Talk:2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Eliminating original research

The original research tag shouldn't be removed yet. There are OR problems, especially in the "background" section of the article. If this article confines itself to what other sources have already written about the return to Keynesian remedies it will comply. But where it starts to assemble from sources that have not written about this new wave of Keynesianism then it's going off into original research. In other words, just because it's about Keynes, or just because it's about economics or fiscal/monetary policies does not mean it can be used here. By the same token, background about the political context, or the global financial situation can't be brought in either. These issues may be important-but wikipedia is not the publisher of new thoughts, ideas, correlations, etc. Authors of published sources can make the associations. Wikipedia's editors can only use such claims when and where those sources who do so are found and cited. Simply put, use sources which are writing about this return to Keynesian fiscal policy to source any relevant background and context for it-editors can't do that job themselves. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks again for your good advice Professor, i intend to edit this accordingly after giving it some thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If you really want to continue to pursue this article I'd recommend limiting the scope of the background information towards the evolution of fiscal policy since the publication of The General Theory of Employment. I would suggest focusing on major theme of the rise of monetarism over fiscal stimulus policies in the United States and the IMF and, obviously, stagflation. In other words the background should focus strictly on the demise/falling-out-of-favor of Keynesian economics. This competing views section is trying to sum up the historical bickering over Macroeconomic policy in one section, this does no justice to that topic nor this article. Selfexiled (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, there's certainly a lot that can be said on that topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

News article about resurgence.

Just in case these are helpful, here are some news articles that I found that talk about the Keynesian resurgence. LK (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's recent review of the state of macroeconomics

We should make note of this somewhere:

So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics.

From "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?" By PAUL KRUGMAN September 2, 2009 NYT. LK (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Have added it, once ive read these sources i also plan to include similar calls from Lord Skidelsky's Keynes: the return of the master , Paul Davidson's The Keynes Solution and Peter Clarke's Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

The Keynesian resurgence portion on academia is nonsense. Firstly,

"While the school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has dominated the teaching of economics at universities, New Keynesians largely believed that monetary policy was enough to stabilize the economy, and largely rejected interventionist policy recommendations (as advocated by Keynes) as unnecessary."

This is completely without citation and wrong. New Keynesians do not reject interventionist government policies, they merely contrast with Keynes himself on scope of governmental policy. None of them believe monetary policy is solely enough to stabilize the economy. This is nonsense.

Also,

"With a few notable exceptions such as Robert Shiller, James Galbraith and Paul Krugman, the Keynesian resurgence has been largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists."

This is bizarre in that it implies that the majority of great economists don't favor Keynesian ideas and this is a political idea rather than economic.

We have known New Keynesian / Keynesian economists who advocate Keynesian government policy at this time in who are the top of their fields:


1 - Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel laureate, 2nd most cited economist)

2 - Olivier Blanchard (chief economist of the world bank)

3 - Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate, 12th most cited economist)

4 - Mark Gertler (14th most cited economist)

5 - Maurice Obstfeld (20th most cited economist)

6 - George Akerlof (Nobel laureate)

7 - J. Bradford DeLong (former deputy assistant secretary of the treasury, scholar to fed. bank of San Francisco)

Other Economists who advocate Keynesian-type stimulus / policy interventions:

1 - Daron Acemoğlu (John Bates Clark medalist, 8th most cited economist)

2 - Martin Feldstein (John Bates Clark medalist, 7th most cited economist)

3 - Lawrence Summers (John Bates Clark medalist, 13th most cited economist)

4 - Robert Solow (Nobel laureate)


While many of these economists don't support the specific bill in the US, they broadly support strong economic intervention in recessions. People like Acemoglu, Feldstein, and Stigtliz don't like the specific bill - but they think government stimulus and intervention in a Keynesian style are necessary.

These are just off the top of my head. It's not like Keynesian economics is some bizarre fringe theory in academia - it's incredibly well respected and the article is misleading.

Seelum (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote some of that, and although you make good points, I think 'nonsense' is a bit strong a word to use. But please feel free to correct and rewrite, and if possible add citations. This page is relatively new, and is still very much a work in progress. Of course, I'll weigh in as well, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. BTW, if you are interested in editing economics articles, you should join Wikiproject Economics, or at least drop by the talk page. regards LK (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

This is the lead formerly Starting in 2008, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among high level policy makers from the world's industrialized economies. They have shown a renewed interest in implementing economic solutions in accordance with the recommendations made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression—such as fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy.

I changed it to this for clarity and neutral point of view Starting in 2008, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among various policy makers from the world's industrialized economies, and increased newspaper reports connected to economic theories made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression—such as fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy.

