Does it really matter whether "they" keep NAIRU or not? Isn't the real, underlying, issue one of keeping a reserve army without labeling it as such. Whether by fiddling with unemployment definitions, failing to distinguish the numbers of contract workers with 2 or more jobs, or by other means? It seems quite reasonable to me that some Economic Genius will shoot down NAIRU one day and proclaim its twin as supreme. Plus ca change .... n'est-ce-pas? Or am I missing something fundamental here? Best regards, Larry Shute At 03:03 PM 2/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >Sid Shniad quoted, > >>>"Karl Marx argued that capitalism needs a 'reserve army' of unemployed >>>labor to restrain wage demands and safeguard profits. Most economic >>>policy makers still think the same way, but recent experience in the U.S. >>>and Britain suggests the army might need fewer troops than it used to." > >And Doug Henwood replied, > >>Yes, I'd say this is the ruling class consensus now. > >Yeah, but. Stay tuned for "The End of NAIRU," coming soon to a listserv near >you. Two years from now you won't be able to find an economist anywhere who >will admit to having believed in the 'natural rate of unemployment'. Print >this prediction and paste it on your monitor, if it doesn't come true, send >me the paper and I'll eat it. >Regards, > >Tom Walker -------------------------------- Laurence Shute Voice: 909-869-3850 Department of Economics FAX: 909-869-6987 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------
