<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why the Conversion to Keynes?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/18/why-the-conversion-to-keynes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/18/why-the-conversion-to-keynes/</link>
	<description>Lane Kenworthy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:54:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/18/why-the-conversion-to-keynes/#comment-956</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=1670#comment-956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lane:  &quot;The 1981-82 downturn that Becker highlights differed from the ensuing ones, including the current one, in a key respect: the inflation rate in 1981 was 10%. &quot;

It was pointed out (I lost the blog reference) that it&#039;s, um, &#039;interesting&#039; that Becker, a Nobel Laureat economics professor, didn&#039;t notice little things like the fact that interest rates were effectively at 0% already, and that the inflation rate was nowhere near 1981-82 levels.   If I didn&#039;t know that Chicago professors would *never* be dishon- sorry, won&#039;t go there.

Also, from my casual pop economic history of the 1981-2 recession, it was a very deliberately contrived recession by Volcker.  He turned the real prime rate up to ~8% to crush inflation by crushing the economy.  This left him a vast maneuvering area to reduce rates once the economy was beaten into submission.

In addition, bloggers with actual econ degrees have pointed out that the current recession was a financial-driven recession, unlike most (or all?) post-New Deal recessions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lane:  &#8220;The 1981-82 downturn that Becker highlights differed from the ensuing ones, including the current one, in a key respect: the inflation rate in 1981 was 10%. &#8221;</p>
<p>It was pointed out (I lost the blog reference) that it&#8217;s, um, &#8216;interesting&#8217; that Becker, a Nobel Laureat economics professor, didn&#8217;t notice little things like the fact that interest rates were effectively at 0% already, and that the inflation rate was nowhere near 1981-82 levels.   If I didn&#8217;t know that Chicago professors would *never* be dishon- sorry, won&#8217;t go there.</p>
<p>Also, from my casual pop economic history of the 1981-2 recession, it was a very deliberately contrived recession by Volcker.  He turned the real prime rate up to ~8% to crush inflation by crushing the economy.  This left him a vast maneuvering area to reduce rates once the economy was beaten into submission.</p>
<p>In addition, bloggers with actual econ degrees have pointed out that the current recession was a financial-driven recession, unlike most (or all?) post-New Deal recessions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gordon</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/18/why-the-conversion-to-keynes/#comment-945</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gordon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=1670#comment-945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Keynesian support of Govt. spending is well known. I just hope that nobody starts calling bailouts &quot;Keynesian&quot; too. So far as I know, Keynes never supported bailouts, but I could be wrong.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Keynesian support of Govt. spending is well known. I just hope that nobody starts calling bailouts &#8220;Keynesian&#8221; too. So far as I know, Keynes never supported bailouts, but I could be wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/18/why-the-conversion-to-keynes/#comment-942</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=1670#comment-942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And the number of people who are &#039;contractors&#039;?

Somebody pointed out that in construction, a large number of formerly unionized skilled tradespeople who would formerly be employee are now &#039;contractors&#039; (i.e., Joe and his truck and tools).  When they don&#039;t have work, they are not &#039;unemployed&#039;.

I do expect a second Great Depression to be less bad, for the simple reason that we&#039;re a richer economy.  Just as I imagine that life in the Great Depression was better than life during the first Great Depression (the Panic of 1873-79)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the number of people who are &#8216;contractors&#8217;?</p>
<p>Somebody pointed out that in construction, a large number of formerly unionized skilled tradespeople who would formerly be employee are now &#8216;contractors&#8217; (i.e., Joe and his truck and tools).  When they don&#8217;t have work, they are not &#8216;unemployed&#8217;.</p>
<p>I do expect a second Great Depression to be less bad, for the simple reason that we&#8217;re a richer economy.  Just as I imagine that life in the Great Depression was better than life during the first Great Depression (the Panic of 1873-79)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard H. Serlin</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/01/18/why-the-conversion-to-keynes/#comment-941</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard H. Serlin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=1670#comment-941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do you think 9% unemployment today could be worse, or much worse, than 10.5% unemployment in 1982 due to changes in how it&#039;s measured and when considering those who have &quot;involuntarily&quot; left the workforce, those who are involuntarily working part-time, and those who are otherwise underemployed?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you think 9% unemployment today could be worse, or much worse, than 10.5% unemployment in 1982 due to changes in how it&#8217;s measured and when considering those who have &#8220;involuntarily&#8221; left the workforce, those who are involuntarily working part-time, and those who are otherwise underemployed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

