Michael Meeropol writes: "There REALLY is a material difference between the Keynesian perspective that does NOT demonize deficits and the austerity approach which conveniently shows its ugly head when there are real needs for the lower income, working class, poverty stricken members of the population."
The interesting thing about most austerians is that they don't seem too bothered by the big elephant in the room - the military Keynesianism that has been a permanent fixture of the US economy since the Second World War. Referring once again to Kalecki's "Political Aspects of Full Employment," ( https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-employment/ ), he wrote: " The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments. " Both Kalecki and his friend and colleague, Josef Steindl would become pioneering analysts of military Keynesianism. Their analyses of this phenomena made an impression of Paul Sweezy and the Monthly Review school, which is palpable in such writings like the book *Monopoly Capital* which was written by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy. Anyway, I think their analyses of military Keynesianism explains why most austerians are comfortable with it while strongly critical of Keynesian stimulus policies that aim to improve the lot of ordinary working people. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5786): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/5786 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79921817/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
