A Third Way - Fiscal Owls and Modern Monetary Theory : Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:28 pm  

Lib/Cons are fiscal hawks who argue we have to have austerity to cut the government defecit (but never the actual debt). Labour are fiscal doves who argue the Government has to carry on running up the national debt to stimulate the economy and get us out of the economic quagmire we are currently in. Now a third option is getting more notice, fiscal owls, who argue the government should create new money to spend into the economy, as explained in this interview on RT. http://rt.com/programs/capital-account/ ... overnment/ Does anybody here, apart from me, think it's a viable option?

Lib/Cons are fiscal hawks who argue we have to have austerity to cut the government defecit (but never the actual debt). Labour are fiscal doves who argue the Government has to carry on running up the national debt to stimulate the economy and get us out of the economic quagmire we are currently in. Now a third option is getting more notice, fiscal owls, who argue the government should create new money to spend into the economy, as explained in this interview on RT. http://rt.com/programs/capital-account/ ... overnment/ Does anybody here, apart from me, think it's a viable option?

Re: A Third Way - Fiscal Owls and Modern Monetary Theory : Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:54 pm  

LeighGionaire wrote: Lib/Cons are fiscal hawks who argue we have to have austerity to cut the government defecit (but never the actual debt). Labour are fiscal doves who argue the Government has to carry on running up the national debt to stimulate the economy and get us out of the economic quagmire we are currently in. I think you're conflating old Labour and New. Whilst it is true that under Blair and Brown it was far more committed to public spending than the current government I don't think such stacks up to the investment Labour made under Wilson or Attlee (especially) - or even some of the early post-war Tory governments. Blair never missed an opportunity to trumpet thirteen-figure spending on the NHS and education and whilst such sums were indeed impressive it is also true that Labour were at the same time stealthily attacking public sector investment. As for Labour under Milliband - I wouldn't take much notice of anything they say until such time as they win an election, whereupon I suspect manifesto promises will predictably evaporate like water on a hot skillet. The truth is neither party has much choice in the matter as any attempt to significantly roll back public sector cuts would immediately provoke punitive sanctions from the IMF that would bring the country to its knees. Now a third option is getting more notice, fiscal owls, who argue the government should create new money to spend into the economy, as explained in this interview on RT. http://rt.com/programs/capital-account/ ... overnment/ Does anybody here, apart from me, think it's a viable option? My memory is a little vague on this but isn't the above already covered under a broad interpretation of Keynesianism? I mean, turning the printing presses up to eleven and cutting taxes to zero wouldn't be seen as canonical but you're not a million miles away. If we simply must continue with this fly-blown, moth-eaten capitalist ideology via some "Third Way" I think its ambitions must first and foremost be self-evidently moral. Let Friedman, Hayek and the rest go phuck themselves.

LeighGionaire wrote: Lib/Cons are fiscal hawks who argue we have to have austerity to cut the government defecit (but never the actual debt). Labour are fiscal doves who argue the Government has to carry on running up the national debt to stimulate the economy and get us out of the economic quagmire we are currently in. I think you're conflating old Labour and New. Whilst it is true that under Blair and Brown it was far more committed to public spending than the current government I don't think such stacks up to the investment Labour made under Wilson or Attlee (especially) - or even some of the early post-war Tory governments. Blair never missed an opportunity to trumpet thirteen-figure spending on the NHS and education and whilst such sums were indeed impressive it is also true that Labour were at the same time stealthily attacking public sector investment. As for Labour under Milliband - I wouldn't take much notice of anything they say until such time as they win an election, whereupon I suspect manifesto promises will predictably evaporate like water on a hot skillet. The truth is neither party has much choice in the matter as any attempt to significantly roll back public sector cuts would immediately provoke punitive sanctions from the IMF that would bring the country to its knees. Now a third option is getting more notice, fiscal owls, who argue the government should create new money to spend into the economy, as explained in this interview on RT. http://rt.com/programs/capital-account/ ... overnment/ Does anybody here, apart from me, think it's a viable option? My memory is a little vague on this but isn't the above already covered under a broad interpretation of Keynesianism? I mean, turning the printing presses up to eleven and cutting taxes to zero wouldn't be seen as canonical but you're not a million miles away. If we simply must continue with this fly-blown, moth-eaten capitalist ideology via some "Third Way" I think its ambitions must first and foremost be self-evidently moral. Let Friedman, Hayek and the rest go phuck themselves.