On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:21 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Shinzo Abe’s Japan is the most recent and ambitious experiment in Keynesian 
> pump-priming to reflate a stagnant economy. It’s been watched with keen 
> anticipation by politicians, bankers, and policymakers in Europe and 
> elsewhere frustrated by the failure of austerity to restore growth in their 
> own economies to pre-recession levels.
> 
> But now hope for a Japanese recovery is turning to disappointment, as its 
> economy once again begins to contract. While prices have risen and 
> unemployment has dropped, consumer spending and the domestic economy continue 
> to languish.
> 
> 
> A couple of questions:
>  - Is this really Keynesian or some kind of neo-monetarist policy?

As you well know, left of centre Keynesians support monetary easing and fiscal 
stimulus to revive a depressed capitalist economy, while conservative 
austerians are dedicated to tight money and a balanced budget. leaving the 
system to purge itself of its “excesses” by eliminating jobs, driving down 
labour costs, and liquidating insolvent firms. The Abe administration, however 
it may situate itself politically, was in the first camp when it campaigned 
for, and subsequently launched, a large stimulus package while simultaneously 
pressuring the BOJ to engage in a massive program of quantitative easing. 
Certainly the pantheon of leading Keynesians in the US thought the policy of 
the new government represented a turning point in Japan’s decades-long 
stagnation. See, for example, these encomia to the promise of Abenomics by 
Stiglitz, Keynes, and Dean Baker: 

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/opinion/krugman-japan-the-model.html?_r=0
        
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shinzo-abe-and-soaring-confidence-in-japan-by-joseph-e--stiglitz
        
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/26/japan-recovery-us-deficit-hawks


>  - If prices have risen and unemployment dropped, why is this policy 
> considered a failure??

Because wages and economic growth have not recovered. Most jobs being created 
belong to the poorly-paid “precariat”, and the economy contracted sharply 
during the past quarter.  

> Also, who is it considered a failure by?

The long article I posted will answer that question for you. 

> Aren’t we falling into the neoclassical trap where GDP growth is the only 
> metric of successful economic policy?

Who has made that claim? We can agree that the metric which matters most is the 
standard of living of the working class measured in the first instance by the 
availability of well-paying and secure jobs, but we can also agree that there 
is a correlation between that and economic growth.  

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to