Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...


The Guardian has an editorial this morning on Keynes and Keynesianism. In it they argue that:

In 1976 it was a British Labour prime minister, James Callaghan, who pronounced Keynesianism dead.

As they then note:

Monetarism, the economic theory that took over, has failed.

They then argue, reflecting a theme that I raised last week, that what we are seeing in response is that:

Many authoritarians are now using state power to lock in the dominance of the rich.

I think this indisputable.

I also think that the editorial missed a killer punch. That was, first of all, because they kept referring to Keynes, and not his motives, and yet it is his motives, and their contrast with those of monetarism that is critical. Keynes was motivated by social concern: monetarism was motivated by the desire for private profit. Keynes was about creating fairer societies, and monetarism was about creating inequality.

It is then appropriate to say, as the Guardian do, that:

Austerity meant the economy was starved of demand when inflation was low. The answer is for governments to spend.

But [the right are] not talking about the state intervening on the side of labour, redistributing wealth or socialising investment. Instead, the right now proposes a Keynesianism without Keynes.

This is correct, and yet it needs contextualisation. We have just seen an election where policies in the shadow of Keynes did not prevail. Whilst nationalisation, social housebuilding, the welfare state and much else that might be associated with Keynesian policy all poll well with focus groups they did not deliver election success for Labour.

Nor, come to that, did the Green New Deal in the way that Labour presented it. And that is because Keynes did not just want these things, as if they in themselves mattered. What he was particularly interested in, I suggest, was what they could deliver for people. In other words, what he wanted to address was not just an economic crisis, but the oppression of people’s hopes and aspirations and their replacement by fear. He knew he was fighting fascism, and he played a key role in achieving that goal.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

He went about pumping everyone's hand when the pandemic broke out and bragged that he would shake the hands of patients with the virus ...

PIERS MORGAN: Boris Johnson likes to think he is Churchill reincarnated but in our new darkest hour, he has stood for confusion, weakness, dithering and incompetence. And his shameful mixed messages will cost many more lives 

PIERS MORGAN: Boris Johnson's shameful mixed messages will cost many more lives

Winston Churchill's ferocious never-give-in 'we'll fight them on the beaches' defiance fired up Britain to think the same when many in the ruling class were prepared to throw in the towel, writes PIERS MORGAN. One of his biggest fans is Boris Johnson, the current British Prime Minister, who wrote a best-selling book about his predecessor called The Churchill Factor. It's a good read, but readers are left in little doubt by the end that the author clearly views himself as the new incarnation of Sir Winston. But he's not, as this coronavirus crisis has cruelly exposed, and as last night's prime time TV address to the nation sadly confirmed. Johnson's speech, which was inexplicably pre-taped not live, was full of cheap bluster, blather and fist-banging. What it lacked was any rousing rhetoric and - even more shamefully - any clear, precise information. Let alone, a little bit of honesty. The first rule of government in a crisis like this clarity. Yet by the end of Johnson's meandering, often nonsensical address, people were more confused than they were before it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

He did a bloody awful job.  He gained some sympathy when he got the virus himself and almost died but that was because he went around bragging that he was shaking hands with covid-19 patients.  Why do people elect village idiots.



Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scots wanted to stay in the EU.  Now thanks to Boy Blunder ...


Majority of Scots now in favour of independence as new poll backs splitting from the UK by 54 per cent to 46 per cent

  • Latest poll gives support for independence an eight point lead over status quo
  • Support for split from UK has been ahead of staying for more than six months
  • Polling expert John Curtice said six month average puts Yes on 51 and No on 49 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...