Full employment: How?

["John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>]

        "If any central banker sets his goal on full employment,
         ... he can achieve ... it.  There is no mystery in how to
         achieve it, only denial."
                    -- Henry C.K. Liu, Mar 29 on Pkt.

        "In his speech early this week, Greenspan stated that
         monetary policy can not permanently affect the rate
         of unemployment, thereby implicitly accepting the
         concept of a natural rate of unemployment.
        "No wonder he can't see 'full' employment as a worthy
         objective, when his conservative monetarist vision is
         clouded by the Friedmanic concept of  a 'natural rate
         of unemployment'."
                    -- Paul Davidson, same subject, Mar 30 on Pkt

        Both of our colleagues above suggest that the mystery
        of believing in and achieving full employment (without
        inviting unacceptable inflation) is solved. Yet they do
        not say how.

        Most on PKT appear to accept PSE (public service
        employment) to ensure the last man looking for work a
        job-- as "how".

        Most would also allow the central bank, simultaneously
        with PSE-zero-unemployment, to reduce aggregate
        demand via higher interest rates.

        Most also stop short of supply side action. But maybe
        not. If an appropriate agenda called for government
        lending and investment directed to supply side goals--
        to raise ouput of necessary goods and services-- these
        PKT'rs might say "yes".  Such supply side strategy
        has always governed  my agenda for full employment.

        Which leaves unanswered why Friedman, Greenspan
        and the majority of both the elites and the voters do
        not take us to full employment-- with  all the benefits
        jobs would bring -- all the power they would exert--
        to prevent formation of an underclass and excessive
        anxiety in the middle class. Why?

        In part because the money to pay for PSE and anti-
        inflationary supply side actions appears to opponents
        as coming out of their pockets.

        Yet we on PKT believe money is not neutral -- that
        money spent and lent to reach full employment would
        increase, not reduce, aggregate profits-- to be enjoyed
        by our opponents, more or less as they enjoy it now.

        We see full employment as also making our own and
        our opponent's lives better for safer streets, a smarter
        work force, and reduced anxiety over a  future change
        in jobs.

        I, for one, would be willing to entice support from
        these opponents for a full employment strategic plan
        by giving them a sweetner. Perhaps a tax break they're
        looking for? If money is not neutral, we can all afford
        the deal.

            John Gelles

        P.S.  How many of you react with, "hell no" to the
        above.  "That would leave disparity even worse.
        We would move the bottom up, but the top would be
        further away from ME.  If we don't tax the bastards
        more, I will only have more to envy."   These may be
        thoughts beneath the surface that compel us to keep
        our opponents enemies -- to screw the poor even
        more because we hate the rich. Well it's only a
        possibility. The supply side strategic plan can also be
        rejected because we're sure the rich will never buy
        it. They stink and always will. Class war to the end.