From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 10:02:22 MDT
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:39:03AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> one owns, any effort to remold economies into "preferred"
> directions is harmful. The sad story of what happens when
Do you believe there are any malignant distributions of property? Such as one
where one person owns all the land? Or would redistribution there still be a
violation of the sacred rights of property?
> Keynesianism, which brought us such novel phenomena as stagflation,
> and has now (one hopes) been completely discredited, perhaps did have
It is my understanding that a mix of Keynesianism and monetarism is how
economies are run today. The claims of each theory that they could give a
desired growth rate, or a desired employment rate, are discredited. But
their analyses of economic failure modes stand. So we control inflation with
the money supply and try to avoid Keynesian liquidity traps. The US didn't
really pop out of the Depression until the Keynesian-by-accident spending
policies of WWII. Bush's talk about stimulating the economy with a tax cut is
basically Keynesian -- get the gov't to pump in more money than it's taking
out, to increase demand, to bring back into play idle labor and capital. (If
there is no idle labor and capital then you'll just get inflation.)
> individual, whereas in business and national life a lot really is
> accomplished (amazingly) by much longer term incentives.
Can you elaborate or support that?
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 10:10:14 MDT