patrick.net

The problem is the constituents are ignorant. Not to hard to remedy, there has a willingness to have a national program to educate the constituents in economics.

It can be done, it was done by Paul Martin in Canada in the early 80's which resulted in some austerity. Granted not ideal but it does show it can be done.

Of course you would have to bitch slap Krugman out of the classroom.

indigenous says

The problem is the constituent are ignorant.

I wouldn't say ignorant, mostly that people don't care enough because of the status quo type of arrangement, whereas their life could potentially be worse, so don't screw with things because that could maybe happen.

People become conditioned to the way things(government) are, and how they function in reality, and that it won't change much if any at all, and are content enough with just perioic complaing about it.

Heck, the lower economic groups that their lives would improve the most, don't even vote. Conditioned behavior or laziness?? So the owners of most of the economy send out their boot-lickers to smooze(and bribe)government people to hand out some good ole free market-ism, in cash or some type of subsidy/mandate-advantage.

upisdown says

the lower economic groups that their lives would improve the most

Their plight is overstated as public transfers are not included in their income. Plus any black market activities are obviously not included.

John Bailo says

That is, a person barred from a country club doesn't necessarily thing that country clubs are bad. They just want membership.

Ironic that the all "inclusive" club is the very thing that keeps jobs away.

indigenous says

upisdown
says

the lower economic groups that their lives would improve the most

Their plight is overstated as public transfers are not included in their
income. Plus any black market activities are obviously not included.

Very true, but also in regards to the 26% that put jobs as their main concern, must not have one or a crappy job at best. Our economy has drastically changed over the last 10-20 years, and even in the last generation. Some people will have to change their ideas/goals to fit into today's economy, and is it realistic to think that unemployment will go much lower than what it has been for the last roughly 3 years?

upisdown says

Our economy has drastically changed over the last 10-20 years, and even in the last generation.

I think Captain Shudup said it best (paraphrasing) the economy never does recover it just grows in new directions.

This growth comes solely from investment. Investors have been saying deal me out there is too much uncertainly caused by the POTUS. Much like FDR did for 10 straight years

What jobs today would have predicted by someone 100yr ago or even 50?

indigenous says

This growth comes solely from investment. Investors have been saying deal me
out there is too much uncertainly caused by the POTUS. Much like FDR did for 10
straight years

Growth comes from many sources and for many different reasons too. The times of today versus when FDR was the HMFIC, isn't even really a comparison. And yet that era is used as a gauge, guideline, or whatever to today like it's an even comparison.
Far too often, especially in reference to the economy, various periods are used to make decisions without using some type of conversion or proportion to today. 1929 to the recent past is just one example, and yet it was endlessly referenced on how similar things were. But, that era and today couldn't be more different.

upisdown says

Growth comes from many sources and for many different reasons too.

That is not true. I will agree to disagree

The similarity is in egregious government meddling.

indigenous says

upisdown
says

Growth comes from many sources and for many different reasons too.

That is not true. I will agree to disagree

The similarity is in egregious government meddling.

I'll try to give an example, and that's charter schools. Lobbyists wrote legislation that included various formal terms or names/words like disadvantaged and the like to describe a given area, and also to give it some type of preferential treatment if invested into such an area. And there's huge returns on investment to include generous tax breaks are allowed.

Another example is GE and the various things that they produce/manufacture and dabble in. If GE sees somthing as having potential returns and wider acceptance/growth, they will jump in AND THEN worry about lobbying for preferential tax breaks later, or even being the "select" manufacturer later to improve profits in the future.

The recent Farm Bill is another, whereas all the whining about 46.6 million people collecting food stamps at a rate of roughly $4.30 per person per day. But, Wal Mart, being the largest US employer, that is owned by one of the, if not THE richest family in the US, is also the largest grocery store chain in the US and whose sales of food is more than 50% of their total sales(and ironically whose employees qualify and collect food stamps)and controls about 30% of the grocery market, might lose some money.
And there were 532 organizations that have a direct relationship of some sort, or purely out of self-preservation were against splitting the food and farm portions of the bill up.
Ya think that maybe Wal Mart was somewhere among those 532 organizations maybe???

Notice the pattern above where the actions happen and then the government is lobbied later to make things better? And yet numerous people in the above examples use that worn out catch-phrase of the government hindering them somehow, but yet always turn to the government for something.

upisdown says

I'll try to give an example

Everything you described is not capitalism. It is crony capitalism and it is the worst and should be cut out completely.

The VERY definition of a product is something someone would willing exchange for. Notice this does require ANY force. All government activities use force. Ergo by definition government involvement in the market place is not a product.

