Re: CJE 2001 critical review of trade theory and policy

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Here, here, Henry.  I would only add that 4% "official" rate of
unemployment does not include millions. So that we need to at least
double or triple that to begin to get at the more realistic numbers of
jobless and poor.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry C.K. Liu [mailto:hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:06 PM
To: bp; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CJE 2001 critical review of trade theory and policy

Central banks, by adopting the "natural" rate of unemployment (NAIRU) as
a
component of monetary policy, is condamning 4% of the labor force to
perpetual
involuntary unemployment.  It seems self evident that the population has
a
natural right not to be forced to be part of this 4% of unfortunate
souls.

Your view of that rights do not exist simply by declaratroy utterance
flies in
the face of US political culture.  I assume you have heard of
"unalienable
rights" of all people (not some people): life, liberty and the pursuit
of
happiness, none of which is compatible with chronic involuntary
unemployment
caused by government policy.  To secure these rights, governments
(including the
cnetral banks) are instituted among  men, deriving their just powers
from the
consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish
it.......
I know of no unemployed wroker who has given any central bank his/her
consent to
be involunarily unemployed so that the value of money can be preserved.
The
right to gainful employment comes from this simple and direct
relationship
between the governed and the government, not some fancy ideological
deconstruction you imply.


Henry C.K. Liu

bp wrote:

> Hmmm,
> The exact contents of the social contract always seem so much in
doubt. Sure
> do wish we had thought to keep a copy.
>
> Even if the people did deal with central banks as part of the contract
> amongst themselves (although we are getting way theoretical here) and,
as
> such had the presumptive right to insist on anything, (including milk
and
> cookies as night time snack for all)  can we simply assume that the
people
> did insist on full employment? And that they established as "natural"
a full
> employment rate?
>
> This sound like a backward-looking deconstruction based on some
> political/economic theory. It really doesn't seem to answer the
question.
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry C.K. Liu <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: bp <bperry.javanet@xxxxxxx>; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:15 PM
> Subject: Re: CJE 2001 critical review of trade theory and policy
>
> >The right comes from the concept of social contract.  The people
grant the
> >central banks the authority to devise and conduct monetary policy.
They
> >have the right to insist on full employment as a policy prerequisite.
The
> >natural rate of unemployment must be full employment.
> >
> >Henry C.K. Liu
> >
> >bp wrote:
> >
> >> I guess that is the question. Is there really such a right? When
did it
> >> spring into existence?
> >>
> >> > The right of all to productive and fulfilling work is sacrosanct
> >
> >