Does Keynesianism have its roots in mercantilism? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Does Keynesianism have its roots in mercantilism?

Yes
5
18%
No
19
68%
Maybe
3
11%
Other
1
4%
By Wolfman
#13331070
Those policies failed because of deficit spending during good times, and they never cooled there spending. Keynes said to cool spending when the economy recovers, and pay off the debt in good times.
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13331334
Those policies failed because of deficit spending during good times, and they never cooled there spending. Keynes said to cool spending when the economy recovers, and pay off the debt in good times.


What Keynes said and what Keynesianism is to America are not necessarily identical. I think Kennedy-Johnson admin can testify to that. Responsible management is requisite, but evidently not practical. Perhaps it hasn't been universally understood or agreed upon. I suppose Political expediency is also an unknown quantity. Maybe the energetic roots of the institution of Keynesianism lend it to liberal interpretation?

Keynesianism from what I remember deals with something else entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, also called Keynesianism and Keynesian Theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936; the interpretations of Keynes are contentious, and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
In later years, the United States took mercantilism to its most advanced and fully developed level as an economic policy when Alexander Hamilton enunciated the Hamiltonian economic program, and Abraham Lincoln finally solidified a trade and industrial policy which was to guide American economic policy into 1972. Paradoxically, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, at a time when America's pursuit of mercantilism made it the greatest economic power in the world, Europe, by contrast, with the noteworthy exception of Germany, began abandoning mercantilism.

The Hamiltonian economic program was the set of measures that were proposed by American Founding Father and 1st Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in three notable reports and implemented by Congress during George Washington's first administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonia ... ic_program
* First Report on Public Credit -pertaining to the assumption of federal and state debts and finance of the United States government.
* Second Report on Public Credit -pertaining to the establishment of a National Bank.
* Report on Manufactures -pertaining to the policies to be followed to encourage manufacturing and industry within the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29
The American School, also known as "National System", represents three different yet related constructs in politics, policy and philosophy. It was the American policy for many decades, waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation. Historian Michael Lind describes it as a coherent applied economic philosophy with logical and conceptual relationships with other economic ideas.[1]

It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century[2][3][4][5][6][7] (after mercantilism and prior to Keynesian economics, it can be seen as a modified type of classical economics). It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises.[8][9][10][11]

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program.[12] The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

The American School's key elements were promoted by John Q. Adams and his National Republican Party, Henry Clay and the Whig Party, and Abraham Lincoln through the early Republican Party which embraced, implemented, and maintained this economic system.[13] The American School has evolved into the mixed economy of today's America.

During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s.[14]



Entirely? Really? Let's set the bar at "broadest interpretation". Keynesianism isn't seperate. Keynesianism isn't dominant. Keynesianism, in America, is a derivative.
By Wolfman
#13331372
What Keynes said and what Keynesianism is to America are not necessarily identical.


OK. How is that at all important? The average American doesn't know the difference between the Austrian and the Chicago Schools of Economics, but that doesn't mean they're the same. What Keynes said is what Keynesian Economics is based on, some popular perception.
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13331480
OK. How is that at all important?

An immediate example of relevance is to the New Foundation. How is it not at all important?

The average American doesn't know the difference between the Austrian and the Chicago Schools of Economics, but that doesn't mean they're the same.


While there are differences in this case, the commonalities are fundamental, and qualify as roots. Are you saying my understanding is so limited as to discredit my commentary? "The same" wasn't the threshold. "Roots" implies an examination of the foundation and lineage. That's what I am doing.

What Keynes said is what Keynesian Economics is based on, [not] some popular perception.

Is that what you meant to type? My response depends.

Is the question limited to a theoretical examination? As a practical matter, Keynesianism manifested as an addendum of his commentary onto the existing initiatives. I posted it in his words earlier. While that may not have pleased him even, it is our reality.
By Wolfman
#13331512
An immediate example of relevance is to the New Foundation. How is it not at all important?


You're making it seem as though the popular understanding of Keynesianism is going to completely redefine the concept. And the only 'New Foundation' I'm aware of is a bank.

While there are differences in this case, the commonalities are fundamental, and qualify as roots. Are you saying my understanding is so limited as to discredit my commentary? "The same" wasn't the threshold. "Roots" implies an examination of the foundation and lineage. That's what I am doing.


None of this is relevant to what I said.

Is that what you meant to type?


Yes
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13332257
An immediate example of relevance is to the New Foundation. How is it not at all important?

You're making it seem as though the popular understanding of Keynesianism is going to completely redefine the concept. And the only 'New Foundation' I'm aware of is a bank.

I am reviewing the execution of keynesianism. You're making it seem as though the conceptualization is all that is important. What have I said about the popular understanding?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16foundation.html
Ready for a new New Deal? How about the New Foundation? As Mr. Obama labors to pull the country out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression and simultaneously overhaul energy, education and health care, he has coined an expression to encapsulate his ambitious program in the same way Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930s....

Mr. Obama introduced the catchall phrase in his Inaugural Address in January. “The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift,” he said that day, “and we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.”

But it took months before White House officials decided to emphasize the phrase in a sustained way. Then he gave a much-ballyhooed speech at Georgetown University on April 14 to lay out a broader vision for his presidency and used the phrase eight times. He cited a parable from the Sermon on the Mount about two men who build houses, one on sand and the other on rock; the former is blown away by a storm, the latter remains standing tall against the winds. The talk was called “the New Foundation speech,” and in the month since then, Mr. Obama has weaved the phrase into 15 public addresses.


