Re: new thread: PKT and ecology

["Canova, Timothy" <CANOVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Clifford Poirot writes:
>This is unfortunate, but I see no need to shrink from names. Why not
provide
>the references. I would like to read those articles. I will say however, in
>defense of PKT and heterodox economics in general, that the method and
>models are there to deal with the issues. So yes, I agree you are right to
>goad the list into thinking about this issue, but I disagree with what I
>take to be an implied point that PKT cannot deal with it.

Canova response:
Okay.  I recall a James Galbraith article from The Nation (I believe from
July 12, 1999) in which he characterized the economy as at full-employment.
I tried to retrieve the article from The Nation's archives, but to no avail.
But a very quick search uncovered similar missives, including a Nov. 28,
1999 article by James Galbraith in The Dallas Morning News in which he
states:  "The truth is that the good economy produced the appearance of
fiscal discipline, rather than fiscal discipline producing a good economy.
Lower interest rates kicked off that process, beginning in 1992, when,
despite big deficits, those rates were lower than they are today.  Strong
economic growth, full employment and low inflation together generated a
powerful flow of tax revenue."

Likewise, in his 1998 review of the Economic Report of the President, James
Galbraith stated:  "A high employment economy brings enormous economic and
social benefits."  He then recognized the high social costs of unemployment
and wasted resources, but concluded that "the elimination of this waste is
the principal benefit of a sustained return to full employment."  (See
Galbraith, James. 1998.  "The Economic Report of the President for 1998:  A
Review."  Challenge 41: 87-98).

I did not mean to imply that PKT could not deal with "it."  But I have been
frustrated that so many (particularly our mainstream Democratic friends)
have accepted the assumption that the U.S. economy was already at
full-employment.  High growth does not necessarily mean full employment.
And as I've said before, when we measure unemployment in ways that
completely ignores much of our unemployment, that distorts the discussion.