The lead should not tell people things but present things in a neutral way. Also this beginning is all sourced in newspapers all three sources, which is fine but not so sure it sourced the first sentence very well. high level policy makers could mean a lot of things and sounds a little buzzwordish, so that was edited out for neutral presentation. Reminds me of how they used to describe officials in the old Soviet Union. skip sievert (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Will wait third opinion, but I think it's specious to claim that since the sources are newspapers, all that's happened are newspaper reports. The sources are RS for policy changes that happened. The lead should state those policy changes clearly. Articles on Obama do not state, 'there have been newspaper reports about President Obama and health care policy', articles should read, 'President Obama has proposed health care reform', cited to RS newspapers. LK (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point, and further editing and sourcing will improve this beginning part most likely. There was just too much speculation in regard to the sentences there before also. They are reliable sources yes, and magazines are fine, but the source maybe can be pointed out until some other sources are known and included to replace the three magazine ones which the article now relies on to make its initial points. skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree w/LK. The article should report what's happening, according to reliable sources, not report that sources are reporting. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you source things then to more than three magazines for the lead then and premise of the article? It just seems like a stretch, though obviously they are r.s. - Changed it then to this and increased media reporting on the economic policies suggested by <- end - In this case if this is a resurgence then it probably is a cultural thing, as to a wave of reporting in topical ways, and media, so it may also be a part of the story. - Changed further clunkiness to [1] - skip sievert (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Those three that you denigrate as mere magazines are The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal; I have added one more cite to the PBS Newshour. These are all news sources of the highest standard. The article is littered with many more similar cites. Take your pick in adding them. LK (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Tone L.K. - I am not your enemy. When we edit together we do a constructive job, so keep that in mind. I am not denigrating anything. I said they were obviously r.s. though it is easy to argue that Corporate fascism or some such thing controls many media sources, and because the article seems to start out with a premise to prove in a concerted statement of resurgence etc. neutral pov is important here... another issue is Crony capitalism maybe in the article page, as to its not being part of the subject much in illustrating how military industrial congressional complex controls the economy also via the Fed in sometimes uncreative money special interest ways. Pbs. also is sponsored by the same kind of corporate media which is in conflict with alternative views of social/economic change, other than so called mainstream progressive liberal sorts. Just saying. The 'highest standard'? Not so much as all depend on advertising and those are bought and paid for accounts, and that effects what is presented as to content in those papers, in perspective. They do not want to lose their advertising clients or rock the status quo as to that. My opinion. - skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Skip, I'ld like to remind you to address and comment on the edits, not on the other editors. LK (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Could you comment on issues or concerns being brought up though? skip sievert (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish intellectuals

The article cites several modern-day economists which are called neo-keynesians, such as Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Mark Gertler, George Akerlof, Robert Solow and Robert Skidelsky. Is there any good reason that explains why so many of them are Jewish ? I'm not saying this in any negative or discriminatory way, but much like the often-berated neoconservatives, it is possible that the neokeynesian movement originated in Jewish intellectual circles, which have produced many doctors, philosophers, economists, politcians, scientists, etc. ADM (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah you caught us. We are the neo-jewish-catholic-chinese secret cabal of Keynesian promoters who want to make economic depressions a thing of the past, so as to lull the masses to sleep. OK, not a serious answer. Seriously though, i) Keynes was Church of England, ii) Of the 3 most noted neo-Keynesians (John Hicks, Franco Modigliani, and Paul Samuelson), only 1 was Jewish, iii) The two economists that founded New Keynesian economics (Paul Romer and Greg Mankiw) are not Jewish. LK (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
the hotbed of pre Keynsian thinking in the US was Harvard University in the 1920s & early 1930s. Hardly a fortress of Jewish intellectualism I believe. DEddy (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem in critical section

Lawrence Khoo is removing sourced information. This information which is a fine critical appraisal.

Start It is argued that Keynes himself was skeptical of the efficacy of monetary policy. Keynes followers have become more vocal in that regard. Keynes wrote that the effect of increasing the quantity of money is "not nugatory," and that "the terms on which the monetary authority will change the quantity of money enters as a real determinant into the economic scheme." But by the 1960s, Keynes's advocates were minimizing the role of monetary policy and exaggerating the apparently magical properties of government borrowing. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9915 Faith-Based Economics by Alan Edwards. Article appeared in the February 9, 2009 issue of the National Review. Retrieved Oct-2-09

Keynesian ideas has attracted considerable criticism. While there has been broad consensus among international leaders concerning the need for co-ordinated stimulus, the German administration initially stood out in their reluctance to wholeheartedly embrace Keynesian policy."Germany starts to look stimulating". Financial times. Retrieved 2008-01-22.End removed info. by L.K.

