It was very poor because it was a regurgitation of expansionary austerity that was demolished by the IMF.
Neither of them tried to address the issues raised by the authors rather they ignored them.
What is more interesting is the piece linked by John. it is an appealing piece by Sinclair Davidson.
I was using the moniker
Reading it again I am impressed by my arguments and again by the bellicose bombast of extreme ignorance by JC and Mark Hill going .
In retrospect my arguments make look like Solomon! I expect nonentities like JC and Mark Hill to to have a clue about current economic arguments but Carling and Kirchner look like used car salesmen.
Why because if they should have addressed the criticisms of expansionary austerity if they had any. By ignoring them they showed they had none!
It is no wonder Soony defended Carling. I also should have noted Soony was a supporter of the re-regulated labour market hypothesis. Oh dear
No comments:
Post a Comment