Categories:
Labor Market
Macroeconomics
If all goes well this link will take you to an article (with cool charts!) where I make an empirical case for telling the Recalculation story rather than pretending that we have the same economy that existed in the 1930’s when John Maynard Keynes developed his model.
I’m scheduling this post to appear on Saturday, when the article itself is scheduled to appear. I hope that the link is correct.
READER COMMENTS
Doc Merlin
Nov 7 2009 at 12:23pm
It didn’t work in the 1930’s either.
spencer
Nov 7 2009 at 5:06pm
If you are going to make comparisons to the 1930s your charts should include 1930s data to demonstrate the points you are making.
bgc
Nov 8 2009 at 1:18am
Surely the stimulus is not ‘irrelevant’? Surely such large changes in the economy must, overall, either benefit or harm the prospects of growth?
David C
Nov 9 2009 at 4:35pm
The data and analysis you present appears to make the argument that the percentage of the workforce which can be put to work by economic stimulus is much smaller than in previous decades. This would suggest to me that the stimulus should be smaller than traditional Keynesian analysis would suggest, not that fiscal stimulus is useless. My best guess is that you believe the amount is such a small percentage of the overall economy that targeting stimulus to the appropriate sectors would either be impossible, not worth the trouble, or too politically difficult. As bgc states, your conclusion is incredibly simplified, but I guess column space is what it is.
Comments are closed.