Re: PKT and The Washington Consensus

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar wants to explain why PKT remedies for:

1. Unemployment,
2. Business cycle effects that slow down growth or worse, and
3. Poverty where there should be plenty,

fail to logically challenge the Washington Consensus?which Gunnar holds responsible for at least these three economic sins of our day.

 

But does Gunnar explain what he wants to explain ?

 

He says that Keynes, himself, did not make clear that credit would be required if entrepreneurs were to be able to invest in and promote sustainable job creating, output creating businesses.

 

He implies that Keynes thought that credit would not be required.

 

He implies that the Washington Consensus agrees with Keynes?and so fails to provide credit where it is needed.

According to Gunnar, the Washington C. expects profits , within the production-to-sales process (cycle), to supply investment sufficient to avoid the three economic sins above.

 

Paul Davidson suggests that capital asset appreciation (inflation?) can supply the missing credit (money?).

 

Now I may have misread the Gunnar/Paul discussion. But if so, I plead with each of them to help me understand it.

 

After all, Gunnar and Paul are trying to reform the Washington C. fellows who have us in their grip and are ruining our lives. Let us get the natural allies, Gunnar and Paul, to both:

1. Agree with each other, and
2. Get me and all you other PKTr's to agree with them.

Because if Keynes, himself, needs to have his doctrine clarified with respect to credit (money?) the production process is not providing (and that can otherwise be provided if only we listen to Gunnar), then certainly we here on PKT are all for that !!

 

John Gelles