In a passage which seems to summarize his message, Tom Walker wrote:
>The NAIRU story and the Phillips curve story make sense if one assumes
>that capital's brief is efficiency and labour's is waste.
Tom, that sure seems like you're mixing normative concepts (efficiency) and
positive concepts (NAIRU, Phillips curve) in a strange way.
Are you saying that if we reject the normative view that "capital's brief
is efficiency and labour's is waste," we should reject both the Phillips
Curve and the NAIRU, _even if_ they fit the empirical data? (Mind you, I am
quite conscious that the empirical data reflect the power of capital and
institutional framework of the country being studied. But we live under
that power and that framework.) Are you saying that one should reject a
positive theory based on the fact that you don't like its moral implications?
But the positive/normative mix could be very different: it seems to me that
the NAIRU theory could easily be interpreted as an argument for
overthrowing capital. "Capitalism requires a reserve army THAT BIG to keep
it from punishing us with accelerating inflation??"
I am no positivist, but I think that _trying_ to separate positive and
normative concerns is a useful step in many cases (as is being aware of the
way in which one's moral commitments shapes the questions one asks, the
data one looks at, the research methods one uses, etc.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