FDR probably did this more than any other president. But LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, Carter, Obama, Abraham Lincoln are a close second.

indigenous says

Everything you described is not capitalism.

I know, and alluded to that initially above. But it does happen quite regularly too.

So do ya think that Wal Mart and their "free market" mantra would squeal if the SNAP program was defunded???? I don't think that they would be content with keeping just the sales tax they collect alone as income.
And, that's maybe got something to do with why Wal Mart getting into the grocery business, along with the corresponding uptick in SNAP spending/budgets????

upisdown says

So do ya think that Wal Mart and their "free market" mantra would squeal if the SNAP program was defunded???? I don't think that they would be content with keeping just the sales tax they collect alone as income.

And, that's maybe got something to do with why Wal Mart getting into the grocery business, along with the corresponding uptick in SNAP spending/budgets????

So what.

We need to wake up the sleeping 300 million zombies. Otherwise this country is done. The only question will be fast of slow?, Mad Max or 1984?

capitalism is fine. socialism and communism simply mean i have to provide for less intelligent people, like the OP. why would i want to do that?

indigenous says

Of course you would have to bitch slap Krugman out of the classroom.

No loss, good riddance ;)

indigenous says

This growth comes solely from investment. Investors have been saying deal me
out there is too much uncertainly caused by the POTUS. Much like FDR did for 10
straight years

OK--let's take a look at this theory. What uncertainty is scaring off investors?

Are you proposing that there are opportunities out there sitting unfunded now? Entrepreneurs that want to hire people but can't because they can't get investor money?

tatupu70 says

Are you proposing that there are opportunities out there sitting unfunded now? Entrepreneurs that want to hire people but can't because they can't get investor money?

You bet your ass

If you don't see what is scaring off investors, I can't help you.

indigenous says

You bet your ass

OK--do you have any evidence? Because it seems odd to me. Treasuries are paying next to nothing. Bonds too. There is obviously a crap ton of money out there earning nothing--what could be so "uncertain" to cause them to pass up money making opportunities?

indigenous says

If you don't see what is scaring off investors, I can't help you.

lol--humor me. Pretend that I'm not beyond all help and share your thoughts.

indigenous says

The reason for people being hired on at no more than 25hr is to avoid paying for O care.

What does that have to do with getting seed money? Or an investment. If that were the case, wouldn't the investor give money with the caveat that any new employees must be part time?

indigenous says

Another one is to see how Frank Dodd is going to shake out.

lol--what specifically are folks worried about wrt Frank-Dodd? Why would that deter investment?

tatupu70 says

What does that have to do with getting seed money?

Any investing is about prediction. Investors are saying I don't what this Jack ass is going to do so deal me out.

Frank Dodd is so big it is another "we have to pass to see what is in it". This makes investors run to the exit as does O care.

It requires a special kind of stupid to be arrogant enough to impose your delusions upon the country at the expense of the economy.

indigenous says

Any investing is about prediction. Investors are saying I don't what this Jack ass is going to do so deal me out.

No they're not. That is just your deluded mind trying to make up a reason why Obama is to blame for anything and everything. There is no shortage of investors and investment money--the problem is there is no demand.

indigenous says

It requires a special kind of stupid to be arrogant enough to impose your delusions upon the country at the expense of the economy.

lol--that's pretty much the job description of a President, isn't it?

tatupu70 says

There is no shortage of investors and investment money--the problem is there is no demand.

This is the basic argument K's believe the demand is already there, inferring that it is a natural resource owned by all. I think that demand is created by the entrepreneurs. I'm not going to go back forth this again. I will agree to disagree.

tatupu70 says

lol--that's pretty much the job description of a President, isn't it?

Yea but some like the current, Carter, LBJ, FDR, Wilson are over the top.

indigenous says

I think that demand is created by the entrepreneurs. I'm not going to go back forth this again. I will agree to disagree.

That's fine for you to believe whatever you want--but you cannot answer how an entrepreneur creates money for people that have none. Until you can answer that, I don't buy it.

indigenous says

Yea but some like the current, Carter, LBJ, FDR, Wilson are over the top.

Ahhh. The problem is that the President is imposing his will AND it is different than what you would like. If he imposed his will to do things you wanted done, then it would be no problem, right?

tatupu70 says

That's fine for you to believe whatever you want--but you cannot answer how an entrepreneur creates money for people that have none. Until you can answer that, I don't buy it.

Money is the vehicle the subject is exchange.

Montgomery Ward created exchange through catalog sales.

Sears created exchange by building stores in growing cities and replace Montgomery Ward.

Walmart created exchange by taking advantage of computer technology and creating jobs in China, where the per capita income was 500 per year, today it is 7000 per year. Walmart replaced Sears.

