I think keynsian economics makes perfect sense in a feudal environment in which wealth is serverely concentrated.
In a situation of severe wealth concentration, the majority of the population is starving, uneducated, depressed, diseased, looking for drugs, etc. Let's also assume that the rich cannot consume at infinitely large rates. I.E., they can only use a limited amount of man-servants and harem-girls in a 24 hr. period.
If the rich are saturated with luxury, a "deadlock" situation arises in which the rich have no incentive to employ more poor people.
However, if a natural disaster or a war occurs, the estates of the rich become threatened, and the rich are required to divest some of their estate in order to rebuild and/or protect it.
This a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but I think this is where Keynsians are coming from. (If they're not, they're just morons. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 07:49 am (UTC)In a situation of severe wealth concentration, the majority of the population is starving, uneducated, depressed, diseased, looking for drugs, etc. Let's also assume that the rich cannot consume at infinitely large rates. I.E., they can only use a limited amount of man-servants and harem-girls in a 24 hr. period.
If the rich are saturated with luxury, a "deadlock" situation arises in which the rich have no incentive to employ more poor people.
However, if a natural disaster or a war occurs, the estates of the rich become threatened, and the rich are required to divest some of their estate in order to rebuild and/or protect it.
This a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but I think this is where Keynsians are coming from. (If they're not, they're just morons. :-)