Just like fighting inflation isn't the the be-all, end-all, low unemployment doesn't mean higher inflation. Isn't it ironic, that keynesian dreadnaught, the Phillips Curve, was brought to serve monetarist approaches,albeit in its augmented form.Employment isn't the be all and end all of an economy, in fact one shouldn't try to tamper too much in the labour market at all because any attempt to lower unemployent is inflationary (Phillips Curve - look it up) and in the long run employment will fall back to the natural rate, but the inflation will remain (rightward shift of the Phillips Curve).
Truth be told, new-keynesian economics have greater appeal lately than during the most part of these 25-30 years. Ofcourse now you have economists that claim they have good models that take into account stagflation. But there are so many instances where reality proves them wrong, that one should wonder if they’d predict that the US would continue having low unemployment and low inflation since the 90s.
And to claim that the fanatic monetarists were able to promote financial rationalism after Keynes v1.0 was burried…hmm, this is more of a political than economical issue. Economic success is in the eye of the beholder. It’s a fine balance and expecting that privatizations will always be a positive thing, because people are rational, know how to construct the proper institutional framework and will do so, well that’s been proven many times over to be a folly (international reaganomics have helped increase the "outcry" against such practices, providing a nice definable target for the poorer ones).
Bookmarks