Friday, 11 February 2011

Making the idea Keysean Economy

As I have stated in a previous post and BASED ON KEYNESIAN dogma why not PAY people to sit and watch TV as long as it is PAY FOR VIEW. They are consuming! They are ideal Keynesian. They do not even have to fill the holes or leave those ugly pyramids.

New policy, we "employ" people to watch pay for view and write commentaries on it. These commentaries go into a trash bin (electronic) and are never read, but the practice writing and using computers educates people and stimulates the economy as people are being paid.

We may be stealing from the productive to make labour, but hey, we are stimulating the economy!

I doubt many people have actually analysed the original working papers and suppositions that Keynes used? I have, as a mathematician and statistician.

I think I may start actually going over these one by one in the coming weeks and showing that they have not been based on anything but intuition.

I have a copy of a paper, "The failure to be factual". It covers Marx and Freud and a couple others. It should have covered Keynes. I will demonstrate line by line through Keynes' writing just why in the coming weeks.

I will start with the "paradox of thrift" and demonstrate the errors in the mathematics. The conflicting and sloppy suppositions and logical contradictions.

Then, what does this matter?
After all. A small part of the community benefits for all the losses we have to pay for in the long run...

Keynes first HUGE flaw that he NEVER understood. He fell into the same hole as Marx.

Wealth is NOT labor!

The amount of work is NOT relevant, only the amount of end production matters.

Digging holes that are destined to be filled to employ people is a misallocation. IT produces NOTHING. Worse, it takes funds inefficiently from the productive parts of society thus reducing their productivity. Those that are now employed may as well not be as they have a negative productivity.

Overall the net productivity is decreased.

There is NO other outcome. Check the math on this. I will actually post it in the next week. There is NO way possible, short of the errors in Keynes calculations - which I will demonstrate - that productivity increases.

ALL that matters is end productivity! Labor is not a factor. We can ALWAYS make work, become Luddites and smash the machines, make people go back to hard manual labour.


Anonymous said...

I would say that wealth is a store of labor that enables the labor to be "saved" for another time or application that your labor may not be capable of creating and can be loaned out to others for their use while you are doing something else. Large amounts of labor when stored as wealth can also be brought to bear in a short period of time or virtually instantaneously, or borrowed against. Wealth is a very valuable concept!

Progs hate it because it helps remove people from government dependence.

Craig Wright said...

A great hypothesis, but it fails in valuation. Worth is what someone will pay and has little to do with what it costs to make.

A mechanised system with little input cqan make far more goods than a person and yet the goods "crafted" by a person are worthg les sin general.

Inneficient labour does not add value. Nor can labour be stopred in goods that are not desired.

Also, if there is a market need for labour, the cost of labour increases, but only in those selected areas in demand.

Labour with lower demand remains undervalued if not simply worthless.