> This is logical, but it's not...
> ... 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.
I think it's you who is not being historical. It's not enough to say this was contemporaneous with that - how were they functionally related? Are they necessarily so? The ball's still in your court on this - you just dismissed the Sweden example without dealing with it at all. The US had full employment for hardly any time at all, it's not the baseline here.
Mike