5 ms·

Distinction without a difference. Of course there will always be some unemployment for disability or other reasons. As far as I can see, only industrialists wh

Distinction without a difference. Of course there will always be some unemployment for disability or other reasons. As far as I can see, only industrialists who profit from lower wages and a more docile workforce would be against this. Job guarantee proposals are minimum wage. Even if they were not, the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. It's not as if state-administered job guarantees are going to be tools of empowering the working class. It's going to be administered as a neutral tool for economic efficiency. Even then, the industrialists absolutely benefit from easy access to a minimum wage workforce. It was an attempt to marry it to Neoclassical economics, which was antithetical to Keynesianism in the first place. Nonsense. Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No it wasn't. It was Hicks and Meade trying to apply some sort of equilibirium fetishism to the theory of interest, employment and money. Yes, it was. Hicks and Meade only developed one particularly influential variant, and they were inspired by notes from Keynes' lecture attendees who were taught a four-equation model with almost no major difference other than having an exogenous variable for "state of the news" (expectations). Ultimately this was not a major difference, since neo-Keynesians like James Tobin did focus on such areas, and on financial instability as well. Robert W. Dimand documents the origins of IS-LM and Keynes' Marshallian roots in a 2007 paper: http://www.unites.uqam.ca/philo/keynes/docs/dimand.pdf http://www.unites.uqam.ca/philo/keynes/docs/dimand.pdf

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
> the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's incorrect. What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? >Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge with growths in total factor productivity, central banks still do price level stabilization instead. The monetary disequilibrium economists have written much on this. George Selgin has a great and relatively accessible essay called Less Than Zero that discusses this. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism. But there is no single "modern neoclassicism," that's the point. Yet to somehow deny that Marshall was a neoclassical is to make the term meaningless. The approaches of Marshall, Menger, Walras and others all had important differences despite being ultimately lumped as "neoclassical". Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's a political term used by people opposed to it to describe what they perceive as a shift into corporate rule since the 1970s. Yet this narrative is full of holes, not least of which is the history of mercantilism, imperialism and later corporation-state cooperation. I'll be writing a book on this subject at some point.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge Yeah, that's what happened in the 19th century. It didn't help improve poverty at all - exactly the opposite, in fact. The series of financial crises and subsequent misery is partly what led to the creation of the federal reserve. >Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's strongly linked to neoclassicism. Plenty of neoliberal dogma has its underpinnings in neoclassical ideas (e.g. theory of the firm).
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Deflation is not an issue if accompanied by growth in TFP. It's acknowledged that the period from 1874-1896 was one such event. As for banking panics, they were always particularly bad in the United States because of geographic limitations, specific bondholding requirements and other restrictions. Theory of the firm has many variants. Coasian, Alchian, evolutionary, etc. Again, what type of neoclassicism? What is neoliberalism, anyway? [1] It's used as a snarl term rather than a particular set of ideological convictions. I've seen it used to describe various forms of economic liberalism, but also more esoteric Foucaltian analyses. The Golden Age of Capitalism was still a time of imperialism (Truman Doctrine in effect), one of seven times less regulation than today (as measured by size of the Federal Register) and all sorts of other statuses that are nowadays attributed as being unique to neoliberalism. There was no sudden "jump" in the 1970s, it's been an ongoing process since mercantilism. [1] http://folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf http://folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Job guarantee proposals are minimum wage. Even if they were not, the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. Guilt by association with Marx? Seriously? That's what passes for a rebuttal? >It's not as if state-administered job guarantees are going to be tools of empowering the working class. They were in the 30s. If you can drop your McJob and get a guaranteed job with decent benefits and pay with the Public Works Administration you can tell your boss where to shove it. That's called "empowering". >Nonsense. Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. "Reaction against" would be more accurate. Keynes never had an equilibrium fetish (the kind that is used to pretend that unemployment isn't a problem because "a reversion to the mean is just around the corner").
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Well, the Marxian theory is the growing reserve army of labor increasing the organic composition of capital leading to a fall in the rate of profit and breakdown of capital accumulation. A major assumption was that automation would lower productivity and profit, which did not play out. So, industrialists definitely would benefit from a minimum wage JG force. The purpose of the New Deal was not empowerment, but emergency restructuring. Some of the initial programs (AAA, NRA) were deemed unconstitutional and it was built into a corporatist model for maximum expediency. There weren't any McJobs in the 30s, and the New Deal was certainly not about "decent benefits and pay". Nor would a contemporary minimum wage JG be. Marshallian analysis was not a purely comparative static approach. It did allow for dynamism and fluctuations as actors converged between states. That Keynes spoke of homogeneous investment functions and "marginal efficiency of capital" shows that he was still rooted in that tradition. You're moving the goalposts, though. IS-LM is still his.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >So, industrialists definitely would benefit from a minimum wage JG force. That must be why they throw a torrent of lobbying dollars at think tanks that say that raising the minimum wage will cause the sky to fall. >The purpose of the New Deal was not empowerment, but emergency restructuring. You must have a different definition of "relief for the poor" than the rest of us. >There weren't any McJobs in the 30s Believe it or not, cooking was actually a thing in the 30s too, and it was, likewise, one of the lowest wage jobs out there (~35 cents an hour avg wage).

