Thanks for the comment, Shane...
You seem to have forgotten that the Keynesian and [neo]classical
views are totally incompatible
I think you are correct, in the 1930s depression Keynes was faced precisely
with the problem of mobilising capital for employment-generating investment,
but, I would
Jim,
At this point, I don't think military Keynesianism is a big thing. It's
hardly enough to cancel out all the cut-backs by the states. But Iraq War II
may become a full-scale quagmire...
I saw figures suggesting military expenditure in the vicinity of 500 billion
(?) but that would be over a
The deficit habit
Bush's high-spend, low-tax strategy is thoroughly Keynesian. However, he
will be heading for trouble if he does not change course when the economy
picks up, writes Mark Tran
Wednesday August 27, 2003
The Guardian
There is a case for the Bush administration running up huge
: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Dubya and farcical Keynesianism
The deficit habit
Bush's high-spend, low-tax strategy is thoroughly Keynesian.
However, he
will be heading for trouble if he does
In these terms, the Bush program is an extremely inefficient investment
project. The money isn't going for investment projects. It's mostly going to
give money to the rich, which does not have as big an impact on demand. Or
its going to the military, which doesn't help the supply side of the
Jurriaan wrote:
As a Phd student, I really got the impression that really neoclassical
economic models boil down to a zero-sum trade-off between saving and
consumption, where saving is tacitly treated as automatically implying
investment. This is suggested by Keynes's formulas as well. Thus, what
Of course the rich could theoretically invest in expanding
production, but
then they would need a motivation to do so. What would
motivate them to
invest in cumulative production growth, in an economy running
at 75 percent
of installed productive capacity and relatively stagnant
