The hypocrisy of fiscal economics:
When there is a crisis in the real economy, we are told austerity is needed to restore confidence & encourage growth - the neo-classical economic solution.
When there is a crisis in the financial serves sectors we are told what is needed is liquidity & stimulus to restore confidence & encourage growth - a (narrow form of) Keynsian response.
So its not so much Keynes has been rejected, but rather its only applicable when the rich are in trouble!
Comments
Displaying 0 of 7 comments
Chris ABRAHAM
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6
Apply cold to peasants and apply heat to Lords
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 1
Arttu Iivari
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 In the booming real economy austerity is rarely accomplished..
@iivariArttu
ha ha, if only the real economy was booming....
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
Alex P Roe
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 That austerity is required so frequently appears to suggest that austerity doesn’t work! Well, it does seem to keep the rich rich and even make many even richer!
@alexproe
so it is working, then; just not for us....
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
David S
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 the new version of privatise profits, nationalise losses?
@Pionir
pretty much....
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
yuhasz01
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 In US only corporate welfare and subsidies are tolerated.....Supportive Socialism for us, none for you private citizen...
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0
Bob Thomson
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 as someone said the other day on here, when the poor are said to need motivation, money is taken away from them. When it’s the rich who need motivation, money is given to them.
@bobthomson70
Its one of the great conundrums of economics... and revelatory of the skewed notions of incentivisation.
You can (sort of) square the circle, if you want by taking the line that only work should pay, and so the wealthy execs need more money to incentivise them, while the poor need to have their benefits taken way to ensure they work to stay alive (the ultimate incentivisation); but that leaves the vexing question of relative rates of pay.
but as an approach its morally bankrupt
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
BashStKid
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 Naturally. Banks are smart enough to avoid the dogfood they prescribe to the little people.
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0