What seemed to escape the attention of the leading international economists at the time was that by opening up the world to free trade and free financial flows, without at the same time attending to basic labor and human rights and environmental protections, the extraordinary opportunities that the new policy regimes would create for massive corporate tax avoidance and evasion (and hence fiscal crises), and the failure of the US and no doubt other governments to make meaningful provision in advance for the extraordinary adjustment costs that these agreements would entail, they essentially ensured that defaults on the scale of Detroit would be highly likely if not inevitable...
(George DeMartino and Ilene Grabel, , Triple Crisis, July 29, 2013)
For a while they masqueraded under the aegis of promoting the discretionary use of fiscal deficits (increasing them nonetheless) to stimulate growth in output and employment. They were seen by many who have a lesser understanding of economics as being progressive economists. The British Labour leader even had some of them on his inner advisory team. But the masks can only stay on so long. Yesterday, one of the most prominent of these characters, Paul Krugman came out! He is not progressive at all. He is a New Keynesian with all the IS-LM baggage that they cannot let go of.
(Bill Mitchell, , Billy Blog, January 10, 2017)
Another way to get at the same story is to look at the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (EPOP), one of the best indicators of labor market health... To put this year's prime-age EPOP of 77.2 percent in perspective, it is still below the lowest point of the previous two business cycles. In fact, in the last business cycle, the prime-age EPOP trough was 78.6 percent, 1.4 percentage points higher than we are now. The closest we got to today's rate was back in 1993, when prime-age EPOPs bottomed out at 78.1 percent, still 0.9 percentage points higher than today.
And the answer is no - wages (and many prices) don't behave like that. It's an interesting question why, one that has to be answered in terms of psychology and sociology, but it's simply a fact that actual cuts in nominal wages happen only rarely and under great pressure. So wage stickiness is an essential part of a demand-side story about what's going on with the economy; it's how you answer the question of why wages aren't falling.
(Paul Krugman, , New York Times, Opinion Pages, July 22, 2012.)
[tags: Quiet Western Front War Remarque]
...As robots increasingly replace human labor, . Whereas tax credits point in the direction of replacement incomes, raising the minimum wage points in the opposite direction, by making income more dependent on jobs. In fact, focusing on the minimum wage would almost certainly speed up the automation process. Previous evidence that minimum-wage legislation does not reduce the demand for labor might not stand up against the rapidly falling cost of automating the production of goods and services.
[tags: All Quiet Western Front ]
The issuer of sovereign currencies and related forms of 'credit' or 'wealth' is government (however one wishes to define that term). In accounting terms, this process is usually recorded as a 'debit' in that government's accounts - which can, all-too-easily, but erroneously, be equated with a 'debt' which the government owes to itself or to 'the public', .
[tags: Quiet Western Front Great War]
Unquestionably, Cochrane, , is a true (and credulous) believer. He has unshakeable faith in the necessity for, and Summum Bonum consequences of, deregulated, self-correcting internationalized free markets. His requires that they be defended against the evils of 'big government', 'public spending' and enterprise-destroying taxation at all costs. To paraphrase (and with apologies to) the apostle Paul:
free All Quiet on the Western Front essays and term …The government should borrow to finance worthy projects, whose rate of return is greater than projects the private sector would undertake with the same money, spreading the taxes that pay for them over many years, after making sure its existing spending meets the same cost-benefit tradeoff. Just don't call it 'stimulus,' don't claim it will solve our current credit problems, 'create jobs' on net, or do anything to help the economy in the short run...
(John H. Cochrane, , Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Version 2.5 Feb 27 2009)