Michael,
But isn't it true that neither the relief of the pressure that could lead to a crash or creating further problems that may well lead to even more severe pressures are conceived in terms of throwing out the capitalist system, by you or anyone who analyzes Keynes or Keynesianism on its own terms ? Or do you put a revolutionary twist on Keynes ? What would be a revolutionary twist on Keynes ?
Charles Brown
>>> michael perelman writes>>>
I have been emphasizing the idea for a number of years that Keynesian policies [actually Keynes did not
advocate many specific policies, but people attribute Keynesian policies to Keynes] have a contradictory
effect. They may relieve the pressure that could lead to a crash, but they create further problems that may
well lead to even more severe pressures in the end.
I hope explained my position most clearly in
The Pathology of the U.S. Economy: The Costs of a Low Wage System (NY and London: St. Martin's and Macmillan, 1993).
Keynes, Investment Theory and the Economic Slowdown: The Role of Replacemen Investment and q-Ratios (NY and London: St. Martin's and Macmillan, 1989).
Maybe I have not expressed my case very well, but I have not found a single mainstream economist to be receptive to my perspective. Either they insist that Keynesianism is a descructive interference with the supposedly free market or they think that Keynesianism provides the key to running an economy. Both sides are correct in the criticism of the other and each is blind to the defects of his/her own position. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu