Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian School

I wanted to see which you people supported. I also posted this so several forums. Basically if you do not know what these two economic theories are I got some info from online for you:

Keynesian Economics

Founder: John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)

Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment. A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that, in some situations, no strong automatic mechanism moves output and employment towards full employment levels. This conclusion conflicts with economic approaches that assume a strong general tendency towards equilibrium. In the 'neoclassical synthesis', which combines Keynesian macro concepts with a micro foundation, the conditions of general equilibrium allow for price adjustment to eventually achieve this goal. More broadly, Keynes saw his theory as a general theory, in which utilization of resources could be high or low, whereas previous economics focused on the particular case of full utilization.

Austrian School

Founder: Eugen Böhm von Bawerk (1851-1914)

Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrians argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology. Additionally, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible. They argue that modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze and test economic theory argue that economists have developed numerous experiments that elicit useful information about individual preferences. Austrian contributions to mainstream economic thought include involvement in the development of marginalism and the subjective theory of value on which it is based, as well as contributions to the economic calculation debate. From the middle of the 20th century onwards, the Austrian school has been considered outside the mainstream of economic thought. Its reputation rose in the mid-1970s, after Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics. According to Austrian School economist Peter J. Boettke, the position of the Austrian School within the economics profession has changed several times from mainstream to heterodox.

So which economic theory do you like better?

I also posted a poll that is on the several forums: http://poll.pollcode.com/vf7c

First off, if you were asking the preferable economic model, then you probably should have put up a poll in the OP.

Keynesian Economics seems to make sense and the Austrian Schools seems just to be complaining about the current method.
However, if I am reading this right, the Austrian school would include 'consumer confidence' under their model and Keynesian Economics does not consider it as much, focusing instead on the data and numerical manipulation of the market, as one would in a half-correct economic simulator game.
Consumer confidence is extremely important in a Capitalist market. Without it, the system collapses down to about the base level.

Therefore, I would assert that neither is preferable on their own and both can be seen to have important features. Following one and wholly ignoring the other is folly.

NOTE: I require some clarification on Austrian School Economics.

Yeah, but generally the poll has already been posted to many forums and I just started it, but I will remember your advice next time.

Anarchist.

It sounds like you do not support Keynes or the Austrians.

I lean more towards Keynesian economics.

Meh Keynes has an observation vaguely based on a good analysis but he doesnt really acnowledge the structural tendency of capitalist economies to concentrate capital with the upper class, thus resulting in overproduction. Instead of that he just thinks that this tendency can be solved with reformist redistribution, which although often has a short term relative succes it amounts to trying to swim upstream and doesnt actually solves basic funtions of a capitalist economy.

And well the austrians...didnt they just base their analysis on logical reasoning instead of on actual research?

I've always been a supporter of the Austrian School, at least in the current system. An ideal society or government would be technocratic, which some could argue is a form of socialism.

Socialism is a product of what Rand called "The Mystics of Muscle", It deifies manual labor as the highest virtue one could achieve and demands all members of society both assimilate into the working class and serve said working class without any regard to their own personal interest or desires.
Socialism is about a technocratic as a theocracy.

Socialism can broadly be described as where the workplaces are owned by their respective workers in a common fashion.

This in no way contradicts what in posted.

Although it isn't properly socialist, Technocracy does aim for equal distribution. I guess it can't really be placed on the political spectrum.

It's not about equal distribution, it's about mass distribution.

Everybody would have equal access. You know what I mean.

Of course, just understand that the intended purpose of said equal access is a matter of maximizing convenience and service. Not to promote some arbitrary concept of fairness.

It's always baffled me that people consider me to be some kind of ardent free marketeer and radical libertarian. I've always expressed support for Keynesian policy. I guess it goes to show how ridiculously warped the worldview of the site is.

So, you're a Leninist?

Maybe you should have spent less time arguing with commies and more time promoting spending?