It is scary but what is even scarier is that I agree with most of it.
However I am re-assured because he has never talked about the post-modern
nature of this or that,
or used language intelligible only to certain academic sub-cultures. This
means that it can't be correct.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 10:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:17315] RE: military keynesianism
> This is one of the scarier posts I've
> seen these past two weeks.
>
> As a close observer of the U.S. fiscal policy
> debates, I'd like to chime in that military
> spending is certainly in the cards, but no
> support for deficit spending is anywhere in
> sight. Don't forget that Bush's $40B comes
> out of a residual surplus of $150B, though
> obviously the latter number will be lower
> before the year is over.
>
> The shortcomings of Keynesian policy after
> 1973 may be overstated. Mark's argument here
> is a close echo of the conservative critique,
> against which there is counter-evidence. His
> claims for effective Keynesian 'fine-tuning'
> prior to 1973 are also debatable.
>
> I'll pass on the rest of the post, except to
> say I think it is worth reading. I do feel
> better because there are no nuclear plants
> near D.C.
>
> mbs
>
>
>
> The idea has been expressed that the wtc attack opens the door to
'military
> keynesianism'. . . .
>
