Re: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
(This argument seems long and fruitless, so I can understand if someone
wants to delete it without reading it.)
I wrote:
In any event, full employment doesn't solve the environmental problem.
It doesn't end the exploitation of labor.
Tom Walker writes:
Nor does it put out the cat or let in the dog. Are you then arguing
AGAINST full employment because it doesn't reduce your waistline, grow
luxuriant hair on your head and turn night into day? Of course I know
you're not, you're just going off on a tangent.
Tom, this is a red herring. It is in no way relevant to what I was talking
about. I was NOT arguing against full employment. ("Full employment is not
enough" is NOT the same thing as "full employment is bad.")
If it even leans in that direction, capital goes on strike (or inflation
encourages the rentiers to go on strike).
And by definition capital wins every strike it launches? Should I cringe
at the mere thought of capital going on strike? Next time those snivelling
rentiers go out, what say we lock 'em out for good!
No, capital doesn't always win. But workers have to organize if they want
to increase their chances. Without such organization, talking about
"locking 'em out" is simply a slogan with no material basis, i.e., no
societal basis. Why don't we also demand, in true maximalist fashion,
"democratic socialism NOW"? (It's as useful as a slogan in a Spartacist
newspaper unless there's some sort of mass movement to back it up.)
I'm quite familiar with that quote, though I don't think that it's
relevant to 2000 in the US. Rather it's more relevant to 2000 for the
world capitalist system as a whole. Overwork seems the rule in the US,
while idleness is being enforced on much of the rest of the world.
Last time I looked on a map, the US was part of the world. But that was
before I learned the universe is flat.
You may notice that I used the phrase "rest of the world" (see what I said
above). This seems like a deliberate misunderstanding, Tom.
BTW, I think the quote you cited is appropriate to the world capitalist
system as a whole, since at that point in the book, Marx was working at a
very high level of abstraction in which individual nations were not
relevant. (See the 2nd footnote of chapter 24 in volume I of CAPITAL.) To
apply Marx's theory to an individual country such as the US, you have to
move to a lower level of abstraction...
that's a good idea. However, the premise of what I said was that
capitalism isn't about to fall apart.
Especially not without a push.
okay, how are you going to do it? How are you going to organize this
"push"? using slogans?
again, lowering working hours is a good thing. But when the capitalists
in the US are hiring all sorts of people they normally wouldn't hire,
isn't there a real limit on the ability to hire more (which would be the
obvious effect of limiting each worker's hours)?
Of course there's a limit -- somewhere. But even with 3.9% unemployment,
there's plenty more (and better) jobs yet to be wrung out of the system.
The question, as I said, is where the limit is. The Fed says that we're
attaining that limit. Since the powers that be are saying that the limit
has been hit, so it's a moot point. The fact is that the Fed has the job of
protecting its main clients (the financiers) from even the _appearence_ of
inflation, so they're straining to slow the US economy. Perhaps democratic
control over the Fed should be on the agenda...
The question remains, of course, doesn't cutting work hours lead to an
increase in the demand for individual employees, all else constant? I know
that "all else is NEVER equal," but isn't this increase in demand the
_point_ of your call for reducing hours? if the demand for employees rises,
doesn't it get the US economy closer to the "limit" you posit?
If businesses are already complaining about hiring people they typically
don't see as desirable, doesn't that suggest that the US economy is close
to that limit? since the businesses are the ones that run the economy (have
most of the power over things like the rate of accumulation), aren't their
opinions relevant?
My second question was:
or wouldn't each worker take on more than one job, so that limits on
the work-week would have limited effect?
The answer to your second question is: not unless the universe is a
macrocosm of Akron, OH in the 1950s.
I don't get the meaning of this. I've never been to Akron, OH, in the 1950s
or any other time. Actually, back then moonlighting was much less common
that it is today in the US.
Accusing these folks of hypocrisy doesn't answer the question, even
though their hypocrisy is quite real.
But the question wasn't properly framed. You assume as self-evident and
inevitable a tight unemployment/inflation nexus and challenge me to
'disprove' what has never been established. Nowhere. Neither theoretically
nor empirically.
I don't think there's a "tight" nexus
Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Jim Devine wrote: In any event, full employment doesn't solve the environmental problem. It doesn't end the exploitation of labor. Nor does it put out the cat or let in the dog. Are you then arguing AGAINST full employment because it doesn't reduce your waistline, grow luxuriant hair on your head and turn night into day? Of course I know you're not, you're just going off on a tangent. If it even leans in that direction, capital goes on strike (or inflation encourages the rentiers to go on strike). And by definition capital wins every strike it launches? Should I cringe at the mere thought of capital going on strike? Next time those snivelling rentiers go out, what say we lock 'em out for good! I'm quite familiar with that quote, though I don't think that it's relevant to 2000 in the US. Rather it's more relevant to 2000 for the world capitalist system as a whole. Overwork seems the rule in the US, while idleness is being enforced on much of the rest of the world. Last time I looked on a map, the US was part of the world. But that was before I learned the universe is flat. that's a good idea. However, the premise of what I said was that capitalism isn't about to fall apart. Especially not without a push. again, lowering working hours is a good thing. But when the capitalists in the US are hiring all sorts of people they normally wouldn't hire, isn't there a real limit on the ability to hire more (which would be the obvious effect of limiting each worker's hours)? or wouldn't each worker take on more than one job, so that limits on the work-week would have limited effect? Of course there's a limit -- somewhere. But even with 3.9% unemployment, there's plenty more (and better) jobs yet to be wrung out of the system. The answer to your second question is: not unless the universe is a macrocosm of Akron, OH in the 1950s. Accusing these folks of hypocrisy doesn't answer the question, even though their hypocrisy is quite real. But the question wasn't properly framed. You assume as self-evident and inevitable a tight unemployment/inflation nexus and challenge me to 'disprove' what has never been established. Nowhere. Neither theoretically nor empirically. Sure, it's plausible that an excessively tight labour market could contribute to inflation -- but HOW tight is too tight and how MUCH of a contribution would wage demands make? It seems to me that the primary inflationary pressure in the business cycle comes from the effort of businesses to expand capacity too quickly, with little regard for cost, in order to catch as much of the boom as they can. It's equally plausible, under other circumstances, for a reduction in unemployment to be anti-inflationary. How? More efficient utilization of productive capacity and of labour. This _assumed_ unemployment/inflation trade-off of yours begs the question of whether it might be not the victims but the capitalist boom and bust business cycle that is to blame for both unemployment and inflation. Of course, a reduction of working time, and subsequent reduction of the industrial reserve army could be expected to increase workers' bargaining power and, as a consequence, reduce the proportion of surplus value extracted by capital. That is where the squeeze on profits comes in -- not from increased labour costs. that's a quibble. No it's not. If you think Marx's analysis of surplus value -- including the distinctions between relative and absolute surplus value -- is a quibble, do please explain. Don't just call it names. I wasn't advocating dropping the demand. However, we should be conscious of the real constraints and struggle to undermine them. I'm more conscious of the real constraints than you give me credit for. But I'm also keenly aware of the phantasmagorical ones. BTW, I'd like to see economic analysis, not quotes from old books. That's funny, Jim. My "quotes from old books" were a segue from _your_ mention of Chapter 25 of Capital. Just what precisely do you have in mind when you oppose "quotes from old books" to "economic analysis"? Those quotes contain economic analysis. Are you saying that the economic analysis in those old quotes has been surpassed by better, more up-to-date economic analysis? If so, explain. Or does economic analysis have some kind of expiry date, like milk? I want to emphasize, Jim, that you are asking leading questions. Some of them are set-pieces (e.g., the 'moonlighting' question, which has been done to death). They assume a particular frame of reference and exclude analyses that do not hew to that frame of reference. I can't "answer" your questions without challenging your frame of reference. The difference between my quotes from old books and some of your questions is that I know when I'm quoting from old books and I am aware of which old books I'm quoting from. If you don't like quotes from old books, I can send you a copy of my excel spreadsheet model and you can see for
Re: Re: Re: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
