Re: Re: but still?!

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

>
> Rakesh, what you say about Keynesianism is correct.  Keynes himself expressed
> indifference about the source of spending, but I suspect that he was engaging in a
> rhetorical flourish.

well he was trapped by his own rhetoric, no? he did after all write that
glowing intro to the german ed of his general theory which the publishing
houses of the German industrialists rushed into translation.

it seems to me that the content of politics is lost once keynesian technocrats
begin analyzing how the manipulation of variables will affect full employment.
Values only become important once one set of manipulations is revealed to be
functionally equivalent to another, i.e. values are given scope in the choice
between commercial keynesianism and liberal expansionism. but  if one set of
manipulations, say military keynesianism, brings us closer to full employment
than economic orthodoxy, then the keynesian has nothing in his conceptual
arsenal to rule it out. That is, i think we should seek keynes' ideological
capitulation to Hitlerism in the deep structure of his positivistic theory.


 Also, the Repugs are far from indifferent in the sort of
> spending that they will countenance.

what i am saying is that the repugs tax cut is so regressive, it is not obvious
that it will prove more stimulative than what would have happened under the
democrats.

>
> Regarding your last question, Ross Perot won the election in 1992 and has not yet
> been dislodged.  As Max has shown, the Dems have managed to equate fiscal
> stringency with saving social security.

but i am trying to say that the republicans are now less willing to countenance
substantial discretionary spending than they were under Reagan. This has to be
explained.

>
> On one point, I differ.  I doubt that anybody abandoned Gore because of his pure
> fiscal stringency.

I suspect that it was enough to tip some of those who were on the fence.

Rakesh