At 03:21 PM 1/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>The fact that both of these are regressive doesn't automatically make
>>them anti- or un-Keynesian, since the US 1964 tax cut was also
>>regressive, as were the various investment tax credits that have been
>>promoted by self-styled Keynesians.
>
>Why are ITCs un-Keynesian? JMK himself was interested in stimulating
>investment, and presumably raising the after-tax return of capital
>expenditures should encourage investment. (Whether it actually does or not
>is another issue.)
I wasn't saying that ITCs were un- or anti-K but rather that most people
see them as regressive. But this suggests an important point: just because
something is Keynesian doesn't say it's good, while being non- or anti-K
doesn't automatically make something bad. Too often when people say "George
W's tax cut isn't Keynesian," that's seen as a critique. But isn't the
_real_ critique that it's a sop to the rich? As Doug notes, it's quite
possible that Keynes himself liked sops to the rich if they worked to help
the economy.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