It appears that L.K is disruptively editing this article as to favoritism to its subject. Not good. Removing sourced critical aspects. This editor has previously identified himself as an expert and endorses mainstream on his user page. Here is the edit and revert skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. You have received warnings about this before. Refrain from commenting on other editors. LK (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A note to neutral third party editors. The first paragraph of the edit in question is sourced to a editorial from a non-neutral organization. It statrs with a weasel POV attack. The second part of the paragraph is largely plagiarized (lifted verbatim) from the source. The second paragraph starts with a POV criticism that can either be viewed as OR or at best SYN. LK (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes please be careful about casting aspersions on other editors motivations skip sievert, which I agree is a personal attack. I also agree LK was right to revert your edit for the reasons he explained. On the other hand there was some strong criticism in the article, so thanks for providing that, Ive added a cite for it with a summary that will hopefully be acceptable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It was not a personal attack it was a statement of fact. I have documented multiple areas where L.K. is giving personal attacks though, and if this is brought up again will present them. Telling it plainly is not a personal attack. Also the way L.K. phrased his response above should give pause. Weasel POV attack... huh? this is not good. Also lifted verbatim is not accurate. If there are tandem editors in the page here it will be obvious soon. WP:Wikilawyer as to the kind of talk above by L.K. can quickly get caught in meaningless loops of muddle which only slow things down (whatever the hoped for outcome), so this would have to go through mediation first, either way. With editors still fixated on notions of "mainstream," as ever, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says articles are meant or need to put forth a "mainstream" outlook. What some editors don't understand is that readers (often the kind who check out what WP has to say on a topic) aren't fooled for long by articles with oddly narrow outlooks and sourcing but rather, more often than not, it only stirs them up to look elsewhere. skip sievert (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
LK comes across as strongly committed to neutrality, for example when I added perhaps the most penetrating criticism of all to the main Keynes page (it was from Schumpeter) LK put an encouraging note on my talk. I dont think you're get anywhere with that threat, anymore than the hollow one you made about putting this up for deletion if you dont get your way on the lede. Lets have more collaboration and less pointless personal stuff please. Weasel has a special meaning on Wikipedia, even a word like "nicest" can count as weasel. Its true an article doesnt need to have a mainstream outlook, but it does have to be neutral. Our founding pillar Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the only one Jimbo says in non negotiable, says that viewpoints should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each." By definition this often results in articles using more mainstream sources than they do fringe. If anything, we now have a disproportionate number of criticisms, but this will soon be corrected as there are abundant quality sources with a positive take on the resurgence that have yet to be assimilated into the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is not a positive take on Keynesian resurgence, and most likely if there really is a resurgence it is going to burned at the stake soon as the collapse of the economy continues as to things like this in California.
It is obvious that the article was mostly written as a fan site or paean to the Keynes person, his thoughts and advice. That was evident from the tone of the article previously especially the beginning which is now a little better as to having been copy edited. The diffs would show that, and making a claim of neutral pov is hardly accurate for the way the article was written. It still needs a lot of copy editing for neutral presentation... and the aspects of fans as advocates is not good in that regard. The article is a candidate for deletion probably and the term is probably not notable or maybe a neologism that has been grasped onto which is probably not a good enough reason for the article to begin with. skip sievert (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Non neutral pov in article

One example of such which is now corrected in the critical section here. That is pretty over the top as to presentation difficulty of leading a reader. The whole article needs some serious copy editing for issues like that also. skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Youre right in this instance, thanks for correcting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, and keep in mind that I enjoy going back and forth in real time to try making editing changes as to improvements. So, feel free to copy edit my copy edits and generally that is a good way to change articles, and can be fun also as to several people editing constructively. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Geithner and Summers are Keynesians?

