Title: RE: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
I didn't know that anyone was arguing about the right number. Why is it a trap?
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Coyle
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/26/2002 5:59 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29896] RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
FWIW, the NAIRU theory does make testable propositions. Its adherents said that 6 percent unemployment (or higher) was The Line We Shouldn't Cross. The US crossed that line in the 1990s -- and the theory's prediction failed. So
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
My understanding has always been that the natural rate of unemployment and the NAIRU
are technically different, though looking like and supporting some similar
conclusions. Mat
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29905] RE: RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
In some ways the choice of one vs. the other represents the political perspective of the economist (within the mainstream). The natural rate is Chicago-school lingo, whereas the NAIRU is more MIT or Yale (Modigliani, Tobin, etc
Devine, James wrote:
The number of disinterested seekers of truth is very small in
academia, especially among economists.
David Card comes to mind. Anyone else?
Doug
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29921] Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
none here.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:41 PM
Date sent: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:41:15 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:29921] Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Devine, James wrote
