Time to return to Keynesian economics?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

It served Europe well from 1948 all the way to the 1970s. It provided full-employment, high economic growth, prosperity and high standards of living. It might be due for a return. I don't think monetarism or neoliberalism have provided anywhere near as impressive results. I consider them a failure in fact.

What do others think?

[applegrove]

1. We are in Keynsian economics! Why do you think they are spending

so much on War? It is Keynsian economics without the investment in American Human beings & their lives & opportunities. Cause that would just create more " Government Lovers & their hated programs".

Bush is going ahead with SS. Even the neocons are a little confused. And that is even more government spending. But he needs that infusion of cash into the market to keep the stock market going. ***hole!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. I disagree, though I appreciate your point

The primary goal of Keynesianism is to establish full-employment, which is of course little concern to the current US administration.

The US economy seems to be based upon a very corporatist oligarchy. The chief goal appears to be to establish profit and ever increasing profit for major corporations. The use of public funds is geared towards this (no-bid federal contracts, oil subsidies etc).

[applegrove]

3. Oh - yes, but Keynes also stated that government should spend

its way out of a depression which is what Bush did with this war. As to full employment.. important. But inflationary. But fine if you just slow down the market every few years to fight inflation. Then you can have fully-employment policies. And everyone..the rich..take a turn at not having everything go their way.

This WH is using less than full-employment to fight inflation.A subsidy on the Oil industry & the rich - who would have to face alternative fuel markets & mild recession if they didn't have the American worker a underemployment.

Reminds of of the adage - just what are the rich sacrificing in this time of war? Cause government is going into debt and Rich are not paying for it - with taxes or with less than underemployment for the rich...because their stock market keeps roaring. And Bush just keeps taking money out of government & thus future programs, and throwing it at the market. That is very, very Keynesian.

[sweetheart]

4. NHS spending is what's keeping the bird afloat

Huge and increasing subsidies to public employment is what has created
the "blairrite" economic miracle.

Unfortunately they are not very interventionist. I imagine, were keynes
himself in the drivers seat, there would have been some more direct
intervention after the dotcom collapse and 9/11 to compensate for
short term market changes. Instead, they left some of their
seedlings out in the storm and too few survived.

I increasingly see economics in terms of "growing" organic entities
much like plants in a garden. In that sense, a healthy growth crop
has been problematic for the blairrites. They can subsidize the
cambridge biotech corridor, but that is not really it. They don't
know how to keep their national interest business lines shielded that
they survive downturns... and britain is poorer for it.

Manufacturing is just ONE example of this, but computer science and
finance is another. I guess it's all back to the old central bank
model of managing liquidity and inflation, but there is indeed some
required sector functions in a "fast" bank, one that is able to adapt
to financing industry beyond terrorist attacks and like.

Imagine if some incident shut down the tube and road system of london
for a month. Businesses would be hard pressed, some to even survive
at all without quick and intelligent intervention.

So where the heck is keynes? Probably he's roasting on a turning
spit in his grave. :-)

[fedsron2us]

5. Keynesian economics is just capitalism's good cop

as opposed to the monetarist bad cop. Which ever one is in charge planet Earth still winds up getting beaten up.