Krugginator - why isn't there more macroeconomic populism? Quote:
Fiscal stimulus in the United States, far from becoming permanent, has always faded out fast, indeed too fast; monetary retrenchment has also tended to come too quickly, at least sometimes. And even when things did run away from us in the 1970s, it was not at all the story conservatives now like to tell, in which central banks printed money to cover deficit spending; deficits weren’t actually big, and inflation took off because of oil shocks and macroeconomic misjudgments, not populist temptation.
But why don’t these things happen in advanced countries? After all, the story — populist politicians should love it when people tell them that printing money and running big deficits is OK — seems plausible. And things like this have happened in Latin America — indeed are happening again today in Venezuela and Argentina. So why don’t they ever happen in America, Europe, or Japan? Why, in a time of deflationary pressure, have calls for belt-tightening dominated the political scene?
I actually don’t know, although I continue to think about it. But it is a puzzle worth pondering.
It's because, in advanced countries, the capitalist rentier class has absolute political supremacy. Basically, they make money on deflation and stagnation, and so that's what they always work to bring about.
Come on, Kruggers! For a progressive, Keynesian economics professor you're awful damn dense sometimes. Was there no conflict theory or Marx in the Ph.D. comprehensive when you went to school? You're just begging to be assigned some remedial reading.