Absent aid, few US cities will be able to avoid austerity

Re:Absent aid, few US cities will be able to avoid austerity by mas3god on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @05:53PM (#24560392)

This is a faliure of Keynesian economics. The moment the government had the privilege to spend beyond its means was the moment it ditched savings and high interest rates. Now that were actually in a crisis it caused us to have even less savings and more debt than without a federal reserve.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Absent aid, few US cities will be able to avoid austerity by pizza on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @06:13PM (#24560599)

Can you explain what it is you think the government spent on beyond its means? ie is it one of these:

- trillion dollar wars, and in general, multi-trillion dollar military expenditure

- subsidized private health insurance (as opposed to a more streamlined/wholesale universal healthcare plan)

- social security fund that leaks value over time

- massively bailed out banks

- widespread quantitative easing

In my humble and probably misguided understanding of Keynesian economics, you would want the government to fund e.g. a federal jobs guarantee during a recession.

Like, if you had a recession, pay one set of people to dig a hole, and another set of people to fill it up again, because then at least money would still propagate throughout the economy.

But I'm not certain that these huge expenditures (above) really did much to help worker or city solvency. Basically unless you are one of the government's top clients, don't expect it to pick up a check pad.

I guess I can sort of see how you're saying that it may have been Keynesian-esque for all these various industries but it's certainly not that Keynesian for the little guy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Absent aid, few US cities will be able to avoid austerity by mas3god on Monday September 28, 2020 @09:24AM (#24616357)

My take is Keynesian economics only benefits those closest to power on the little guy's dime.

[ Parent | on HN ]