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

> the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's incorrect. What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? >Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge with growths in total factor productivity, central banks still do price level stabilization instead. The monetary disequilibrium economists have written much on this. George Selgin has a great and relatively accessible essay called Less Than Zero that discusses this. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism. But there is no single "modern neoclassicism," that's the point. Yet to somehow deny that Marshall was a neoclassical is to make the term meaningless. The approaches of Marshall, Menger, Walras and others all had important differences despite being ultimately lumped as "neoclassical". Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's a political term used by people opposed to it to describe what they perceive as a shift into corporate rule since the 1970s. Yet this narrative is full of holes, not least of which is the history of mercantilism, imperialism and later corporation-state cooperation. I'll be writing a book on this subject at some point.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge Yeah, that's what happened in the 19th century. It didn't help improve poverty at all - exactly the opposite, in fact. The series of financial crises and subsequent misery is partly what led to the creation of the federal reserve. >Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's strongly linked to neoclassicism. Plenty of neoliberal dogma has its underpinnings in neoclassical ideas (e.g. theory of the firm).
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Deflation is not an issue if accompanied by growth in TFP. It's acknowledged that the period from 1874-1896 was one such event. As for banking panics, they were always particularly bad in the United States because of geographic limitations, specific bondholding requirements and other restrictions. Theory of the firm has many variants. Coasian, Alchian, evolutionary, etc. Again, what type of neoclassicism? What is neoliberalism, anyway? [1] It's used as a snarl term rather than a particular set of ideological convictions. I've seen it used to describe various forms of economic liberalism, but also more esoteric Foucaltian analyses. The Golden Age of Capitalism was still a time of imperialism (Truman Doctrine in effect), one of seven times less regulation than today (as measured by size of the Federal Register) and all sorts of other statuses that are nowadays attributed as being unique to neoliberalism. There was no sudden "jump" in the 1970s, it's been an ongoing process since mercantilism. [1] http://folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf http://folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Job guarantee proposals are minimum wage. Even if they were not, the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. Guilt by association with Marx? Seriously? That's what passes for a rebuttal? >It's not as if state-administered job guarantees are going to be tools of empowering the working class. They were in the 30s. If you can drop your McJob and get a guaranteed job with decent benefits and pay with the Public Works Administration you can tell your boss where to shove it. That's called "empowering". >Nonsense. Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. "Reaction against" would be more accurate. Keynes never had an equilibrium fetish (the kind that is used to pretend that unemployment isn't a problem because "a reversion to the mean is just around the corner").

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Well, the Marxian theory is the growing reserve army of labor increasing the organic composition of capital leading to a fall in the rate of profit and breakdown of capital accumulation. A major assumption was that automation would lower productivity and profit, which did not play out. So, industrialists definitely would benefit from a minimum wage JG force. The purpose of the New Deal was not empowerment, but emergency restructuring. Some of the initial programs (AAA, NRA) were deemed unconstitutional and it was built into a corporatist model for maximum expediency. There weren't any McJobs in the 30s, and the New Deal was certainly not about "decent benefits and pay". Nor would a contemporary minimum wage JG be. Marshallian analysis was not a purely comparative static approach. It did allow for dynamism and fluctuations as actors converged between states. That Keynes spoke of homogeneous investment functions and "marginal efficiency of capital" shows that he was still rooted in that tradition. You're moving the goalposts, though. IS-LM is still his.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >So, industrialists definitely would benefit from a minimum wage JG force. That must be why they throw a torrent of lobbying dollars at think tanks that say that raising the minimum wage will cause the sky to fall. >The purpose of the New Deal was not empowerment, but emergency restructuring. You must have a different definition of "relief for the poor" than the rest of us. >There weren't any McJobs in the 30s Believe it or not, cooking was actually a thing in the 30s too, and it was, likewise, one of the lowest wage jobs out there (~35 cents an hour avg wage).