NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4342510
James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin, shares his father's leftist economics and unyielding faith in the Keynesian theory of macroeconomics. Yet I give him credit that, unlike so many politicians, Dr. Galbraith is idealogically consistent, and does not hate the Bush Admin. for everything they do simply because they are not Democrats.
Anyhow, Dr. Galbraith argues that Pres. Bush is a disciple of Keynesian economics with deficit spending, and argues that, if spending does not increase too fast, the tax revenue brought in by economic growth would cover the liabilities.
Now, as far as I can remember, the Republicans used to be deficit hawks, believing that it should be reduced. The left were the doves that welcomed deficits. The situation today has reversed, simply because the president is looking to please as many people as possible. Yet a few in the left see him for who he is. In the future, the left will look back on Bush's economic policies with a tinge of admiration, crediting him with everything from ending the shortest recession to adding flexibility to the labor market. The right, on the other hand, will, if it is wise, look back on Bush's fiscal policies with a degree of scorn. I know I will.

This is an interesting story. I have to agree with you about Bush's economic policy.

The tax cuts were a good idea, which is what I like about Bush's economic policy. However, his Medicare benefit is going to be one of the biggest big government mistakes in a long time, and is going to cost us a fortune. THe one thing that bothers me is that he never vetoes anything, and is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the free-spending Congress. What's even worse is that he's only doing it for political gain, the economic effects be damned.

I think there should be a reinstitution of the pay-as-you-go system for tax cuts to keep our deficits down, because a balanced budget is overall the best policy at this point in time especially with the huge liabilities looming in the relatively near future.

Pardon my ignorance, but what makes Bush's policies Keynesian?

Pardon my ignorance, but what makes Bush's policies Keynesian?
His deficit spending, mainly by both cutting taxes and increasing spending. You do know about Keynesian theory, right?

The tax cuts were a good idea, which is what I like about Bush's economic policy. However, his Medicare benefit is going to be one of the biggest big government mistakes in a long time, and is going to cost us a fortune. THe one thing that bothers me is that he never vetoes anything, and is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the free-spending Congress. What's even worse is that he's only doing it for political gain, the economic effects be damned.

I think there should be a reinstitution of the pay-as-you-go system for tax cuts to keep our deficits down, because a balanced budget is overall the best policy at this point in time especially with the huge liabilities looming in the relatively near future.
Perhaps. I personally want to scale back several programs, and perhaps eliminate them. But that stems from my liberatarian instincts. Overall, I can't tell how one would balance the buget with so many outlays. You can't just raise taxes forever, for we know that it causes economic stagnation.

His deficit spending, mainly by both cutting taxes and increasing spending. You do know about Keynesian theory, right?

Tax cuts (for the rich) isn't part of (liberal) Keynesian theory.
Increased spending has to be done for the benefit of the people (and preferably by the people), it has absolutely nothing to do with squandering away money for personal benefit or out of the country.

I don't think drastically increasing the rich/poor divide has anything to do with Keynesian theory, and if it does, it certainly isn't very progressive, now is it?

Tax cuts (for the rich) isn't part of (liberal) Keynesian theory.
Increased spending has to be done for the benefit of the people (and preferably by the people), it has absolutely nothing to do with squandering away money for personal benefit or out of the country.

I don't think drastically increasing the rich/poor divide has anything to do with Keynesian theory, and if it does, it certainly isn't very progressive, now is it?
Keynesian theory does not neatly fit into a left/right agenda. All it says is that the government can create credit through deficit spending. That can be in a number of ways. For example, some cynics say that the Medicare reform was a $400 bn. payout to drug companies. But it really doesn't matter if it were paid to candy strippers, flight attendents, or venture capitalists. It still creates credit, and any way that it is used, it circulates.
BTW, I'm sure you remember that businesses were heavily subsidized from post WWII to around the early eighties. It's very much a leftist policy, or at least one from the old left (socialists, labor groups, etc.).

