Hi Jim, Thanks very much (I haven't gone outside yet, just reading your post).
> the standard macro explanation points to Okun's "Law," which says that for the US, > real GDP has to increase at about 3 per cent per year simply to keep the > unemployment rate constant. This type of growth counteracts the employment- > depressing effects of an increased labor force and the growth of labor productivity. > > Okun's "Law" should be called Okun's "empirical generalization." Yes, but, according to this site, there are two versions of Okun's law: www.amherst.edu/~econ53/Okun.PDF+definition+of+Okun%27s+Law&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8 > orthodox macro -- or what's called "new Keynesianism," though it's neither new nor > Keynesian -- points to wage rigidities as discouraging rapid equilibration of labor- > power markets. This, of course, encourages them to call for making labor-power > markets less rigid, by smashing unions, abolishing the minimum wage, etc. Yes, but if you look at the New Zealand data, where labour market relations were unquestionably de-rigiditized and livened up, the result was greater income disparity and a decline of modal real wages. Everybody admits that household incomes are higher in Australia, despite greater de-rigiditisation in New Zealand. But of course they didn't believe the General Theory anymore in New Zealand. > some blame the fact that the Yen and renminbi haven't risen as the dollar > has fallen, so that US aggregate demand has been slow. These rigidities are > blamed on the Japanese and Chinese governments, respectively. But if you look at capital and money movements between Europe and the USA, and trade between Europe and the USA, they are greater by value and volume than the corresponding trade with Japan and China. Therefore, the focus on Japan and China probably means that the empire thinks the Japanese and the Chinese are weaker and easier to beat, or pick off. But knowing a little bit about the Chinese and the Japanese, they actually have considerable grunt and clout. Therefore, the battle against the so-called "slit-eyes" and "gooks" (sic.) might create a spot of bother for condom economics. I feel depressed and I better get myself organised, you know. Thanks again for your comments. Jurriaan
