patrick.net

rooemoore says

As for "nascent" businesses, their biggest "squasher" is big business. The government -- your likely boogeyman -- is both a distant second and, by the way, disproportionately influenced by big business.

For the old school business yea but the point is as pointed out, eloquently by the Captain, the economy NEVER recovers in the same way as before the recession, so it is always the nascent that points the way. But Nascent never gets a chance to grow under a regime or actually 2 regimes that has all investors skittish and won't invest in anything, especially they get rent on their money or do buy backs with ZERO risk.

curious2 says

These are only a few recent examples where founders made hundreds of millions of dollars in less than one decade, while "indigenous" continues to insist they are being squashed.

Not that you backed that up but what would it look like if the money wasn't going to the gov't?

indigenous says

Not that you backed that up....

Are you disputing that the founders of those companies made hundreds of millions of dollars? I'm sorry that I can't bring them here personally to testify before you, but by the standards of Internet boards, citing widely recognizable and easily searchable company names is usually considered enough to establish veracity. Here's a published example for you, and you can look up the others yourself.

indigenous says

But Nascent never gets a chance to grow under a regime or actually 2 regimes that has all investors skittish and won't invest in anything, especially they get rent on their money or do buy backs with ZERO risk.

If you are in CA you know there is PLENTY of investment in start ups. Also, the investors in publicly traded stocks don't seem too skittish.

If you're talking about the fact that many multinationals are hoarding cash rather than reinvesting, it's because:
a.) they have saturated most markets
b.) another global recession is inevitable.

curious2 says

Are you disputing that the founders of those companies made hundreds of millions of dollars?

No, what about the companies that don't exist because we have propped up at great expense the companies that should have been BKed

curious2 says

indigenous says

Not that you backed that up....

If you're going to call me a liar, why bother asking me questions, and why would I answer? You're not paying me, if you want me to do research for you and answer your questions, you'll have to be nicer.

rooemoore says

If you are in CA you know there is PLENTY of investment in start ups. Also, the investors in publicly traded stocks don't seem too skittish.

Conjecture
rooemoore says

If you're talking about the fact that many multinationals are hoarding cash

No I'm talking about the gov't swallering money at the expense of the nascent

curious2 says

If you're going to call me a liar, why bother asking me questions, and why would I answer? You're not paying me, if you want me to do research for you and answer your questions, you'll have to be nicer.

You are missing my point

sbh says

curious2 says

you'll have to be nicer

Has he called you a mutt yet?

Not yet, but I don't usually react to anything indigenous posts, so it's a new experience for me. After what he said about FDR, anything north of anus is a great compliment.

indigenous says

You are missing my point

Definitely.

curious2 says

After what he said about FDR, anything north of anus is a great compliment.

That made me laugh

So long as energy is cheap and abundant...

Also, Baxter costs $22,000 to pay somebody to fold a shirt or pour a coffee 1/10th the speed, so he really costs $220,000 because you'll need ten of him to replace one unskilled worker. PLUS electric costs. PLUS maintenance costs, because there is a wear and tear factor between 2XL playing one 8-track tape and having Baxter spend 18 hours folding shirts.

He's also far less precise that a human. He'll definitely drip coffee on the side of the mug and won't fold the shirt so it doesn't crease. Basically, he's about as dextrous as an 12 month old.

Meet 2XL, the 8-track player that will replace the Human Teacher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-XL

That being said, automation is a problem, but I see it attacking Middle Class jobs first via algos and intelligent document and chart scanners and such like.

As for auto checkouts, it's more like 1 person overseeing 4-6, not 30, there are still problems with their weight measuring and telling you that you have to scan an item you already scanned and bagged. Plus, many morons still can't figure it out even after the 10th time they scanned their sour cream chips and diaper rash cream.

Barristas - yeah, people love vending machine coffee. Yum!

A better example would be 300 file clerks replaced by a desktop application in an insurance HQ.

Self-driving cars? Wake me up when an 18-wheeler is replaced, or the Pepsi Delivery Truck is replaced. That's far more difficult than a standard car.

Doctors and Lawyers? 90% of their job is reassurance and explanation, not diagnosis or filing or telling you you have no case. Being told in a metallic voice you have herpes is a lot different than hearing it from a kindly, understanding doctor.

And again, cheap energy. None of this shit works well without cheap hydrocarbons or the magic battery system that has not yet been invented.

I do get what this guy is saying, but let's wait and see.

Call it Crazy says

This is Google's

A person was driving. Your link speculates about a cover-up, with no evidence at all. There were several witnesses. Even if you accuse them all of lying, the fact remains that Google cars have reportedly driven hundreds of thousands of miles, maybe millions by now. One reported accident would be fewer than the average human in the same distance.

