yin or yang......yin or yang......meanwhile billions suffer...........




----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:30899] Re: PK's the man with the plan


> One Krugman ready or not?
>
> Gosh, I seem to recall someone by the name of Paul Krugman, I believe it
> was, mocking William Greider a few years ago for his naive "fallacy of
> composition" belief in the possibilty of overproduction. Now I realize
that
> investment and production are not synonyms, but it seems to me that the
> arguments against the _possibility_ of overproduction would pertain
equally
> to the possibility of overinvestment. "Or, to put it a different way:
> Productivity growth in one sector can very easily reduce employment in
that
> sector. But to suppose that productivity growth reduces employment in the
> economy as a whole is a very different matter."
>
> http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/hotdog.html
>
> Paul Krugman wrote,
>
> "The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your
> grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar
recession,
> engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed
> when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a
> kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been
> hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates."
>
> Contrasts with:
>
> "Here again, however, there is a deeper answer. It is possible for
economies
> to suffer from an overall inadequacy of demand--recessions do happen.
> However, such slumps are essentially monetary--they come about because
> people try in the aggregate to hold more cash than there actually is in
> circulation. (That insight is the essence of Keynesian economics.) And
they
> can usually be cured by issuing more money--full stop, end of story. An
> overall excess of production capacity (compared to what?) has nothing at
all
> to do with it."
>
>
> Tom Walker
> 604 255 4812
>
>

Reply via email to