Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US Recovery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DOR View Post
    How's that again?

    Consider how widely spread smart phones are (which means we don't have to consider how many people have calculators, web browers or internet banking), and then recalculate the income needed to own a automation device.

    Yes, I know an iPhone isn't a robot. But, it acts like one for the purpose of replacing people doing things they did 10 or 50 years ago.
    Yeah, I can't really wrap my head around how this would work in practice. I understand the whole situation makes sense to lay-people, but thinking through the economics of a situation where robots are simultaneously cheap enough to perform ALL tasks yet too expensive to be mass affordable is a situation that does not make sense. It's roughly equivalent to trying to picture 12-dimensional space-time, which has a possible mathematical solution, but conceptually is entirely out there.

    I can just say that if this were the case, capital-deficient peoples would still have to work and would create their own capital-deficient economies....it couldn't NOT happen.

    I guess it's actually more likely that if labor and capital are no longer limiting factors, then resources would be the limiting factor. Robots would be able to gobble up all the available resources and turn them into end-products, so the actual likely scenario is that you'd have a robot sitting around doing nothing because you have no resource inputs. Sort of like how a computer spends most of its time today sitting idle, because there's nothing productive for it to be doing.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

    Comment


    • selective use of robots among capital-deficient people.

      actually i like the example of smart-phones. in Africa and India, smartphones are selectively used-- say one among a group of farmers-- to get data like weather, crop prices, find a mass buyer.

      for the most part i see even more of a move into the service economy, and in the wealthier areas, move towards niche areas. for instance, you hear about millennials going into farming because they can't stomach the office environment. well, they're probably going to be selling those biodynamic-superlocal-handmassaged-tomatoes to a luxury restaurant, not so much mass-produced soybeans.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • Or as Marginal Revolution would say, those new service jobs:
        http://marginalrevolution.com/?s=those+new+service+jobs

        Grant..., founded Rushbiddies in 2009 after helping see her own daughter through a successful recruitment week at Auburn.
        Waiting time for ear pointing, however, is over a year, and over 40 percent of elf-ear wishers don’t have the right cartilage to perform the modification, Von Cyborg said. Black was one of the lucky ones.
        Surkus, an emerging app that allowed the restaurant to quickly manufacture its ideal crowd and pay the people to stand in place like extras on a movie set.

        I prefer my office job, white picket fence, and hydrogenated corn syrup. The more GMOs, the better!
        Last edited by GVChamp; 01 Dec 17,, 19:22.
        "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

        Comment


        • The evolution of fiscal conservativism

          I'm going to put this here rather than in the political thread because if won't be of much interest to ideologues.

          Edmund Burke: The claim of the citizen, not the state, is paramount.
          Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr: The central government should serve the states, not vice-versa.
          Herbert Hoover: The business of government is business.
          Ronald Reagan, David Stockman: Voodoo economics.
          George W Bush, Dick Cheney: Deficits don’t matter.
          Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell: It isn’t a deficit if GOPers do it.

          Average annual levels, percent of nominal GDP
          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
          Federal Government _ Receipts _ Spending _ _Balance _ Debt Held By Public
          Percent of Nominal GDP

          Hoover_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _12.2% _ _ _12.7% _ _ _-0.5% _ _ _ _ _ 25.5%
          Roosevelt_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _17.5% _ _ 21.1% _ _ _ -3.6% _ _ _ _ _ 49.0%
          Truman_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _22.1% _ _ 22.5% _ _ _ -0.4% _ _ _ _ _ 67.9%
          Eisenhower_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _23.3% _ _ 23.6% _ _ _-0.3% _ _ _ _ _ 42.7%
          JFK / LBJ_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _25.3% _ _ 25.8% _ _ _-0.5% _ _ _ _ _ 29.1%
          RMN / GRF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _26.8% _ _ _30.3% _ _ _-3.5% _ _ _ _ _ 19.3%
          Carter_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _27.9% _ _ _30.1% _ _ _-2.2% _ _ _ _ _ 18.6%
          Reagan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _28.2% _ _ 32.2% _ _ _-3.9% _ _ _ _ _ 27.2%
          Bush I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28.5% _ _ 33.1% _ _ _-4.6% _ _ _ _ _ 36.2%
          Clinton_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _29.6% _ _ 30.7% _ _ _-1.1% _ _ _ _ _ 35.9%
          Bush II_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _27.5% _ _ 31.9% _ _ _-4.4% _ _ _ _ _ 28.3%
          Obama_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28.2% _ _ 32.7% _ _ _-6.2% _ _ _ _ _ 63.3%
          Trump*_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _31.5% _ _ 21.1% _ _ _-3.2% _ _ _ _ _ 79.5%
          * Budget proposals
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • US Fiscal Policy and Implications for the Current Account

            Remember the twin deficits that GOPers used to stay up nights worrying over? Well, they were right to worry, and those twins are actually Siamese twins.

