Yes, as Milton Friedman once famously put it: "We are all Keynesians now." But he was wrong.
In the meantime, however, the language has become much more refined. So now, when Democrats borrow and spend, or tax and spend, it is called "Keynesianism." When Republicans borrow and spend (they don't raise taxes, they just cut them), it is called "supply-side economics."
Call it linguistic evolution.
Happy New Year!
Uwe
-----Original Message-----
From: Calum Paton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:00 AM
To: Uwe E. Reinhardt
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UK welfare state
Uwe,
In the long run we're all dead.
Always knew Ronald Reagan was a Keynesian (anyone for 'voodoo
economics'?.. to quote George HW Bush on Reagan, 1980.....)
Happy New Year, everybody
Calum
Adam makes a valid point. It is one thing to redistribute national income
> you have in a welfare state. It's quite another thing to redistribute
> income you don't have (and your children and theirs will have). And that
> is what was done.
>
> In US government, Ronald Reagan started it and set the tone -- so
> effectively that it moved Vice President Cheney to declare in 2003:
> "Ronald Reagan told us that deficits don't matter," whereupon the Bush
> administration passed the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which gave
> the elderly an expensive new entitlement, financed 100% with borrowed
> funds, then and now and in the indefinite future.
>
> Just as the Greeks of antiquity inspired the rest of us, so do our
> contemporary Greeks.
>
> Germany is the exception, of course, but as Martin Wolf of the FT reminds
> us weekly, that is their modern economic crime. Their thrift sucks, so it
> is said.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Adam Oliver
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UK welfare state
>
> Humbug.
>
> Actually, I think Martin and David have a point (although it's a bit too
> much 'standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park Corner'). If you attack
> universalism, you risk undermining middle class support for anything - I
> wrote about this a few years ago re. the NHS. I think I was pretty much
> ignored though, even by me, eventually.
>
> But...as we know, many people (and governments) in the West spent far
> more than they (we) can afford over the last ten years. Now we're having
> to cut back, everything seems like a loss, and losses hurt (101
> behavioural economics). If we hadn't have spent so much, we may have
> smaller welfare states today, but losses wouldn't be necessary now. i.e.
> we would have been happier with less. I think there's an economic
> paradox in there, and lessons that will never be learned.
>
> Anyway, ho, ho ho. Merry Christmas, everyone.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Tom Foubister
> Sent: 23 December 2011 09:15
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: UK welfare state
>
> Dear all,
>
> In today's BMJ Martin McKee and David Stuckler have a short article
> giving a succinct outline of how the welfare state in England is
> currently being eroded. The article misses the devastation underway
> within local government welfare services, especially in terms of care
> received at home, where the picture is most depressing of all. But if
> you're interested in a good snapshot view, which also provides a take on
> the US (have they got it right on the US?), here's the link.
>
> http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7973
>
> Happy Christmas,
>
> Tom
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
|