Would you support a KEYNESIAN or a NON-KEYNESIAN approach to macroeconomic policy? 
Chose ONE. Then defend the approach you have chosen with 
specifics about the policies you would advocate and why and how
they would work. Discuss your policies in relation to achieving low
unemployment, low inflation rates, and high economic growth.
Use the appropriate economic models in your
discussion. You are free to specify a particular U. S. political
campaign (Bush?; Kerry? other?) or not.

----
needs to be short ~10 sentences...

Given that Keynesian economics, "... can lay claim to playing a
crucial role in saving capitalism and, perhaps, civilization during
the Great Depression," (BusinessWeek, April 12, 2004, page 20), I
support the Keynesian approach to macroeconomic policy.  Keynes argued
that economies could become stuck in recession or depression if
government maintained a balanced budget during dire economic times. 
By issuing debt to finance public spending, government can stimulate
consumer activity and restore business confidence, thereby leading to
economic recovery.  Therefore, during periods of economic slowdown, I
would implement tax cuts and engage in public spending projects to
generate employment and restore economic growth.  A reduction in
interest rates would be another helpful policy. However, it is
important to recognize that deficits should be temporary and provision
should be made for paying them off when times are good.  Otherwise,
the potential for rising inflation exists.  As Alexander Hamilton, the
first secretary of the treasury, noted in his Report on Public Credit,
he "ardently wishes to see it incorporated as a fundamental maximum
system of public credit of the United States at the creation of debt
should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment," 
(BusinessWeek, May 3, 2004, page 113).

In the case of the Bush administration, we saw classic Keynesian
economics in terms of interest-rate reductions, tax cuts, and dramatic
increases in public spending projects, including extensive
expenditures for the war on terrorism.  These measures all contributed
to increasing the federal deficit. However, now that the economy is
showing signs of improvement, consideration must be given to how the
stimulative measures will be withdrawn in order to avoid a dramatic
increase in inflation.  It is far from certain whether the political
will exists for the federal government to restore budgetary surpluses
to begin paying down the federal debt and preparing for the massive
increase in Social Security benefits payable.  However, not increasing
the deficit to stimulate the economy during the recession would have
been a huge mistake.  "...[M]any economists believe Japan's long
stagnation in the 1990s largely reflected timid policymakers unwilling
to boldly use the levers of fiscal and monetary policy,"
(BusinessWeek, April 12, 2004, page 20).

Sincerely,

Wonko

thanks.

Are you being taught by economic dinosaurs???

The Keynesian and non-Keynesian approach are the same with a single
different assumption (which Keynes made a whole book of and was
worshiped for the following 50 years for); today no serious
academic/policy maker could possibly condone such a purist stance.

The models are the same, the initial assumption is different.  Do not
look at the outcome, look at what feeds into the model.

Sorry if this is different from what you are being taught.  If you
seriously are being taught Keynesian/Monetaris models are
fundamentally different then do some broader reading and challenge
your professors - I recommend Romer's 'Advanced Macroeconomcis'
published by McGraw Hill.

First of all, you are both right insofar as nearly all approaches,
especially the main two, provide correct end results to explain the
economy, and this is because they are based on assumptions and
history.  This is the point that Keynes took the ball a step further
by making predictions and theorizing about things that were not known
to exist (mpc etc.), the real question is, what happens when the
government runs excessively high deficits, and the answer really
depends on your assumptions.

In our current situation, Bush has taken action with H1- Visa
limitations, and now many of those jobs are being farmed out to India,
and elsewhere.  Many of our top companyies, instead of building
technology parks near our home college campuses, are shipping these
overseas as well.  What is necessary are the proper restrictions and
incentives to get these jobs and experiential opportunities back into
the US.  This is a time of MAJOR changes as the Technology age really
comes to bear (the real driver behind this slow job growth recovery),
and we, and our companies need to make certain that OWNERSHIP remains
primarily AMERICAN.  Even Greenspan had reservatoins about NATO, and
how the loss of jobs would affect the country, well now our better
paying jobs are farmed out to the lowest bidder.  It is unfortunately
necessary to a point, as our organizations must remain competative,
however the government could (maybe not should) slow the dislocation
of these jobs by mandating a % of field/expertise specific jobs be
located here, and requiring proof of this commitment (they do it with
race nationally, why not jobs internationally?).