Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think I see your point.

The problem is that sometimes it passes (from some Keynesians that I read) that proper economic policy would be enough to maintain the status quo lifestyle. That state anti-cyclical intervention (and redistributive policies) would be enough to counter nature's limits. Indeed many of those keynesians ignore nature's limits (hence my comment on post-industrialism) and clearly talk about growth (in very real terms).

Any realistic politics for the future will have to consider a shrinkage of the resource base. That, by the way is more encouraging of redistributive policies: "trickle down" would only make sense in a infinite growth (real) scenario: If there are limits then if some get more and more that can only mean that others get less and less.

by cagatacos on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The way I see it, the current policies ban a fairly large proportion of society from accessing the means of production they need to be productive. All in the name of fighting the satanic forces of inflation.

Keynes on the other hand saw that unemployment is an evil as it destroys the unemployed, and therefore it is better to run unproductive public projects like pyramid building then to have unemployment. Even better is to produce things actually needed.

Keynes lived at a time when resource constraints was results of boycotts, not nature. But that does not invalidate his observations on unemployment, and in a resource constrained world more manual labor will be needed as we can no longer throw more resources at every problem.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 02:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: