The problem to be solved was not a shortage of goods, but rather a shortage of spending. Some has dismissed these principles largely on the basis that governments cannot run deficits indefinitely or because in doing so they are sacrificing growth in later years, resulting in a trade-off that negates today's benefits with tomorrow's debt repayments. I do not inherently agree with such arguments, because the time value of money suggests that future repayments are perhaps not as onerous as they may seem today. Moreover, if we are to have anything of a welfare state, then deficit spending to create private sector employment will have a positive affect on GDP.

Juxtaposed against Johnson's portrayal of the Soviet economic model, it would stand that Johnson takes his views about creating employment in Manchester and Salford more from the idea that public employment can be sustained indefinitely, for the benefit of all. I do not...

The economics and psychology of such a system is not based in reality, something Johnson should have realized. Turning to public works in a time of high unemployment to spur the economy is an idea that has much more traction. While it may have derived from his socialist leanings, it is based on sound economics. He paints an ideal picture of such government spending, in an example where there are no potential negative consequences, but in general the view is sound and agreeable, if one accepts some of the negative consequences as a necessary price to pay for improving the economy today.