Because the notion of unemployment of Friedman pressuposes the existence of
not filled ranks of work. Friedman is thinking about unemployment
frictional. Marx does not think about frictional unemployment.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: interesting quote
I wrote:
"The natural rate of unemployment is in some ways similar to Marx's idea
of
the reserve army of the unemployed. Marx saw capitalism as requiring some
minimum amount of unemployment to prosper (though Kalecki pointed out that
this wasn't necessary under fascism; some argue that social democracy can
lower this, too). For Friedman, capitalism is natural, so it's Nature that
requires a minimum amount of unemployment."
On 4/13/06, Mário José de Lima wrote:
I disagree with this point of view. The Marx's argument is very
different
of the Friedman's argument. / Mário
why am I wrong?
--
Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence
of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
