Max wrote: >Full-employment or 'structural balance': > >(billions) >1999 44.3 >2000 91.2 >2001 124.5 >2002 149.2 >2003 168.5 >2004 192.5 >2005 215.7 > >These are all surpluses. Source: p. 13, Federal Budget, Analytical >Perspectives. These assume "full employment" of 5.2 percent. Except for the first one, these are all projections. But the real-world estimates are rising, too. That's fiscal austerity, encouraging recession. >The share of GDP is projected to rise. So we've got to figure out how to >spend a bunch of money. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Whereas Max sees a fiscal dividend, I see fiscal drag. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx an... Michael Perelman
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mar... Jim Devine
- Re: Marx and financial crises Ted Winslow
- Deja vu all over again? Ted Winslow
- Re: Re: Marx and financial cris... Doug Henwood
- Marx and financial crises Louis Proyect
- Who lost Russia? Louis Proyect
- Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Keynesians and Post ... Doug Henwood
- Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Keynesians ... Jim Devine
- RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Key... Max Sawicky
- RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:... Jim Devine
- RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:... Max B. Sawicky
- Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re:... Jim Devine
- RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re:... Max Sawicky
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Key... Doug Henwood
- Re: Keynesians and Post Keynesians and growth Charles Brown