Another category of indicia of scarcity was (and still is, in the art world) indicia of artistic skill and effort -- the improbability of the artistic skill involved and time needed for that rare skill to produce a work of art or craft.
-
-
Indeed. But it's worth emphasizing that the deflation in that case was widely anticipated. That wasn't the case, for example, in 1929-33. More on 1920-21 here:https://www.alt-m.org/2014/12/04/a-1920-21-recovery-myth/ …
-
Some annualized numbers for 1920-1921 Depression: NGDP = -8.8% CPI = -10.3% Population = 1.6% Productivity = -0.1% Implies that wages (NGDP per capita) grew at -10.4% per year Rise in unemployment implies people didnt take full nominal wage cuts? Money illusion in play here?pic.twitter.com/oYhenC0L1E
-
If I have these numbers correct, NGDP per capita growth was: 1920: 11% 1921: -18% 1922: -1.6% 1923: 14% 1924: -0.1% 1925: 3% Unemployment peaked around 9-12% in 1921. So nominal wage cuts didn't seem to prevent much unemployment or at least not a cure for the depression?pic.twitter.com/LaEklSq6LM
-
I don't get your logic. Unemployment rose. Then it fell. Yet nominal GDP/cap declined persistently. So if nominal wage *rate* cuts (which are what's at issue) didn't contribute to renewed employment, what did? Or are you confusing wage rate cuts w/ a cut in total wages?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.