I wrote: Also, can't it be said that within the context of capitalism, any emancipation won due to fast growth and low unemployment is at best transitory, since eventually the reserve army will be restored, if not by Greenspan by the slow-down in accumulation that results from squeezed profits? writes Carrol: Two points. it's three, but who's counting? 1. Marx's *Wages, Price and Profit*: If workers don't take advantage of every opportunity to raise their standard, they will be pressed ever further down. So they have to struggle to get ahead even to stay even. And capitalists can't necessarily raise prices (at least right away) to compensate for increased wages. I agree totally: workers must take advantage of all opportunities. In fact, I made the point that capitalists can't always raise prices to compensate for the rise of unit labor costs (at least not right away). If this period when capitalists can't raise prices persists, this implies a fall in the profit rate (unless the "organic composition of capital" also falls), which causes accumulation to slow or fall, which raises unemployment. (If monetary policy prevents this slowing of the economy, that leads to inflationary acceleration, as in the late 1960s/early 1970s.) 2. And *social* gains won in the struggle are potentially permanent, or at least harder for the capitalists to steal back. Consider social security, or the real (though slipping) gains made by blacks and women (which are working class gains). I wasn't arguing against struggling. Instead, I was pointing out that the vast majority of successful struggles leave the structure of capitalism -- precisely, the capitalist control over production, pricing, and accumulation -- untouched. We have to be conscious of this limitation. I think most working people "on the ground" are conscious of it. We have to understand that most people sense the degree of permanence of capitalism at this point in history (they're not stupid) and that this is an important basis for their reformism and/or despair. Most people have had Maggie T's "There Is No Alternative" stuffed into their minds not only by the Powers That Be but also by everyday experience. We have to be conscious of this basis if we want to fight it. One thing is to get away from a sole focus on macroeconomics to look at the potential non-reformist reforms on the micro-level in everyday life (of course, these have to be linked with each other). How can people run their lives better than the capitalists and their minions do? 3. Though (as we know even empirically from history) it does not often or usually happen, there is always the potential for struggles for better conditions to grow into something larger. Absolutely. In addition, workers and other dominated groups must defend themselves against constant attacks by capital. I wrote: I'd say that most workers would also like the idea of "non-inflationary growth," given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die. Low unemployment is great for the working class (after all, a lot of worker who normally can't get jobs are getting them these days, at least in the US) Tom Walker writes: Given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die . . . perhaps. But more importantly: given the absence of strategic alternatives. "Low" unemployment may indeed be great. Sustained low unemployment would be even better. Full employment would be ecstasy. right. I didn't say otherwise. Part of the Greenspanish dynamic is that the "great" low unemployment can't be sustained without threatening accelerating inflation. Buy that argument and you've pretty much conceded not only the indefinite continuation of capitalism, but the specific lack of strategic alternatives that has characterized the past few decades. No, I'm arguing that we need to go beyond simply being in favor of full employment. (Bumper sticker summary: "Full Employment is Not Enough!" or "We Don't Just Want Bread, We Want Roses, Too!") This is especially true since there are other problems with capitalism on top of unemployment that need to fight. Greenspan is not simply an evil man. He's also a politicized version of the dynamic that Marx pointed to in ch. 25 of volume I of CAPITAL. When Marx wrote, high employment automatically led to profit squeezes which led to a slow-down in accumulation. But that assumes the gold standard prevails. (The gold standard sets a ceiling on prices.) With fiat money (as now prevails), we might see worsening inflation instead. So if Greenspan didn't exist, he'd have to be invented (by the capitalists). In fact, the neoliberal upsurge involves the creation of Greenspans all around the world. For example, in England, "Labor" Party prime minister Tony Blair made the Bank of England independent of democratic control and thus subservient to the short-term special interests of the bond market, the bankers, and the rentiers --
Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Jim Devine wrote:
No, I'm arguing that we need to go beyond simply being in favor of full
employment. (Bumper sticker summary: "Full Employment is Not Enough!" or
"We Don't Just Want Bread, We Want Roses, Too!") This is especially true
since there are other problems with capitalism on top of unemployment
that need to fight.
On the other hand, Jim, here's this delightful quote from the _New
Republic_, September 1945 ("The Road to Freedom: Full Employment"):
"Our experience with periods of labor shortage indicates that its first
effect is greatly to increase the bargaining power of labor, both
individually and collectively. This results in steady improvement
of wages and working conditions, up to the limit set by productive
capacity. It means that employers must seek to make employment
attractive, since the workers are no longer motivated by the fear
of losing their jobs. A shift of workers from the less pleasant
and remunerative occupations occurs, so that standards are raised
at the lower levels
"The status of labor will improve, since employers can no longer
rely upon the discipline of discharge to enforce authority. The
tendency will be for labor to have more participation in
industrial and economic policy."
