Somethings to make clear:

Keynesian Economics in a nut-shell: The public sector should grow as the private shrinks and viceversa.

Austrian Economics in a nut-shell: Free market economics basicly. The term was coined because during the early 20th century, the Austrian economy had the least government involvement in the world. Today not so much.

Socialism vs Communism: Socialism is the final stage before Communism, when the government takes total control of all privat sectors. Do not mistake the Soviet Union for a communist state, it was Dictorial Socialist state. True communism is an agrigarian culture with no government at all, where every one works for the common goal.

Capitalism vs Free Market vs Command Economy: Most people confuse the term Capitalism for a from of government or economy. Capitalism is the use of capitol, everything from money to machines needed to produce goods. This means even true communism is capitalist in nature since you need capital to produce crops. The US is a good example of free market economics. The Soviet Union is a good example of a Command Economy.



Now, let us discus.

Most of the developed world uses some form of Keynesian economics, as Libertarian thought (Including the Austrian School) have rendered themselves a giant joke. The notion that you can obtain more freedom in a world on the balance between corporate and government power by the near elimination of government is just as insane as those who would expand the state to similar heights.

Let's also not forget the Austrian school was primarily discredited by other economists due to their lack of mathematically supported theories, in addition to a lack of proper logic based thought and their complete disregard for both the historical record (they are considered famously laughable revisionists by most historians) and human psychology.

Their philosophy is also weak sauce and they seem to hate Immanuel Kant as a rule, which is just silly.

I must agree with you. The only way a totaly free market could work correctly was if every consumer was knowledgable about every aspect on the goods they were consuming. To be frank, the average consumer is not that smart or doesn't care enough.

Now I must point out to you that you are mixing up Keynesian economics with government regulations. I do believe that government regulations are needed to keep large corperations in check, but in times of hardship the government should shrink, not grow, to cut the tax burden. If you look back to history, every time the tax on the weathiest goes up, economic harships increase. The Great Depresion and the Carter Administration are good examples of this.

You are wrong and I have charts to prove you wrong, my friend. In fact, it is the opposite, the rich get richer when tax rates on the highest drop, and in fact, a republican, Tricky Dick himself, ruled a much higher the highest peak than Obama. (Post Great Society's tax raises to pay for its programs) and the Rich weren't owning an absurd percent of a societies wealth. Then again I feel when the rich own too much of a society it encourages revolution and social unrest.

Also you can't be a Keynesian economist and not governments intervening, it would be like being a Christian without believing in Jesus in any shape or form. The two are core partners.

(I must say you post is not quite clear on what your saying, and I'm not sure where you stand, Ryand)

So your saying that when the rich get tax cuts they get richer, that's common sense. Now my guess is that they get richer because they take the extra cash and reinvest it into their buisnesses and when you invest more money into a sucsessful buisness more jobs and more wealth are created. So we want the rich to get richer.

Keynsian economics does required government regulations, but government regulations are not keynsian economics. Keynsian economics believes that the government should grow larger, more civil servants and what not, when the private sector shrinks. Now the problem with this idea is that the government can NOT creat wealth, and in no way could it pay for it's self. Since it is a fact the government can not create wealth, when the government grows it requires one of three things needed to pay for the increase in size. One, sell bonds and take out loans;two, print more money; three, raise taxes. Now any one who has a credit card or a loan on their home can tell you, in the long run it will end up costing you more than just paying for something with cash on hand. Printing money causes inflation, and it ties into the loan part considering that if your lender relizes your money is no good when you go to pay off you loan, he's not going to loan to you anymore. Now, when it comes to raising taxes, it's the lesser of the three evils just listed, but when your doing all three it's the final nail in the coffin, specialy since the rich know how to put their wealth in places where the government can't reach, which forces the taxes to go farther down the wealth spectrum to the middle class.

Now to another point, the increase in government power in anyway is not desirable. Absolute power corrupts absolutly. This slipperly slope of government is best evident in the continues increas in salary for Congress. Not once that I'm aware of has Congress ever decreased their salaries. Also history points to this as well, I hope you are all aware of the government cycle, if not here is a brief overview. Every government tends toward tyranny, untill they reach a point where they are authoritarian and oppressive enough that a revolution over throws said government and then the country desends into anarchy or if every thing goes right, a new democratic(or republic) government takes place of the former, and then the cycle repeats it's self. The only way to slow it down is to fight goverment increase, for the people to flex their political might and say no to the increase in government power and size.

