home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
- From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
- Newsgroups: sci.econ
- Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
- Message-ID: <56567@dime.cs.umass.edu>
- Date: 23 Nov 92 03:47:31 GMT
- References: <sf2OKl200iV1E9A54O@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
- Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <sf2OKl200iV1E9A54O@andrew.cmu.edu> nm20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nolan McCarty) writes:
- >Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 17-Nov-92 Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
- >by victor yodaiken@chelm.cs
- >> In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
- >> >I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%. Spending as a percentage
- >> >of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%. Shouldn't we be seeing
- >> >the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending? We've increased spending
- >> >and the economy has gone flat. Seems like there is more to getting
- >> >the economy going that spending more money.
- >> >
- >>
- >> What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
- >> equivalent? Under Reagan/Bush government expenditures for arms and
- >
- > Try the original form of Keynesianism. In the General Theory, Keynes
- >asserts that it does not matter what the government spends its money on.
-
- Forgive me if I've misremembered, but wasn't that a claim that in the short
- term government spending could speed up economic activity? Did Keynes claim
- that on a sustained basis the economy would grow if the goverment invested
- in tulips or Sagaent York guns or whatever?
-
- --
-
-
- yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
-
-