Jon posits, in the previous post, that Keynesians have failed to account for the idea that there may be a stable economic state not involving full employment. This presumably leads to obnoxious articles like this one, in which we learn that "fallacy" should be in quotes, Keynes and Krugman are obviously really good economists, and also we are not at full employment.
I find the Keynesian obsession with one commodity (labor) weird not just because there could be a steady economic state where employment runs less than 100 percent, but because there is an obvious steady state where employment runs 0 percent. I believe that Neo called it "The Matrix" although, cruelly, the machines not only drained his precious heat but also made him have a simulated day job.
In real life, unlike the movies, I at least am quite confident that I can enjoy a virtual exstence in which I sit on the carefully rendered digital beach and collect the attentions of multiethnic nonsapient simulated women.
The end stage of economics is the end of the scarcity that makes it necessary to allocate scarce things. One obvious intermittent step is the end of scarcity of labor.
Keynesians need to think less about getting everyone a job and more about what society looks like when no one recalls what the word "job" referred to.
No comments:
Post a Comment