Amazon created exchange by allowing people to shop from home.

This process of creative destruction is what creates jobs. The pie gets bigger through comparative advantage as long as the government stays out of the economy.

It is not about my will or the president's will it is about allowing the process of the free market to grow the standard of living of the world.

The test of this is does the transaction require force? If it does it is not the free market. Government does not do anything that is not force. Therefore if they are involved in the market place it is not a free market.

Would banks willing make loans to people who are not qualified for the loan? NO The CRA forced them to make the loans

Would fuel distributors willingly pay the real cost for ethanol?NO Would the tax payer if not forced NO

Would people willingly pay higher prices for medication in the U.S. if they could buy them cheaper in Canada if not forced? NO

You don't get this and I'm not going to waste time going back forth over your mundane points because you will never get it.

indigenous says

This process of creative destruction is what creates jobs. The pie gets bigger through comparative advantage as long as the government stays out of the economy.

That's BS. Comparative advantage is (mostly) nonsense. Yes, some countries have advantages in climate for growing produce. But, lower wages or poor working conditions are NOT a comparative advantage.

Sears and Walmart didn't create any exchange. They stole existing exchange from other companies. It's debatable if they create (net) jobs. Jobs were lost at other companies and created at Walmart. I would highly doubt that any net jobs were created because Walmart pays their workers so bad that the velocity of money has gone down.

indigenous says

Would banks willing make loans to people who are not qualified for the loan? NO The CRA forced them to make the loans

My lord. There are still people that believe this shit?? Banks ABSOLUTELY made loans to people that weren't qualified of their own accord. Please don't get me started on this topic. CRA loans defaulted at LOWER rates than non-CRA loans. That should end all discussion.

indigenous says

Would people willingly pay higher prices for medication in the U.S. if they could buy them cheaper in Canada if not forced? NO

That's an entirely different discussion. If you want to discuss the merits/problems with the patent system, start a thread on that. It has nothing to do with the current subject.

indigenous says

You don't get this and I'm not going to waste time going back forth over your mundane points because you will never get it.

Oh, I get it. You cannot logically defend your position so you want to run away.

tatupu70 says

Oh, I get it. You cannot logically defend your position so you want to run away.

Exactly, have a nice day...

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

Oh, I get it. You cannot logically defend your position so you want to run away.

Exactly, have a nice day...

You too.

indigenous says

Sears created exchange by building stores in growing cities and replace
Montgomery Ward.

tatupu70 says

Sears and Walmart didn't create any exchange. They stole existing exchange
from other companies. It's debatable if they create (net) jobs. Jobs were lost
at other companies and created at Walmart. I would highly doubt that any net
jobs were created because Walmart pays their workers so bad that the velocity of
money has gone down.

tat, The quote at the top should've been enough info to know what knowledge level that you're dealing with.

tatupu70 says

but you cannot answer how an entrepreneur creates money for people that have none.

Money is only a medium of exchange (and store of value when not being inflated away). What people really want are goods and services (both for now, and for the future).

People having no money, in a normal relatively free market, would be a very strong incentive for them to seek out work and earn money, so they can buy goods and services. The entreprenuer can be a milk farm owner, hiring people to milk the cows, with each hired hand producing more milk from the cow than he/she would personally need to consume, thanks to the capital called the cow; the entreprenuer ca also be Henry Ford, whose production line turn out far more cars than the workers would need for personal use. Both the milk farm owner and Henry Ford had plenty competition, so the working men and women with no money could choose for whom they would work for in order to get the maximum amount of milk, cars and other consumer goods and services that they want. Yes, sometimes some production lines become obsolete compared to other competitors, so they had to be shut down and the workers would go to new jobs at the competitors who can put the labor to better use.

That's how division of labor and creative destruction (of capital) work in a competitive free market place. It is a wealth creation machine. Money is only an accounting unit to this process. It could easily be boxes of milk powder or cartons of cigarette or bottles of vodka, all of which historically served as money at times when the fiat money systems became too predatory and failed.

tatupu70 says

There is no shortage of investors and investment money--the problem is there is no demand.

There are plenty "wants." The apparent lack of Qualified Demand is simply due to input factors for production being too high. These input factors include: natural resource prices, labor cost, regulator compliance cost, tax burden. When the cost of these input factors are lowered, as in a typical technological breakthrough (using less natural resources, less labor, and the politicians are too dumb and slow to catch up with it immediately), people do buy very quickly.

The problem with a typical Keynesian inflationary policy is that:

1. The newly printed money do not go into the randomly distributed glass jars waiting to be discovered, but overwhelmingly go to the super rich. That exacerbate the lack of return-on-capital problem as well as wealth inequality.