Why supplement such clarity with a ambiguous bumper sticker slogan that
'full employment is not enough'?
Greenspan is not simply an evil man.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Greenspan is an evil man.
He's also a politicized version of the dynamic that Marx pointed to in
ch. 25 of volume I of CAPITAL.
From which (since you mention it) may I quote:
"If the means of production, as they increase in extent and effective
power, become to a lesser extent means for employing workers, this
relation is itself in turn modified by the fact that in proportion as the
productivity of labour increases, capital increases its supply of labour
more quickly than its demand for workers. The over-work of the employed
part of the working class swells the ranks of its reserve, while,
conversely, the greater pressure that the reserve by its competition
exerts on the employed workers forces them to submit to over-work and
subjects them to the dictates of capital. The condemnation of one part of
the working class to enforced idleness by the over-work of the other part,
and *vice versa* becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists,
and accelerates at the same time the production of the industrial reserve
army on a scale corresponding with the progress of social accumulation."
Ironically, economic growth may indeed expand the demand for workers but
not as much as it expands the supply of labor power. Thus the treadmill
aspect of capitalist growth as a formula for reducing unemployment. Marx's
implied response to such a treadmill, a few pages later in the same
section -- "planned co-operation between the employed and the unemployed
to obviate or to weaken the ruinous effects of this natural law of
capitalist production on their class. . ." A course of action inevitably
denounced by "capital and its sycophant, political economy [as an]
infringement of the 'eternal' and so to speak 'sacred' law of supply and
demand."
How does this [reducing working time] work? I haven't studied this as
much as you have, Tom, but wouldn't reducing working hours per worker
increase the demand for individual employees, which would lower the
unemployment rate further into the capitalists' perceived danger zone?
I suppose Marx had in mind something like the above when he describe
limitation of the working day as "a preliminary condition without which
all further attempts at improvement and emancipation must prove abortive."
But you don't have to take Marx's word for it. The following was the view
of an Industrial Inquiry Commission established by the U.S. Congress,
which reported in 1902:
"A reduction of hours is the most substantial and permanent gain which
labor can secure. In times of depression employers are often forced to
reduce wages, but very seldom do they, under such circumstances, increase
the hours of labor. The temptation to increase hours comes in times of
prosperity and business activity, when the employer sees opportunity for
increasing his output and profits by means of overtime. This distinction
is of great importance. The demand for increased hours comes at a time
when labor is strongest to resist, and the demand for lower wages comes at
a time when labor is weakest. A gain in wages can readily be offset by
secret agreements and evasions, where individual workmen agree to work
below the scale; but a reduction of hours is an open and visible gain, and
there can be no secret evasion. Having once secured the shorter working
day, the question of wages can be adjusted from time to time according to
the stress of the market."
Alternatively, wouldn't the capitalists see falling working hours per
worker as just a different form of higher labor costs? How do these
Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Max Sawicky wrote: We've done that number. It's 126.4 I've never done 126.4. Do you have to raise your hand first? Tom Walker
Re: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
On the other hand, Jim, here's this delightful quote from the _New
Republic_, September 1945 ("The Road to Freedom: Full Employment"):
Oh yes, back when TNR was a good magazine.
"Our experience with periods of labor shortage indicates that its first
effect is greatly to increase the bargaining power of labor, both
individually and collectively. This results in steady improvement of wages
and working conditions, up to the limit set by productive capacity. It
means that employers must seek to make employment attractive, since the
workers are no longer motivated by the fear of losing their jobs. A shift
of workers from the less pleasant and remunerative occupations occurs, so
that standards are raised at the lower levels
"The status of labor will improve, since employers can no longer rely upon
the discipline of discharge to enforce authority. The
tendency will be for labor to have more participation in industrial and
economic policy."
Why supplement such clarity with a ambiguous bumper sticker slogan that
'full employment is not enough'?
of course the slogan was ambiguous since I using it to summarize the other
things I said, which (I hoped) were less ambiguous. In any event, full
employment doesn't solve the environmental problem. It doesn't end the
exploitation of labor. If it even leans in that direction, capital goes on
strike (or inflation encourages the rentiers to go on strike). I think I
respect Kalecki's analysis more than I do the NEW REPUBLIC on this one.
Greenspan is not simply an evil man.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Greenspan is an evil man.
