Full employment

This seems like a return to the election promises of yesteryear. Up until the 1970s unemployment in Britain was about 2%, as this article from the November 1971 Socialist Standard pointed out:http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/fullemployment.htmEconomists had preached that it could be kept at around 3%, but when it rose to 4% in the 1970s this was regarded as a disaster.  To explain this economists developed the concept of the "natural rate of unemployment" as the rate above which the general price level would rise (what they called "inflation").  Apparently this is not incompatible with a rate of unemployment of as high as 4%, which can even be regarded as "full employment":

At one time economists were saying that it was 6%. Some still do:http://www.clevelandfed.org/about_us/annual_report/2011/unemployment.cfmMost people will probably understand "full employment" to exist when the unemployment rate is at 2-3% as it was in the 20 or so years after 1945.So it would be interesting to know what level Osborne considers to be the "full employment level of unemployment". 2%? 3%? 4%? 6%. In Britain the level of unemployment is currently 7%.Or is he just being a demagogue? Don't all answer at once.

"asking how working without wages, would work?""Tell them like those in the non- state organisation, the RNLI, voluntarily and without recompense risking their lives in storms at sea for the welfare of others and the common good of society. And there exists a waiting list of suitable applicants to join it, recruitment is not a problem 

Nothing to do with Osborne's policy. Sooner or later capitalism always spontaneously recovers from a slump, so this will happen anyway. He'll just claim the credit for something over which the government has no control as governments can't control the way capitalism works. It's the other way round: governments have to react and accomodate themselves to what capitalism does.

RNLI ,  this vacuous minded troll, claims it to be the "exception"?  I  also used the Olympics.  I also said; "motherhood, as mothers  are not  paid",  which he's ignored oddly? Apart from him, good general discussion. Got some good feedback.  I have come across SPEW member, who doesn't "debate" but just claims; I"'m not a socialist"? Irony is lost on complete idiots. Ps, it went downhill after I  posted the Joe Brand joke, about being asked to join the SWP(only in this instance, Militant, trots) , and saying: no thanks,  I don't want a paper round".  I was set upon by another SPEW member (friend?) who claims he isn't a member? Then attacked the me, for not being on the picket line, or where workers are? If instead of me, you put SPGB, If that wasn't a dead give away I don't know what is?  Thank for your input.