A better point in your link is who should be responsible in the case of accidents. I would like to see Google cars on the road ASAP because I think they're already safer than human drivers, but I also think that if they do cause a crash then there should be accountability. I don't respect the tendency of companies to hide behind "tort reform" and other slogans to shield themselves from injuries that they cause. A Google car would have a complete record, including video, of any crash, so that should be plenty to deter or defend against any "frivolous" claims.

indigenous says

rooemoore says

If you are in CA you know there is PLENTY of investment in start ups. Also, the investors in publicly traded stocks don't seem too skittish.

Conjecture

If by conjecture you mean fact, then you're right.
rooemoore says

If you're talking about the fact that many multinationals are hoarding cash

No I'm talking about the gov't swallering money at the expense of the nascent

Sorry, but you said:

But Nascent never gets a chance to grow under a regime or actually 2 regimes that has all investors skittish and won't invest in anything, especially they get rent on their money or do buy backs with ZERO risk.

You acknowledge that there is money to invest, but they are too skittish to invest. Why the skittishness? Not because of taxes and regulations. If anything, when it comes to the banking industry it is probably a lack of regulations scaring multinationals from reinvesting their cash.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

From where I'm sitting American business seems to be doing okay.

Maybe you should get out more?

Take a quick look around:

http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/

That is sort of the point of why I started this thread. Did you watch the video?

Right now businesses are doing well in large part because technology is allowing them to have smaller payrolls but be more productive. Add emerging markets to the mix = $$$.

thunderlips11 says

What if that vehicle is an Ambulance that can't go around the car due to traffic? Can the computer recognize sirens and pull over?

How much does it cost?

Call it Crazy says

hackable CARS

Yes, questions and risks remain, but perfection is not the standard we're comparing against. You should see NYC traffic; I saw an ambulance, with lights and sirens, get cut off by a taxi (though I admit the taxi was going about as fast as anybody could). The appropriate standard should be to look at airlines, Google vehicles would be like van lines. Passengers and freight would be safer in autonomous Google vans than in current cars and trucks. Nobody lives forever, but more people would live longer and many premature deaths and unnecessary hospitalizations would be prevented if people could leave the driving to Google.

Call it Crazy says

curious2 says

You should see NYC traffic;

I don't have to see, I've driven there many, many times...

A Google vehicle wouldn't stand a chance in that environment.

So far they've been driving in mostly idyllic conditions near the aptly named Sunnyvale, so it's true NYC would raise challenges, particularly in blizzards for example. The autonomous cars have made really impressive progress though, and the standard shouldn't require perfection. The aircraft and airline industry took off, literally, long before they became the safest per mile mode of transportation. The test should be how do they compare to the average human, but humans are accountable - corporations should not be allowed to hide behind "tort reform" or whatever. NYC had, probably still has, a chronic problem of taxicabs being individually incorporated and carrying only the minimum liability insurance, so when they hit pedestrians the newly paraplegic are SOL.

Boy, are cops and local governments going to be pissed if the self-driving vehicle takes off. Goodbye, revenue enhancement (and goodbye, a large chunk of the police force)!

BTW the same thing is going on currently

Like I said FDR did Americans a great service in April of 1945.

You can see the results in the two graphs that show how investment shot up after he did this great service for America, too bad it happened so long after 1937.

the best explanation is that Koch or somebody is paying these twits to pollute the internet.

the alternative that he's just here for the s & g is a lot more horrific.

Bellingham Bill says

the best explanation is that Koch or somebody is paying these twits to pollute the internet.

the alternative that he's just here for the s & g is a lot more horrific.

I'd think that to, except I have actually had multiple conversations outside of the internet with several people, from co-workers to bar acquaintances, who were parroting a lot of the same idiocy I see here.

A 4 tiered propaganda strategy is the likely reason:
1. Co-opting the religious right
2. Talk radio starting in the early 90s (Rush Limbaugh)
3. Fox News starting in the late 90s
4. Internet misinformation starting mid-2000s.

The consistency of the arguments is what is most amazing. Listen to Rush, watch O'Reilly or Hannity, or visit free Republic and its all the same message, same stories, same examples.

And they are all regurgitated on pat.net or at the water cooler.

Yeah, that's coincidence.

control point says

I'd think that to, except I have actually had multiple conversations outside of the internet with several people, from co-workers to bar acquaintances, who were parroting a lot of the same idiocy I see here.

A 4 tiered propaganda strategy is the likely reason:

1. Co-opting the religious right

2. Talk radio starting in the early 90s (Rush Limbaugh)

3. Fox News starting in the late 90s

4. Internet misinformation starting mid-2000s.

Nothing but ad hominem from you too?

All I hear from the mutts is that the war got us out of the depression and that it would have been much worse if not for the new deal.

BTW the recession in the US lasted much longer than any other country.

indigenous says

Nothing but ad hominem from you too?

I thought you had figured out what ad hominem was, after it was explained to you.