The government can create wealth, see the classic railroads, by giving out the land it owned to tycoons, it created fortunes for the men. In fact, the Government has many more options, including sell its assets (Reminder that the US Government is the largest landowner in America), sell rights to things it owns (See NY giving exclusive contracts for people to use the I Love New York campaign, for example, and all the options that the private sector can do. You forget that the Government is an economic entity, not some sort of Bizarre, Eastern style God which is highly limited. Please stop posting basic talking points which even a moment of Google use can destroy. If you want to go back, Government Charters are the classical example of government based wealth creation.

In fact, thanks to new international Anti Terrorism and International Anti Criminal Laws, the places to hide money are shrinking, a side effect of international pressure and the fact that the world is growing closer and closer together. I don't get why people complain about giant government, then browse the GOVERNMENT FUNDED INTERNET, or use the BIG GOVERNMENT INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM (another proof of government created wealth, between the contracts to repair the roads and the increased value thanks to commerce going over them, I have proven you wrong, again.

Taking what YOU said, the government didn't create wealth, the tycoons did, it was the tycoons who built the on the land given to them, it was the Rockefellers who built the multi-million dollar empires of industry, not the government.

Also, every thing you have just listed ended up costing the tax payers at first and by no means where budget neutral. The internet, a network for scientists to share data (which was first used as a communications net work for the military) cost money that was not earned while the government was paying for it, it wasn't until the private sector was involved did the internet make money. The interstate system, an infrastructure project to allow the military fast transit across the nation, and the land the government is selling off now cost money to developed it or preserve it, it cost money.

Now, I want you to cite me a government project that not only paid for it self, but ended up making a profit, I don’t' want wikipedia nor google sources, some place that a University professor would say is reliable, the burden of proof is on you my friend.

Most parkland is kept wild because it costs money to do anything with it (see public lands in the west), so its cheaper to keep it free and have the states police it. and http://www.bts.gov/publications/transpo ... entire.pdf this PDF is from the government, it is a decent enough source unless .gov sites are suddenly invalid, proof of Amtrack's Northeastern Corridor making money or should I cite GPS, every damn toll bridge http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/ (read through it or should I paste sources I'm pretty sure a goverment run webstite is a good source since all) I could go on. Hell http://www.conrail.com/history.htm look at conrail made by the goverment (fits your definition pretty easy since I quote:

The federal government, recognizing the national economic importance of the six railroads, responded by creating Conrail and appropriating the funds needed to rebuild tracks, locomotives and freight cars. While Conrail succeeded in rebuilding the railroad, the problem of severe economic regulation remained. With the passage of the Staggers Act in 1980, many of these constraints were loosened, giving railroads more freedom to compete with trucks. Later, other legislation transferred the burden of operating money-losing commuter rail service from Conrail to state agencies. In the 1970s, Congress created Amtrak to take over intercity passenger service from the nation's freight railroads.

It was made by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and given GOVERNMENT MONEY, and in 1981 it made its first profit. With Conrail alone I have proved A the government can create wealth (the rails were there, just needed a bit of Government pushing, and it still exists today, I can hear the trains from several miles away)

Okay, I can concede the point that in some cases governments can create wealth, I'm not closed minded, though your snippyness doesn't help. I would like to point that all of these projects are infrastructure projects. which I'm not against since some of these projects can cost so much that no one private entity could pay for it, can you give me one that is not related to infrastructure?

I believe keynesian economics will no longer work today. The government can create infrastructures, but it still our money. And we have a lot of debts today, if the government tries to build so many infrastructures, it will eventually boil down to us. Our taxes will increase and we will suffer. To revive an economy during a downturn, Keynesian economics requires that government must spend when customers will not. The current British govt thinks otherwise. Austerity measures are being enacted in Britain that would leave John Maynard Keynes dismayed about the leadership of his native land. The rejection of Keynesian financial aspects in Britain and a United States economy slow to respond to stimulus has conservatives within the United States celebrating the demise of Keynes' philosophy.