Not my understanding on Keynsian economics, from a book I read: "
Keynes went out of fashion because of the rise of monetarism, and of course there was the consequent rise in unemployment that followed...
There are a lot of 'coulds' in your original post. So then we have the fact that, under control of the state, the utilities could indeed pay for themselves. Indeed, surely the question is more *when* they do, rather than *if*?
Indeed, the Factcheck link CD has posted also adds:
I'm not even going to bother arguing whether nationalising industries is paid for by government borrowing - that much is obvious, and I'd be a little surprised if he claimed otherwise. I will, howver, always argue that investment in infrastructure is the only way this country will ever progress... as opposed to flogging everything off to deliver a populist (and often election winning) headline about the money in the back pocket of Average Joe for that five year period.
I disagree with pretending to know things that I do not, so I'll confess that my knowledge of Keynsian economics in history is limited to a book I read - it's a neutrally positioned book just explaining the history of the UK economy. I'll dig it out tomorrow and type in the relevant passage. I'm also a bit uneasy about just posting things that others have written rather than thinking for myself. I'll further research the claims in that book after I've shared the passage.
Of course my post is full of 'coulds', how could it be anything else unless I was claiming to have certain knowledge of the future? I've just presented a logic and if you spot a logic flaw I'll rethink.
McDonnell, when pressed, admitted that issuing bonds was borrowing. But look at the video:
Neil: "You are going to borrow for nationalisation, that's tens of billions more"
McDonnell: "No, no, we would swap bonds for shares."
Neil: "What's a bond?"
McDonnell: "It is borrowing, but..."
He's repeated the same thing many times. Few people understand the mechanics of the financial markets and government borrowing. He's trying to hoodwink people to believe that somehow issuing a bond is different. It isn't; it's exactly how the government borrows.
Yes, investing in infrastructure is important. There is an attitude among some left-leaning people that centrists (as I would term myself) or rather slightly right wingers, don't want the same things: wealth for all; happiness; fairness... I cannot speak for everyone but that's exactly what I want and believe that many in the centrist Conservative party want the same. All that differs is the opinion on how to achieve it.
One day Keynes may come back into fashion... and if only (in my view) we'd taken the Keynesian approach in the 1930s...