2. What little money does go to the poor and middle class, go to the wrong hands creating wrong incentives: welfare systems that encourage people not to work, thereby increasing labor cost in the input factors, further preventing the market from clearing.

Reality says

That's how division of labor and creative destruction (of capital) work in a competitive free market place. It is a wealth creation machine. Money is only an accounting unit to this process. It could easily be boxes of milk powder or cartons of cigarette or bottles of vodka, all of which historically served as money at times when the fiat money systems became too predatory and failed.

OK, but how does that solve the problem of nobody having any money (or vodka, or milk powder)? Ford creates the assembly line and hires a bunch of workers. His workers can now (maybe) afford to buy a car, but nobody else can. Why would he make them?

Reality says

The apparent lack of Qualified Demand is simply due to input factors for production being too high. These input factors include: natural resource prices, labor cost, regulator compliance cost, tax burden.

lol. The race to the bottom, huh? 1900s sweatshops, here we come! That's the ticket!

Give me a break. We have a distribution problem, not a wealth problem.

tatupu70 says

lol. The race to the bottom, huh? 1900s sweatshops, here we come! That's the ticket!

Give me a break. We have a distribution problem, not a wealth problem.

The problem with a typical Keynesian inflationary policy is that:

1. The newly printed money do not go into the randomly distributed glass jars waiting to be discovered, but overwhelmingly go to the super rich. That exacerbate the lack of return-on-capital problem as well as wealth inequality.

2. What little money does go to the poor and middle class, go to the wrong hands creating wrong incentives: welfare systems that encourage people not to work, thereby increasing labor cost in the input factors, further preventing the market from clearing.

Reality says

The problem with a typical Keynesian inflationary policy is that:

Who's talking about Keynesian inflationary policy? Try to stay on topic, please.

Let's agree on the problem before we move on to best solutions.

tatupu70 says

OK, but how does that solve the problem of nobody having any money (or vodka, or milk powder)? Ford creates the assembly line and hires a bunch of workers. His workers can now (maybe) afford to buy a car, but nobody else can. Why would he make them?

He made them because his cars rolling off the production lines were much much cheaper than competitors' handicraft assembled cars. Consumers flocked to his cheaper cars.

Reality says

He made them because his cars rolling off the production lines were much much cheaper than competitors' handicraft assembled cars. Consumers flocked to his cheaper cars.

It was a hypothetical. You didn't answer the question.

tatupu70 says

Who's talking about Keynesian inflationary policy? Try to stay on topic, please.

Let's agree on the problem before we move on to best solutions.

Your focus on "lack of demand" and "having no money" hence the need to print more money is typical Keynesian diagnosis and prescription. I may be mistaken in assuming you knew what Keynesianism is. Perhaps you heard so many bits and pieces of it that you are thinking you are inventing it and calling it "tatupuism." Incidentally, Keyneisianism was not original either, John Law had something similar to it more than a century earlier than Keynes.

tatupu70 says

He made them because his cars rolling off the production lines were much much cheaper than competitors' handicraft assembled cars. Consumers flocked to his cheaper cars.

It was a hypothetical. You didn't answer the question.

What hypothetical? What question? You asked why he would make cars, the answer is always the same in the absence of government subsidies: consumers want what he is selling. Why consumers want what he is selling? In the absence of government subsidies, the answer is still the same: what he is selling is a better bang for the buck.

All this may sound strange to minds that are so steeped in Keynesian money printing that they are ready to live off government issued coupons.

Reality says

Your focus on "lack of demand" and "having no money" hence the need to print more money is typical Keynesian diagnosis and prescription

You obviously didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said there is a distribution problem. Not a lack of money problem.

Reality says

I may be mistaken in assuming you knew what Keynesianism is.

Nope--I understand. I doubt you do, but that's beside the point, because we're not talking about Keynes.

tatupu70 says

You obviously didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said there is a distribution problem. Not a lack of money problem.

Consumer choice (aka "free market") is the most efficient and "leveling" wealth distribution system . . . as a crony can not get rich by making friend with a "Head Consumer" like he can with the head money czar in a central banking system, and there is no politician (and their guns) to lobby. The reason why cronies prefer the political system of "redistribution" is precisely because they then have the connections and levers to pull, in order to preserve their privileged positions and prevent their own capital from becoming obsolete by consumers choosing the upstart competitors.

Reality says

Consumer choice (aka "free market") is the most efficient and "leveling" wealth distribution system

That is absurd. The exact opposite is true.

The rest of your post about cronies is the same BS that you and others have been posting here for awhile.

The reason some people prefer a highly progressive tax system to redistribue wealth is because it has been proven to work historically.