The last 3rd of August 2011,our publication listened the BBC Radio 4 debate at the London School of Economics to heard supporters of the two economist argue their case. The Podcast can be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14366054
People from the Keynesian side argued that the different stimulus packages or stimulus programs in the West have failed because:
"Quantitative easing failed because almost all the new money the government created has gone to shore up the balance sheets of irresponsible bankers"
The supporters of the Hayek case argued that according Keynes theory, it wouldn't have mattered in what the Money is expended, it would have had a multiplier effect in the economy.
People from the Hayek quoted Keynes famous statement that:
"Government program that pays people to dig and refill ditches would provide new income for those workers to spend and circulate through the economy, creating even more jobs and income."
From this discussion came to us the question, if it couldn't be the case that the central banks, by bailing out the bankers, made the private banks to send part of this Money in investments abroad –Thus the Keynesian policy failed in the original countries by not stimulating domestic demand, but the Banks finally poured this Money in different investments abroad, and part of this Money, apart of fueling global inflation from commodities to properties–as Hayek would have argued such policy would produce- also did create a Keynesian stimulus to the countries receiving the Money.
This is the Basic question we like to pose to our Readers. What does it means for economies such as Uruguay..is part of the recent boom a result of a Keynesian stimulus that was put in the wrong hands.....in a distant country thousands of miles away?
What do you think? 'What needs to be said' welcomes your opinion