This is an interesting story. I have to agree with you about Bush's economic policy.
Thanks.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4342510
James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin, shares his father's leftist economics and unyielding faith in the Keynesian theory of macroeconomics. Yet I give him credit that, unlike so many politicians, Dr. Galbraith is idealogically consistent, and does not hate the Bush Admin. for everything they do simply because they are not Democrats.
Anyhow, Dr. Galbraith argues that Pres. Bush is a disciple of Keynesian economics with deficit spending, and argues that, if spending does not increase too fast, the tax revenue brought in by economic growth would cover the liabilities.

Now, as far as I can remember, the Republicans used to be deficit hawks, believing that it should be reduced. The left were the doves that welcomed deficits. The situation today has reversed, simply because the president is looking to please as many people as possible. Yet a few in the left see him for who he is. In the future, the left will look back on Bush's economic policies with a tinge of admiration, crediting him with everything from ending the shortest recession to adding flexibility to the labor market. The right, on the other hand, will, if it is wise, look back on Bush's fiscal policies with a degree of scorn. I know I will.
This is correct. I am a leftist and I find the almost robotic Bush-hating of my comrades to be depressing. Neocons' goals and even methods are not always as different from the progressive left as they are imagined to be.

This is correct. I am a leftist and I find the almost robotic Bush-hating of my comrades to be depressing. Neocons' goals and even methods are not always as different from the progressive left as they are imagined to be.
No, not really. However, I think there is a difference between foreign policy neocons and domestic ones, which I am of the former group. But it's interesting to note that before today, most of the neocons were actually oriented to the left: British progressive activists turned imperialists (think Rudyard Kipling), Woodrow Wilson, and my favorite, the Jewish community. By any account, most Jews, especially the ones from early Israel, were neocons. You'd never know it if you look at the way Israel treats its economy.

Perhaps. I personally want to scale back several programs, and perhaps eliminate them. But that stems from my liberatarian instincts. Overall, I can't tell how one would balance the buget with so many outlays. You can't just raise taxes forever, for we know that it causes economic stagnation.

It requires a huge degree of bipartisan cooperation, like we saw during the Clinton administration. He was able to engineer both spending control (pay as you go, welfare reform, etc.) and mild tax hikes (primarily on the wealthy;the Tax Act created the EITC and lowered middle class taxes), and also adopted a good economic policy that generated the revenue beyond the tax hikes.

This resulted in a balanced budget and would have enabled us to ensure the various entitlements, but that surplus disappeared, not so much due to tax cuts, but rather the insane amounts of money spent along with the tax cuts. The 2001 recession and 9/11 also reduced the surpluses to almost nothing, but it was the wasteful spending that incurred such huge deficits. Cutting taxes must be paid for by cutting programs, but we didn't do that.

This resulted in a balanced budget and would have enabled us to ensure the various entitlements, but that surplus disappeared, not so much due to tax cuts, but rather the insane amounts of money spent along with the tax cuts. The 2001 recession and 9/11 also reduced the surpluses to almost nothing, but it was the wasteful spending that incurred such huge deficits. Cutting taxes must be paid for by cutting programs, but we didn't do that.
I know we didn't do that. There is currently no hope for a new "peace dividend", and the economic growth, while robust, just can't keep up with the spending increases. My only hope is that, one of these days, Americans will realize that, in addition to a huge public sector debt, the government will have a low credit rating. Our fiscal situation in thirty years will look like what Japan's is today. And while I'm confident that we can jump this hurdle in the future, it's not gonna be solved by spending up the whazzoo, especially on pork. On the recent Transportation Bill, for example, we all know that it was a pork project. But the ranking Democrat on the House Committee for transportation got more than the rest. He actually had the audacity to say, on national TV, that he deserved more. That kind of thinking has gotta go.

I know we didn't do that. There is currently no hope for a new "peace dividend", and the economic growth, while robust, just can't keep up with the spending increases. My only hope is that, one of these days, Americans will realize that, in addition to a huge public sector debt, the government will have a low credit rating. Our fiscal situation in thirty years will look like what Japan's is today. And while I'm confident that we can jump this hurdle in the future, it's not gonna be solved by spending up the whazzoo, especially on pork. On the recent Transportation Bill, for example, we all know that it was a pork project. But the ranking Democrat on the House Committee for transportation got more than the rest. He actually had the audacity to say, on national TV, that he deserved more. That kind of thinking has gotta go.

