Hello, my question is: is neoliberalism or was Keynesianism better for the global South? Or are the equally bad?

A few questions or bundles of questions:

• How do we determine or judge whether Keynesianism or neoliberalism is / was a better system for those in the South?
• Was Keynesianism (relative to neoliberalism) only beneficial for Western countries? Did the establishment of the welfare system in the West, which was largely predicated on the exploitation of the South, cancel out the benefits of Keynesianism for those in the South? Or, did the South still experience some benefits of Keynesianism relative to liberalism (pre and post Keynesianism)?
• To what degree were welfare states established in the South under Keynesianism?
• To what extent should political issues (coups, proxy wars, colonialism, etc.) when considering Keynesianism as a political economic system?

Would a few ways of determining which system was better be:

1. The degree of corporate profits accumulated under each system (as this would be one method of determining the exploitation occurring) ?
2. The degree to which the welfare state is established (as this could determine some level of societal well-being) ?
3. The degree to which each system enables the growth of domestic industry (as the growth of domestic industry combats foreign imperialism) ?
4. The degree of productive capitalism vs speculative / financial capitalism ?

Thanks for the thoughts / input!

Title. If you don't know, Keynesianism is the idea that high wages lead to greater spending and are thus in the interest of capital. This is evidentially wrong, as capitalists cut wages all the time and they profit from it, but I don't know why.

edit: why did i say neo Keynesianism twice

This might be a bit of a loaded post but I wanted ask if any of you could clarity positions of these 4 theories (that being Austrian Economics, NNS, Monetarism and Keynesianism as separate from NNS)

I understand the basics of Monetarism, Keynesianism and Austrian economics but I've been struggling to truly comprehend why for example Keynesians think of the economy as a cycle.

Or why Monetarists favor central banking and monetary supply control by the government.

I've been also wonder why NNS folks think that there can't be no perfect competition nor can we ever reach nowhere near the equilibrium.

When suggesting Austrian approaches to economics to non-Austrians, it always seems like the positions are backwards and too idealistic, I'd love to know if there's a different approach.

I've watched and read a couple of videos and articles about Austrian economics and comparisons to other theories and I've been sort of questioning their objectivity, I really wanna understand NNS, Monetarism and so on before taking a solid position.

Can you guys help out a bit?

I'm well aware that most economists do not self identify themselves as belonging to any one particular "school of thought" when it comes to macroeconomics, although most of mainstream economics is still very much rooted in neoclassical econ, although that is very much changing now with a focus on empiricism.

However, if someone could give me a general idea of what the main tenets or streams of investigation with the Post-Keynesianism. I'm aware that there is very much a focus on aggregate demand and a line of thinking that the objective of full employment is unachievable without some sort of state intervention, and there is also a preoccupation with financial markets, regulation of said markets, so that it mitigates tendencies of financial based crashes within the economy. However, that is about it.

Marx has Das Kapital, Smith has The Wealth of Nations, what is the book for Keynesian economics? Thanks.

I'm looking for some scientific market anarchist critique of Keynesianism.

Since I'll have to do a lecture on Keynesianism I wanted to bring in a leftist critique of it, especially not a Marxist critique. I do need scientific sources though, as personal opinions are probably not viable sources.

Gonna have a sticky up here for newcommers to answer some common questions I've been asked here and elsewhere. Eventually I will set up an exhaustive wiki with additional resources, but for now just wanted to get some basic definitions established. This post will not be exhaustive and will only cover the broad strokes.

What is Post-Keynesianism?

Post-Keynesianism is a broad intellectual movement of thinkers and economists influenced by the works of John Maynard Keynes, that specifically breaks from the neoclassical synthesis championed by self styled "New Keynesians" (i.e. Krugman, Summers, Makiw, Stiglitz, Yellen, and Taylor) namely, breaking from their focus on micro phenomenon and emphasizing Keynes's more radical proposals: namely the socialization of finance and understanding growth through the lens of aggregate demand and inflation through the lens of changes in the real economy (rather than primarily through the lens of monetary and fiscal policy as mainstream economists do)

To learn more about the Post-Keynesian world view and how it differs from mainstream econ, read

"The Post-Keynesian Worldview in 5 Principles" by Alex Williams

What is MMT?

MMT or "Modern Monetary Theory" is, at the most basic level, a view of monetary and fiscal policy from a Post-Keynesian perspective. The central premise is that the only real limitations on government spending is inflation, although excess money supply can lead to inflation, inflationary pressure really only occurs when there are changes or disruptions in the real economy (i.e. the shortage of in demand goods) Monetary sovereigns, meaning countries that borrow money in their own currency, do not need to worry about the debt or deficit. Counties that borrow money in foreign currency (or do not have monetary sovereignty as they are apart of a monetary union like EU member states) are the only countries that need to worry about deficit spending.

With this insight in mind, what are the implications for public policy? It means that there does not need to be a "pay for" for social services or infrastructure projects, unless there is reason to believe that this spending will lead to significant inflationary pressure, hurting people's purchasing power. Medicare for All, Green New Deal, and a littany of other social programs can be funded by public money and do not require VATs or other broad based taxes to "pay for them"

Here is the Wikipedia link to Social Credit to read up more about it, I'd like to hear either how wacky or interesting the ideas/analysis at least are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit

What's good and bad about it?

Anyone else annoyed by Rose twitter claiming this stimulus pack is proof socialism is what we need? It’s like they don’t even know what socialism is lmao, how is a massive Keynesian stimulus to the economy socialism? And they’re now saying things like “hmm so I guess we can pay for all these Bernie programs if we’re just able to magically make $2 trillion appear” like no that’s just not how this works it’s a one time thing not paying multiple trillion dollars each year for Bernie programs that won’t even work. It’s frustrating that any government action is seen as socialism to a lot of people. Stimulus packs are just proof that government regulated capitalism is what we need, not a torching of the entire system. Plus they’re acting like Bernie got the unemployment benefits in when he didn’t even vote on the bill 😂. And dear lord can they stop acting like giving corporations money is a bad thing when we need them to help keep our economy afloat lol

Do you happen to have some scientific market anarchist critiques of Keynesianism? I just need some sources for a lecture I'll be holding on Keynesianism and I'd like to include some uncommon criticism of it, from the left, hence the market anarchist one.

Personal note: I have plenty of criticism of Keynesianism myself, it's just that I need some scientific sources.