Jim Devine writes in response: "What I said is very standard Keynesian macroeconomics. For example, Mark Zandi, a GOP economist and Keynesian, made this point using empirical research. Krugman's introductory textbook reports his results. I haven't seen the phrase "fiscally inefficient" anywhere, but it makes sense as I define it. Most macroeconomists would use more down-to-earth language, saying that tax cuts (except for those benefiting lower-income folks) don't deliver as much "bang for the buck" as does increases in government purchases."
Presumably, you believe the "standard Keynesian macroeconomic" analysis is a correct analysis of how our capitalist economy operates. Fine. My question was whether you believe it is correct because you find the underlying assumptions compelling, and the underlying assumptions lead to necessary conclusions, or do you believe it is correct because, based upon hindsight empirical evidence, the Keynesian analysis provides the most compelling analysis of the data? You did not answer my question. I don't have Krugman's textbook, so I don't know what evidence he cites. (I do know Zandi is not a GOP economist, and I also know that Zandi, building Keynesian assumptions into his economic model, vastly overprojected the effect of the 2009 stimulus, so I don't know how good a source he is). David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
