September 06, 2014

All clear, Paul?

Even if you are sure — and be honest my Keynesian and monetarist friends, we are none of us sure — that your “soft money” policy will yield higher real production in aggregate than a hard money stagnation, you will be putting comfortable incumbents into jeopardy they otherwise need not face. Some of that higher return will be distributed to groups of people who are, under the present stability, hungry and eager to work, and there is no guarantee that the gain to the wealthy from excess aggregate return will be greater than the loss derived from a broader sharing of the pie. “Full employment” means ungrateful job receivers have the capacity to make demands that could blunt equity returns. And even if that doesn’t happen, even if the rich do get richer in aggregate, there will be winners and losers among them, each wealthy individual will face risks they otherwise need not have faced. Regression to the mean is a bitch.



Blogger JAB said...

Very interesting. Sidenote:

September 6, 2014 at 11:31 AM  
Blogger JAB said...

This is first person to convince me that Paul Krugman is wrong on an economic matter- based, correctly, on what is essentially sociology: a reminder of the realities of social class structures, although expressed in the economists' language of incentives.


September 6, 2014 at 11:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home