Fri 17 Jul 2009
Why Keynesian stimulus packages will not work
Posted by admin under 2009 Summer, 2009 Summer Op-Ed
[6] Comments
by Titus North, Pennsylvania Green Party
In 1971 Richard Nixon famously proclaimed “we are all Keynesians now.” That statement was made in the context of a slowing economy, and Nixon, believing a recession was responsible for his razor-thin loss to John Kennedy in the 1960 election, was ready to give up his traditional fiscal conservatism and engage in deficit spending in order to boost the economy and improve his re-election chances the following year.
Ironically, by 1971 true Keynesianism was already dead in the United States. Deficit spending during recessions is only half of British economist John Maynard Keynes’ prescription for fiscal management. The other half is running budget surpluses during times of economic expansions. And it was the Vietnam War that marked the end of Keynesianism, as large-scale deficit spending even during economic expansions became the norm.
Except for the Internet Bubble years of 1999-2000, the federal government has run budget deficits (not including Social Security) every single year since Nixon’s statement, and typically quite massive ones. So during almost all the boom years, we ignored Keynes’ advice to run surpluses, but now when facing a depression we expect Keynesian stimulus to save us. It won’t work, and don’t blame it on Keynes, regardless of what you think of him. He never said “borrow megabucks from China during expansions and then just print money during recessions.” Printing dollars to pay for stimulus will eventually lead to runaway inflation and completely undermine international faith in the dollar. Hyperinflation can cause depressions as easily as deflation.
Our economic system can well be described as “economic militarism.” By this I mean not just that our economy is oriented towards war making, but also our economy is dependent on military might to allow us to dominate the international system and impose an economic order that in turn finances our military. Not only do we use our military to secure resources and markets, but we also use it to, in effect, bully foreign governments to purchase U.S. treasuries, keep dollars as a reserve currency, and support U.S. dominated international financial institutions.
However, domination is not the same as dictatorial control, and American domination has always required a considerable amount of cooperation from other countries. Furthermore, power has always been shared with markets. Moreover, recent history has shown that there are limits to what can be done with military might. The economic crisis demonstrates America’s economic dependence on other countries and on markets is quite considerable. The cooperation required to maintain the current U.S. dominated system cannot be taken for granted.
Therefore, in responding to the economic crisis, what we need is not a further ballooning of our already massive deficit, but rather a reorientation of our priorities. We must recognize that economic militarism is unsustainable. We already depend on funds borrowed from other countries to pay for our wars and overseas bases, but nobody will be willing to loan us real money only to be repaid with newly printed monopoly money. We might as well fold our cards and recognize the militaristic game we have been playing was not worth winning anyway.
Rather than deficit spending for its own sake, we should spend money on what we really need, like health care, genuine renewable energy, and education, and stop spending it on wars, overseas bases, and endless weapons systems. Economically speaking, we get very little “bang” from these bucks. I know that years of militaristic propaganda have given many Americans a deep psychological attachment to all things military, but we could even link the cut in military spending to cuts in income tax, dollar for dollar. What better way to educate people about how much militarism has been costing them?
There would still be plenty of corporate welfare programs, such as corn-based ethanol, that could be eliminated to make room for more important spending priorities. And do we really need to be sending people into space? Who are we trying to impress? There are a lot of worthy programs included in the Obama stimulus package, but the whole thing is doomed to failure if we go into hyperinflation. I’m not saying we have to balance the budget this year, but let’s cut out the massive waste that not just does no good but does us real harm.
Titus North teaches political science at the University of Pittsburgh and is a two-time Green Party candidate for U.S. Congress. His latest novel, Operation Patriotic Toilet Seat, is available through enlightened-pyramid.com.
We must recognize that economic militarism is unsustainable.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering where the space program comment came from in the article. I thought the advancement of science would be a positive goal for any society. Plus, velcro got huge because of NASA, and where would we be without that?
NASA along with NOAA is where the majority of our technology is created. Further, sustainability includes off planet colonies. If we do not spread man across our solar system, we risk dying off from non-man made events. I think we can keep the space program, possibly share a budget with the other world space agencies and work together.
“That is, if the money isn’t blown on military adventures and corporate welfare again”
The problem is that this opinion isn’t even spoken in the newsmedia. There is no voice for peace, no voice against the military industrial complex, no voice agains corporate welfare. The only way to get traction for these kinds of positions is to get a bigger than life spokesman onboard who can get on the media outlets and push these positions. I don’t believe the GP has attracted a speaker of this type yet. And we had better focus on doing it. Who is it? Kucinich? Is it a celebrity who can get office by his fame and get media coverage and push? To discuss.
Meanwhile, the problem with the stimulus are well detailed above, but I would add two things. One, the money isn’t going toward JOBS. That’s why it’s not working. And two, the real intent of the crooks in congress and the white house is to line the pockets of big corporations. So don’t expect any good to come out of their actions. Sorry to be so frank.
Shifting funds from the bloated military budget to green infrastructure investment is definitely the way to fix our broken economy.
And no, Vincent, that isn’t the same as borrowing more to spend on stimulus. While the public debt will have to be paid, you can’t do it in the midst of a recession – that’s how you create a long and deep depression. That’s what they did in the 1930s.
If you shift spending from stuff that you’re going to blow up (which pays no return on investment) to programs that create jobs (which increase tax revenues), it will reduce the deficit – without spending cuts or tax increases. If these programs create the infrastructure for long-term sustainable jobs (which renewable energy investment does), these gains will multiply over time – and eventually create the budget surplus needed to pay off the national debt.
That is, if the money isn’t blown on military adventures and corporate welfare again – which is why we need a Green government!
“Rather than deficit spending for its own sake, we should spend money on what we really need, like health care, genuine renewable energy, and education, and stop spending it on wars, overseas bases, and endless weapons systems.”
Isn’t that just more of the same behaviour (i.e. deficit spending) which you condemn earlier? Before we go increasing the budget deficit on worthy programmes like the ones you mention, we should learn how to make sure revenue exceeds expenditures and pay off our public debt of over a trillion dollars.
I read Paul Krugman op-ed articles in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Is he agreeing with this or are there fundamental differences? Thank you.