Regarding the article I posted:

I cannot really attest to having much knowledge of the market, nor am I well versed in its jargon, but the implication of the theory that there must be a sacrificed minimum unemployment is interesting. Most of the information I found relates to a theory by economist, A.W. Phillips, called the Phillips Curve. Supposedly, in practice, the theory has proven flawed: “In particular, the situation in the early 1970s, marked by relatively high unemployment and extremely high wage increases, represented a point well off the Phillips curve. At the beginning of the 21st century, the persistence of low unemployment and relatively low inflation marked another departure from the Phillips curve.”

I agree that the author implies that “the system” at fault is capitalism and not Democracy, but I don’t think he stated that it doesn’t work because it isn’t a meritocracy; instead he is ridiculing the idea that America likes to laud the idea that it is a meritocracy when in reality the disenfranchised citizens that are unemployed are not uneducated, lazy people who failed to measure up to life’s demands. Yet, what exactly he does propose to replace our current “system” with is a mystery to me. Does he actually want to bring down capitalism? Then why is he only focusing on Greenspan and other leaders of capitalism, rather than capitalism itself?
.
I think you’re right about the authors attempt to stain Greenspan because of his association with Rand (i.e. everyone knows Rand was an evil, cultist cunt anyway), while at the same time attempting to incriminate Greenspan by displaying his interference with the market (very antithetical of Rand and laissez-faire capitalism) to label him as one of the main proponents of the minimum unemployment standard. So does he hate Greenspan for being a disciple of Rand or for tinkering with the market, which Rand probably wouldn’t do. I don’t know Greenspan’s view on needing a minimum unemployment to fight inflation, but I know he has continually tinkered with the U.S. market, like when Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 508 points 1987 and he acted quickly to ensure liquidity in the markets, and also when Asian countries underwent their financial crises and an economic downturn in 1997, he lowered U.S. interest rates to cushion the economy. These actions don’t seem to indicate his that he supports the Phillips Curve, but the notion that there can be too low an unemployment rate supposedly continues to be a notion supported by some economists, dating as far back as David Ricardo. Of course, I couldn’t find exactly where Ricardo talks about this. Have you read anything, Pete, about this minimum unemployment rate? It’s a fascinatingly brutal way at seeing the haves and have-nots.

Oh yeah, thanks for the response. This is the first time anyone has actually responded to one of my blog entries.