Aspirations

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is the rest of my response to Paul's rejoinder.

> From: pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:59:00 -0400
> To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: FWD: Returned mail: see transcript for details
>

>
> Harry's early original:
>
>>>> The 'first decision' is labour's decision. The decision to spend
>>>> time working or not working for credit for all periods.
>>>
>
> Paul's response to Harry's originl comment:
>>>
>>> Dear Harry the above is "classical mush" to use your phrase -- because it
>>> assumes full employment-- since anyone who decides to "not working for
>>> credit for all periods" is voluntarily unemployed -- in other words not in
>>> the labor force.(Moreover it implicitly assmues that if I want to work I
>>> can determine how much I get paid per unit of time).
>>>
>>
>
> Harry's latest rersponse:
>
>> I am not suggesting labour can always satisfy their income and employment
>> decisions.  A decision here means an aspiration.
>
> Paul's rejoinder:
> That's absolute nonsense . I aspire to be a multi-millionaire -- but this
> aspiration has no effect on my spending decisions!!

It would have an effect if you aspired TO BECOME multi-millionaire. Lots
of people want TO BE at the 'top', but only a few are committed to
the process of spending their way to the 'top'.


>> There is a spectrum of
>> aspirations for all periods, but that does not necessarily mean all
>> aspirations can be satisfied for all periods (even if wages are flexible.)
>>
>
> I am afraid my aspiration will never be satidifed in the short run, the long
> run  or any other period you can specify -- and that is indepednet of whether
> wage are flexible or not.

If you sincerely aspired to become a multi-millionaire you would not talk
like that.

> AND BY THE WAY, IN KEYNES'S GT, THERE IS INVOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT WHETHER
> WAGES AND/OR PRICES IS FLEXIBLE OR FIXED -- WHICH YOU WOULD DISCOVER IF YOU
> READ KEYNES'S CHAPTER ON WAGES IN THE GT.  Your paranthetical statement above
> implies you believe that the only cause of unemployment is the fxity or
> stickiness of wages)

No, it only says flexible wages do not guarantee full employment.

> -- a statement that is only true given the axiomatic
> foundation of classical economics!!  So again I reiterate it is you who is
> spouting "classical mush" not Keynes not Davidson!!
>

Harry Veeder