The two kinds of Economics

There are just two kinds of economics; all else is commentary and elaboration. On the one hand we have Keynesian economics – positive, progressive and creative of employment and growth.
On the other hand we have Dickensian economics - the Bleak House of austerity and the pitiful Mickawberishness of the Chancellor waiting for something – anything - to turn up.
But of course it won’t, not any time soon, with the recent IMF downgrade in economic growth forecasts now followed by another credit rating agency downgrading the country’s rating because of a weakening economic and financial outlook.
Meanwhile the screw continues to be turned on those people who already have very little. If he were alive today Charles Dickens would have written about this – without any great expectations.
But of course these unfortunate citizens are not seen as the fabled wealth creators (creating wealth for whom exactly?) who will leap in to the gap left by the shrinking public sector. We can see the gap alright but where are the leapers?
The incoming head of the Bank of England claims that growth can come only from the private sector. Heaven help us. Not true of course as for one thing it depends on what has been put in the hands of the private sector, which is very good at exporting jobs and tax-free profits if not much else.
And for another it depends on demand – and not just for food banks - rather than the present lack of it. Stimulating demand and undertaking investment in public works, at least promoted and backed by the public sector and driven, if not delivered by it, are fundamental to a successful Keynesian approach. The necessary financing can come from taxes on those individuals and companies who can well afford to pay - as detailed in previous posts.
Of course I would not claim that Keynesianism is perfect, but as Maurice Chevalier once remarked of old age “it’s so much better than the alternative!”