me: >> By definition, too many workers available relative to the demand for them >> is exactly the same as too little demand for workers.
This definition tells us that the question is about whether the issue too little D or not enough S (or both) and the causes of each. It does not answer the question: definitions are only introduction to discussions (facilitating the development of theory) and should not be taken out of context. Arguing about definitions is usually futile; the exception is where there's some alternative definition that is a more fruitful guide to thinking. Sandwichman wrote: > Also, by the same kind of definition 12:00 noon is one hour before 1:00 P.M. > and 1:00 P.M. is one hour after 12:00 noon. The time between them is the > same: one hour. The problem is to get from 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M. you only > need to wait one hour. To get from 1:00 P.M. to 12 noon (the next day) you > need to wait 23 hours. There is no going backward in time. Therefore the > abstract identity is trivial and absurd. It's ridiculously false analogy to compare a static measure (the excess supply of labor-power) with a dynamic process. It's like asserting that the use of accounting (which is static) implies adherence to Say's Law (which reflects a theory about how the dynamic real world operates). Accounting measures are like a measure of the current temperature. Even though such measures are important, they do not present an understanding of global warming. (Also, the theory of global warming doesn't tell us how to measure temperature. Both parts are required.) >... There is no "reversing" an historical process. Overcapacity is thus not >"the > same" as insufficient demand. I wasn't referring to unused industrial capacity that exists due to over-investment -- though it does exist. That's a key part of the non-cyclical part of the US economy's current problems. (More important is the debt overhang, as far as my research indicates.) Gene asked my how I knew that aggregate demand was a problem, so I referred to the _cyclical_ part of the US economy's current problems, leaving the non-cyclical part aside. As I've mentioned on pen-l several times in the past, a combined treatment of cyclical and non-cyclical elements see my recently-published paper in JEBO (a rough draft is available at http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/JD-2010-neoKaldorianModel.pdf and the diagrams at http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/neoKaldorian-Figures.docx). I don't see that model -- or the theory behind it -- as the final word and thus would appreciate any comments. Keynes was referring to the phenomenon of "path dependence," which is quite real and is often crucial. (I find it harder to lose weight than to gain it, for example.) It's part of my usual world-view but I can't mention it in every e-missive. I should add that irreversibilities aren't always total. The price of gasoline goes up _and_ it goes down (in real terms), though the up-phase can have negative effects that aren't totally compensated for afterwards. The usual reversibility of price changes is one reason why NC economists emphasize the role of prices in NC theory. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