I was overstating it, to make a point (i.e., that if he didn't exist, he'd
have to be invented). He may not be _personally_ evil, but I think that in
terms of his objective impact on the world, he is. He's an ideological
leader of the neoliberal upsurge, struggling to force the world into a
preconceived straight-jacket of the market ideal.
He's also a politicized version of the dynamic that Marx pointed to in
ch. 25 of volume I of CAPITAL.
From which (since you mention it) may I quote:
"If the means of production, as they increase in extent and effective
power, become to a lesser extent means for employing workers, this
relation is itself in turn modified by the fact that in proportion as the
productivity of labour increases, capital increases its supply of labour
more quickly than its demand for workers. The over-work of the employed
part of the working class swells the ranks of its reserve, while,
conversely, the greater pressure that the reserve by its competition
exerts on the employed workers forces them to submit to over-work and
subjects them to the dictates of capital. The condemnation of one part
of the working class to enforced idleness by the over-work of the other
part, and *vice versa* becomes a means of enriching the individual
capitalists, and accelerates at the same time the production of the
industrial reserve army on a scale corresponding with the progress of
social accumulation."
I'm quite familiar with that quote, though I don't think that it's relevant
to 2000 in the US. Rather it's more relevant to 2000 for the world
capitalist system as a whole. Overwork seems the rule in the US, while
idleness is being enforced on much of the rest of the world.
Ironically, economic growth may indeed expand the demand for workers but
not as much as it expands the supply of labor power. Thus the treadmill
aspect of capitalist growth as a formula for reducing unemployment. Marx's
implied response to such a treadmill, a few pages later in the same
section -- "planned co-operation between the employed and the unemployed
to obviate or to weaken the ruinous effects of this natural law of
capitalist production on their class. . ."
that's a good idea. However, the premise of what I said was that capitalism
isn't about to fall apart.
A course of action inevitably denounced by "capital and its sycophant,
political economy [as an] infringement of the 'eternal' and so to speak
'sacred' law of supply and demand."
and it is. A justified one, perhaps, but it goes against supply demand,
which are a result of the existence of capitalist institutions. For it to
work, there'd have to be much more of a societal movement against
capitalism to pull it off. That's hard when internationalism is needed.
How does this [reducing working time] work? I haven't studied this as
much as you have, Tom, but wouldn't reducing working hours per worker
increase the demand for individual employees, which would lower the
unemployment rate further into the capitalists' perceived danger zone?
I suppose Marx had in mind something like the above when he describe
limitation of the working day as "a preliminary condition without which
all further attempts at improvement and emancipation must prove abortive."
I'm all in favor of lowering the length of the working day. The issue is
how it avoids
Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Doug Henwood wrote: Well, the class war is an aggregate of sorts, and central bankers like Greenspan are very aware of the balance of class forces. A 3.9% unemployment rate disturbs their sleep. Speaking strategically of the class war as aggregate, the advantage goes to the side who can best discern its composition and articulate from it a compelling vision of universality. Only from the perspective of the ruling class slogan of "non-inflationary growth" can a 3.9% _official_ unemployment rate be considered as in any way approaching full employment. That there is no official 'index of employment coercion' is due less to the methodological difficulty of compiling the data than to the plain fact that capitalism is every bit as much a system of domination as it is one of accumulation. From a working class perspective, the principle underlying NAIRU -- for example -- could be more accurately called the "non-advancing emancipation rate of coercion" (NAERC). In the absence of such a number, it is nevertheless feasible to re-interpret the official statistics and challenge the hegemonic discourse about the meaning of those statistics. Tom Walker
RE: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
. . . From a working class perspective, the principle underlying NAIRU -- for example -- could be more accurately called the "non-advancing emancipation rate of coercion" (NAERC). In the absence of such a number, it is nevertheless feasible to re-interpret the official statistics and challenge the hegemonic discourse about the meaning of those statistics. Tom Walker We've done that number. It's 126.4. mbs
