Who's ranting?  When it comes to employment, I don't see it as being primarily 
about mass producing consumer goods.  There are many things that could be done 
to get people working and a Keynesian approach would probably be needed to get 
them to be done.  American cities, roads, bridges and other vital pieces of 
infrastructure need to be rebuilt.  Doing this might not employ all of the 
unemployed, but those who would have work would spend a lot more money on 
groceries, housing and other things they can't afford right now.  Small 
businesses would benefit, multipliers would come into play and at least part of 
the currently depressed American world would reawaken.  So, I tend to agree 
with Krugman -- bring Keynes back into the picture and let's see what happens.  

Why, as Krugman argues, isn't government doing anything?  It may be the nature 
of the Obama administration.  Obama's opponents sit there staring at him and 
all he does is stare back at them.  "Yes we can!!" is long gone.  And so much 
now is about the forthcoming elections.  Being perceived to be doing the right 
thing (really, doing nothing) will stand a better chance of getting votes than 
doing something would be.

Raising tax revenues by getting people working could be important in terms of 
dealing with the deficit.  Eliminating tax breaks for the rich could also be 
important.  The European powers may be in a deflationary mode right now, but 
why should America be?

And going back to some kind of gold standard arrangement is not the answer.  It 
simply wouldn't work.  It didn't work in the past, so why should it work in 
today's far more complex world.

Ed


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Hudson 
  To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, ,EDUCATION 
  Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:13 AM
  Subject: [Futurework] Usual Krugman rant


  Paul Krugman is off on a typical rant this morning in the New York Times. He 
observes that unemployment will probably grow in the years ahead but says that 
there is "growing evidence that governing elite just doesn't care?"

  Of course they care! They care for their own skins in the coming years. Every 
conceivable type of government cares about unemployment, and has done so 
throughout history if it wants to maintain power and sleep easy.

  Paul Krugman refuses to entertain the idea that high and growing unemployment 
is structural. Why?  Because, even after writing hundreds of op-eds over the 
years, he still thinks that Keynesianism can supply the solution. It might have 
done so in the 1930s when there was still a large tranche of still-expensive 
consumer goods awaiting mass production and purchase by a substantial 
proportion of the population. That's no longer the case. There's no long line 
of desirable consumer goods visible ahead of us. As regards existing goods, 
automation still proceeds.

  So "Congress is sitting on its hands" is it?  And the Fed is not repeating 
inflation out of some sort of malignant obduracy, is it? (At least there are 
some officials who learn from their mistakes!) What's needed is not 
emotionalism on Krugman's part but some objective analysis in order to restore 
his status as a Nobel prize-winning economist and not a tub-thumper.

  Well, I'll give him some pointers. What we need -- and pretty soon, too -- is 
a total currency reform so that all advanced governments can write off their 
existing debts and not cripple our children and grandchildren with paying for 
their profligacy in the past few decades. And, from then onwards, a currency 
system that will make governments keep to sensible annual budgeting. We also 
need a substantial educational reform so that there'll be a demand pressure to 
expand or share the most interesting and highly-paid jobs. We also need 
substantial administrative/political reform so that we don't have a system 
whereby politicians have to selectively bribe this or that section of the 
electorate in order to remain in power.

  Keynes himself said something to the effect that governments always fall prey 
to outmoded ideas of a previous generation of economists. Well . . . that 
applies to economists, too.

  Keith  

  Keith Hudson, Saltford, England 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Futurework mailing list
  [email protected]
  https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to