tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post8522871351067678469..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: MACROECONOMIC POLICY IN THE 1960sThe Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-60238182348783056632014-02-08T11:49:51.257-05:002014-02-08T11:49:51.257-05:00There's something that troubles me about this,...There's something that troubles me about this, and it has to do with the feedback.<br /><br />Since I haven't studied Keynes my impression might be naive.<br /><br />It strikes me that the presence or absence of a deficit, per se, is close to irrelevant. The important factor for expansionary fiscal policy is government spending. Government spends when the private sector can't or won't.<br /><br />If this causes a deficit, it's because of a resulting imbalance between revenues and expenses, not because the deficit is the goal.<br /><br />This is also why I think [probably contra Keynes] that a tax cut is not <i>a priori </i> stimulative. <br /><br />Cutting millionaires taxes does close to nothing for the rest of us, and cutting taxes at the low end is relatively ineffective during a debt overhang situation like now, because the money disappears into debt repayment or under mattresses.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com