>Jeez, Doug, I think I have shown how on the basis of said distinction a
>marxist analysis of state spending was developed that demonstrated the
>unsustainability, impotence, and counterproductiveness of debt financed
>state spending even before the Keynesian project went up in smoke in the
>70s, provides an explanation for the weak macro effects of deficits in the
>80s, and clarifies why govts around the world have been trying to get their
>houses in order in the 90s. Mattick's analysis of the limits of the mixed
>economy, developed at the height of the haugtiest self confidence of
>Keynesian technocrats, presents itself one of the most successful
>predictions in the social sciences.
I don't recall Mattick doing any of Shaikh/Tonak style arithmetic. That's the stuff I don't see the point of. The flameout of Keynesianism is perfectly undestandable in class struggle terms.
There were also plenty of right-wing critiques of state spending as unsustainable too. What do you make of them?
Doug