Postmodern Monetarism: Supply-sider turning Keynesian

[Henry C.K. Liu]

Some one praised on a earlier post former Fed Gov Lawrence Lindsey, a
fervent supply-sider, for arguing for an across-the-board 10% tax cut to
"put $70 billion in the hands of consumers," to spur them to keep buying
more while saving less ( The Wall Street Journal, December 9),
notwithstanding consumer debt and defaults being at all time highs.  It
sounds like a typical Keynesian idea to me.
What do Marxist economists and their liberal economists dancing partners
on this list have to say about this coalition of strange bedfellows.
Are we seeing dialectics at work?  Are these traditional labels
inoperative in a new conceptual synthesis?  Is this postmodern
Monetarism or deconstructed Keynesianism?
There is a lot of rumbling in the globalized Street that the major
reason the Asian, Russia, Brazilian crises did not caused a sustained
panic in the stock market was that practically all government economists
have turned Keynsean.  Is that an accurate assessment?
Some even go as far as saying that speculative stock markets completely
detached from the realities of the global economy, operating like
gambling casinos in Las Vagas, can themselves be economic stimulants
that keep the bubble going, that it is good economics to exchange future
pain with current euphoria, because theoretically, tomorrow will always
be tomorrow in this Goldilock economy.
Not being a Marxist, although much indebted to marxist ideas, and not
being a trained economist, but being in constant need of a better
understanding of this mercurial discipline, I would like to put the
following to the specialists or any one who has an informed opinion:
If Marxist economists were heading up the Council of Economic Advisors,
what policy measures would they propose in the current situation?

Henry C.K. Liu