School affiliation is irrelevant to the central macroeconomic issue: how to create an uniterruptible flow of savings into capital (excluding second hand assets).

This requires

1. the replacement of the income tax with a consumed income tax (progressive or otherwise)
2. replacing the tax-funding of retirement income with individual savings account (with compulsion, as in Australia, or through incentives)
3. stripping the power to hoard from intermediaries (at least with respect to pre-tax household savings)
4. establishing a uninterruptible low cost intermediation mechanism

Instead of consuming almost 10% of US national income, intermediation could cost a small fraction of this.  Since 1929, the cumulative externalities imposed by the finnacial sector must account for several years of national income. These externalities can be shrunk to close to zero.

Once the Talibank are stripped of their terrorist powers (and thus financially-induced business cycles tackled at source), School-based issues can be addressed.

Robert Leeson       

Dear Sir: 

I have heard several economists say they are  part-time Keynesians, part-time Monetarists, and part-time All-Schools-of-Thought.  Under what conditions are Keynesian approaches relevant and good policy?  What work is good on this? 

  

Gordon L. Brady, Ph.D., M.S.L. 
Senior Economist 
Joint Tax Committee 
U.S. Congress 
244 Ford House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20505 
202.225.6024