The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
grinding internal devaluation, which eventually will result in full employment. In the long run.
But I think it far more likely that before the levels of pain needed to achieve that are reached, countries will choose to leave the Eurozone. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I have made the point repeatedly that the same worker is very much more productive with better physical plant. Therefore, there are two ways to "improve" accounting measures of worker productivity. To punish the worker for having to work with crap equipment, or to invest in improving their equipment.
The capitalists who decided to not invest in proper equipment in the first place are not punished, only the workers who had no say in the matter. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
Which are not mutually exclusive.
The capitalists who decided to not invest in proper equipment in the first place are not punished, only the workers who had no say in the matter.
The capitalist which does not run a successful plant will go broke and lose the thing that makes him a capitalist: his capital. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Hmm, limited liability and political connections.
We're talking oligarchy here.
And when their country goes to hell the government borrows from the IMF in order to prop the exchange rate long enough for them to get their savings out at a favourable rate. Or, in the case of the Eurozone, the government refuses to institute capital controls and accepts "rescue" after "rescue" while the oligarchs decamp to Luxembourg with their money. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
Anyway, much plant (except in heavy industry) becomes outdated and is written off pretty quickly, even if not in 3 years. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Want to bet on how long it takes for FDI into Greece to pick up? Do you think it makes a difference how many people die of the effects of economic depression in the interim? There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
But this doesn't change what I say. Even if you get an increased mortality, you will eventually return to full employment via salary cuts. It won't be fun and it won't be pretty and most importantly it will be a really stupid way to do things, but eventually you will reach full employment.
I'm not arguing this is the good way to do things, I'm just saying that eventually that's what will happen, even if I also think the devaluation road is far more politically likely (and a lot smarter). Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
You know the reason basic services in Greece are failing is not the taxes have not been raised. But, of course, the middle of a recession is the wrong time to fire your doctors and nurses and raise taxes on everyone else. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
I don't know Robinson, but from a cursory perusal of Google, her contributions to economic theory look respectable enough.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
What if we call him Paul "Mahathir" Krugman?
Milton "Pinochet" Friedman was correct that monetary contraction made the Great Depression worse. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
While I haven't read any of Robinsons texts (and I should), I kinda find it hard to believe that someone who thought the Cultural Revolution was an excellent idea from a social and economic point of view, really has any reality-based advice to offer us, Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Initially a supporter of neoclassical economics, she changed her mind after getting acquainted with John Maynard Keynes. As a member of "the Cambridge School" of economics, Robinson assisted with the support and exposition of Keynes' General Theory, writing especially on its employment implications in 1936 and 1937 (it attempted to explain employment dynamics in the midst of the Great Depression). In 1933, in her book, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Robinson coined the term "monopsony," which is used to describe the buyer converse of a seller monopoly. In 1942 Robinson's An Essay on Marxian Economics famously concentrated on Karl Marx as an economist, helping revive the debate on this aspect of his legacy. During the Second World War, Joan Robinson worked on a few different Committees for the wartime national government. During this time, she visited the Soviet Union as well as China. She developed an interest in underdeveloped and developing nations and contributed a lot that is now understood in this section of economics. In 1949, she was invited by Ragnar Frisch to become the vice president of the Econometric Society but declined, saying she couldn't be part of the editorial committee of a journal she couldn't read. In 1956, Joan Robinson published her magnum opus, The Accumulation of Capital, which extended Keynesianism into the long-run. Six years later, she published another book about growth theory, which talked about concepts of "Golden Age" growth paths. Afterwards, she developed the Cambridge growth theory with Nicholas Kaldor. During the 1960s, she was a major participant in the Cambridge capital controversy alongside Piero Sraffa. Close to the end of her life she studied and concentrated on methodological problems in economics and tried to recover the original message of Keynes' General Theory. Between 1962 and 1980 she wrote many economics books for the general public. Robinson suggested developing an alternative to the revival of classical economics. At least two students who studied under her have won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences: Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz. Also, Robinson made several trips to China, reporting her observations and analyses in China: An Economic Perspective (1958), The Cultural Revolution in China (1969), and Economic Management in China (1975; 3rd ed, 1976), in which she praised the Cultural Revolution. She also stated in reference to divided Korea that "[o]bviously, sooner or later the country must be reunited by absorbing the South into socialism." These statements caused significant damage to her reputation, and possibly cost her the Nobel Prize for Economics. During her last decade, she became more and more pessimistic about the possibilities of reforming economic theory, as expressed, for example, in her essay "Spring Cleaning".
In 1933, in her book, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Robinson coined the term "monopsony," which is used to describe the buyer converse of a seller monopoly.
In 1942 Robinson's An Essay on Marxian Economics famously concentrated on Karl Marx as an economist, helping revive the debate on this aspect of his legacy.
During the Second World War, Joan Robinson worked on a few different Committees for the wartime national government. During this time, she visited the Soviet Union as well as China. She developed an interest in underdeveloped and developing nations and contributed a lot that is now understood in this section of economics.
In 1949, she was invited by Ragnar Frisch to become the vice president of the Econometric Society but declined, saying she couldn't be part of the editorial committee of a journal she couldn't read.
In 1956, Joan Robinson published her magnum opus, The Accumulation of Capital, which extended Keynesianism into the long-run. Six years later, she published another book about growth theory, which talked about concepts of "Golden Age" growth paths. Afterwards, she developed the Cambridge growth theory with Nicholas Kaldor. During the 1960s, she was a major participant in the Cambridge capital controversy alongside Piero Sraffa.
Close to the end of her life she studied and concentrated on methodological problems in economics and tried to recover the original message of Keynes' General Theory. Between 1962 and 1980 she wrote many economics books for the general public. Robinson suggested developing an alternative to the revival of classical economics.
At least two students who studied under her have won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences: Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz.
Also, Robinson made several trips to China, reporting her observations and analyses in China: An Economic Perspective (1958), The Cultural Revolution in China (1969), and Economic Management in China (1975; 3rd ed, 1976), in which she praised the Cultural Revolution. She also stated in reference to divided Korea that "[o]bviously, sooner or later the country must be reunited by absorbing the South into socialism." These statements caused significant damage to her reputation, and possibly cost her the Nobel Prize for Economics. During her last decade, she became more and more pessimistic about the possibilities of reforming economic theory, as expressed, for example, in her essay "Spring Cleaning".
And still, people complain over Friedman advising Pinochet on economic issues, all the time.
This bears pointing out, repeatedly, because there is this persistent mythology that right-wingers are pro-democracy.
United States GDP per capita: $48,147
Nasty socialist scumbags from the Frozen North:
Nordic countries GDP per capita: $62,959
My case.
It rests. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Unless both regions are doing a helluva lot better than I thought. :) Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
The Stockholm Syndrome Pt. 1 Wyatt Cenac travels to Sweden to wake up their hauntingly thin citizens from their socialist nightmare.
As usual, GDP doesn't tell us that much. You can't be me, I'm taken
eventually you will reach full employment.
I'm not arguing this is the good way to do things, I'm just saying that eventually that's what will happen
But that does not change the argument about what would eventually happen, as it is not a normative argument. And furthermore, you know just as well as I do that equilibrium would not be achieved by the unemployed starving to death. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
You're right: they are, and it isn't. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
Sooner or later the resistance to nominal wage cuts will fade (when the pain gets intense enough), salaries will fall, and you'll see an export-led resurgence.
And then you will see a trade war, not totally unlike the good, old-fashioned sort with import duties and customs barriers. Except instead of competing to see who can raise import duties higher before their domestic economy starts breaking for lack of raw materials, we'll be seeing who can raise unemployment higher before their democracy breaks from paramilitary organisations being the only viable career prospect for anybody born after 1990.
And unlike the counterfactual presented of the in the diary body, this is a repeatedly observed and well described phenomenon.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Nov 304 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 633 comments