This post and topic are difficult for me to wrap my head around. I might start by saying that I have tried to avoid all economics and finance classes. I am full aware of how important these two topics are in our society and life, but talk of money puts me right to sleep. It just is not my forte, but I will have a go at it!
Friedman and Keynes both were concentrated reads. It wasn’t until I read Posner’s article “How I Became a Keynesian”, that I finally felt some connection to the topic. He convinced me that this is true; we are Keynesian. Just living in the United States we have all experienced the economy on a “road to recovery”. Keynes’ multiplier explained by Posner made more sense. That money spent will help stimulate the economy instead of hoarding and saving. So when the market started to drop the government tried to get people to spend money by handing out things like the housing deals and tax breaks. “It is consumption, rather than thrift, that promotes economic growth” (Posner).
And that is where I made the connection to Pollan and his extensive analysis of the life grown on the cob, corn. Our economy depends on consumption of product. And what seems to be the essence of everything in our lives is corn, from the fast food on every table at night, to the gas in our cars. Pollan gives an image that industry is the man behind the curtain, the controller of our entire food chain. Fast food chains are the epitome in my mind of impulse spending. The convenience of being able to stop by and pick up a dollar cheeseburger or ice cream cone from McDonalds on your walk to class, you might not even be hungry but that is such a good deal. This goes back to the multiplier effect with spending. But the cheap product is kept at that price due to the corn industry. It all seems to be a vicious cycle.
I didn't really understand Keyne's arguments until I read Posner's article either. I really like your point about impulse consumption of McDonald's--it definitely seems Keynesian since you are promoting economic growth (at least that of McDonald's) via spending rather than saving money. But I was also wondering if that same argument could be shed in a neoclassical/neoliberal light? All people naturally have impulses, which seems to imply that impulse purchasing is part of the natural progression of things and therefore also has a place in the neoclassical/neoliberal economic school of thought.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add on to what Julian is talking about. The impulse nature that we all have as human beings is an extremely important idea to touch upon when talking about economics. Although Keyne's article was hard for me to understand as well it was definitely the side I agreed with whether or not it was more difficult for me to read. Money is all I can really think about when the idea of econ comes up but I also really liked your idea of the industry and fastfood chains
ReplyDelete