Ritchie’s not a Keynesian then

From 1997 to 2007 the UK economy had appeared to run well. That was one reason
why Labour won three elections in a row. For several years the government actually
spent less than it generated in tax revenue and debt was repaid. Then, in the
aftermath of the dot.com crash the government invested in the economy, and ran a
deficit for a number of years that was almost exactly equivalent to the amount it
invested in new schools, hospitals roads and similar capital items, as indicated by the
blue line in Figure 1 running almost parallel, but slightly below, the red line. Despite
everything that has been said about Labour‟s economic management and reckless
borrowing this was an era when government finances looked to be under control.

The thing is, when you’re roaring ahead into the second decade of an economic boom you’re supposed to be running a budget surplus. As Keynes himself said.

6 comments on “Ritchie’s not a Keynesian then

  1. Investment to replace worn-out buildings and machinery (or in the government’s case, worn-out roads,schools and hospitals) should be financed out of cash flow not additional borrowing.
    So has our accounting genius yet to hear of depreciation?

  2. “in the aftermath of the dot.com crash the government invested in the economy”: this fucker should be awarded the Even Stupider Than Polly medal. With bar.

  3. dearieme: doesn’t seem as if it was a very good investment, does it? I mean considering the fact the economy went following that investment…

  4. Weren’t they running deficits long before 2007? I seem to remember ones a few years earlier than that. Might be wrong though.

  5. Labour won the first election promising to stick to Tory spending plans, the second have stuck to said plans. The third one is, frankly, an anomaly…

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.