> Secondly, before Keynesian economics recessions and depressions occurred much more frequently in the U.S. The data seems to clearly point to at least some level of success of Keynesian economics.
Having some recessions and depressions are healthy. There needs to be a mechanism to punish people who persist in allocating capital in wealth-destroying ways.
The US has real problems with capital allocation. All the manufacturing capital seemed to be invested and created in Asia and there is a retirement crisis because a generation didn't prepare appropriately for old age. There isn't a way to run a counterfactual, but the US has been on the warpath to protect people from having to recognise that they keep giving their money to charlatans. That means it all gets wasted, instead of just some of it being wasted.
>a generation didn't prepare appropriately for old age
This will have a snowball effect because their children will need to support them and save less for their own retirement, then their children's children and so on.
In all fairness, it's tough for most people to save with massive recessions/depressions with mass layoffs every 10 years and near zero interest rates on savings accounts for 20+ years now. Add to that wage pressure from offshoring and things like NAFTA and 2-3% regular inflation targets.
Also, the government won't keep social security payments up with inflation and they tax it. Just more ways to keep the people down. If only we spent the $34T we now have in debt since the 80s on something less frivolous.
> There needs to be a mechanism to punish people who persist in allocating capital in wealth-destroying ways.
But the cost of recessions, especially pre-Keynsian ones, falls most heavily on workers?
> but the US has been on the warpath to protect people from having to recognise that they keep giving their money to charlatans
They keep electing them. There's a huge popular demand for charlatans backed up by the charlatan news channel. It's probably going to result in a Liz Truss level financial disaster at some point.
> But the cost of recessions, especially pre-Keynsian ones, falls most heavily on workers?
I dunno, does it? Why do you think that? Who is the cost of bad capital allocation going to fall on? I'm not expecting any millionaires to go hungry or do without in their old age, or lack housing and goods in their youth. The people eating the brunt of it are workers. They can't save money.
Having some recessions and depressions are healthy. There needs to be a mechanism to punish people who persist in allocating capital in wealth-destroying ways.
The US has real problems with capital allocation. All the manufacturing capital seemed to be invested and created in Asia and there is a retirement crisis because a generation didn't prepare appropriately for old age. There isn't a way to run a counterfactual, but the US has been on the warpath to protect people from having to recognise that they keep giving their money to charlatans. That means it all gets wasted, instead of just some of it being wasted.