patrick.net

When 100 robots replace 100 employees....

Well assuming robots did not build the robots, some jobs were created in building and maintenance of robots.

sbh says

Wasn't it when an ocean of insolvency was lapping at the shores of every continent on this planet? Couldn't you just taste the vindication coming, the big "I told you so"?

No. I didn't tell anyone "I told you so." Not when I shorted the market in 2000, not when I bought long in 2009, not when I sold my primary residence in early 2000's (too early), not when I bought in 2011. In any case, I don't get hard-on from investing in financial assets or real estates. I get hard-on from investing in young women; women little over half my own age. I don't like economic depressions making too many young women desperate; I don't like desperate young women. Too many of them throwing themselves at me makes it hard to find the ones that I'm looking for: the ones who can really take advantage of the opportunities that I offer and make a better future life for herself in the long run.

And then....those ASSHOLES.....you know, Bush's tag-team of Hank and Ben suspended mark-to-market AND TOOK IT ALL AWAY. You've had nothing but flaccid resentment ever since (and I apologize to your significant other, whatever his name is).

I don't have any SO at the moment. I have had 2 serial long term GF's (plus a couple short-term ones in between) since 2008. They were very hot, and I usually last hours when intimate; girls tend to walk funny the next day. In any case, the Bush tag-team were assholes. This depression should have been over in a year to 18 months like the 1921-22 depression instead of the long drag-out affair 5 years later and fraying the fibers of the society itself.

sbh says

Gone was the apocalyptic, blood-in-the-streets market clear and its cathartic phoenix renaissance renewal. THAT'S the world I live in, where I stoically walk through the gauntlet of government coercion down to CVS to buy some anti-biotics with fiat currency rather than having to beat in the head with some rebar some other poor schlub in order to steal the last bottle on the shelf.

In case you did not notice, the "flash mob" and "knock-out" nonsense only became frequent in the last year or so. Prolonged high youth unemployment is leading to severe social problems. A rapid crash in the asset market and new entrepreneurs being allowed to buy up the assets on the cheap then launch new enterprises with little debt burden would have produced far more job opportunities! Yes, that might have killed a few million-dollar bonus Wall Street jobs.

sbh says

After saving the asset markets I now want government to prop up labor markets and force QE down into the servant classes by raising minimum wage to $15 and to triple the taxes for the top 10%.

Such a policy would be just as misguided. A $15/hr minimum wage law would preclude many young people from their first legal jobs. . . while businesses would be forced to turn to banksters for more loans to invest in automatic machines to replace entry level jobs. The problem with the "liberal" statist mind is that they are too dumb to see the unintended consequences; either that, or the leftist leaders are in the pockets of the banksters and see the consequences very well.

Triple the taxes for the top 10%? Are you talking about raising the 37% to 111% of income or tripling the income tax on couples livign on two $50k/yr incomes (the cut-off line for top 10% income is around $100k/yr)? The former is mathematically impossible. The latter would destroy the middle class.

Reality says

Austrian Economics is not in the prediction business per se

It's not in the explanation business either. Really, it's not in any business....

thunderlips11 says

...impose a modest tariff, like we've had almost the entire history of the USA until the 70s, and keep our standard of living.

I'd be OK with a more then modest tariff.

Reality says

No, it is not in the con business like Keynesians.

Keynesians (not that anyone has actually implemented what Keynes wrote) and Austrians are both in a con game. Austrian translates into plutocratic oligopoly, Keynesian translates into welfare state.

zzyzzx says

I'd be OK with a more then modest tariff.

Tariffs are a two way street.

indigenous says

zzyzzx says

I'd be OK with a more then modest tariff.

Tariffs are a two way street.

Not when you have an epic sized trade deficit like we do!

zzyzzx says

ndigenous says

zzyzzx says

I'd be OK with a more then modest tariff.

Tariffs are a two way street.

Not when you have an epic sized trade deficit like we do!

That is only the apparency. The reality is that the Chinese devalued the Yuan in order to create trade. The US had to oblige because of it being the reserve currency of the world.

So now the trade deficit has to re balance because the Chinese need to clear their market.

indigenous says

So now the trade deficit has to re balance because the Chinese need to clear
their market.

What exactly do you mean--they have to "clear their market?" Clear their market of what?

tatupu70 says

What exactly do you mean

This was covered before, they have to bankrupt companies that need to bankrupt and the assets need to be sold off. The value of the Yuan has to be revalued to a level that the standard of living of the workers is such that they are willing to work for that pay level. They need to quit spending money on empty cities in order to make their GDP look good.

indigenous says

This was covered before, they have to bankrupt companies that need to
bankrupt and the assets need to be sold off. The value of the Yuan has to be
revalued to a level that the standard of living of the workers is such that they
are willing to work for that pay level. They need to quit spending money on
empty cities in order to make their GDP look good.

So, clearing the market consists of bankrupting companies, raising the value of the yuan, and reducing spending?

Those seem like disparate activities--how do they all contribute to "clearing the market"?

tatupu70 says

Those seem like disparate activities--how do they all contribute to "clearing the market"?

Because they do, they create commerce. If a retailer has inventory he cannot sell he reduces the price by having a sale. If a company cannot pay its bills it declares bankruptcy. The only one who does not have to do this is the government or its cronies.

indigenous says

Because they do, they create commerce. If a retailer has inventory he cannot
sell he reduces the price by having a sale. If a company cannot pay its bills it
declares bankruptcy. The only one who does not have to do this is the government
or its cronies.

Yes, very good. So, how again does that relate to China having to strive for a stronger currency?

I don't think we're talking about China needing to create commerce.

tatupu70 says

Yes, very good. So, how again does that relate to China having to strive for a stronger currency?

Because the Chinese economy suffers from over investment. Consequently their economy is no longer growing.

Reality says

I have had 2 serial long term GF's (plus a couple short-term ones in between) since 2008. They were very hot

Pics please!

bob2356 says

Reality says

No, it is not in the con business like Keynesians.

Keynesians (not that anyone has actually implemented what Keynes wrote)

What Keynes wrote had been implemented even before Keynes wrote it. Nazi Germany was on a massive Keynesian program, from building Autobahn to military buildup, before Keynes wrote his book. Italian Fascists did it even earlier.

and Austrians are both in a con game. Austrian translates into plutocratic oligopoly, Keynesian translates into welfare state.

Keynesianism leads to both oligopoly and welfare state. There is no contradiction between welfare and aristocracy . . . after all, it was Bismarck the consummate aristocrat who introduced the very first modern welfare state, in order to uphold the social status of the aristocrats and to tax / put down the upstarts in the market place.

zzyzzx says

Not when you have an epic sized trade deficit like we do!

As of fourth-quarter 2013, the trade deficit was a mere 2.2% of GDP. This is due to fracking/shale energy production, increased use of service (as opposed to manufactured) products by aging baby boomers, and increased consumption of onshore goods.

2.2% is quite low.

(Source: The Economist, January 4th issue)