Why Bad Economics Won’t Go Away

The Young Briton’s Foundation has invited Yaron Brook to Parliament to answer a fascinating question:

Why is it that people don’t seem to learn from experience? It is clear that our existing Keynesian economic policies have failed miserably. We can compare controlled economies with those less controlled, and compare more regulated sectors of our own economy with those sectors that have fewer regulations. Logic and history are on the side of those economists who have advocated for free markets. Why do those who advocate sound economic policies continue to fail in substantially rolling back government intervention in the economy? It would seem so easy.

The event takes place on the evening of Wednesday 20th. I recommend checking the Eventbrite page for full details.

One response to “Why Bad Economics Won’t Go Away”

  1. There is another problem. The main “alternative” to Keynesianism (at least as far as academia and the media have been concerned) is based upon some of the same (false) principles. The modern Chicago School (Milton Friedman and co) is really from Irving Fisher (Yale). It holds that the lending out of “money” than no one really saved is fine as long as the “price level” does not rise (the Fisher fallacy that led him to be unable to see the credit-expansion bubbles that led to the crash of 1921 and 1929 and made his followers unable to see the credit money expansion of Alan Greenspan and co would lead to the current crises).

    Indeed modern (not pre World War II) Chicago School people go further. For example, Milton Friedman is often quoted as saying that (to increase “demand” in a slump) money should even be created and “thrown from helecopters”. Pre free market people normally assume that Friedman was joking (trying to show the absurdity of Keynesianism by applying it openly rather than via the smoke-and-mirrors games of banking). However he was NOT joking – his PHILOSOPHICAL principles were so bad (a denial of objective reality and deductive reasoning), that he fell for the “demand” fallacy.

    Whilst all this is presented as the “alternative” to Keynesianism, no progress in the understanding of economics is to be expected.

    Like

Leave a comment