>terms and theories to fit perceived data. So, like a stopped clock, he can >be right twice a day. (Even Goebbels was right about some things, such as >how to employ propaganda.) It's possible that the empirical implications of A stopped clock is only superficially "right" twice a day. If MF's NAIRU anticipates some "correct" empirical phenomena but uses a "misbeggoten Walrasian mess" to do so, then the theory is _intrinsically_ of no use or interest. What does make the theory worth studying, however, is the extent to which it captured the policy makers' and economists' imagination. It's in the sense of this propaganda effect of NAIRU that one would want to understand how it is that the stopped clock could be right twice a day. You must sense this, Jim, because your mention of Goebbels was extremely apt. The reserve army of labor might help explain why NAIRU is right twice a day as might Carlin and Soskice. Galbraith also discussed some points about why NAIRU was persuasive. But at some point it seems we can lose track of the practical purpose of such investigations. Are we trying to explain why NAIRU can predict SOME phenomena in spite of its theoretical incoherence or are we trying to analyze what the fundamental relationships are between unemployment and inflation. If it's the latter, there are more fruitful avenues available and Galbraith takes them. >I used the phrase the "rational core" before and Tom ignored it. I didn't ignore it. I just downplayed it. I said no one is denying that there is some relationship between unemployment and inflation. That, along with the observation that the Philips curve doesn't adequately explain the relationship, is the rational core. >Marx was >extremely critical of Hegel's idealist, mystical, and apologetic system. Friedman ain't no Hegel. >The rational core of the MF's theory is that there exists some low rate of >unemployment below which the capitalist system will punish us with $100 prize if you can show me where MF talks about the "capitalist system punishing us." That's not the "rational core of MF's theory", that's your explanation of how MF's theory may be right twice a day. >Marx didn't write _anything_ about it. Tom should know very well that I am >no "chapter and verse" Marxist. I try to appropriate Marx's theories >critically, while modifying his abstractions for the concrete conditions of >real life. I'm not chapter and verse, either (hardly). But my approach to Marx is both more canonical and more eclectic. I refer to Marx's analysis when it appears to have a bearing on the issue at hand and rely on other sources or my wits when it doesn't. Moreover, some of how I "use" Marx involves a method that may scandalize folks. Without getting into technical details it involves identifying an aporia or caesura in the text and worrying it. I don't use the word "gap" because that implies something that was left out or ignored. What I look for is the textual equivalent of stuttering or of a preliminary drum roll followed by silence. I'm not interested in what Marx didn't have to say about the Spice Girls, but I am interested in what he didn't have to say -- what he at points tried to say but simply couldn't say -- about cost accounting (such as it was in the mid 19th century). >What this says is that the Philips Curve is relatively flat in the short >run. Probably so. But neoliberal "reforms," waves of downsizing, anti-union >measures, etc. have made that PC steeper. Fewer workers and management >employees are insulated from the vicissitudes of the market than was true >20 years ago (at least in the US -- I don't know about Canada). The Philips Curve, like the class struggle, is not something that can be seen, it is an interpretation. >what is the "duck" supposed to represent here? I find metaphor to be an >obscure way of arguing. (and it prompts me to quote the Marx Brothers >(Groucho, Harpo, Karl, Chico, Zeppo, and Gummo): "why a duck?") In the beginning was the duck. And the duck said, "let there be a Philips Curve". And lo! there was a Philips Curve. And the duck laboured six days and six nights and brought forth the NAIRU. And the duck looked upon NAIRU and said "It is good!" On the seventh day, the duck roasted. >sheet! I got up an hour early, having forgotten that we switched away from >Daylight savings time last night. Does anyone have a reasonable argument >against abolishing DST? Take comfort, Jim, in the fact that a stopped clock will STILL be right twice a day even after we have switched back from daylight savings time. 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/