Re: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Doug Henwood wrote: Well, the class war is an aggregate of sorts, and central bankers like Greenspan are very aware of the balance of class forces. A 3.9% unemployment rate disturbs their sleep. Tom Walker writes: Speaking strategically of the class war as aggregate, the advantage goes to the side who can best discern its composition and articulate from it a compelling vision of universality. this notion of heterogeneity -- and thus us composition -- is an important antidote to excessive aggregation (and its twin, the representative agent model). Only from the perspective of the ruling class slogan of "non-inflationary growth" can a 3.9% _official_ unemployment rate be considered as in any way approaching full employment. I'd say that most workers would also like the idea of "non-inflationary growth," given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die. Low unemployment is great for the working class (after all, a lot of worker who normally can't get jobs are getting them these days, at least in the US) but what it leads to accelerating inflation? The rules of the game haven't changed. Workers at best have the power to raise nominal wages. The capitalists still have the pricing power (though that power can be sapped by international competition resulting from a high dollar) and can punish workers with inflation that reverses nominal-wage victories and can turn them into real-wage defeats. Even if workers are able to keep up with inflation over the years, most workers don't like the process of inflation and the seemingly eternal race it puts them (to try to keep their nominal wages rising as fast as prices). This suggests that the issue of "non-inflationary growth" is more than a ruling-class slogan. Within the constraints created by capitalist class power, it's almost the basis for a cross-class alliance. The big question does not concern "non-inflationary growth" the issue of the trade-off between growth and inflation (the dynamic version of the Phillips curve trade-off). Where is the "Greenspan speed limit"? There is a lot of room for disagreement here. The capitalists are likely to interpret the speed limit as lower than the workers. That there is no official 'index of employment coercion' is due less to the methodological difficulty of compiling the data than to the plain fact that capitalism is every bit as much a system of domination as it is one of accumulation. From a working class perspective, the principle underlying NAIRU -- for example -- could be more accurately called the "non-advancing emancipation rate of coercion" (NAERC). that's quite a mouthful. Also, can't it be said that within the context of capitalism, any emancipation won due to fast growth and low unemployment is at best transitory, since eventually the reserve army will be restored, if not by Greenspan by the slow-down in accumulation that results from squeezed profits? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Jim Devine wrote: Also, can't it be said that within the context of capitalism, any emancipation won due to fast growth and low unemployment is at best transitory, since eventually the reserve army will be restored, if not by Greenspan by the slow-down in accumulation that results from squeezed profits? Two points. 1. Marx's *Wages, Price and Profit*: If workers don't take advantage of every opportunity to raise their standard, they will be pressed ever further down. So they have to struggle to get ahead even to stay even. And capitalists can't necessarily raise prices (at least right away) to compensate for increased wages. 2. And *social* gains won in the struggle are potentially permanent, or at least harder for the capitalists to steal back. Consider social security, or the real (though slipping) gains made by blacks and women (which are working class gains). 3. Though (as we know even empirically from history) it does not often or usually happen, there is always the potential for struggles for better conditions to grow into something larger. Carrol
Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
On Sun, 21 May 2000, Jim Devine wrote: I'd say that most workers would also like the idea of "non-inflationary growth," given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die. Low unemployment is great for the working class (after all, a lot of worker who normally can't get jobs are getting them these days, at least in the US) Given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die . . . perhaps. But more importantly: given the absence of strategic alternatives. "Low" unemployment may indeed be great. Sustained low unemployment would be even better. Full employment would be ecstasy. Part of the Greenspanish dynamic is that the "great" low unemployment can't be sustained without threatening accelerating inflation. Buy that argument and you've pretty much conceded not only the indefinite continuation of capitalism, but the specific lack of strategic alternatives that has characterized the past few decades. You want to know how to sustain low rates of unemployment without kindling inflation? Reduce working hours. I know. I know. The working class has had it so bad for so long they should be grateful for crumbs. Bull. Tom Walker
Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
I might add that the apotheosis of Alan Greenspan is a fine example of the extent to which economic policy is now captive to a fetish of the aggregate. The ONLY question that seems to matter is "is 'the economy' too hot or not too hot?" The astrology of fed watching uses the same planets as the astronomy of national income accounting. And it is so much more popular! Tom Walker
Re: Re: NIPA history and Fed follies
Timework Web wrote: I might add that the apotheosis of Alan Greenspan is a fine example of the extent to which economic policy is now captive to a fetish of the aggregate. The ONLY question that seems to matter is "is 'the economy' too hot or not too hot?" The astrology of fed watching uses the same planets as the astronomy of national income accounting. And it is so much more popular! Well, the class war is an aggregate of sorts, and central bankers like Greenspan are very aware of the balance of class forces. A 3.9% unemployment rate disturbs their sleep. Doug
