----- Original Message ----- From: dave graham <davgraham at hotmail.com> To: <labor-l at yorku.ca> Cc: <aut-op-sy at jefferson.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 1:23 AM Subject: AUT: Re: FW: tsn.ca: Dutch win bad for economy (fwd)
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Sarah Riegel <7srr at QSILVER.QUEENSU.CA>
> Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <LABOR-L at YorkU.CA>
> To: LABOR-L at YORKU.CA
> Subject: FW: tsn.ca: Dutch win bad for economy (fwd)
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:13:07 -0400
>
> More evidence against neo-classical economics...
>
> > DUTCH WIN BAD FOR ECONOMY
> >
> > BRUSSELS - While soccer fans in the Netherlands will be cheering their
> team on
> > to victory, there is at least one group of Dutch supporters who are
> hoping the
> > opposite happens to the home side.
> >
> > Dutch economists are urging the national team not to win the European
> > Championship for the good of the country's economy.
> >
> > ABN-Amro says the feel-good factor of winning the tournament would
boost
> > consumer spending and overheat the economy which would bring inflation
> > pressures to an already booming country.
> >
> > "A further boost to confidence (in the Netherlands) could be harmful,
and
> that
> > is why we would like to call on the sense of national duty on the part
of
> the
> > Dutch players and managers," the economists said in an analysis
entitled
> > "Soccernomics".
> >
> > Despite their claim, the economists are well aware their team is
> considered
> > among the favourites to hoist the championship and they do believe the
> Dutch
> > squad will prevail. But from an economic standpoint, a German win would
> be the
> > ideal scenario because their economy is big enough to handle such a
> football
> > inspired boost.
> >
> > For More Information Visit http://www.tsn.ca
> >
> > Copyright (c) tsn.ca and/or tsn.ca's Content Partners. All rights
> reserved.
> > Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express
> written
> > permission of tsn.ca is prohibited.
> >
>
>
> Sorry - I don't understand the reference to neo-classical economics. What
is
> being described sounds classically Keynesian to me. Consumer demand via
the
> multiplier with the State used to maintain inflation within acceptable
> bounds by deliberate austerity. Something workers threatened to crack in
the
> 1970s - which to my mind helps to account for where we are now?
>
> Surely the use of words like overheating, inflationary pressure indicate
OUR
> power to disrupt their plans - something to celebrate. No?
>
> DG
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
> --- from list aut-op-sy at lists.village.virginia.edu ---