NationStates Jolt Archive

Having had to deal with the hypocrasy of my seminar group with relation to Keynes and Friedman I thought I'd punish myself a little more (When it was miner's jobs on line they were with Friedman all the way, but when we started talking about the problems of UK graduates finding jobs there was a remarkable switch to Keynes).

So, what's your preference? I'm imagining there will probably be an American-Friedman vs European-Keynes vs People who have watched "Yes, Minister" split.

i'm lost.

They are both pretty smart cookies, but I prefer Keynes because he kept a bit of realism in his models about human nature.
Friedman on the other hand makes people automatons, he completely disregards the subconscious, emotional level of the economy.

Chapter 24 of the General Theory (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm)

They are both pretty smart cookies, but I prefer Keynes because he kept a bit of realism in his models about human nature.
Friedman on the other hand makes people automatons, he completely disregards the subconscious, emotional level of the economy.

Chapter 24 of the General Theory (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm)
I think that monetarism could never have been born were it not for Keynesianism. As it stands, monetarism is a critique of Keynesianism, so I have no hatred for Keynes, unlike a certain school with Rothbard.

I choose Friedman in the end though.

I think that monetarism could never have been born were it not for Keynesianism. As it stands, monetarism is a critique of Keynesianism, so I have no hatred for Keynes, unlike a certain school with Rothbard.

I choose Friedman in the end though.So it's fine with you that there's no upper social limit on unemployment?

So it's fine with you that there's no upper social limit on unemployment?
Well, that would just be impractical.

A happy medium is the answer, as always.

So it's fine with you that there's no upper social limit on unemployment?
Could you rephrase that please? (No offence)

Well, that would just be impractical.

A happy medium is the answer, as always.Indeed. *nods*
...
Well that was stimulating...

Addressing the title, controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. After all, uncontrolled inflation causes more unemployment due to rising labor costs and/or causes a fall in the real income of people.
A stable inflationary environment produces a stable employment environment and sustainable gains in income.

And of course, employment beyond the natural rate of unemployment will lead to hyperinflation. Not to mention that productivity would also suffer if government attempts to force unemployment down beyond the level of cyclical unemployment in the economy.

They are both pretty smart cookies, but I prefer Keynes because he kept a bit of realism in his models about human nature.
Friedman on the other hand makes people automatons, he completely disregards the subconscious, emotional level of the economy.

I would say that on the aggregate, we are automotons. While there are varying subjective emotional qualities to the economy, the sheer size of an economic model makes individual preferences inconsequential as compared to the whole.

I would say that on the aggregate, we are automotons. While there are varying subjective emotional qualities to the economy, the sheer size of an economic model makes individual preferences inconsequential as compared to the whole.

That would only apply if there are a lot of people with a lot of different subjective qualities. If there's a large demographic that is fairly consistent in any given area, it could throw off results.