me:
If the share of profit in total income and thus the rate of
profit fall, that almost always depresses fixed investment spending
and leads to a general decline in the economy.
raghu wrote:
This may have been the case with previous business cycles, but in the
present upturn,
My question would be how to avoid or mitigate the human suffering and
social/economic isolation of unemployment, not how to get the growth
numbers back in positive territory. There is a big, BIG assumption
made in these discussions that economic stimulus is some sort of
panacea or at the very
Although I certainly favor redistribution, by which suggests that the United
States
is not necessarily rich enough. I am pretty sure that I am in the minority
here, but
I suspect that our commercial this interpretation of riches does not really
constitute what I would consider to be riches. I
raghu wrote:
Picking up on that theme, I am thinking of a very specific and
well-defined interpretation of 'riches': GDP growth. Afterall all the
fuss about the credit crunch recently is because of the universal fear
of a recession - defined as a lack of GDP growth. My question is who
cares
On Jan 18, 2008 1:27 PM, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all else constant, a fall in GDP is good for the environment, just as
the decline of US-based steel production improved the air in Gary, IN
and Pittsburgh, PA. (Of course the job situations in those places went
to Hell.) But it's
Sandwichman wrote:
My question would be how to avoid or mitigate the human suffering and
social/economic isolation of unemployment, not how to get the growth
numbers back in positive territory. There is a big, BIG assumption
made in these discussions that economic stimulus is some sort of
On Jan 18, 2008 10:11 AM, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I certainly favor redistribution, by which suggests that the United
States
is not necessarily rich enough. I am pretty sure that I am in the minority
here, but
I suspect that our commercial this interpretation of
advantage of opportunities that come up, even though they are limited.
From: Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/01/18 Fri AM 10:48:18 CST
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Old Remedies Won't Work This Time
My question would be how to avoid or mitigate the human suffering
On Jan 18, 2008 8:48 AM, Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I can appreciate the political expediency of such an approach in
terms of building a cross-class consensus and coalition, I never hear
any substantive defense of the proposition that growth is all you
need. At some point in
On Jan 18, 2008 8:48 AM, Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May I ask, how might the preconditions for human emancipation and
improvement differ from the preconditions for restoring economic
expansion?
IMO, at this juncture in human history, de-centralization, the move to
small community
Sandwichman
May I ask, how might the preconditions for human emancipation and
improvement differ from the preconditions for restoring economic
expansion?
^
CB: Is there any other theory except the same old remedy that the
preconditions for human emancipation are to expropriate the
Washington Post, Wednesday, January 16, 2008; A15
A Different Recession
The Old Remedies Won't Work This Time
By Harold Meyerson
In a normal recession, the to-do list is clear. Copies of Keynes are
dusted off, the Fed lowers interest rates, the president and Congress
cut taxes and hike
Max B. Sawicky wrote:
This piffle is part of a pattern coming from The American Prospect/Center for
America's Future (Borosage) gang, god love 'em, to the effect that Keynesian
counter-cyclical policy is for wimps and when the topic of trhe recession comes
up we need to focus on the long-run
Oh of course of course. I stand corrected.
I honestly was a bit surprised to see Myerson so pessimistic about
Keynesian pump-priming. He is of course correct. It doesn't work, least
of all when there is a serious slump. Btw, somebody asked me what I
thought of DeLong's nod to Obama's
Louis Proyect wrote:
I honestly was a bit surprised to see Myerson so pessimistic about
Keynesian pump-priming. He is of course correct. It doesn't work, least
of all when there is a serious slump. Btw, somebody asked me what I
thought of DeLong's nod to Obama's pump-priming scheme to send out
This piffle is part of a pattern coming from The American Prospect/Center for
America's Future (Borosage) gang, god love 'em, to the effect that Keynesian
counter-cyclical policy is for wimps and when the topic of trhe recession comes
up we need to focus on the long-run not so say eternal
me:
Obama's $250 scheme is definitely too weak. But what is wrong with a
_larger_ priming of the pump? (for instance, how about the idea of not
just extra unemployment insurance benefits (and the like) but also
government investment in infrastructure and green technology?)
Louis Proyect
Jim Devine wrote:
Obama's $250 scheme is definitely too weak. But what is wrong with a
_larger_ priming of the pump? (for instance, how about the idea of not
just extra unemployment insurance benefits (and the like) but also
government investment in infrastructure and green technology?)
If
I believe that it was David McCord Wright, who claimed that there was not much
pump
priming during the Depression because state local government cut back on
spending.
Maybe someone recalls the reference.
Then the military spending kicked in
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
E. Cary Brown argued (using the concept of the full-employment budget
deficit) that US government deficits during the 1930s were almost
entirely due to low GDP, which hurt tax revenues, rather than being
due to government efforts to stimulate the economy.
On Jan 17, 2008 6:17 PM, Michael Perelman
On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
E. Cary Brown argued (using the concept of the full-employment budget
deficit) that US government deficits during the 1930s were almost
entirely due to low GDP, which hurt tax revenues, rather than being
due to government efforts to stimulate the
other people have re-done Brown's analysis, replicating his results.
Sorry, I don't have a reference.
On Jan 17, 2008 6:28 PM, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
E. Cary Brown argued (using the concept of the full-employment budget
deficit)
There's more in the Obama plan than the $250.
Investment takes longer -- the spend out rate is lower, the grander the
project.
It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but better IMO would be
unemployment
benefits, Food Stamps, payroll tax credit, aid to state govs (all together).
The highest deficit in the 30s was 5.5% of GDP, in the face of ginormous
unemployment.
In 1940s it was as much as 30% of GDP. Now that's some pump priming.
Louis Proyect wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
Obama's $250 scheme is definitely too weak. But what is wrong with a
_larger_ priming of the
Right. In principle what you'd need to know is the full employment
budget deficit.
That would tell you how much the Gov was leaning against the depression.
I don't have those #s. Plus as Jim pointed out if the central bank is
fighting
fiscal policy, which it did in the 30s for at least a while,
25 matches
Mail list logo
