> I don't know where you're getting this stuff. Full employment means everyone
> who wants a job can get one. In other words: if "we" demanded a full
> employment policy from the U.S. govt, and "our" demand were implemented, the
> result would be that within the U.S., everyone who wants a job could find
> one. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
This is logical, but it's not...
> I sense that your objections come from some sort of theory that says full
> employment in one place can only come about through the immiseration of some
> other place. If that's the theory, please explain; it sounds like total
> nonsense to me.
... historical. This is why I like to use the term administrative. You think full employment can be just implemented and that's that. But that's never happened without the stratifications Voyou and I have mentioned or without very bloody war (at least in a substantial capitalist economy, which Sweden doesn't count as). As Doug said here a few years ago: "The only problems that capitalism can't solve by its very nature - leaving aside the contingencies of politics and such - are polarization and cyclicality." I think it's on you to describe how something that has never happened--how polarization has been overcome--is now possible.
> See above.
You didn't make an argument above. I'm a bit dismayed that you always poo-poo arguments about the foundations of the postwar economy.