John Maynard Keynes developed his theories in the 1930s.His standard work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” dates back to 1936. In the 1930s, the American economy was in deep recession.Unemployment was high (25%). The mass of people was impoverished, the real estate market illiquid. Demand had to be generated so that more was consumed, more produced and prosperity increased.
The main instruments are government investment and employment programmes, central bank management of the money supply and interest rate.From this time comes the bonmot of a president: you can also have holes shoveled and poured back, only for workers to get wages and money into consumption.At first glance, one might think that it is a centralized benevolent welfare system of the state.That is not the case. The role of the Federal Reserve has been a private law feature since its inception in 1913 and represents special interests in the distribution of monetary resources. Capital should be used as efficiently and profitably as possible for its owners. Keynes focused on sensitivities in the United States at the time.The US was an isolationist policy and was only in the early stages of globalist links as we know it today.
Keynes’s concept led to an economic upswing.Major infrastructure projects such as dams and the interstate highway project were realized.This phase of infrastructure projects ended with the entry of the United States into World War II and resulted in industrial weapons production and military organization. The beginnings of the much-quoted military-industrial complex arose.This continued with the Korean War in the 1950s and the military-industrial construction of Western Europe as a counterpart to the Eastern Bloc.
In this respect, Keyne’s intellectual basis was a concept of success of modern expansive capitalism from the 1930s to the 1950s.However, its models such as supply and demand, efficiency and elasticity do not correspond to the reality of economic and social life. These models, represented in the two axes x and y, are too abstract. There were no computers at the time. Only one value, such as price or supply quantity, could be varied in the models at a time. All other values were assumed to be constant. The model premise “ceteris paribus” applied: everything else remains the same. Thus, Keynes’s models cannot reflect the complexity of the economy and society.
Keynes was historically suited to the time of the centralist and dirigiste policies mentioned above.Today’s globalist world is linked by interdependencies.The information society makes purchasing decisions every nanosecond.Customers’ preferences are subject to sharp abrupt trend changes. Different geographical spaces, cultures and claims to power meet controversially.
Keynes, however, is not “dead.”His concepts of centralised control live in the omnipotence thinking that one can influence everything from an instance with money, interest and resource management dominantly.This is true of the reality of the globalised world.It cannot be implemented as intended, because the consequences are counterproductive.Consider environmental issues, ongoing wars without peace of conflict, and permanent confrontation of the world’s great players on the world’s power stage.
Keynes remains deeply entrenched in the thinking and feeling of key players when it comes to power, greed, and the use of money to increase power and the appropriation of resources. This is not even meant politically.It applies equally to the US, Russia, China and the EU. Keynes reflects the human side of economics from those who possess power and money.So Keynes has hit the nerves of economic and political elites, whatever the elites may be.Or, say, global dominant decision-makers, rather than straining the notion of elites.Keynes speaks her language.He symbolized, so to speak, the “stall smell” of the money store, as in the figure of Uncle Dagobert by Walt Disney.
Keynes is as topical as ever. That is my personal opinion from an economic point of view.What must be good or bad and changeable is a question of general social evaluation 鈥?if it can be conducted democratically 鈥?and its pragmatically achievable implementation possibilities. If one wanted to do it differently from “Keynes”, the question would be whether the “other” leads to better results.And that is where the questions of redistribution of money, the sharing and containment of power, and cooperation rather than confrontation begin to arise. Personally, I see this as a steady flow of events with no short-term potential for change, because the anchoring of power, greed, and possessions are fundamental human characteristics.
In conclusion to the initial question, I believe that Keynes, with its basic components, lives on in the globalist economy. Whether this is “good” or “destructive” involves a further analysis according to the desire for social change, domination and subordination and the possibilities for realisation of possible new options.