Me, last year, re: right wingers and interventionist economics:
[...]the slightest glance at their record shows they love them some Keynesian economics as long as the spending goes to the right things, by which they mean war & its related pork. Their public stance is purely P.R. stunt.
Judson Phillips, head of “Tea Party Nation”, fairly recently:
If we decided to build a couple of new carriers, thousands of workers would be hired for the shipyards. Thousands of employees would be hired for the steel mills that would provide the steel for the hull and various sub contractors would hire thousands. Do you know what that means?
It means they would receive paychecks and go out and spend that money. That would help a recovery. That is a shovel ready project!
Increasing spending for the military does a couple of things. It not only not only stimulates the economy, it protects our nation. That is a better investment than say spending money on teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly. [emphasis mine]
Resurrect Keynes from the grave, give him a uniform, combat boots, and an M-16, and have him bark a few jingoistic notes about blood and country…you still have before you Zombie Keynes.
Military Keynesianism, as Chalmers Johnson used to call it. It’s not just military spending, either. I’ve noticed that conservatives tend to shrug off subsidies to big corporations and banks, too, I assume because this is at least a “productive” use of stolen funds.
I would direct Mr. Phillips to the works of one Emmanuel Goldstein for an explanation of why his ideas are complete dross.