The average American doesn't know the difference between the Austrian and the Chicago Schools of Economics, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

While there are differences in this case, the commonalities are fundamental, and qualify as roots. Are you saying my understanding is so limited as to discredit my commentary? "The same" wasn't the threshold. "Roots" implies an examination of the foundation and lineage. That's what I am doing.

None of this is relevant to what I said.


What is relevant about what you said? Do you want to talk about which fundamental commonalities the Austrian School does not share with the others?

What's your point? I am talking about the institution of Keynesianism.


Is that what you meant to type?

Yes


How the hell can Keynesianism exist in practice without it's administration? Or maybe you are saying it never did exist in practice? Anyway, what is the popular conception of Keynesianism? I don't know if your talking about conception among citizenry or economists but I'll listen to your explanation of the popular conception of either.


Your posts inspired some curiosity, if you'll indulge me. Do you think the addition of Keynes' prescriptions to the existing recovery measures corrected the economy despite them or in cooperation with them?

Also, do you consider the duration of Kennedy-Johnson administration good times, bad times, or both?
Those policies failed because of deficit spending during good times, and they never cooled there spending. Keynes said to cool spending when the economy recovers, and pay off the debt in good times.


*one more if you will: what exactly were the dates of tenure of legitimate Keynesianism is America as you see it?

I would be very interested to hear Potemkin weigh in on the practice of Keynesianism in America. For one because he is not an American and may add some objectivity, and also because he has undoubtedly examined the adaptation of economic theories vs the pure concepts themselves.
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13335011
I tried to simplify my argument. Tell me where I went wrong.

For this exercise I’ll compare what Keynes has said to what Hamilton has said. Hamilton was our mercantilist. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian. Roosevelt was a Hamiltonian. Hamilton has is own statue at the Treasury with Daniel Webster’s commentary: "He touched the dead corpse of the public credit, and it sprung upon its feet."

Commonalities in Keynes’ and Hamiltons’ prescriptions

Bond financing
Protectionism
Deficit spending
Interest rate cuts
Infrastructural investment

A notable difference would be an emphasis on preferred investment in business or investment in basic research, public health and education. The fact is, in America, the investment in the latter often enough equaled investment in the former. Of course investment in either would not have been possible without Hamiltonian efforts.


http://internationalrelationstheory.goo ... tilism.htm
The Great Depression influenced American government to return to neo-mercantilism imposing high protectionist tariffs and suspending private ownership of gold. Finally, during the New Deal, the currency was devalued based on the government’s new neo-mercantilist leaning..


Keynes on NRA:

http://newdeal.feri.org/misc/keynes2.htm
I do not mean to impugn the social justice and social expediency of the redistribution of incomes aimed at by N.I.R.A. and by the various schemes for agricultural restriction. The latter, in particular, I should strongly support in principle. But too much emphasis on the remedial value of a higher price-level as an object in itself may lead to serious misapprehension as to the part which prices can play in the technique of recovery. The stimulation of output by increasing aggregate purchasing power is the right way to get prices up; and not the other way round.

Not altogether opposed. Perhaps more concerned with the chronology of implementation.

Keynes on national self sufficiency:

“I sympathise, therefore, with those who would minimise, rather than with those who would maximise, economic entanglement between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel - these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national.” Keynes


Keynes and Hamilton on Gold just for fun:

https://www.sarcajc.com/Keynes_on_Gold-1913.html
…India, as we all know, already wastes far too high a proportion of her resources un the needless accumulation of the precious metals. The government ought not to encourage in the slightest degree this ingrained fondness for handling hard gold. By the elimination of both precious metals, to the utmost extent that the public opinion will permit, from amongst the hoards and the circulation of the country, they ought to counteract an uncivilized and wasteful habit.


http://american_almanac.tripod.com/hambank.htm
First. The augmentation of the active or productive capital of a country. Gold and Silver, when they are employed merely as the instruments of exchange and alienation, have been not improperly denominated dead Stock; but when deposited in Banks, to become the basis of a paper circulation, which takes their character and place, as the signs or representatives of value, they then acquire life, or, in other words, an active and productive quality.... It is evident, for instance, that the money which a merchant keeps in his chest, waiting for a favourable opportunity to employ it, produces nothing, 'till that opportunity arrives. But if instead of locking it up in this manner, he either deposits it in a Bank, or invests it in the Stock of a Bank, it yields a profit, during the interval.... His money thus deposited or invested, is a fund, upon which himself and others can borrow to a much larger amount. It is a well established fact, that Banks in good credit can circulate a far greater sum, than the actual quantum of their capital in Gold and Silver....


Of course Hamilton and Keynes disagreed on raising taxes. Although upon Lyndon Johnson’s decision to wage war without a tax increase his Keynesian Advisor Walter Heller did resign. I have the read that the War on Poverty was his proposal. I don’t know, but I would guess it was the part of Great Society least prone to funneling money to private interests. My understanding is that other of Kennedy's Keynesian advisors taught him that the size of the deficit didn't matter.

So I'd say the reign of Keynesianism, in the loosest sense, in America was from FDR to Johnson. Maybe in the strictest is was with Truman. Funneling revenues to private firms never ceased, however. We are a Hamiltonian nation, Keynesianism is and was always derivative of and subordinate to that in practice. Keynesianism was a justification for Hamiltonian progression. Now neo-Keynesianism is.

The end.

@Pants-of-dog No one has ever said anything abou[…]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

Honestly I think you should give up on hoping to […]

I don't think a multiracial society can function[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Then why do Mexicans keep going to USA? IIRC, […]