Keynesian economics. You’ve probably heard the phrase before; it’s usually touted by liberals as the ultimate example of perfected economic policy. My college professor explained that Keynesian economics is the idea that the government should spend extra money when the economy is down in order to stimulate it, then cut back on spending when the economy is good. FDR used this model with his New Deal programs, as has the current president with his 2009 Stimulus Program (though both without ever cutting back on spending).
Well my 18-year-old brain was essentially mush at the time I entered college–not completely, but just about. I bought this ideology hook, line, and sinker…then. Now after 4 years of my own study in the school of common sense I’ve realized that my beloved college professor left half the story out of the lecture. The only way that government has any money is by taking it out of the private sector with the down economy, thereby making the problem worse. Certainly large government picks and chooses who gets the money as it sees fit, but it cannot produce more money–only a thriving private sector can do that.
With all this talk of governments spending money, Keynesian economics begins to sound very much like redistribution of wealth (see theft). Well here’s the bombshell: it is. Keynesian economics follows the same idea that the government knows how best to spend money, and if it can only spend enough it will eventually stimulate a struggling economy. The big problem is that government spending has the exact opposite effect, dragging a slow economy into a worse and worse state. So it really doesn’t matter if you call it Keynesian, or redistribution, or Marxism–they all have the same economically destructive effect.