Keynes seminal works where written in the 1930's and from that point his theories went through a process of varying revision, acceptance and rejection.>

Well, I certainly have no issue with your effort to keep the record straight in regards to Keynes' works.

If you were to have written that <Keynes' writings haven't guided economists thinking for a long time> then I would probably just reply tersely "good point".

But you didn't write that. You used "Keynseianism" instead of "Keynes' writings," and went on to point out <his theories went through a process of varying revision>

The idea that, during recessions, governments must step in to spend when the populace cuts back, in order to support "aggregate demand", is considered to be a tenant of Keynesian economics. The discussion of whether Keynes wrote this or not is actually irrelevant to the classification of this idea as part of Keynesian theory. [Back to the statement <his theories went through a process of varying revision>]

Quite frankly, the theory of aggregate demand is baloney, as Mr. Woods so eloquently points out [see the link in my previous post]

When one considers that most "Western Democracies" and Japan have national debts near or even exceeding the level of 100% of annual GDP, it would be an understatement to say that the practice of using government spending to bolster aggregate demand approaches the level of being a religion among the politicians of these countries.

As for your statements regarding Austrian economics, first let me say thanks for the link and I hope to have time in the near future to go there and read some of the critiques.

Secondly, let me address the following statement made by you:

<With all due respect, Austrian economics hasn't had much credibility for a long time, although some of its original insights are praiseworthy.>

If you had said that "Austrian economics hasn't <been given> much credibility for a long time" then, again, I would say tersely "good point."

Because this is quite true.

The astute observer will recognize that most countries operate under an economic model that is a blend of more than 1 economic theory. I won't write a dissertation here to support this, as I consider it a truism recognizable to any diligent student of real-world economies.

My point is that, as america emerged from an economic model that was sort of a blend of colonialism/mercantilism during its youth as a country, it operated economically in a way that followed Austrian economics to a varying extent depending on which aspect of the economy one cares to dissect. As you must surely know, this facilitated a stupendous growth in this country in technical know how, wealth, and eventually, standard of living for the average worker.

This period was characterized by such government policies as small deficits, small and non-permanent government debt levels, and quite a bit simpler legal codes at all levels of government and in nearly all aspects of the legal system.

More to the point, though, is that recessions tended to be short-lived prior to the adoption of government intervention as the norm for addressing recessions [frequently referred to as "panics" in the histories of the times before FDR]. Correlation is not causation, but it certainly begs the question of "why for the last 80 years have we repeatedly tried to address bad economic times with the very same measures that have proven time and again to be not so effective?"

We don't need government stepping in to maintain "aggregate demand" during times of recession. What we need is for government to get out of the way of the role recessions play, which is to wipe out malinvestments in order to clear a path for the entrepreneurship of our citizens to restore economic health.

The very heart of "aggregate demand" is almost to say that people will sit by and starve to death during bad times, unless the government leads them to save themselves! Which came first, people or government? people, of course.

2036? This is a "headlong race" that won't reach the finish for a quarter of a century? A looming disaster, assuming we don't do anything about it for the next *25* years?

We thought they were "dumping" cheap solar panels on the USA, ruining out fledgling green power industry.

In the past, our response was usually enough to get some changes made, without further hostilities. This may be a permanent state of agression.

There are some who fit this description, no question, but the education system itself is pretty sad. American students don't get trained to use their heads any more. It's all about making their 4.0 or going 1600 on the SATs, not succeeding in real life.

<...The people who can't get a degree in anything else in college end up in education...>

And I thought that distinction went to majors like political science and English, two likely roads to the un(der)employment line even when things were better.

<...I think high tech has brought forth an irrevocable and negative change in the work force...>

There have been other forces at work here. Before high tech grabbed its piece of the stage, many people were brainwashed with the idea that blue collar jobs were infra dig and that they had to go to college to amount to anything.

<...not eveyrone is above average. Not everyone is college material. Not everyone is capable of working in high tech...>

Beyond the command driven models, there is a disconnect between politics and economics. The US hardly has an economic model since the total picture is a hodge podge of mostly political driven short term band aids.

