> it's possible that if Greenspan keeps lowering rates, the U.S. > economy will > suddenly spurt forward. In that case, he'll have to raise them again to > avoid inflation, which has always been his main concern. Isn't this one > reason why Uncle Miltie argued against fine-tuning?
If it did spurt forward, how would that change the fundamental imbalances in the US economy, except adversely? In other words, it is simply nemesis deferred, and for a price.
exactly: that's what I said -- in a sketchy way -- in the part you elided. However, we may disagree on the nature of the "fundamental imbalances."
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
- RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: relevance, (continued)
- RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: relevance, Mark Jones Thu 21 Jun 2001, 19:59 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: relevance, Doug Henwood Thu 21 Jun 2001, 20:09 GMT
- rate cuts, Jim Devine Thu 21 Jun 2001, 20:25 GMT
- RE: energy crisis, Mark Jones Thu 21 Jun 2001, 20:48 GMT
- Re: RE: energy crisis, Jim Devine Fri 22 Jun 2001, 00:35 GMT
- Re: relevance, Michael Perelman Thu 21 Jun 2001, 20:20 GMT
- Re: Re: relevance, Doug Henwood Thu 21 Jun 2001, 22:31 GMT
- RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: relevance, Mark Jones Thu 21 Jun 2001, 19:57 GMT