Your argument boils down to this: if any part of an economy rests upon the ideas of a former economist then any changes to that economists programs in favor of another one are immaterial to claiming that the economy resoundingly reflects the previous one. If your point is that some of what Keynes advised is still in practice then I grant you that in much the same spirit as we still consider Newtons theories correct even though Einstein corrected him in many areas. You excel at the art of making a very small point the main point in your argument. If I were to believe what you said against my statement then I would have to ignore the Reagan Revolution, the economic transformation of a regulated economy based upon decades of success into a more laissez faire market place. The amount of deregulation that has occured in almost every sector since Friedmans ideas took hold is obvious to anyone with any grasp of our history. By stating that all fiscal policy is de facto a Keynsian policy you completely ignored the essence of what Keynes advised. You only use fiscal policy to correct low demand and a stagnant economy during a crisis. You do not continue that after the crisis is over, in fact, you return to a debt repayment policy once the tide has turned. Any economy that is unconcerned with fairness is an economy that is destined to lead to poverty for the masses. The government is the only institution that can protect us from powerful private interests. This has been true since Caesar made himself a dictator, it is still true today. The line in the sand for us as a nation is how best to share the income generated by our collective efforts to insure peace, provide for happiness and promote the general welfare of the people. Not some of the people, all of the people. This is what the last election was about. It was a referendum on your ideas and our ideas. Your ideas lost. They have lost in every advanced nation on earth in most areas of debate. When your ideas win a small victory, they result in the shit storm we saw in Chile, Argentina, Russia and now in the UK. Iceland and Ireland got it right. They kicked the philosophically devout free marketers out on their asses and protected the common man. You can argue this specific point until you are blue in the face but your argument will fall upon dead ears. No one is buying your historical revisionism any longer Trap.
Jeez, Wools. If you can't learn to use the forum's quote button, at least learn to use your computer's "return" key. This reads like one long sentence written by someone on speed.
Now, I'll try.
Your argument boils down to this: if any part of an economy rests upon the ideas of a former economist then any changes to that economists programs in favor of another one are immaterial to claiming that the economy resoundingly reflects the previous one. If your point is that some of what Keynes advised is still in practice then I grant you that in much the same spirit as we still consider Newtons theories correct even though Einstein corrected him in many areas.
More of Keynes is in practice than Friedman over the period you describe. Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all had Keynesian programs in play. In fact, there has been no time since the New Deal that such programs have not been a key part of the United States government and a large part of U.S. expenditures. Show me how Keynesian spending went away significantly over the 30 years you cited (presumably 1980 to 2010).
You excel at the art of making a very small point the main point in your argument.
I excel, to the extent that I do, at ignoring the extraneous. God is in the details.
If I were to believe what you said against my statement then I would have to ignore the Reagan Revolution, the economic transformation of a regulated economy based upon decades of success into a more laissez faire market place.
Ah, but Keynes didn't necessarily believe in free-market controls. He believed in counter-cyclical government spending. His general theory, as published in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" has little to do with market regulation, which he saw a secondary to other forms of governmental market intervention.
By stating that all fiscal policy is de facto a Keynsian policy you completely ignored the essence of what Keynes advised. You only use fiscal policy to correct low demand and a stagnant economy during a crisis.
I haven't said that, and I'm reluctant to respond as I would be defending a position I haven't taken. What I have said is that our government retained its Keynesian spending throughout the 30 years you define as the practice of Friedman's policies. Friedman is defined only via a lessening of (some) regulations during that period, not via a loss of Keynesian policies nor much of a reduction in stimulatory spending, or counter cyclical spending.
You only use fiscal policy to correct low demand and a stagnant economy during a crisis. You do not continue that after the crisis is over, in fact, you return to a debt repayment policy once the tide has turned.
Then why has the U.S. not returned to debt reduction at any time since WWII? The answer to that is obvious, we have retained Keynesian programs absent a Keynesian crisis throughout most of that period.
The government is the only institution that can protect us from powerful private interests.
If the government can subdue powerful private interests, think of how much power it then has to subdue the private interests of those without power. You want an interventionist government that "does good." I want a government with less power to do harm. The two goals are almost mutually exclusive.
The line in the sand for us as a nation is how best to share the income generated by our collective efforts to insure peace, provide for happiness and promote the general welfare of the people. Not some of the people, all of the people. This is what the last election was about. It was a referendum on your ideas and our ideas.
If this was the case (and I doubt it, I think it was much more akin to a Roman dictator giving bread and circuses to the masses), then it wasn't much of a referendum. Democrat (if you prefer Keynesian) policies were rejected by nearly half the voting public. Ignore them at your peril, politically speaking.
And where is it written into our system of government's rulebook that our government is about sharing the prosperity of individuals with other individuals? That's really what you're talking about here. You speak broadly of "our collective efforts" but for the most part "we" don't have "collective efforts." We have our individual careers and jobs and have to exercise our own abilities and utilities for our own ends.
When your ideas win a small victory, they result in the shit storm we saw in Chile, Argentina, Russia and now in the UK. Iceland and Ireland got it right. They kicked the philosophically devout free marketers out on their asses and protected the common man.
It is laughable to compare the U.S. with dictatorships, controlled economies, criminocracies and third world nations. If Ireland, and Iceland, "got it right" it isn't reflected in their current economies. I have not provided any revision to history. None.