This kind of thinking is due to political stagnation, and it needs to change before long term economic damage occurs. We're safe, as long as the economy grows faster than the deficits (which it did until 2002), but we're getting very unsustainable now. The Washington culture of spending has to change, and the people need to stand up rather than whine and complain while refusing to vote. The Transportation bill is arguably one of the biggest piles of pork ever seen, and I am ashamed that the President didn't veto it, but rather signed it. Big Government Republicanism is one of the worst trends in our political history, because it eliminates the last resistance to the tax-and-spend section of Congress.

BTW, I'm sure you remember that businesses were heavily subsidized from post WWII to around the early eighties. It's very much a leftist policy, or at least one from the old left (socialists, labor groups, etc.).
This is one of the foremost examples of hypocrisy from the left of the past few years. It seems that only since Bush came to power, has opposition to corporate welfare among the left reached noticeable levels. (of course, the anarchist left have always been against it.)

No, not really. However, I think there is a difference between foreign policy neocons and domestic ones, which I am of the former group. But it's interesting to note that before today, most of the neocons were actually oriented to the left: British progressive activists turned imperialists (think Rudyard Kipling), Woodrow Wilson, and my favorite, the Jewish community. By any account, most Jews, especially the ones from early Israel, were neocons. You'd never know it if you look at the way Israel treats its economy.
Yes, indeed, hawkish foreign policy has until the post-WWII been a preserve of the left. The most obvious example is FDR. I don't know of many neo-con Jews - Wolfowitz, Sharansky, Kristol.

How does Israel treat its economy?

This is one of the foremost examples of hypocrisy from the left of the past few years. It seems that only since Bush came to power, has opposition to corporate welfare among the left reached noticeable levels. (of course, the anarchist left have always been against it.)

I don't know if it applies to everyone, but economic libertarians like myself have vigorously opposed corporate welfare. Actually, I oppose all government subsidies to business. If we're going to have a free market, get rid of government except where it's needed to keep the market free.

I don't know if that is relevant, but from my point of view (I'm from Europe), both Bush and Clinton are running right-wing policies. Here, liberalism and republicanism are both considered right wing policies (although republicanism is more right than liberalism). Keynes is a right wing economist from my point of view.

I don't know if that is relevant, but from my point of view (I'm from Europe), both Bush and Clinton are running right-wing policies. Here, liberalism and republicanism are both considered right wing policies (although republicanism is more right than liberalism). Keynes is a right wing economist from my point of view.

My thoughts exactly...from a European point of view, there is hardly such a thing as a left wing in either of the big American parties. Both of them are right of center, one only more than the other. This is especially true for the economic issues: "socialism" is a dirty word in the U.S., while the socialists play a fairly large part in European politics.

It's very much a leftist policy, or at least one from the old left (socialists, labor groups, etc.).

Since I feel my ideas aren't really being listened to, my last comment will simply be to illuminate that you've now associated socialists and labor groups with the economic policies of Bush. I'd give you an roll-eyes smiley if I didn't despise them so much.

Keynes is a right wing economist from my point of view.

That's another point as well which I didn't bother bringing up.

Socialist -- Chicagoan -- Keynesian -- Austrian

That's another point as well which I didn't bother bringing up.

Socialist -- Chicagoan -- Keynesian -- Austrian
Chicagoan? Is the not the very far right-wng spawn of Milton Freidman? What is Austrian? Frederick von Hayek?

This kind of thinking is due to political stagnation, and it needs to change before long term economic damage occurs. We're safe, as long as the economy grows faster than the deficits (which it did until 2002), but we're getting very unsustainable now. The Washington culture of spending has to change, and the people need to stand up rather than whine and complain while refusing to vote. The Transportation bill is arguably one of the biggest piles of pork ever seen, and I am ashamed that the President didn't veto it, but rather signed it. Big Government Republicanism is one of the worst trends in our political history, because it eliminates the last resistance to the tax-and-spend section of Congress.
I'm more optimistic. There are a few Barry Goldwater conservatives still left, notably his successor, John McCain. I've even heard rumblings that Newt Gingrich is gonna run for president. Then again, he's been working with Hillary Clinton, his arch-nemisis. We now know that the apocalypse is at hand.

