When signs of economic weakness emerge, most economics experts are quick to embrace the ideas of John Maynard Keynes.

For most economists, the Keynesian remedy is always viewed with positive benefits — if in doubt just push more money and boost government spending to resolve any possible economic crisis.

In this way of thinking, economic activity is presented in terms of the circular flow of money. Spending by one individual becomes a part of the earnings of another individual, and spending by another individual becomes a part of the first individual’s earnings.

A growing number of economists are predicting the current economic boom will turn to bust in 2019. When recession does come, will economists simply call for more of the same — namely endless government spending?

After all, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, most economists told us the problem was the private sector was not spending and investing enough. So, we were told, government must step in and make up the difference with deficit spending to get “idle resources” — like capital goods and labor — back to work.

[Titus Gebel’s new book Free Private Cities: Making Governments Compete for You is now available in audio format on mises.org. Recently, we spoke with Mr. Gebel about some common objections to the idea of totally privatized cities existing side-by-side with states of today.

Recently, Mexican president Lopez Obrador officially declared the end of Mexico’s “neoliberal” model. For him, “neoliberalism” is the cause of many of Mexico’s social problems: from its corrupt political system, to the fact much of its population still lives below the poverty line as Mexican billionaires get richer.

Practically all critiques of markets are fundamentally ignorant and never address the actual issue. And they’ve been ignorant in the same way for about (at least?) a century. The so-called “market socialist” response to Mises’ claim that socialism (the common/public ownership of the means of production) is impossible illustrates this.

Trade is a key to a rising standard of living in society, especially for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

In every exchange, both sides benefit from their own individual subjective perspective. That’s because at the moment of the trade, they are both giving up something they value less for something they value more. Thus, trade enables people to improve their standard of living. The greater the ability of people to trade, the better off they are.