So I was in Macroeconomics this morning and my professor showed us this video. The sequel can be found here.

I recommend you watch the whole video. The first three minutes are from Keynes's point of reasoning, the next three are from Hayek's.

Anyway, the way I see it, both schools of thought have valid points, but I prefer Keynesian economics. The reason for this is because government will provide where corporate entities choose not to, particularly in certain aspects of education and infrastructure. Now, if those entities were to take the initiative, then my opinions would surely change.

bump4new

Listening to the second video (first link) right now, and I have to say that I agree with what you've said. There needs to be more cash flow, and it appears that the government is the only entity that can be moved to provide it.

However, as difficult as this idea might be to pull off, I think that the government should simply become more involved in the economy as a whole. Though, reversed from what it is now.

Point 1
The government should decrease its financial interactions with the economy. By suddenly adding loans, amongst many other fancy words I can't rightly remember, the economy gets a little "boost," but then gets hit with the same hammer shortly afterwards. I'm for reducing financial interactions with the government; save for when it is deemed absolutely necessary, in order to keep the economy alive as a whole. (IE the government saving General Motors within the last few years; the automotive industry is huge, and losing GM would have completely killed the competition the U.S. has with other countries. GM has since been recovering quite nicely, and is returning jobs to MI).

Point 2
The government should, in place of the financial aide (not to be confused with financial aide for students), use a system that requires companies to submit a review of their fiscal year. With this, there should almost always be a cap of "stagnant" money that sits above as profit that goes unused; most likely into the pockets of the CEO of the company, or some other corrupted nonsense like that. If this money is just sitting stagnant, then the company must either use it to further the company as a whole (such as expansion, pay raises, anything to keep that 'stagnant' money moving), or contributed to the movement of other projects; likely ones that the government has a difficult time paying for. Examples of the latter would be things like: Road construction, funding of the public schools system, public transportation, anything that the government pays for.

~ ~ ~

There are a lot of places where each strategy can go wrong, but there are also a lot of places where both can succeed. I firmly believe that we need to look into the best of all options, and work out a method to combine and enforce them.

Mind you, this is somewhat against the idea of true capitalism, but we're already far from it. Might as well take advantage of the missing truth, and put it to better use.

My short opinion: We have too much stagnant money, and too much government interference in the wrong places. This needs to be swapped.

>>3 I like your points. By requiring corporate entities to allocate their profits towards a greater good, they will be committing to social responsibility in a way that doesn't require taxation.

Most likely, it will be reallocated to workers in the form of bonuses, and shareholders in the form of dividends. It would be nice to see the profits going toward social projects but conservatives would cry foul about such things.

>>4 Precisely! IMO, stagnant money is what could do the most good, if we can get it moving.

However it gets allocated, I'm happy, so long as it moves. As for the conservatives... Well, the money can sit and go to waste until it becomes worthless, or we can keep it moving while it still has its value.

Money is a fickle thing, and it has done many unexpected things in the past. I'd rather not sit around idly while the world continues to move.

mmm im nott i asi sii es kee?

hello ale! "# $ like that happen to me a good anime movie please terrorist

Holy SHIT,

OP...have by any chance heard of Big Red...? I think I might be in your class.

Godddamn.

>>8 If it's ECO202N with Hallie Neupert, then yes. We are in the same class.

Bump for opinions.

Seriously, anybody else taken a government/econ course? I'm just as interested as MKOLLER to hear what you guys think 0-0

>>10 I'm sure a lot of people who do answer would have to be juniors or seniors in high school, or already in college. And I'm not sure how many older folks we have year (a lot of people seem to be in their underclass years of high school).

>>11 I still have enough faith to believe that some of our younger members are capable of coming up with some pretty awesome ideas and opinions ^_^

Sometimes younger kids have some brilliant minds. I'd love to hear from them!

bump