The irony of it all: UK may be deathbed for Keynesian policy

[Unstable]

Originally Posted by summers73

Austrian economics supporter Michael Munger @ 1:10, political science chair at Duke.

You're not the first person to point out him particularly to me.

[tongpa-nyi]

Originally Posted by txgolfer130

Keynesian "policy" has not ruled the central banks for the last 30+ years...a "monetary" policy has been in effect, established and put forth by FRIEDMAN...not (neo)-KEYNES.

Indeed, the modern era of tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending on an unprecedented scale was ushered in by the hyper-supply-side-monetarist Ronald Reagan, hero of the Right. Even Clinton was a neo-liberal, much more conservative than a true Keynesian liberal.

What's next, is someone going to post a thread claiming that FDR caused the Great Depression with his Keynesian fiscal policies? Well... that wouldn't be a stretch from conservatives, there's been a lot of re-writing of the history of the Depression in recent years. It was only 40 years ago when a conservative economist admitted that "We are ALL Keynesians now."

Today? Keynes is as relevant as ever and, in spite of widespread acceptance of his core ideas by even conservative economists, there's an attempt to re-frame the debate so that the "winner-take-all" corporate plutocrats can hype the idea that the wealthy are the only deserving people in America and the rest of us, ala Reagan's trickle-down superstitions, can eat the crumbs that fall into the gutters of our vast blighted poor and working-class neighborhoods.

[GregW]

The hyper wealthy gamblers at the world's great casinos (stock exchanges) always get miffed when the Keynesians cut of the free money during a boom. However they cheer when the government bails them out during a crash. Keynesianism works better than the Freidman Fantasies for everyone but the addicted gamblers. I suggest they play with their own money and stay out of our business descisions.

[newonecoming]

Originally Posted by bluecoller-eddie

The only proper way to fight a lack of demand is to cut taxes for the very rich, the large
corporations, and the super-smart, super-rich bankers.

Lets think this one through. Why are the rich, rich? Because they don't like to spend money, they like to invest it, that is to get there money back with interest. So what happens when you cut the taxes on the rich? “They” loan their money to the poor so that the poor can consume stuff. “They” don't like to spend their money. The lack of demand is a function of a lack of ability to borrow money. Also the biggest source of credit has dried up. http://boombustblog.com/Reggie-Middleton/1320-BoomBust-Bank-Research-Should-Really-Start-to-Look-Interesting.html “Practically all of the big and regional banks have purposefully contracted their loan portfolios and lending activities to curtail risk.” This isn't the quote I was looking for but it is close. The quote was that secularization of debt has stopped and that really puts the amount of money that can be loaned out way down.

Originally Posted by tongpa-nyi

Today? Keynes is as relevant as ever and, in spite of widespread acceptance of his core ideas by even conservative economists, there's an attempt to re-frame the debate so that the "winner-take-all" corporate plutocrats can hype the idea that the wealthy are the only deserving people in America and the rest of us, ala Reagan's trickle-down superstitions, can eat the crumbs that fall into the gutters of our vast blighted poor and working-class neighborhoods.

I've read a bit about what lead up to the great depression. They called the working class something very close to consumers in the roaring twenties. There was a big tax cut on the rich followed by a credit buying spree by the working class. The same thing happened after Reagan did his supply side stuff. And the consequences are the same now. http://longwavegroup.com/publications/special_editions/2009/pdf/091222_Dow1000.pdf