3 ms·
And this is different to QE in which way?
by dsfsdfd 11y ago
And this is different to QE in which way?
- ThomPete 11y agoThey aren't they are equally bad IMO unless you hit exactly at the right time and have money saved up from the good times. Which 99.9% of the times isn't the case.
- jerf 11y agoI like to distinguish between true-Keynesianism and political-Keynesianism, because they are very, very not the same thing. True Keynesianism, as you say, requires saving in the good times. Political-Keynesianism is trotted out only when times are bad and it's important to justify government intervention, but most of the people who were saying "Keynes Keynes Keynes" conveniently get quiet when it's time to pay down, until next time the economy is down again. It has often seemed to me that if you truly believe in Keynesianism, the fact that the economy is still in the crapper and has been for nearly a decade now really shouldn't surprise you, because we've really only used the bits of Keynesianism that happen to be convenient to our ruling class. If you don't do what Keynesianism tells you to do, you shouldn't expect the results it promises. (Again, I'm not really a big believer in either true- or political-Keynes, but still, one is a serious economic theory and the other is a convenient fiction.)
- ThomPete 11y agoI agree. My point is that neither keynesianism or austerity are actual solutions they both have a lot of unknown consequence because the context they are being used in is always changing.
- ptaipale 11y agoI was totally with you until this part: > we've really only used the bits of Keynesianism that happen to be convenient to our ruling class. where I would remind that it is not just about convenience to ruling class; much of it is about populism (paying out popular social transfers from state coffers, and not collect unpopular taxes) which is rewarded with votes.