in the economy, the Keynesian view, and laissez faire. The Keynesian view is often held by liberals and democrats. This is the belief that it is the government’s responsibility to regulate and attempt to manipulate the economy. This is often characterized by taxing and subsidizing, and redistribution of wealth. The laissez faire philosophy is held by republicans and libertarians. In a laissez faire economy, the market determines where the money flows. Those who participate in the market determine the supply and demand with the way they spend their time and money.
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
In order to better explain his beliefs, Hayek first presents a problem. This problem is that society has a common misconception of there being a single economy with a unified hierarchy of ends determined by that economy (Hayek 1976, 108). This implies that markets within the economy have a single end in the context of that unified hierarchy. This view, however, is in error because markets, in actuality, serve not one end, but the interests of all members in the market (Hayek 1976, 108). In order to compensate for the misconception and assumed meaning of “economy,” Hayek developed a new term, “catallaxy.” Catallaxy is a concept that describes numerous interrelated economies rather than just one whole. “It is the special kind of spontaneous order produced by the market through people acting within the rules of law of property, tort, and contract (Hayek 1976, 109). This is what makes up the...
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
Keynesian economics, developed in the 1930s by British economist John Maynard Keynes to understand the Great Depression, sharply differed from Supply-Side in its assessment of taxation, government spending, and demand, both in a stable economy and in recession. While Keynes stated that consumer demand, instead of producer supply, creates economic growth, Supply-side argues the opposite, saying that producer supply instead of consumer demand is responsible for economic growth. Furthermore, Supply-side says that in times of recession, government spending should decrease to stop inflation, while Keynes argues that government spending should increase, injecting more liquid capital to stimulate the economy and increasing aggregate demand. Supply-side economics argues in favor of deregulation, whereas Keynesian economics favors more government oversight. Lastly, both Keynesian and Supply-side economics argue in favor of tax cuts. However, Keynes argues for temporary tax cuts, only during times of recession, while Supply-side favors extended tax cuts in both recession and in stable
Based on my recent learning, Keynes’ approach of a balance between free market and government interference makes a better and stronger economy. In a laissez faire market, the market does not self-correct to prevent the economy from sliding into a deep recession as its proponents suggested. In fact, if the market is left to its own accord, during difficult times the economy will further weaken because manufactures will cut production, which will lead to higher unemployment, which will then lead to less disposable income, which will lead to a drop in consumer consumption, which will lead to a drop in sales and eventually another cut back in manufacturing. This is known as the Multiplier
...more of a Keynesian thinker more than a new classical thinker. Although it might be true that having free market is the right way of having a stabled economy, but unemployment will still be high and might be increasing which is still till now one of the troublesome 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 happened that the only way to solve a sort of crises is by government intervention (basically spending). Yes it will increase inflation but creates more job opportunities and unemployment will decrease if government intervention occurs. Yes in the long run this might be bad but people care about tomorrow more than they care about 3 or 4 years from now or even more. As Lord Keynes once said “in the long run we are all dead”
John Maynard Keynes classical approach to economics and the business cycle has dominated society, especially the United States. His idea was that government intervention was necessary in a properly functioning economy. One economic author, John Edward King, claimed of the theory that:
The problem with balancing an economy is that human judgment and evaluation of economic situations enter into the equation. Establishing a constant growth level in the money supply would eliminate the decision making process of the central banker. The problem with human intervention is the short-sided nature of many of the policies designed to aid the economy. Such interventions, which yields unintended negative consequences, is the result of the time inconsistency problem. This problem is understood through situations during which central bankers conduct monetary policy in a discretionary way and pursue expansionary policies that are attractive in the short-run, but lead to detrimental long-run outcomes. Friedman believes that by leaving money growth decisions to an individual, the results are poor long-run management and eventually high inflation rates, an obvious detriment to the economy.
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)
Keynesian economists, similar to Classical economists, also believe that the economy is made up of consumer spending, government spending, and business investments. However, the Keynesian Theory says government spending can improve economic growth in the absence of consumer spending and business investment (Differences). According to the Keynesian theory, wages and prices are not flexible. A static price will give a horizontal aggregate supply curve in the short run (Classical and Keynesian Economics).
The disparities between the two views of the economy lead to very different policies that have produced contradictory results. The Keynesian theory presents the rational of structuralism as the basis of economic decisions and provides support for government involvement to maintain high levels of employment. The argument runs that people make decisions based on their environments and when investment falls due to structural change, the economy suffers from a recession. The government must act against this movement and increase the level of employment by fiscal injections and training of the labour force. In fact, the government should itself increase hiring in crown corporations. In contrast the Neoliberal theory attributes the self-interest of individuals as the determinant of the level of employment.
My research of 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 in 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.