A recent intellectual epiphany I had was that to debunk religion one cannot look "forward," but rather "backward." What this means is that if you are going to try to debunk a religion (or philosophy or ideology, etc.) you cannot further argue within the context of that religion (philosophy, ideology, etc.). You merely abide by the rules laid out by said religion and in doing so get into semantical arguments that never resolve anything.
No, one must go BACKWARDS and ask basic elementary questions about the entire religion (ideology, philosophy, etc.) itself, challenging the PREMISES by which the entire religion is founded upon. And once those premises are proven to be false or at least unfounded or immoral, then the entire belief system itself can be called into question, if not, completely debunked.
And I believe Keynesianism is one such ripe candidate.
Let us say that Paul Krugman is 100% correct.
Barack Obama is 100% correct.
Janet Yellen is 100% correct.
And John Maynard Keynes himself was 100% correct.
My question is simply - so what?
And the reason my question, in spite of them all being theoretically 100% completely correct, is "so what" has nothing to do with being right or the efficacy of their policies. It has to do with whether their actions, claims, or demands upon an economy are moral. What right do they have to demand such behavior from other individuals?
Take smoking for example.
Right now private property rights are being violated across the globe because some people believe that just because they're right, their "rightness" trumps people's individual liberty and choice. Thus, now, even though people "own" their property in the form of bars and restaurants, those people have no rights as to whether or not to allow smoking, not to mention smokers who would like to smoke on private property where it would have otherwise been allowed.
Does smoking cause cancer?
Should you not smoke?
Are the anti-smoking Nazi's right?
Still does not give them the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.
And it is here that is the core to Keynesianism's immorality - they deny people's right to self-determination.
Let us be clear what Keynesianism is.
It is the belief that the government has the right to intervene in the economy (read- individuals' lives) to "make things better."
Noble or not
Honorable or not
RIGHT or not
that one belief transgresses the individual and makes Keynesianism a true evil in that it violates people's individual choice, individual freedoms, and individual decisions. It forces the will of a few government bureaucrats and politicians on the masses because "they know better." It dares to suggest some people know what's best for you AND GRANTS THEM THE AUTHORITY to intervene.
The problems and threats with such an economic religion (and that's what it is) are obvious to anybody with half a brain and an ounce of intellectual honesty.
1. In the Keynesian World nobody learns from their mistakes.
Spit out more kids that you can afford?
Lend to douchebag cronies who are connected to the banking system?
Major in stupid ass liberal arts suburbanite chicky girl studies?
Never fear! Government bailouts are here!
Understand that with a philosophy of Keynesianism any mal-investment that results in a crash or a recession is "magically" undone by merely pumping more money into the economy or (more the more vote-getting solution) bailing out people from their spectacular mistakes. This means that nobody can fail, and in nobody failing, nobody learns from their mistakes. The consequences are disastrous as amply displayed by the black community. The "hot stove" in the form of "illegitimate children" is never seared in pain with the bearing the full costs of rearing one's own child. Keynesian bailouts merely moot the pain, denying 70% of the black population a much needed lesson in profitability, finance and survivability, and sadly condemning them to a life of poverty. And before you get all pissy and set your phasers to "accuse of racism" it's functionally no different than the denizens of lily white bankers who got bailed out just the same.
2. Keynesianism Is Too Easily Abused By Politicians
Hmmm....let's think this one through.
"Unlimited government spending"
"the power to bail out people for their mistakes"
Oh, no. No potential for amoral politicians to abuse this economic philosophy by
1. Spending money till the cow come home to
2. Bail out and thus bribe the idiot classes of society to vote for them because
3. In a democracy every person, welfare queen or not gets the vote
No, no politician would EVER sacrifice the future integrity of the country's finances and economy to win votes now at the expense of a mortgaged future. No, would never happen.
3. They're Completely Wrong Anyway
I'd like to say the Keynesians were right, but truthfully that was just a handicap I gave to what is nothing more than the biggest frauds, shysters, intellectual weaklings and parasitic academians currently heading up our government, media, and educational institutions. If there's one thing to learn from the Obama administration it's that Keynesianism
Forgot the moral argument that Paul Krugman has the right to tell you how much money you should earn, keep, save, spend, invest, be taxed upon, etc., because according to his wee-little academic econometrics model it's "what's best for society"
they're all wrong and (worse still)
they all know it (and worse still than that)
they don't care.
They are nothing more and nothing better than the modern day Catholic church killing people for reading the bible or being literate. They wish to retain their power by keeping the masses ignorant about economics. But unlike Europeans during the Dark Ages, most Americans are willing to be fattened and satiated watching The Bachelorette and getting some "great apps" at Applebee's. Just remember come next fourth of July our founding fathers aren't rolling in their graves as much as you're merely pissing on them.