Re: Why nobody listens to Keynesians

[Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad@xxxxxxx>]

Harry Veeder wrote:

> Paul Rosenberg:
> > I'm disputing what you just said, obviously.
> >
> > Status conscious + materialistic ====> increased role for positional
> > goods.
> >
> > Put it like this, Harry, the bumper stickers in the 60s said "Make Love,
> > Not War", they did *NOT* say "He who dies with the most toys wins" like
> > they do today.
> >
> > Beyond that, what can I say?  If you have to have the evidence explained
> > to you, you'll never understand.
> >
> > >I only suggested this might be one factor contributing to the
> > > unpopularity of Keynesianism.
> >
> > If the premise were true, which it isn't.  The converse is true.  Which
> > suggests that you're whole line of reasoning is kerflempt.
> >
>
> The diffusion of "radical" values through society takes time.

Some are diffused one way -- spread out -- and some are diffused another
-- dissipated.  Aand some are just de-fused!

> The '60's only
> marked the *beginning* of a cultural revolution. It is better to assess the
> adoption of new values by studying the values and beliefs of people in
> positions power. In this respect, the anti-war and civil rights
> movement had a relative quick and  lasting affect on voters and
> people in government.

A gross oversimplification, especially with respect to the case of civil
rights, which is far more similar to the temporary gains following the
Civil War, followed by the backlash which lead to segreagation.

> However, there was not a similar quick impact on the
> nature of economic relations. The majority of businesses, workers and
> consumers had no pressing need to listen to the anti-materialist notions of
> misguided youth, after all the economy wasn't killing their children. Today,
> although people aren't shouting anti-materialist solgans, the values did
> survive and have gradually altered business, employment and consumption
> decisions.

Among some people, certainly.  But these values have had a far more
enduring value as motivations than can be used to sell a
pseudo-nonmaterialist bill of goods.

I mean, let's put things in perspective, okay?  Andrew Carnegie said "To
die rich is to die disgraced"  Today, Carnegie, a capitalist icon, is
way too 60s for anyone to take seriously.  How does Ted Turner propose
to shame other billionaires into philanthropy?  By making it a contest
to see how much you can give away -- a distinctly materialist approach.

So, you see, I'm just not buying, no matter how you try to make your
argument more sophisticated.  It lacks prima facia credibility.  Forget
the supreme court, forget the appeals court, forget the circuit court,
forget the trial judge, forget the grand jury, you don't even have
probable cause.

--
Paul Rosenberg
Reason and Democracy
rad@xxxxxxx

"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"