My comment was on the Farmer article in Vox.
I said I can see why only unexpected government spending can boost employment. Because otherwise businesses will plan their hiring based on the real scenario on the ground. If they think government is going to spend, they might change their plans and lower potential hiring.
With my limited understanding I was pointing out how the NGDP targeting theory wants an open and planned NGDP target while in Farmer's model only an unplanned and unexpected fiscal stimulus works.
sorry, what?
Though I still don't fully understand the details this seems plausible to my intuition. You want businesses to plan according to what they think is the business potential which would never reduce unemployment in a bad environment. But with those same plans + the government boost unemployment should reduce comparatively. But then today everything seems to be probabilistic-ally anticipated. So by your theory, fiscal stimulus is no longer a feasible strategy ever?
NGDP targeting proponents on the other hand want a completely rule based system. This is amusing in its exact opposite stand.
You think an increase in G will decrease employment? Retard, you should stick to philosophy where nothing you say matters.
