Re: Sweet and easy

Posted by R. Berg on December 28, 2002

In Reply to: Sweet and easy posted by Miri Barak on December 28, 2002

: the context: Keynes, then, is the sweet and easy substitute for real reform - a treacherous steroid as opposed to the bruising workout the U.S. and Britain under went in the 1980s.

: my question: does the expression sweet and easy has any connotation of drugs, or is it the food field? it's a collocation of course that I would like to trace its origin, in order to translate that into Hebrew.
: Thank you for listening - miri

I believe "sweet and easy" has nothing to do with drugs. The writer is simply using this phrase to describe Keynesian economic policy as a painless shortcut to improving a nation's economy, in contrast to real reform, which is difficult to carry out and which "hurts" in that it entails costs and sacrifices. The comparison with choosing between taking steroids (easy but illegitimate) and
spending hours each day lifting weights at a gym (hard but honest) is another way of making the point, which is that real change in an economy is more difficult than pumping money into it but it works better. The writer happens to have referred to steroids in the same sentence, but that's a separate image; it doesn't mean "sweet and easy" has anything to do with drugs.

• Re: Sweet and easy Miri Barak 12/28/02