By James C. W. Ahiakpor
Keynesianism, with its emphasis on aggregate demand
management to promote economic prosperity, has proven to be an abject failure
since 2008 in the United States and elsewhere. President George W. Bush’s tax
cuts in 2008 and the subsequent bailout of investment banks before President
Barack Obama took office were in the Keynesian mold of promoting spending to
sustain economic activity. President Obama’s various forms of stimulus
expenditures were similarly motivated, and they have not produced the promised
results. Ignoring the evidence, adherents of Lord Keynes’s view of how an
economy works have changed their language from touting the virtues of economic
stimulus to posing a false choice between austerity budgets and economic
growth.
Such change of language
apparently was influential in the last presidential election in France, when
Nicolas Sarkozy lost to socialist Francois Hollande, who touted the virtue of
growth promotion over austerity, or fiscal discipline. The same false choice
was touted in the June Greek elections but without a decisive victory for the
socialist growth promoters. The contrast between government budgetary
discipline and economic growth promotion through increased government spending
is sure to become pronounced in the U.S. election campaign. That is why the
meaninglessness of the alleged alternatives needs to be exposed: Austerity
budgets are the logical means of restoring economic growth; austerity and
growth promotion are not alternatives. The failure of governments to promote
robust economic recovery since the “Great Recession” will persist if a majority
of the voting public is lured into thinking that voting against austerity is a
vote for economic growth.