Page 49 of 49 FirstFirst ... 40414243444546474849
Results 721 to 726 of 726

Thread: The US Recovery

  1. #721
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I maybe wrong but most if not all modern macroeconomic theories define 'full employment' as being < 100% or alternatively that all economies have a natural rate of unemployment which is derived from structural inefficiencies in the economy. Full employment policies were dropped in the middle of last century by the West by those Western nations that espoused them because they were inflationary - and at that time they were. Unemployment rates would and did remain low because technology and all the other factors we now struggle with were a long term issue. So you could live with say 2-3 % natural unemployment - when I say "you" I mean any government of the day.
    Thatcherism, Reaganomics and our own Rogernomics were a switch by western governments from a policy of full employment to a policy of inflation control.
    In truth, laissez faire did not demonstrably stop inflation, just altered the way it was calculated.
    Stage one: Those measures that have most impact on the lower 50% of the population such as energy, food, housing, clothing etc were no longer a measure of inflation becuse they were 'volatiles'. So by simple slight of hand economists were able to demonstrate economic mastery of inflation simply by not measuring it.
    Stage two, the introduction of VAT or GST moved the burden of welfare from the richest to the middle and lower income earners.
    Stage three: The massive movement of societies capital toward a small percentage of each societies populations while the poor, literally, got poorer and the middle class got smaller.
    Stage four:policies such as union breaking, TINA (there is no alternative) removing the right to strike for many sectors combined to break workers ability to negotiate from strength.
    This all occured in the late seventies and eighties, not the middle of last century. An incredible rise in standards of living over thirty years, now halted and often declining by the various itterations of laissez faire.

    The baby boomers got to reap the benefits of strong social policies then got to break them so they didn't have to pay for the next generation.
    TINA was so effective, people still believe there is only one economic policy that works, that the market rules social policy rather than the reverse and that society is there to supply the marketplace, rather than the marketplace being there to serve society.
    When you hear of welfare you think of Venezuela, not Norway, Denmark, Australia Finland or Canada, all of which have excellent standards of living without having ever bought into the notion that "the market rules".
    Last edited by Parihaka; Yesterday at 05:25.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  2. #722
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,098
    Doktor,

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Once we all turn into bankers and programmers, we are all gonna eat those bonds : )

    Hey, I am in services, too, but I still need a computer, paper, something to eat, drink and wear. Not to mention something to drive and a place to live in.
    How many farmers live in Lower Manhattan? Why do you need to have farming and manufacturing in every single community? Would you expect to find fishing in Nevada? No. Why not? Because it would be a really, really stupid place to base a fish company … totally inappropriate climate. Ditto for farming in Lower Manhattan, or manufacturing in Hong Kong. Those activities can and should be done in places where they make the most sense, not in places that happen to be inside an arbitrary border.

    = = = = =

    GVChamp,

    Are you saying that increasing the number of workers is bad for worker bargaining position?
    What's your opinion on immigration again?
    That was a very cool gotcha, a real turn-the-tables.
    Well played.
    Wrong, but well-played.

    Supply and demand: increase supply, and all else being equal, the price falls to the market-clearing rate at which demand takes all that can be supplied.

    Immigration: the cross-border movement of people. Not to be confused with a mass movement of working-age adults.


    Is the American Dream more accessible today, than in the 1950s?
    Of course. Delete obvious and institutionalized bigotry and it automatically expands the universe that may achieve that dream.

    Does it involve a manufacturing job and a stay-at-home spouse?
    Go on, pull the other one.
    (It has bells on it!)

    = = = = =

    Parihaka,

    Feel free to point out where my personal experiences make any of my economic or historical arguments invalid.
    Go ahead, be my guest. (Oh, and I haven’t lived in Berkeley since early 1983. What’s your excuse?)

    Thatcherism, Reaganomics and our own Rogernomics were a switch by western governments from a policy of full employment to a policy of inflation control.
    Incorrect.
    Reagan’s supply side nonsense was at least in part aimed at expanding employment through corporate investment. Thatcherism started off as a battle with labor unions. I’m not familiar with Roger, but your record of identifying the underlying themes of major economic policy shifts doesn’t encourage me to think he deliberately set out to reduce employment.

    Laissez faire, if we ever encounter it in The Real World, will have nothing to do with how inflation is calculated. Different subject altogether.

    But, If you really like having a rotary dial landline in your consumer price basket, go for it.

  3. #723
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,642
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Parihaka,

    Feel free to point out where my personal experiences make any of my economic or historical arguments invalid.
    Go ahead, be my guest. (Oh, and I haven’t lived in Berkeley since early 1983. What’s your excuse?)
    I have no idea what you're talking about. What I am talking about is your slavish dedication to an ideology that is failing spectacularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Incorrect.
    Of course, they didn't break the unions, give tax cuts to the rich, increase unemployment, place the burden of welfare on those who could least afford it by introducing goods and services taxes, sell of state assets, concentrate wealth to an elite of a particular generation etc etc etc.

    Pull the other one.

    It was fascinating watching the same process being used on Russia post Soviet, until Putin put a stop to it. You must despise him.

    Edit to add: since you like charts n' statistics n' stuff, here's a few regarding your ideology.





    And of course a wee TED talk for the progressives amongst us.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
    Last edited by Parihaka; Yesterday at 11:35.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  4. #724
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about. What I am talking about is your slavish dedication to an ideology that is failing spectacularly.
    Perhaps a brief reminder might be in order ...

    Blah blah blah, wot I learned in laissez faire 101 in 1976, blah blah. Doest occur to your fervid dreams that the world is a larger place than Berkley, that your experience of growing up was not and is not the centre of the world? That your minorities are not our minorities and that your personal experiences are not the experiences of us all. It is fascinating to watch you deny thirty years of full employment though.]

  5. #725
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Edit to add: since you like charts n' statistics n' stuff, here's a few regarding your ideology.





    And of course a wee TED talk for the progressives amongst us.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

    Since when did you become a redistribute-the-wealth socialist?
    That's a real surprise.

    Here's a notion that might have escaped you:
    Capitalism works because of inequality.

    Or, to flip it on its head, Communism doesn't work because of its dependence equality.

  6. #726
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,642
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Since when did you become a redistribute-the-wealth socialist?
    That's a real surprise.

    Here's a notion that might have escaped you:
    Capitalism works because of inequality.

    Or, to flip it on its head, Communism doesn't work because of its dependence equality.
    yay, finally we're getting somewhere. So wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich as the above videos show is capitalism? Or welfare for the rich?

    I'm not a redistribute the wealth socialist. Neither am I an ideologist. Ideologies are bad, because people think one size fits all, that 'this worked here, so it'll work everywhere'. ideologies are simply tools gone wrong. Socialism works in some places, capitalism in others. You don't use a hammer to plaster the wall.

    We've had thirty years of 'the market rules', distributing wealth into the hands of a few by deliberate govt. policy.
    It's time for some corrective surgery. Socialism works to correct the excesses of purist capitalism, because purist capitalism is harming society. (I mean welfare for the rich, really?)
    Last edited by Parihaka; Yesterday at 20:36.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 13 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Need help with computer recovery.
    By Gun Grape in forum Computer & Gadgets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19 Nov 11,, 18:04
  2. Dauntless recovery
    By SnowLeopard in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25 Jun 09,, 21:38
  3. Housing Recovery Begins
    By Shek in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23 Apr 09,, 12:33
  4. How would the recovery come about?
    By Silent Hunter in forum International Economy
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 25 Dec 08,, 18:16
  5. What Jobless Recovery?!
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 19 Feb 04,, 19:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •