Eugene Coyle wrote: > What about the Pope?
Is the Pope a neoclassical economist? If not, I'm afraid we'll have to repeal his infallibility status. Actually there is a simpler test of whether one has committed the lump-of-labor fallacy. Ask yourself if a given argument is consistent with the belief that this is the best of all possible worlds. If it is not, the argument commits the fallacy. Perhaps you will think I am kidding. Not at all. According to correspondence I received today, Keynesians make a number of pessimistic assumptions about the relationship between the short run and the long run that have been proven wrong by the facts and thus they commit the fallacy. Modern macroeconomics makes more optimistic assumptions about that relationship, which of course agrees with the facts. Marx, of course, made pessimistic assumptions ergo lumpem laboris est. To simplify: optimism = no lump pessimism = lump Application: Pessimists see fear of job loss as a bad sign because they don't recognize that fear facilitates the transition from short run "difficulties" to long run equilibrium. Optimists understand that the more fear people have the happier they will be in the long run. Are you an optimist? If not you're pretty stupid. All the facts point to optimism as the basic design of the macroeconomy. Got bad news? Shove it. The Sandwichman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com