Posted on 08/05/2005 5:35:42 AM PDT by RWR8189
I agree, I think that 5% is pretty much full employment when you account for those who are abusing the system and those casual workers who work just enough to get by with their additional government benefits.
"From what I understand is that President Taft did not want to be President and he gained weight due to being President. After he lost the election he lost weight."
You're correct. My mistake. Taft was 5'11, and got down to about 250 before he died. He was about 320 while in office. I have him confused with another president.
Nope, it's 5% according to today's textbooks. I found the class quite interesting. Of course, being in my 40's, I already knew a lot about economics, (the youngsters in the class were at a huge disadvantage to me) but I learned a lot and am looking forward to the next econ classI take.
"Page W62." Funny! A good laugh for the morning!
If I recall correctly Paul Krugman's "Peddling Prosperity" (while otherwise dreary) had a negative opinion of NAIRU but managed to turn out a fairly good description.
Parenthetically at one time (and perhaps even still today) congress set an unemployment level into law. It was/is part of "Humphery-Hawkins", the very same law that compels Greenspan to go to Capital Hill and say nothing every so often.
Silly geeks.
Great enconomy ~ Bump!
Glad I could make someone laugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.