>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>
>> I think there's lots of oil left; the tighter constraint is that
>> burning all we have may well choke us. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think
>> the odds suck in betting against human ingenuity, even under
>> capitalism, at devising new energy sources. I think profit
>> imperatives have severely slowed research into them. But they'll
>> probably arrive.
>>
>
>This is interesting; it's the first time Doug has shown his n-c colours so
>clearly.
>
>Mark
Yes. The long-term advanced pharmaceutical-aided mind-washing
campaign has succeeded brilliantly. Consider ten typical remarks of
his (from this spring alone):
(1) "The average real hourly wage is up 7% since mid-1995 - not a
great performance over the course of 4.5 years, but not bad by recent
U.S. history..."
(2) "I should add that if the point of borrowing from a central bank
is to increase investment, and thereby growth over the long term,
then there has to be a diversion of current resources out of
consumption. Someone's consumption - and the political fight is over
whose. Funny money schemes aim to finesse that fight, but you just
can't do it: resources for real investment have to come from
somewhere. Money can be created out of thin air, but not machine
tools or schools..."
(3) "Dragons In Distress really overstated the bearish case - it was
as if East Asian/NIC growth was all an illusion. Yes it came at a
high social and environmental cost, but it wasn't all an illusion.."
(4) "And where does the B of C get the money from? If it's from the
printing press, then you're playing inflationary games. Might work
some stimulative magic in the short run, but not for long..."
(5) "Becker of the Steelworkers was the low point of the Seattle
rally, going on in a very ugly way about how imports were "inundating
our shores" and threatening the American way of life. The Teamsters
had some ugly banners about Mexican trucks there, too..."
(6) "Say euroland is restructured along Anglo-American lines - why
couldn't the E-11 have a boom too? A polarizing, manic, diseased boom
perhaps, but still a boom?..."
(7) "I think it's absolutely wrong - alienation and all - to say the
worker of 2000 is worse off than the worker of 1850, by any objective
or subjective measure..."
(8) "Privatization is an instance of state-monopoly? I find that very
confusing. Lenin and Hilferding talked about state-sponsored cartels
and the suppression of competition. Everywhere on earth, deregulation
and the intensification of competition are the rule of the day.
Please clarify how this proves Lenin and Hilferding right..."
(9) "I'm no Greenspan fan, but he's been more indulgent of a low
unemployment rate than many of his predecessors or colleagues..."
(10) "I'd love to do a Julian Simon-style bet with Brown on this. I
suspect these disasters won't materialize..."
(11) "But if we're talking the loss of 100,000 manufacturing jobs,
how much downward pressure does that place when total private service
sector employment is 85 million - and total service sector employment
is 106 million (including government) - and some 2.8 million new jobs
are being created annually?..."
(12) "Trade volume has increased pretty markedly, far more than
suggested by the 0.03% of GDP kick from tariff reductions you cite.
Surely there are some gains from this trade - I don't see how you can
just take the gap between X and M, divide by some cost per job
figure, and come up with an estimate of employment loss. Surely
imports provide positive economic advantages - lower prices, more
variety - that you just can't bracket out of your model. Yes, some
people may lose their jobs because of this competition, but if
imports keep prices down then most people have more money left over
to spend on other things. And certainly exports create jobs - that's
not controversial is it? To do this sort of analysis right, you've
got to take all these factors into account, or state explicitly that
you're assuming there are no gains at all from trade. Just because
neoclassicals say there is, doesn't mean it isn't true..."
There can be no doubt. Now we neoclassicals can reveal the truth:
Henwood is one of *us* now...
Mwuhahahahahaha!!!!!!
Brad DeLong
