|
Here is what I mean about solving
the wrong problems:
To create lasting growth in our
economy, we need steady domestic demand. For that to happen,
we need clarity when it comes to personal finances (taxes,
health, energy, etc.). We need to reign in the wild
debt-fueled spending of our government. We need the Federal
Reserve to get out of the rate-setting business and the
money-printing game.
Until those things happen, tepid demand will keep us in a
pattern of tepid employment… and changes in statistics like
U.S. jobless claims will simply be noise.
THIS assumes ceteris paribus that "lasting growth" is
the endgame.
IT IS @BS, it is NOT @F-L-O-W and beyond, IMHO.
I realize this introduces a can of worms few are willing to
consider eating... BUT...
This entire conception of infinity, eternality, and growth are
all centered in the same fallacy which says that the only way
to win is not to play...
Now, once can question the gambit of winning for sure... AND
The question is, if not growth (which happens organically),
what is the endgame...
And recently, I have wondered if switching from "full
employment" to "full involvement" is more than a semantical
shift to replace the endgame that is struggling against the
tension of infinity and eternality...or growth as you might
conclude--where reality is depicted by a perspective from a
level, not the truth which is constantly shifting....
A SHIFT FROM EMPLOYMENT to INVOLVEMENT
...seems more practical to me, in light of the shift of
assumptions in reality @F-L-O-W.
Involvement might mean SOME work, and SOME don't.
OMG!
You mean some people get a "FREE RIDE" on the backs of others?
Hmmmm.
Well, some will define it that way, and as we push up against
conventionality, most people will refuse to embrace the
changes, and the destructive forces of change will act on
them.
For those wishing perhaps to have a different set of problems,
INVOLVEMENT rather than EMPLOYMENT might provide a different
ground for the figure of policy. |
