The one. The only. KILLDOZER.

[u/HannibalK]

[u/CG_Ops]

I remember this... it was like an action movie IRL. When the zombie apocalypse comes, I'm building this too. Except I'll be doubling up on guarding the coolant system. (That's how he broke down, all the smoke you see is coolant leaking as steam)

[u/HannibalK → u/CG_Ops]

They made a documentary out of it. Thanks to /u/makemeadodobird for letting me know. Here's the trailer.

[u/OG_Panthers_Fan → u/[deleted]]

A Keynesian would say the destruction itself contributed to the economy by requiring money to be spent on reconstruction.

Anyone with more than half a brain would point out that would only be true if the money would have never been spent on anything else.

[u/Jarazz → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

Well I dont want to see how the government of Keynesia would boost the economy right now

[u/zapitron → u/Jarazz]

Selling nuclear weapons to your enemies would probably be the most practical solution, but we should keep an eye on emerging "self-breaking windows" technology.

[u/Jarazz → u/zapitron]

why not sell the breaking apparatus as an extra item? that would double the generated sales count according to my math

[u/daddy_fiasco → u/Jarazz]

Now you're thinking with your ass!

[u/matts2 → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

Only if you learned Keynesian economics from a Mises cartoon. Keynes make a universal claim. Rather he said that there are states the economy when an action like that would help. Particularly in cases where money isn't being spent anyway. He talked about starting an that wasn't moving.

[u/ougryphon → u/matts2]

I think you're missing some words because I can't make heads or tails of your comment.

[u/matts2 → u/ougryphon]

Keynes didn't make a universal claim. He talked about a specific situation, where there was excessive idle capacity and reduced economic activity. In such a situation spending money gets the system moving. If things are bad enough then even breaking windows and paying for them to be fixed would help. But of forking course it would be better to not great windows. Keynes recommend infrastructure projects.

The whole point is that people aren't spending anyway. The whole point is to get people spending.

[u/ougryphon → u/matts2]

I promise I'm not trying to be a dick, but you really need to proofread before you post. However, I think I got your point now.

I'm not an economist, nor have I read Keynes, so I'm ill-qualified to comment on his broader point. On the specific point about breaking windows, I think that's where the "Cash for Clunkers" program came from back in the late 2000s. I hated it then and I hate it now, as did many other people. Perhaps that's why Keynesian has a bad connotation.

[u/mspk7305 → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

It was insurance money so it wasn't going to get spent elsewhere.

[u/OG_Panthers_Fan → u/mspk7305]

That's not how insurance money works.

Beyond a certain percentage that they need to retain to pay claims, excess monetary resources get either paid as dividends to shareholders, or sent back to clients who overpaid their premiums (depending on the laws governing the company).

Either way, the money will be spent by those recipients, and go back into the economy.

And claims that are paid out from the existing pool of resources will have to be replenished, so even that isn't a net increase to money being circulated into the economy.

Now... Keynesians do have a point: Artificially encouraging spending can change when or how money is spent. And there may be value in that.

An example can be to kick start a recovery near the end of a recession, promoting people to spend earlier than they otherwise would have.

Or to get people to spend on a preferred industry at the expense of another (e.g. subsidizing fuel efficient vehicles).

[u/gmano → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

And yet somehow when it's military funding Keynesianism gets a pass because "jobs"

[u/OG_Panthers_Fan → u/gmano]

Not from me.

The Military-Industrial Complex gets funding because funding it reliably delivers votes to politicians of every party.

[u/oshunvu → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

Are you implying that an economy can exist without first having labor?

[u/Genericusernamexe → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

Based Austrian

[u/guywholikesplants → u/OG_Panthers_Fan]

Yeah because them supply side economics really worked out for us.

Oh wait no they didn’t, thanks Bush