            When the US government decides to increase the fiscal deficit by an extra one percent of GDP – above and beyond current (mid-2017, for argument’s sake) expectations, one of the knock-on effects is a 0.5 percentage point of GDP increase in the current-account deficit. It isn’t automatic, but it is highly consistent and extremely predictable. (Wonky explanation here: https://www.imf.org/external/np/res/...ables-2016.pdf)

            But, when deliberately miscalculating the economic impact of the latest fiscal fiasco, the GOPers instructed the nonpartisan experts in the Treasury to assume that the capital US corporations hold abroad would, under their philosophy of “tax breaks for those who need them the least,” that money would be repatriated and invested.

            Not repatriated in part, but in whole. And, not repatriated for the purpose of paying dividends or buying back stock but so as to allow those poor, cash-strapped (ha!) companies to Build Things, and Hire People, and “Make it in America.”

            Never mind that real capital investment has been growing an average of 6% p.a. for nine years.
            Never mind that unemployment has been dropping for longer, and more deeply over the past seven years than at any time in post-war history.

            Never mind.

            Interesting further reading—
            https://www.cfr.org/blog/quick-word-...nal-tax-reform
            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3084187
            https://www.cfr.org/blog/tax-reform-and-trade-balance
            https://www.taxreformandtransition.c...-consequences/
            Attached Files
            Trust me?
            I'm an economist!

            Comment


            • what i find funny is the mirror imaging the GOP likes to do with Dems. "temporary programs are never temporary", blah blah blah.

              worrying about the cost of the 2009 stimulus and then passing this.

              as far as i'm concerned, fears of a deficit crisis in an economy like the US are overblown. but, there were always political boundaries. Obama feared raising the stimulus above $1 trillion because he didn't want the political arguments that would be raised with the t-word. (of course it turns out that the GOP screamed bloody murder at the smaller bill anyways.)

              so, what this does is rip off the political mask of deficit-concern, and now in the future Dems can correspondingly ignore the GOP screeching as so much hot air.

              remember when Paul Ryan won the "Fiscy" award in 2011? lol.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • William Saletan, writing in Slate, Aug 11, 2012—
                Why I Love Paul Ryan
                He’s what a Republican should be: an honest, open-minded, solution-oriented fiscal conservative.

                Ryan is a real fiscal conservative. He isn’t just another Tea-Party ideologue spouting dogma about less government and the magic of free enterprise. He has actually crunched the numbers and laid out long-term budget proposals. My liberal friends point out that Ryan’s plan leaves many details unclear. That’s true. But show me another Republican who has addressed the nation’s fiscal problems as candidly and precisely as Ryan has. He’s got the least detailed budget proposal out there, except for all the others.

                = = = = =

                David Boaz, writing for the Cato Institute, Aug 18, 2012—
                How to Judge Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Conservatism
                … Rep. Paul Ryan has sought federal funding for projects in his district, even when he has voted against the relevant spending program, such as President Obama’s $787 billion “stimulus” bill. But I don’t think that’s the best way to judge a congressman’s fiscal conservatism. The question is, did he vote against excessive spending? Did he work in committee, with his colleagues, and in the national debate to end programs and cut spending?

                Ron Paul puts earmarks for his district in spending bills, then votes against the bills, which nevertheless pass overwhelmingly. Again, not exactly worth a gold star, but he does consistently vote against spending bills.


                Consider his votes during his 14 years in Congress and particularly during the 8 years of the Bush administration:
                • FOR the No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
                • FOR the Iraq war (2002)
                • FOR the Medicare prescription drug entitlement (2003)
                • FOR Head Start reauthorization (2007)
                • FOR Economic Stimulus Act (January 2008)
                • FOR extending unemployment benefits (2008)
                • FOR TARP (2008)
                • FOR GM/Chrysler bailout (2008)
                • FOR $192 billion anti-recession spending bill (2009)



                From the 2012 campaign...

                "Ryan stretching the truth to make his speech more effective is just another form of doping. In that if you believe him, you are a dope." –Stephen Colbert, on Ryan's Republican convention speech.

                "Are you excited about Paul Ryan? He's a far, far-right ideologue. The Republican base loves him. He's kind of an English-speaking version of Sarah Palin." –Bill Maher

                "Paul Ryan introduced a budget plan that would overhaul Medicare and make deep cuts to other social and healthcare programs because he believes the American people have said loud and clear: 'stop using my tax dollars to take care of me.'" -Seth Meyers
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • what is hilarious is William Saletan's apology, which has been amplified over time.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • rapid reduction in federal government regulation. This has got to be good for the economy


                    Dubbed the “Deregulation Nation” by Washington-based political analysts Mehlman, Castagnetti, Rosen & Thomas, this slide highlights that in less than a year, the Trump Administration has utilised presidential regulatory power to withdraw or delay more than eight hundred separate regulatory actions undertaken by President Obama.

