Keynesianism and the Glorification of Destruction

As the entire East Coast was still reeling from the melodramatic earthquake which struck in Mineral, Virginia and was felt for hundreds of  miles, the ivory-towered academic elite were already inking their quills to make the next enlightened statement demonstrating their own glorious economic wisdom.

This was the same mantra played out after the unfortunate earthquake and tsunami hit Japan in March of 2011. Business economists were flooding televisions and writing hundreds of newspapers editorials explaining how great the destruction of Japan would end up panning out for the struggling economy. This is no joke. The main arguments proudly claimed that “despite the major tragedy, the current disaster in Japan will actually boost the growth of Japan’s GDP and contribute to growth in the global economy as well”. Not to mention the 10,000 lives lost, billions of dollars in property damage, and years of painful rebuilding.

Herein lies one essential criticism of the Keynesian economic school of thought, one that normally glorifies mass destruction by either nature or war. The counterargument holds that war and natural disasters are ultimately destructive to production, completely eliminating resources and having to commit future capital to the rebuilding of the most basic necessities. The Keynesian school of thought is the same which pioneered the New Deal in the Second World War, continues the American mixed economy so heavily dependent upon government subsidies today, and continually finds resonance within the hallways of mainstream economic academia.


This is the same pattern of thinking which motivates supposed “scientists” of economics to propose that governments around the world “fake an alien invasion” so that “production can be engineered” and an economic slump can be erased in less than 18 months:

The economic fallacies presented by the so-called “academic elites” of today cannot all be addressed in this singular article, but the tools for understanding true, sound economics are available to any and all who seek to detach themselves from this level of pseudo-reality. I can only hope individuals are motivated more by true economic analysis than that which they constantly receive from economic reporters and journalists of the current age.

Try Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson for a start.

Advertisements

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s