>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
 
Aggregate expenditure includes investment expenditure, and in the 
Accounts, investment = saving; so raising aggregate expenditure OF A 
CERTAIN SORT, will raise saving; and, if investment is productive, it 
will raise aggregate expenditure in the long run (assuming no excess 
capacity in the economy). 
 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
 
Robin Neil apparently is willing to advise a third-world government that  
expanding aggregate demand will produce the saving that leads to a rise in  
living standards. 
 
I realize that this is an implication of the popular macroeconomics model  
that adorns our texts.   Prior to Keynes this doctrine was considered  
heretical and untrue. 
 
I cannot believe that by encouraging consumption you create the type of  
habits and behavior patterns that lead to investment and economic  
development.  Since Robin Neil finds these causal connections so obvious I  
an forced to admit that there are still economists like myself who think  
that to seriously recommend such a prescription to third-world governments 
is  
irresponsible. 
 
Am I correct that even devout Keynesians would not have the doctrine that  
applied (if it applies at all) to advanced capitalist economies applied to  
third-world countries?   If so, why all the fuss about the World Bank and  
long term lending, etc? 
 
Is there any proof that third-world spending-oriented macroeconomic  
policies have promoted economic development?   What proof can be offered? 
 
It seems to me that if economists cannot agree about the importance of   
saving over spending then what is point of looking for the meaning of  
"proofs" in econometrics, etc.?  
 
More basic matters first, please. 
 
L. Moss