AdamT
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,773
- Reaction score
- 5,746
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."
So first, I'm not going to buy a book to check your "facts". Second, and again -- frictional unemployment is not the same thing as full employment, and what might be considered full employment in other countries isn't particularly relevant to what it might be in the U.S.
I'll ignore your new attempted diversion with tabloid ad hominem.
No, I made it up then posted it on Wiki.
Full Employment in a Free Society by William Henry Beveridge Part II, Sections 1-3 deals with employment as described by various economists from different countries and time periods who collectively quantify "full employment" in a range between 2 and 13%. Beveridge, like Dillard, claims it is 3%. Well below the Bush era rate.
Even if you accept your lover Boo "Duncan Grant" Radley's range of 2-7%, Bush's rate fell in the middle of that...so your shoulda coulda woulda retrospective astrology can come from either end of the argument.
Sure, it wasn't the Keynesian ideology of keeping interest rates closest to zero (Keynes ridiculously believed interest rate could and should be zero) which effects tens of trillions of dollars of commerce (most especially, home loans)...it was the marginal difference in the tax rate between Clinton and Bush on the top quintile of earners (who can afford homes at high rates). Right? Explain to me how cutting taxes on the wealthy caused the non-wealthy to buy homes they couldn't afford?
Also, since you're attempting derail the topic with speculation you are "quit sure" about, why do interventionist economists like Keynes and Beveridge always seem to join groups like the British Eugenics Society? I mean, since you are apparently not only a great astrologer, you are highly talented medium who knows where people who have been dead for 66 years come down on the Bush tax cuts.
So first, I'm not going to buy a book to check your "facts". Second, and again -- frictional unemployment is not the same thing as full employment, and what might be considered full employment in other countries isn't particularly relevant to what it might be in the U.S.
I'll ignore your new attempted diversion with tabloid ad hominem.