Comments on: The return of Keynes http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123 Green politics, history (particularly women's history) science and books. Always feminist Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:45:27 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Joe Otten http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123&cpage=1#comment-2060184 Joe Otten Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:18:33 +0000 http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123#comment-2060184 Is that a yes? If you want to end growth in the West, as currently measured, that suggests lower growth as currently measured is better than higher growth as currently measured. Or are you just saying that you want to stop measuring it this way? In which case it is still not clear why you support Keynes and oppose "neoliberalism". Keynes also sought to deliver maximum economic growth after all. If you are saying his methods are more successful, might that not be a bad thing? The debate currently is over how much fiscal stimulus is best, weighing the benefits (to growth) of the stimulus against the costs of the resulting debt burden. Shouldn't the Greens be with the Tories - lower debt and lower growth, because they don't really want the growth anyway? Is that a yes? If you want to end growth in the West, as currently measured, that suggests lower growth as currently measured is better than higher growth as currently measured.

Or are you just saying that you want to stop measuring it this way? In which case it is still not clear why you support Keynes and oppose “neoliberalism”.

Keynes also sought to deliver maximum economic growth after all. If you are saying his methods are more successful, might that not be a bad thing?

The debate currently is over how much fiscal stimulus is best, weighing the benefits (to growth) of the stimulus against the costs of the resulting debt burden. Shouldn’t the Greens be with the Tories – lower debt and lower growth, because they don’t really want the growth anyway?

]]> By: Natalie Bennett http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123&cpage=1#comment-2059388 Natalie Bennett Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:24:16 +0000 http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123#comment-2059388 Not at all an awkward question - it depends where and what sort of growth. There were many countries that clearly needed growth in the Fifties and Sixties (and today) - where people don't have basic roofs over their head, food etc... and plenty that do today. I'm in favour of contraction and convergence, and the ending of economic growth as we currently measure it in the west today. But the awkward point for the neoliberals is that they were trying to deliver maximum growth, and they clearly failed. Not at all an awkward question – it depends where and what sort of growth. There were many countries that clearly needed growth in the Fifties and Sixties (and today) – where people don’t have basic roofs over their head, food etc… and plenty that do today.

I’m in favour of contraction and convergence, and the ending of economic growth as we currently measure it in the west today.

But the awkward point for the neoliberals is that they were trying to deliver maximum growth, and they clearly failed.

]]> By: Joe Otten http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123&cpage=1#comment-2059387 Joe Otten Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:17:11 +0000 http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3123#comment-2059387 Forgive me if this seems like too awkward a question, but as a Green shouldn't you prefer the lower growth figures over the higher growth figures? Forgive me if this seems like too awkward a question, but as a Green shouldn’t you prefer the lower growth figures over the higher growth figures?

]]>