Jim Devine wrote, >It's the MF's theory that is theoretically incoherent, not _all_ theories >of the NAIRU. It was my impression that Galbraith critiqued MF's theory specifically because it was MF's theory that seized the policy stage. As far as I'm concerned, the rest is a sideshow unless someone shows that this or that NAIRU theory would be politically decisive in stopping the vomitous public policy regime that we happen to be in. Can you do that? I mean, what's the emancipatory pay-off? I don't have any "mainstream colleagues" that I have to get along with. If I was in an Econ Dept. it would be different. But I would just see it as a corridor conversation topic like who won the World Series or whether a blow job is a sexual relation. >Sure, everyone knows the PC doesn't do a perfect job. That's why they >always put a stochastic term in the regressions. Doesn't do a perfect job of what? I don't give a rat's ass for the Philip's Curve. I took Econ 101 twice in the 1960s (No, I didn't flunk, I transferred from UC and they wouldn't give me credits) and the whole pile of rubbish struck me as 1001 argumentative tricks for proving that a bad set of initial assumptions is better than a good set. Not to mention that Samuelson came out with a new "edition" every year so you couldn't sell your used textbooks. >Of course he never said that. I never said he said that. Tom, for an >anti-academic, you sure are good at quibbling. I take that as a compliment. . . or two. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
