JD:
But the fiscal dividend is not likely to be spent given the current balance
of economic and political power. So instead of figuring out how to spend a
bunch of money (to cash in the dividend), we need to figure out how to
change the balance of power. . . .
Well that's what I'm waiting for yo
Max wrote:
> >The share of GDP is projected to rise. So we've got to figure out how to
> >spend a bunch of money.
saith I:
>Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Whereas Max sees a fiscal dividend, I
>see fiscal drag.
Max ripostes:
>It's not drag if you cash in your dividend.
But the fiscal div
>The share of GDP is projected to rise. So we've got to figure out how to
>spend a bunch of money.
Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Whereas Max sees a fiscal dividend, I
see fiscal drag.
Jim Devine
>>
It's not drag if you cash in your dividend.
mbs
Max wrote:
>Full-employment or 'structural balance':
>
>(billions)
>1999 44.3
>2000 91.2
>2001 124.5
>2002 149.2
>2003 168.5
>2004 192.5
>2005 215.7
>
>These are all surpluses. Source: p. 13, Federal Budget, Analytical
>Perspectives. These assume "full employment" of 5.2 percent.
Excep
Jim Devine wrote:
>
Max Sawicky wrote: > Anybody know their 'full-employment budget
deficit' these days?<
>
>
>>>Doug writes:
The IMF says about 6% of GDP; the OECD says about 7%. That's
pretty serious stuff.
>
>I wrote:
>>>Doug, don't you mean a full-employment budget surplus?
Full-employment or 'structural balance':
(billions)
1999 44.3
2000 91.2
2001 124.5
2002 149.2
2003 168.5
2004 192.5
2005 215.7
These are all surpluses. Source: p. 13,
Federal Budget, Analytical Perspectives.
These assume "full employment" of 5.2
percent.
The share of GDP is projected
