> exactly!

C.


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
>>
>