<Correlation is not causation, but it certainly begs the question of "why for the last 80 years have we repeatedly tried to address bad economic times with the very same measures that have proven time and again to be not so effective?">

1)When are you claiming that the U.S. "emerged" from a period of "colonial/mercantilism".

2) How and why did the U.S. benefit from this period? How essential was it that America was originally part of the British Empire, which was a state-militarist-economic entity? How important was the investment of the British Imperial profits into the U.S. economy?

3) Are you recognizing that America's government-led imperial westward expansion, government protection of infant industries via tariffs, trade restrictions etc., government involvement in massive infrastructure development (railroads, canals etc.)and so on, were essential to U.S. economic development?

< [the U.S.] operated economically in a way that followed Austrian economics..">

1) What period precisely do you claim the to be the golden age of U.S. Austrian economics?

2) What were those supposed Austrian economic policies in that period?

<More to the point, though, is that recessions tended to be short-lived prior to the adoption of government intervention as the norm for addressing recessions [frequently referred to as "panics" in the histories of the times before FDR].>

Did Keynseian policies lead to the Great Depression?

Why did (neo) Keynseianism become adopted almost worldwide (outside the Socialist Bloc and a few other regions) and why was it perceived to be so successful and universally lauded?

Why did (neo)Keynsianism come into near universal discredit in the late seventies and how did it eventually become superceded by "monetarism" (briefly), then neoliberalsm and "free market fundamentalism"?

How did the anti-Keynseian "Washington Consensus" come into being, and how did its imposition on many nations across the world, via IMF "structural adjustment" programs, World Bank development schemes etc, work out for those nations?

<We don't need government stepping in to maintain "aggregate demand" during times of recession. What we need is for government to get out of the way of the role recessions play, which is to wipe out malinvestments in order to clear a path for the entrepreneurship of our citizens to restore economic health.">

That is familar rhetoric, of course. Can you back it up with any logical arguments and empirical evidence?

I agree completely. I just chose "capital" because it is the central concept in "capitalism", yet almost no one can give it a coherent defintion, let alone show how such an entity can be quantified.

It would take several volumes to cover all the problems of economic quantification , not to mention the absurd behavioral and psychological premises the whole theoretical structure of mainstream economics is built upon.

Modern economics prides itself as being a "hard science", superior to such lower creatures as political science and sociology. But it is light-years away from being a "hard science" because of three interconnected issues:

1) Quantification problems

2) The absurd premises need to extract simplistic *economic* models out of complex and chaotic *social* systems (i.e. the untenable separation of economics from political an social forces)

US politicians are now the property of the highest bidder. No longer can one speak about the 'land of the free' without looking like a buffoon.

Welcome to the new world order my American cousins, the new militant pseudo-christian corporatocracy is at your service for this short trip to Armageddon.

Actually, very different measures have been tried over the last 80 years, and some have been very effective-- so your premise just isn't true.

I don't see how you can fail to recognize the historic shift away from (neo) Keynseian orthodoxy and the ascendancy of neoliberalism ("market-fundamentalism", neo-classical economics).

<A new US law will declare the world a battlefield, making virtually anyone vulnerable to indefinite military detention.>

After terrorists get in a few lucky shots, people hit back. I suppose the above newspaper also decried the commando raid a couple of months back, that killed Bin Laden, right?

Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal principal that your politicians are legislating out of common law and you think that's 'sensational'. In one sense of the word I agree with you.

I agree. <patzer2> would have made a great economics teacher.

<<Referencing the Ninth Circuit, Gingrich said that judges who believe the phrase "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of church and state are "radically Anti-American" and should not be wearing the robe.>

"I taught a short course in this at the University of Georgia Law School, and I testified in front of sitting justices at Georgetown Law School and I warned them, 'You keep attacking the core base of THE AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, and you will find an uprising against you which will rebalance the judiciary.'">

Apparently it does--at least that was a key idea behind the move to stick those words into the Pledge.

<On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln's pew, the church's pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled "A New Birth of Freedom."

He argued that the nation's might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge's sentiments could be those of any nation, that "there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He cited Lincoln's words "under God" as DEFINING WORDS THAT SET THE UNITED STATES APART FROM OTHER NATIONS."