From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 14:23:44 MDT
Damien wrote:
> 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.)
### Isn't Keynesianism totally discredited? That is widely embraced by
politicians of all stripes is not a good feature, merely a consequence of
its compatiblity with the natural urges of all politicians - to grab more
power and money.
The fiasco of the New Deal, artificially produced business cycles caused by
the Federal banking system, and recurrent depressions, for all the seventy
years that Keynesianism has been with us, should be enough of a proof that
the Keynesian analysis of economic failure is wrong, as are its recipes for
improvement.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 11:29:03 MDT