is necessary to the continued functioninig of a capitalist economy. It's very simple and anyone, Milton Friedman or anyone else, who denies it needs to go back and study history. Just the 1920s and 30s in this country would suffice.

Marx taught us that capitalism tends to overproduce goods, which depresses prices and wages which results a build-up of unsold inventories, which results in still lower prices and wages. Keynes solved that problem by adding government to Marx's producers and consumers. Government would, via taxation and spending policies, redistribute income downward, thereby enhancing aggregate demand, which is to say, the ability of an economy to consume what it produces.

When, in the 1920s, the American economy boomed, running average productivity increases year over year of 5.3% for the entire decade of the 20s, massive inventories built up causing prices and wages to fall exactly as Marx said they would. The New Deal was all about doing what Keynes recommended, so the government used tax money to create jobs for the unemployed. To Republicans of course this was all anathema and they failed to properly fund New Deal programs. But when WWII came along, they found a government program they could support. In economic terms, the war effort was just the New Deal writ large enough to salvage the economy and it did.

Keynesianism is not negotiable; it is a necessary part of a successful capitalist economy. We ignore this at our peril.

the government of Iraq announced a weekend curfew in Baghdad. They're obviously afraid of increased violence there. It'll be interesting to see if people respect that curfew and if they don't, whether the government can enforce it.

The government used 30,000 military and police in Basra and still seem to be unable to defeat the Mahdi Army.

Interesting developments.

that "the big question" is how we accelerate the use of plug-in vehicles. That's not the big question. The big question is how we make capitalism compatible with the environment. Capitalism requires ever higher consumption to survive. Without that we have steadily accumulating inventories which produce steadily declining prices which produce steadily declining wages which produce steadily increasing inventories. Repeat sequence. Keynes solved that problem by showing how redistribution of income downward enhanced the ability of the economy to consume what it produces. But what Keynes didn't foresee is what is happening now - an all-capitalist world of 6 billion people all consuming at greater and greater rates. Nor did he foresee the disappearance of vast portions of our natural resources like oil and fish.

The big question is what to do about the collision between capitalism and the environment. It's one few have asked and none has answered.

that this recession will be anything like as bad as the Great one is nonsense. The recession of the thirties was preceeded by 10 years of productivity growth unknown before then or after. The 1920s saw productivity grow at an average of 5.3% per year. That's a record to say the least. The most recent 10 years have produced productivity growth of less than half that. It's no surprise that, after that record growth, inventories were stratospheric and prices and wages dropped.

Add to that the fact that government is much more active now than it was then at the job of redistributing income downward and it's clear that this recession will bear no resemblance to the one of the 1930s.

to read a feminist tut-tutting about the "mean streak" in American culture as if feminism hasn't contributed more than its share. And indeed it continues to do so. When will Broadsheet condemn feminism's false and hateful attacks on men which are undeniably part of the mean streak Lloyd pretends to abhor (no pun intended)?

and then buy as much real estate as you can. Prices will be lower than you've seen in a long time and yes, they'll go up again. It's a promise.

with you when you say that Brooks and his ilk parrot this nonsense because they like it/think it's relevant, whatever. To get to the place Brooks is in the journalism world, you have to know how to satisfy editors and your superiors generally. That fact is true of just about every journalist on the national stage. Those are plum jobs and they don't hand them out to just anyone. People get those jobs because they know how the system works and that means pleasing editors and producers. And editors and producers need to please owners. What that means is that Brooks, et al learn very early in their careers how to please owners. Owners are not liberals or radicals; they're extremely wealthy conservatives who are quite willing to publish/air this stuff because it tends to promote the status quo. It's part of what Chomsky and Hermann described as manufacturing consent. There's great congruency between the values of the monied interests that pay K Street lobbyists and those which pay David Brooks. So politics and the "journalists" who cover it answer to the same bosses.

Who knows what David Brooks would be like if he weren't working inside that particular system? He may be a perfectly interesting guy. But as long as he works where he does, he has no choice but to try to convince people this stuff matters. My guess is that he long ago ceased to even notice what he was doing. I think it's despicable of course, but I can't agree that he does this because he likes it.

Glenn, your criticisms of the media are great, but I don't detect an overall theory, understanding or explanation of why this stuff happens. I urge you to think a bit more about the whys of the things you so rightly criticize. I assure you it's more than just a bunch of lazy slobs who can't do any better. Chomsky and Hermann are a good starting place.