To that extent tax competition is on point.
In the main, urban fiscal problems are due
to the city-suburb (city-state legislature)
relationship, IMO.
mbs
Max, I don't understand your point. Toledo gave away tax breaks to lure
companies, such as Chrysler, which gutted its tax base.
This also creates a bind regarding the dollar. If the dollar threatens to
depreciate, the damn foreigners will refuse to continue financing our binge, dump
their securities, drop the market and spoil our fun.
Rob Schaap wrote:
Ah, we're talking economics again, are we?
Well, Prudent Bear
At 04:08 PM 7/17/01 +, you wrote:
Ah, we're talking economics again, are we?
is that allowed?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Is it peace or is it Prozac? -- Cheryl Wheeler.
Although Godley is not signing on for a while, his co-author and
ex-penner, Alex Izurieta, is coming on board. You can direct some of
these questions for him, although you might wait a couple of hours.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel.
At 09:37 AM 7/17/01 -0700, you wrote:
Although Godley is not signing on for a while, his co-author and
ex-penner, Alex Izurieta, is coming on board. You can direct some of
these questions for him, although you might wait a couple of hours.
folks, be polite!
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . .
The effects of any form of undisguised wall-to-wall US protectionism on
world trade today would be presumably, completely catastrophic, the debacle
even worse than 1929-31. Is the Godley view that this debacle is inevitable
anyway, so it's a case of sauve qui peut? Mark Jones
I presume
Mark Jones wrote:
Incidentally, the Godley paper lays policy emphasis on import controls. This
looks like impish humour, since it is hard to imagine how such a policy
could be implemented without doing even more damage. As Jim Devine says, the
cure is worse than the disease:
To summarize, U.S.
In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining
the political basis for protectionism
Jim, I check the archives often, and have learned a great deal from
your posts. Not sure I agree here. Wouldn't the US state like to
run a trade deficit to its own mnc's and thus
his work is very important i think. he sets up scenarios with simple
models, like
Y = C + I + G + X -M
or
S + T + M = I + G + X
and then can show, e.g., what would have to happen for expansion to
continue or to avoid a significant downturn, given things like trade
deficit and/or tight
Worse than that, it makes sense -- a violation of basic academic
principles.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 04:29:07PM -0500, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
his work is very important i think. he sets up scenarios with simple
models, like
Y = C + I + G + X -M
or
--
Michael Perelman
Economics
Ah, we're talking economics again, are we?
Well, Prudent Bear Marshall Auerback
http://www.prudentbear.com/Comm%20Archive/markcomm/i082900.htm talked about
Wynn Godley's thoughts on private sector debt last August (when, to my mind,
things looked bad, but not as bad as now - Kenichi Ohmae's
11 matches
Mail list logo