I was wrong, you haven't.

The quoted counterpoint was in response to bill, who was making the argument that act the way you do because you are paid. Since I didn't attack this argument by attacking the source (bill), this is not ad hominem.

I didn't attack you either, by the way. My counterpoint was based upon a thesis of propaganda, and not compensation, being the reason you argue the points you do.

control point says

indigenous says

Nothing but ad hominem from you too?

I thought you had figured out what ad hominem was, after it was explained to you.

I was wrong, you haven't.

The quoted counterpoint was in response to bill, who was making the argument that act the way you do because you are paid. Since I didn't attack this argument by attacking the source (bill), this is not ad hominem.

I didn't attack you either, by the way. My counterpoint was based upon a thesis of propaganda, and not compensation, being the reason you argue the points you do.

Still ad hominem.

Are you the one that studied Austrian economics?

indigenous says

Still ad hominem.

No it isn't, and I explained why. You continue to assert it is, with no support. That isn't an argument, it is an assertion.

indigenous says

Are you the one that studied Austrian economics?

Yes.

control point says

Are you the one that studied Austrian economics?

Yes.

Then why are you surprised by this?

indigenous says

Then why are you surprised by this?

What is your question? What am I allegedly surprised by?

control point says

What is your question? What am I allegedly surprised by?

What caused the great depression if not the shaking of confidence in investment?

indigenous says

control point says

What is your question? What am I allegedly surprised by?

What caused the great depression if not the shaking of confidence in investment?

When were we talking about what caused the great depression?

You were bitching about FDR, who took over after the great depression was in process.

control point says

You were bitching about FDR, who took over after the great depression was in process.

Yes he kept it going a continuation and reinforcement of HH.

What do you feel were the causes? Just HH policies?

indigenous says

What do you feel were the causes?

In short, Harding and Coolidge policies on taxation and regulation caused inequality which fueled asset speculation, which caused mispricing of risk on privately issued debt.

control point says

In short, Harding and Coolidge policies on taxation and regulation caused inequality which fueled asset speculation, which caused mispricing of risk on privately issued debt.

As you know the Austrian version is that the money supply was too loose. Then, I suspect, as now the inequality was created by money from the Fed and the unevenness of inflation. This created malinvestment.

I read however that the depression would have been over in short order if not for the incessant meddling of HH and FDR.

control point says

Harding and Coolidge policies on taxation

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/1920s-income-tax-cuts-sparked-economic-growth-raised-federal-revenues

from 2003 of course.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Bellingham Bill says

"China's people have been living at a much lower standard of living than they had to if the Yuan had not been devalued. This is true because their buying power has been greatly reduced."

You somehow think that graph disproves my statement?

That idea is from Michael Pettis's book, he is a Chinese economist.

Bellingham Bill says

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/1920s-income-tax-cuts-sparked-economic-growth-raised-federal-revenues

"The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored."

"Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923."

After this the Fed came in and lent too much money at too low of a price.

If you want to read about it:

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter4.asp

Call it Crazy says

Ha Ha... That's laughable at best..

Isn't it time for you to make today's golf jokes?

(Apologies if they're off the talking points - I haven't seen Fox News since Tuesday.)

control point says

4. Internet misinformation starting mid-2000s.

I agree with your points, but I'd say a LOT earlier than that. Neoliberals and Libertarians were way disproportionally represented on the internet from the beginning.

Neoliberalism is in a terrible crisis, because it simply can't create decent jobs and has difficulty creating even burger-flippin', coffee-servin', data-entry, call-center plantation jobs.

If we step back for a minute, and remember the Monetarists and Neoliberals seizing the narrative from the Keynesians, they did it by criticizing Government Spending. Yet, after a generation or so of Neoliberalism, Government Debt is far, far, worse and the outcomes for 80-90% of the population, far weaker in comparison, even using the mid 70s as a benchmark.

Really, the only thing that kept Neoliberalism ticking along past the 80s was the explosion of private debt which "allowed" people to maintain their lifestyle - by borrowing.

thunderlips11 says

A LOT earlier than that. Neoliberals and Libertarians were way disproportionally represented on the internet from the beginning

Another believer in the "war got us out of the depression"

indigenous says

Then, I suspect, as now the inequality was created by money from the Fed and the unevenness of inflation.

You have that backwards. Uneven inflation is caused by inequality, not the other way around.

eg. As rich people become more rich, qualified demand for stuff they buy increases.

Laissez-faire regulatory policy, unchecked by taxation, encourages profit-taking (eating the seed corn as you guys like to say). This contributes to inequality increase because of the inherent nature of capitalism. Inequality causes uneven inflation (ie too much cash to lend for too few borrowers, lowering interest rates), therefore causing mispricing of risk.

There must be a feedback loop to prevent concentration of capital into the hands of a few or capitalism fails.