What about telling the story that American economics is properly a high wage economics and that adherence to a low-wage economics is UNAMERICAN? That is to say, for example, that not only is NAIRU questionable as a theory and misleading as a guide for policy, it is first and foremost FOREIGN. The pitfall of such a rhetorical strategy is that it could skirt on xenophobia, anti-semitism and a justification of imperialism. Attacks on foreign doctrines can easily be displaced to become justifications for attacks against foreigners. It also obviously puts Marx in the shaky category of "foreign ideas". Here's a sample of how the story has been told in the past, by Francis A. Walker in "The Wages Question". Walker is a good example because his later writings did in fact become xenophobic: "Again, the fact that in England, at the time this doctrine sprang up, an increase of the number of laborers applying for employment involved, as it doubtless did, a reduction in the rate of wages, was due to the circumstance that English agriculture, in the then existing state of chemical and mechanical knowledge, had reached the condition of "diminishing returns." But at the same time in the United States, the accession of vast bodies of laborers was accompanied with a steadily-increasing remuneration of labor, and States and counties were to be seen bidding eagerly against each other for these industrial recruits. "That English writers should have been misled, by what they saw going on around them, into converting a generalization of insular experiences into a universal law of wages, is not greatly to be wondered at; but that American writers should have adopted this doctrine, in simple contempt of what they saw going on around them, is indeed surprising. "I would not impeach the scientific impartiality of those who first put forward in distinct form this theory of wages; but it may fairly be assumed that its progress towards general acceptance was not a little favored by the fact that it afforded a complete justification for the existing order of things respecting wages. . . If an individual workman complained for himself, he could be answered that it was wholly a matter between himself and his own class. If he received more, another must, on that account, receive less, or none at all. If a workman complained on account of his class, he could be told, in the language of Prof. Perry, that 'there is no use in arguing against any one of the four fundamental rules of arithmetic. The question of wages is a question of division. . .'" (The Wages Question, p.141-142) Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