I don't know if that is relevant, but from my point of view (I'm from Europe), both Bush and Clinton are running right-wing policies. Here, liberalism and republicanism are both considered right wing policies (although republicanism is more right than liberalism). Keynes is a right wing economist from my point of view.
I don't really see Keynes as either being to the left or right. While I can see his ideas being an excuse for leftist policies, the right can use him simply by cutting taxes, and hoping for surpluses when the economy is good.

Since I feel my ideas aren't really being listened to, my last comment will simply be to illuminate that you've now associated socialists and labor groups with the economic policies of Bush. I'd give you an roll-eyes smiley if I didn't despise them so much.
I ignored most everything because there are hundreds of other threads to discuss them in. Now, Bush isn't, as we all know, an old left guard. But he is bringing back some policies advocated by leftists such as Galbraith: big spending, carelessness about debt, economic intervention, and the cooperation of major individuals in the economy. The only thing he's not doing is courting Big Labor, but very few people belong to unions anymore, and they mostly oppose Bush. Much to your chagrin, Bush is not Reagan, or even his father.

How does Israel treat its economy?
It's not as rigid as its Arab neighbors, but it resembles a small European state with a far larger defense budget.

Chicagoan? Is the not the very far right-wng spawn of Milton Freidman? What is Austrian? Frederick von Hayek?
Milton Friedman was a bit of a borderline anarchist. He always said that he was a Republican, for example, only for convinience, and not out of principle.

This is one of the foremost examples of hypocrisy from the left of the past few years. It seems that only since Bush came to power, has opposition to corporate welfare among the left reached noticeable levels. (of course, the anarchist left have always been against it.)

i think the complaints about corporate welfare really started gaining headway during the clinton admin. it was one of the major talking points of, for example, nader and the green party during both the '96 and '00 elections. it's probably a result of the rise of the even newer left - those of us whose first big things were anti-neoliberalism, environmentalism, and social justice (with significant numbers having explicitly anticapitalist leanings).

but i agree, the more mainstream end of the american left (such as it is) seems to blow with the winds of disagreement.

i think the complaints about corporate welfare really started gaining headway during the clinton admin. it was one of the major talking points of, for example, nader and the green party during both the '96 and '00 elections. it's probably a result of the rise of the even newer left - those of us whose first big things were anti-neoliberalism, environmentalism, and social justice (with significant numbers having explicitly anticapitalist leanings).

That's because this new left disagrees with Galbraith. You see, Galbraith has, I think, an uncelebrated role in shaping American economic policy until Reagan. His was an attempt to please everyone, by balancing big business, big labor, and big government. The theory went that everyone would be fine if the three stayed in balance, and for the most part, they did. But everyone wasn't fine. We saw that backlash in a number of ways, such as the Green Party and the rise of Ralph Nader.

This is correct. I am a leftist and I find the almost robotic Bush-hating of my comrades to be depressing. Neocons' goals and even methods are not always as different from the progressive left as they are imagined to be.

It's the old fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate axiom... I blame Orwell.

Milton Friedman was a bit of a borderline anarchist. He always said that he was a Republican, for example, only for convinience, and not out of principle.
Interestingly, since Bush has implemented his policies in the past 4 years, Friedman has almost completely abandoned the Republican label.

Interestingly, since Bush has implemented his policies in the past 4 years, Friedman has almost completely abandoned the Republican label.
He's still alive?

It boggles my mind to think that anyone could be for bush

Well, I did some research. He is still alive, though he looks ready to fall over and croak at any moment. But I also found that he's pretty active for 93. He still does some work for the Cato Institute, and he even appeared on TV for a John Stossel special not too long ago. But I guess it's safe to say that he isn't doing any more work on developing his theories. Not that I can understand half of the quantitative mumbo jumbo that comes from economist, but at least I can understand the theories when put into words.

bump