The New York Times reports that Democrats are at odds over the relevance of Keynes (HT Kate and waterzooi), despite overwhelming support among what the article calls "liberal economists" (I'm not sure why they think it's just liberal economists). This isn't especially surprising. First, the "Keynesian resurgence" is relatively new anyway. No one should be shocked that the dedication of some was fleeting. But we also have to remember that Keynesianism isn't really all that politically popular:
Politician: "I want to run even larger deficits than Obama has and I could even stand for some public employment programs, and I want to maintain those ::mummblemummble:: tax cuts"
Reporter: "Excuse me sir - I didn't catch that last part"
Politician: "I want to maintain those ::mummbleBushmummble:: tax cuts"
Politician: "The Bush tax cuts"
Ya - that's a winning electoral strategy. Voters just love budget deficits and George Bush. Think about this - how would the average voter react to that? Some people act like Keynesianism is tailor-made for politicians and winning elections. This is absurd. You know what wins elections?: "Balance the budget! Get Washington off my back! Muslims attacked us!". Come on - of course politicians are retreating from Keynesianism. News flash - this has been going on for two years and the politicians were never entirely on board in the first place. So it's an interesting trend to note, but it's not surprising at all from public choice theory perspective.
Trade, Jobs, and Inequality Video
15 hours ago