                    The slide also reveals that the introduction of new “significant regulations” has decreased 80% under President Trump.

                    Regulatory action is one of the most significant tools in the Presidential toolbox. It is especially powerful for a President seeking to change the broad direction of policy in the face of a recalcitrant Congress or a slow moving judiciary.

                    There is a direct link between deregulation and business confidence. The Dow Jones has increased by over thirty per cent since Donald Trump won the election. Many factors are at play but the surge in the US economy is not unrelated.


                    The confidence about the US economy in many ways mirrors the confidence of Americans about their place in the world.




                    This slide illustrates that for the first time this century Americans are more optimistic about the economy than they are pessimistic. It is a significant turnaround.

                    The first twelve months of the Trump Administration | Lowy | Dec 14 2017

                    That's how i like to get my american news : D
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Dec 17,, 07:55.

                    Comment


                    • If regulations are, simply by definition, bad, then deregulation is equally implausaubly good. Remember that the next time you step on the brakes, sign a contract, sip a beer, or otherwise place your well being in the hands of others who are motivated by profit, and moderated by regulation.
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • What makes all of them by definition good then ? are they all sacred cows beyond question, forever valid regardless of time

                        Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Dec 17,, 15:57.

                        Comment


                        • Interesting comparison of today's US with the gilded age

                          Navigating the gilded age (pdf)

                          Comment


                          • lol, the "antiquated systems ripe for change" graphic has got to be one of the more stupid graphics I've seen.

                            "Bill of Rights" - 1789
                            "Federal Reserve Act" - 1913

                            i too can list things and dates.

                            there's no description of WHY any of those are antiquated or "bad for today's economy", or what would be relevant for things like "nano technology" or "robotics" or "3D printing".

                            same thing for the graph regarding "major regulations", what about elimination of those regulations are good or bad? is there no difference between a good or bad regulation? the only way that makes any sense is if you assume that EVERY regulation is "bad".
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              there's no description of WHY any of those are antiquated or "bad for today's economy", or what would be relevant for things like "nano technology" or "robotics" or "3D printing".
                              The intent is to question whether the present rules will enhance and allow the US to lead. That's all i need for a big picture. The minutiae is for your people to figure out.

                              same thing for the graph regarding "major regulations", what about elimination of those regulations are good or bad? is there no difference between a good or bad regulation? the only way that makes any sense is if you assume that EVERY regulation is "bad".
                              Your President is moving to remove them. You can cry or deal with it.

                              What regs are good or bad is up for your people to defend but the result at the end of that exercise is fewer regulations than you began with. This will mean your economy will move. Key takeaway!

                              It has to if this president expects a second term because the alternative is a Bernie sanders. Dems & Repubs are out of fashion. They are like holding orgs, the thinking and talking coming from some where else

                              Personally i thought those slides were briliant, need to find the talk that goes with it. I've learnt to be selective with my doses of US media for my own sanity.

                              It's a good summary of what has happened , is happening and will happen with very little time spend. Bipartisan so no partisan crap to deal with. No self loathing, bashing and hating. get a grip. I used to think indian media was bad but its no better with us media, in fact its worse because there is so much of it

                              If it turns out we are at the cusp of major change, then the US is a test lab and everyone wants to learn how you cope because we will all be next.

                              You come up with new ways of thinking and show us
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Dec 17,, 17:38.

                              Comment


                              • The intent is to question whether the present rules will enhance and allow the US to lead. That's all i need for a big picture. The minutiae is for your people to figure out.


                                Your President is moving to remove them. You can cry or deal with it.


                                DE,

                                That is exactly what is happening. Some of the rules they displayed to kill are critical to safety and health today. Yeah, we used ot have lead in our paint and gasoline....how'd that work out for us?

                                Our rivers and streams were open sewers. Regulations cleaned them up.


                                It has to if this president expects a second term because the alternative is a Bernie sanders. Dems & Repubs are out of fashion. They are like holding orgs, the thinking and talking coming from some where else

                                I couldn't disagree more. Sanders is not the voice of the Democratic Party. You do not see any Sanders in Ralph Northam who was just elected here in Virginia. What you are seeing is the increased power of women of color and urbanized populations outside of the power elites of New England/New York/Philly. The DNC is now pushing against every seat....state, governorships, Congressional. Sanders gets air time because some of the media likes to listen to him rail. I do not listen or watch that media.

                                He is not the future of the Democratic Party.
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X