>... the reason that conservatives like Ferguson hate Keynes is that Keynes demonstrated conclusively that when the economy goes into a deep recession or depression, the only way to get back out of it is for the government to increase spending [or cut taxes -- JD]. Contemporary conservatives do not want to admit that government plays an indispensable set of economic roles. They want to believe that the corporations can get along just fine without the state.<
Among us economists, the "conservatives" (who can be quite radical) believe that the Blessed Invisible Hand of the Market can do no wrong.(It's not corporations, but the "market" that conservatives defend.) Keynes showed that there was a major exception (or two). His argument has been knocked down _logically_, not empirically. The problem is that he doesn't assume that labor and other resources are fully employed! But full employment does not describe the world we live in. (FWIW, Rogoff is much better than Ferguson.)
I wonder if this Patrick Clawson is the same one who I used to know who claimed to be a member of the Maoist organization the Progressive Labor Party. He seemed to know something about the Middle East.
okay,if what the Western media report actually happened, Treimseh wasn't a mere "atrocity" but a mass murder. (Bashir Assad's regime seems bent that way, so it's likely that the Western media aren't lying.) But can we say that "the world is too blind or timid or divided to prosecute it as a war crime?" Could it be that there's no way to "prosecute" such a war crime? Could it be that a US- or NATO- or Saudi Arabian-led invasion of Syria would lead to even worse results? Could it be that sanctions would also lead to worse results? (And is the current system for prosecuting war crimes legitimate when the US is exempt?)
How do we know that the bad situation in Afghanistan (the Taliban, the opium trade, warlordism, US occupation, etc.) wouldn't have corrupted Massoud and/or have driven him to be power-mad? We don't.
>... the reason that conservatives like Ferguson hate Keynes is that Keynes demonstrated conclusively that when the economy goes into a deep recession or depression, the only way to get back out of it is for the government to increase spending [or cut taxes -- JD]. Contemporary conservatives do not want to admit that government plays an indispensable set of economic roles. They want to believe that the corporations can get along just fine without the state.<
Among us economists, the "conservatives" (who can be quite radical) believe that the Blessed Invisible Hand of the Market can do no wrong.(It's not corporations, but the "market" that conservatives defend.) Keynes showed that there was a major exception (or two). His argument has been knocked down _logically_, not empirically. The problem is that he doesn't assume that labor and other resources are fully employed! But full employment does not describe the world we live in. (FWIW, Rogoff is much better than Ferguson.)
I wonder if this Patrick Clawson is the same one who I used to know who claimed to be a member of the Maoist organization the Progressive Labor Party. He seemed to know something about the Middle East.
when has Michele Bachman ever been wrong before? ;-)
okay,if what the Western media report actually happened, Treimseh wasn't a mere "atrocity" but a mass murder. (Bashir Assad's regime seems bent that way, so it's likely that the Western media aren't lying.) But can we say that "the world is too blind or timid or divided to prosecute it as a war crime?" Could it be that there's no way to "prosecute" such a war crime? Could it be that a US- or NATO- or Saudi Arabian-led invasion of Syria would lead to even worse results? Could it be that sanctions would also lead to worse results? (And is the current system for prosecuting war crimes legitimate when the US is exempt?)
How do we know that the bad situation in Afghanistan (the Taliban, the opium trade, warlordism, US occupation, etc.) wouldn't have corrupted Massoud and/or have driven him to be power-mad? We don't.