I was rather struck by the section which reads, "Keynesian thinking was reflected in U.S. President Barack Obama's appointing Lawrence Summers, Timothy F. Geithner and Christina Romer to principal economic positions in his administration." I have no idea what sort of economic theory Romer espouses, but I find it highly suspicious that Summers and Geithner are identified as Keynesians. What, because they advocate an economic stimulus package they're now Keynesian? This seems dubious, particularly inasmuch as it disregards the positions of both men during the period this Wikipedia entry conveniently describes as an "era of pragmatism" but may be more accurately described, at least in the U.S., as a continuation of monetarism. Geithner a Keynesian? The man was the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before becoming Treasury Secretary! (And an acolyte of Greenspan and Bob Rubin). That's a quintessentially monetarist position! And Larry Summers? The man who wrote upon the death of Milton Friedman that, "any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites." A Keynesian? This sort of whitewash of the Obama administration and its apparatchiks really makes parts of this article suspect. BasilSeal (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your points are well made. And, if you want to put the article up for an Article for deletion, Afd that is probably not a bad idea and would probably receive support from multiple editors. Just a suggestion. skip sievert (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment BasilSeal. Early this year Summer's bio page on here had him categroised as a Keynesian. A case could be made that at least by American standards he's seen the Keynesian light, despite as you say long being a prominent free market advocate. I wouldnt categorise Roma and Geitherner as Keynesians either, though I have high hopes about the Secretary, he's a good listener and there are many sound folk in the Treasury to help counter the propoganda he heard from his wall stree pals. Anyway on balance I agree the sentence was misleading, so have removed it. PS - please make any changes direct to the article yourself if you wish. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What does seen the Keynesian light mean? High hopes about the Secretary? The article probably could be Afd'd as it is really almost an advertisement and iffy about its value. skip sievert (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree this articles a little light on criticism, I plan to add some more once I've finished digesting the some the more prominent sources covering the resurgence. Or you're welcome to yourself, VisionThing put some good links you could use over at Talk:John_Maynard_Keynes#The_Keynesian_Resurgence. But please try and seek concensus before altering the tone of the lede. As you rightly say NPOV is are no 1 priority here, and that means the lede should reflect the balance of sources. The sources dont talk about some resurgence of interests, sources like FT, the worlds preminent financial broadsheet, refers to a stunning resurgence. Ok that was almost a year ago, but you still have equally empthatic language in an article less than 2 weeks old (Washington Post ):
We need a good source suggesting the extent of the resurgence has been exagerated before we tone down the lede - else we are violating NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is more of an essay or blog in my opinion and is a disservice because it seems one sided and even the copy was/is jilted or jiggered funny.
Keynes was not quite as skeptical of the efficacy of monetary policy as many of his followers have become. He wrote that the effect of increasing the quantity of money is "not nugatory," and that "the terms on which the monetary authority will change the quantity of money enters as a real determinant into the economic scheme." But by the 1960s, Keynes's apostles were minimizing the role of monetary policy and exaggerating the apparently magical properties of government borrowing. here is one suggestion for critque here and more info. maybe here. skip sievert (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Although a staunch Keynesian, I can tell the "Criticism" section has been written by strong proponents of Keynesian policies who have had only a half-hearted shot at neutrality. The first paragraph is irrelevant as it does not refer to criticism: it even mentions a few worthy objectives which might or might not be achieved by Keynesian policies (like a shift to a 'green economy').

"It is questioned by commentators on the left whether the Keynesian resurgence has been sufficiently strong" is not criticism of the resurgence, just as criticism on an article called "Cars" would not start by saying that perhaps there are not enough cars around. Similar case with the mention of Germany.

The rest of the criticism is more spot-on, but needs to be expanded and revamped. It feels as though the author did not really understand the points made by the opposing side, and has just gathered snippets from media coverage. "Various other technical reasons" is unacceptable in an encyclopedia.

Hope someone is more productive than myself and makes these changes! Good luck, and keep developing a promising article. 23.40 GMT, 01 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.157.249 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes 157.249 , and you are not wrong about the section being written by a Keynes Fan! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a more robust Criticism section as well, since its hard to tell what logic could lead people to claim more tax cuts are the solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.8.47 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll be exspanding and sharpening the Criticism section in the next few weeks if no one else does - i was hopeing for the sake of balance an editor with free market sympatheis would step up! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've added the best sources of the free market point of view I know. Unlike the Monetarists / New Keynesians, the Austrian School is well placed to attack Keynes as at least their theory has not been tried and found wanting. Despite what I've said on talk pages about the free market I very much believe that there are still sincere and intelligent folk who believe the free market is in the peoples best interests and it would be great if any pro free market editors want to exspand or re-write the criticism section. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I work for an architecture and engineering firm in Missouri. Some of my projects are receiving money from the United States Stimulus Package. That money is being administered by MO-DOT. Before the money became available Missouri was read and willing to fun our projects. After the money was made available the Department of Transportation decided to KEEP ITS OWN MONEY and spend the Federal money INSTEAD. Then we had to change a lot of our general requirements and waste time and money filling out additional paperwork. The end result was that the project was delayed six months. So rather than adding money to the economy the stimulus package only delayed the spending of certain amounts of money for six months while the states saved the money they were going to spend anyway! Furthermore, all the money that was "given" to the states was first taken from the states because a higher proportion of taxes now goes to the Federal government than the state governments. 100 years ago this was reversed, with strong State governments and a limited federal government, the larger proportion of taxation went to the states. The reason that no economists of the Austrian School control policy is that these positions are controlled by the government and the Austrian School doesn't think there is a considerable role for government in the economy, thus they don't get appointed to these positions. Can anyone explain how the country gets out of debt by borrowing more and why we cannot simply re-set the global economy seeing that every country is in debt to the point to the point of bankruptcy to every other country. And according to Keynes once money is worthless and the system of food distribution in America collapses and states are not food sovereign and agriculturally independent how will we avoid starvation? I am confused.--Rclose (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

