Originally posted by whodey
Like I said, they could care nothing about Keynes, other than taking certain aspects of his theory and applying them to make it appear that they have legitimacy.
So if you agree with Keynes in regards to government inflating money so as to steal our wealth, then why do you support the nanny state? This is just another angle to promote their theft.
Did I say I agreed with Keynes or with that quote from Keynes? No. I said that what Keynes said was similar to stuff you have said and implied that I am surprised you think you disagree with Keynes.
I do not believe that Keynes was an advocate of irresponsibly spending without the revenue to cover the bills. He argued instead that there are good reasons for public spending to be used as an implement to influence the economy. There might be periods when it is prudent to take money out of the economy, and other periods when it is prudent to pump money into the economy, which can both be achieved by spending more or by spending less than the available revenues. However, over a time period of perhaps a number of years rather than one budget cycle, I think he envisaged that things would return to balance. So he was not an advocate of the kind of deficit which has been seen in the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush, where the deficits reflected unfunded wars and a tax break for the rich.
Whether what is happening in the US since the 2008 crash is properly Keynesian or not I can't say for sure but it is a different scenario altogether to the crazy Republican project. In the UK I think we can say it is certainly not Keynesian, since we have watched a right wing coalition trying to sharply reduce public spending in the face of a massive recession. Where they have spent immense amounts is in protecting their pals in the banks and the financial sector but the evidence of corresponding benefits in the real economy is slight (especially in relation to the amount spent). Of course they have not managed to reduce the deficit in the way they promised, because their approach has contributed to the drying up of public revenues which are the other side of the equation when we discuss deficits. People in the low wage, casual economy are not paying the taxes they might directly or indirectly while the corporations and the rich are evading taxes with continuing bravado.
As regards the nanny state, I wonder are you mixing up Keynes for someone else (maybe Beveridge)? Indeed I wonder if it would be a good idea for you to let Keynes RIP.