You can say that again!

In other words, austerity IS working -- for the one percent of the one percent.

I suspect, though, that these measures are nevertheless benefiting those who they are intended to benefit.

What was the question again?

Their belts or their sphincters?

Yes, indeed, I wrote my master's thesis on the question of how people know exactly what to avert their eyes from to keep from knowing!

Dorning Rasbotham, Esq., was a friend of the poor. Nay, from the bottom of his heart, he was a friend of the poor! He felt tenderly for the poor man and his family. After all, what would become of the rich if there were no poor people to till their fields, pay their rents and manufacture their goods? The Moon Belongs to Everyone: http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-moon-belongs-to-everyone.html

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

"Unfortunately, as I said, we don’t seem to have learned those lessons. Will we ever?" No. Next question?

Original sin. Case in point, Bryan Caplan who admits, "The minimum wage is far from the most harmful regulation on the books. Why then do I make such a big deal about it? Because it is a symbol of larger evils." http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/the_vice_of_sel.html#254425 Get it? The "system of natural liberty" is the Garden of Eden. Did you think Adam Smith's first name was a coincidence? Minimum wage is the apple. The Invisible Hand says don't eat it. Satan, the snake, the state -- they all begin with an "s". Did you think that was a coincidence too?

"The academic disagreements are over no job losses or small job losses for highly impacted groups." Wrong. The academic disagreements are theological.

1946?

"a curious absence of full employment as a progressive policy goal..." And since when has "full employment" remained a policy goal of official Keynesianism? 1978?

Ouroboros swallowing its tail or possibly its tail swallowing Ouroboros.

As someone previously not a fan -- hats off to Caroline Baum for an informative interview.

"consumers see that unemployment increases and therefore begin to save more (against the 'rainy day')." I don't suppose that 'rainy day' includes extreme weather events like Sandy.

Testimony of Walter Reuther to the 1955 Joint Congressional Subcommittee Hearings on Automation and Technological Change (p. 124): "Every tool on every operation has a green light, a yellow light, and a red light; and when all the green lights are on, it means that all the tools at each work station are operating up to standard. When a yellow light comes on, on tool No. 38, it means that the tool is still performing, but the tool is becoming fatigued and that is a warning sign, so that the operator sitting there looking at these panels will know that he has to get a replacement tool for tool No. 38. He stands by at that position on the automated machine, and at the point the red light would kick on, on the board, he walks over — the machine automatically stops — he puts the new tool in the place of the tool that is worn out, and automatically the green light comes on and the machine goes on. "When I went through this plant the first time I was told by a top official of the Ford Motor Co.: 'Mr. Reuther, you are going to have trouble collecting union dues from all of these machines.' "And I said: 'You know that is not bothering me. What is bothering me is that you are going to have more trouble selling them automobiles.' That is the real significance. We have mastered the know-how of mass production, and what we need to do is to develop comparable distribution know-how so that we will have markets for the tremendous volume of production that automation now makes possible." That was 1955. We “solved” the distribution know-how problem with something called “credit” a.k.a. debt: credit card debt, mortgage debt, government fiscal policy. How is that distribution know-how solution working out for you? Meanwhile that tremendous volume of cars has contributed to a tremendous volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a tremendous volume of seawater lapping at the NYC and Jersey shores during Sandy. In 1956, Time magazine published a report titled, "One Big Greenhouse" and the Nation published an essay by Kenneth Burke titled "Recipe for Prosperity: 'Borrow. Buy. Waste. Want.'" Those titles speak for themselves http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2013/02/robots.html See also Dorning Rasbotham (1780) "Thoughts on the Use of Machines in the Cotton Manufacture." http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2011/11/moral-philosophers-stone-compleat.html

Happy Days are Here Again!

What's the use of worrying? It never was worth while, so Pack up your troubles in your long-run kit-bag, And smile, smile, smile.

I forgot "Pack Up Your Troubles in your Long-Run Kit Bag!"

The Tin Pan Alley economists' greatest hits: "Every Cloud has a Silver Lining!" "Let a Smile be your Umbrella!" "Don't rain on my Pareto!"

"There is some disagreement about whether the wage benefits of immigration are evenly distributed among all workers." That's just silly. Of course the wage benefits are not distributed evenly. Disagreement could only be about how uneven the benefits are and whether that uneven distribution of benefits (and/or costs) detracts from aggregate benefit.

It's good to see awareness of the Lyndon LaRouche hand in propagating global warming conspiracy theory.

"driving down american labor costs... requires fake ecological prices...." Yep. As long as economists insist on treating labor and the environment as separate "things" there's no possible solution to the problem because people keep asking the wrong questions. The antidote to "jobs vs. the environment" propaganda is "treating labor power as a common pool resource." Marx + Ostrom. Here's what Elinor Ostrom replied to me in 2010 on the question: "had not thought about labor as a common pool that could be exhausted but now I see the similarity with resources." Here's what Paul Burkett wrote in 1999: "From the standpoint of the reproduction and development of society, labor power is a common pool resource – one with definite (albeit elastic) natural limits." "In treating labor power as a common pool resource, Marx often draws a parallel between capital's extension of work time beyond the limits of human recuperative abilities, and capital's overstretching of the regenerative powers of the land." "Marx treats a sustainable working day (one consistent with the day-to-day rejuvenation of the natural and social force of labor power) as a kind of public good. This jibes with Marx's recognition of labor power as a limited common pool resource from the standpoint of society's reproduction and development." Got it? Labor power is a common pool resource. It's not a "lump" but neither is it "infinitely expandable" as neoclassical economics assumes. It's a resource "with definite (albeit elastic) natural limits." But labor power is more that just another common pool resource among common pool resources. It is THE common pool resource that systematically relates to monetary exchange value and it is the ONLY common pool resource that can speak for itself.

Sigh.