"You're talking about the economy as if it weren't a dynamic evolving thing. -- or more precisely AS IF its dynamism and evolution were more or less incidental, almost ornamental."
see this is funny to me because i see my argument as largely influenced by classical/marxian/harrodian dynamics. i don't see what your actual argument is. note that i didn't say anything about stimulating aggregate demand, i supported a policy for specifically increasing the demand for labor, or more accurately, making the demand for labor inelastic below a certain wage level. "The obsolescence in play today has to do with the social relations of production and reproduction, not with physical plant and machinery." right but what does that mean? why will stimulating aggregate demand (explicitly not something i support) have a negative effect? are you talking about an "obsolescence function" similar to the one michael hudson discusses (see here:http://michael-hudson.com/1997/05/theories-of-economic-obsolescence-revisited/) for human labor? are you making a political argument about business interests tolerance of a jobs program? it's hard to defend my thinking against a position i don't know. -- -Nathan Tankus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