comparison to early New Deal versus World War II economic mobilization

The entry 2008-2009 Keynesian resurgence fits well, IMO, the facts rapidly unfolding around the world. These facts include the widely held belief that the early New Deal was trial and error not Keynesian - and the only real test of Keynesian power to produce and pay for output was during the period of economic mobilization that gave WW II: money matched to output (not financial debt); heavily emphasized private savings to reduce demand (and reduce concern that high taxes may or may not be in store for a nation's grand-children - depending on productivity potentials and revolutions in technology); criminal process to prevent hoarding and the like; wage and price control, and rationing; and effective long term interest management.

All these tools were necessary to minimize after war inflation - which, nevertheless, on account of pent up demand and ending of controls, unleashed an acceptable high level of post war pricing.

Today's debate universally recognizes that trial and error New Deal-ism asks for considerable time to go from error to new trial. Economic mobilization does not ask for very much time at all. The fact that economic mobilization was the only timely sure cure ever found for deflation (the admitted current condition) is often glossed over.

It is therefore logically necessary for this criticism of the Keynesian resurgence to emphasize: the missing savings aspect of the success from 1942-1946; the missing very low taxes on the middle class in that period (the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class occurred in the post war period, after the Kennedy tax cut); the financial cooperation between the central bank and Treasury which appears to be returning without an agreement or legal basis; the acceptance of government spending in place of private spending - which is presently not accepted - and which is the only way to win wars against real enemies and against global environmental collapse; and the creation of confidence - that all parties (Keynesian and non-Keynesian) cry for - based on patriotism more than fortunate optimism.

It may be that only the President has the power to mobilize the economy. But the intellectual recognition of the power of Keynesian theory has the duty to admit its only proof came when its purpose was clear and its grip was steady.

John, thanks for your interesting perspective and your contribution to the main article. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be good to see policies to tackle the issue of debt in general and in particular to avoid additional tax burden for future generations. That said, your section reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry. Also as you seem to admit you're advocating something that no significant sources have been talking about in the media. I'm tagging your entry as original research, with a view to removing it to the talk page in the next week or so. Of course it can stay if you can find references to support that what you're saying is a POV shared by significant sources (even if just a minority). Lots of commentators are advising folk to pay off their personal debt if they're able, but Im not aware of anyone suggesting that we ought to further dampen consumer demand and encourage savings. Im not too sure if that's what you meant, but it read that way. Its actually the opposite of what Keynesian economists are advocating . Successful Keynesian policy as implemented in the 50s and 60s discouraged excessive saving and purposefully stimulated demand. Im not sure how one can argue that measures appropriate during WWII and the immediate aftermath apply to our present situation. Sorry if I have misunderstood what you are saying! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Dear Feyd,

Thank you for your accurate appraisal of current Keynesian pro-private-spending strategies. They are, in by view, similar to "guns and butter" models during the Vietnam war. They will, in my view, risk too high inflation too soon -- and ought to be challenged now. The absence of calls for economic mobilization now to rapidly deliver what Obama promised is sad. The current congressional criticism of Obama's recovery plan has raised all the issues BUT NONE OF THE SOLUTIONS I have introduced into this article. If you remove it to the discussion page, it may not attract the help it needs to be brought to the attention of the world's currently floundering experts on how you substitute planned government spending for consumer and profit-seeking spending when the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. I know Wikipedia is young and is learning to accomplish its purposes. Fortunately for poor people, Wikipedia's fate is also at risk if we drift away from effective communication of knowledge to pursuit of the unrelated ideal of avoiding anything new. There is nothing original about the way economic mobilization looks at supply, demand, cost accounting, and the power of Keynesian thought to influence monetary systems of production. The knowledge is seventy years old and older. Its application is a matter of logic not research or opinion.

Signed: John Gelles

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008–2009_Keynesian_resurgence/Archive_2&oldid=998440736"