Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(193)
-
▼
December
(65)
- Listening to CBC. . .
- Gaza Massacre Funded By US
- Fiscal Conservatives Making Their Voice Heard
- More Poetry
- Police Uses Excessive Force to Detain Criminals
- "Seedkeepers" - by an unknown Palestinian
- Lew Rockwell Releases New Book
- Rally For The Republic, #7 Most Watched Video On C...
- "The Revolution: A Manifesto" Most Loved Book
- TSA: Making The World Safer, One Passenger At A Time
- More Comedy
- Will The US Split Into 6 Portions?
- US Military Might Be Needed To Supress Domestic Vi...
- Peter Schiff On The Government Tightening Its Belt
- A Little Liberty Propaganda
- Some Predictions On The Future Of The United State...
- Lacking Sympathy For Israel
- You Think Cheney Was Secretive? Just Wait.
- Protecting Children From Lead Toys
- Liberty and Security
- Quote
- US Heading To Police State?
- I Love CBC Radio
- Paying Taxes Is So Much Fun!!!!!!
- Car Market Collapsing
- A Little Comedy For Once
- Debunking The Keynesian Myth
- I Love Ron Paul Propaganda
- The Damage Done By Regulation
- Should We Build A Battlestar Galactica?
- Commercial Real Estate Ask For Bailout
- Communism: Its A Party!
- The Big Cheese Bail-Out
- New Eras, Old Fallacies: The Fed and the Coming Re...
- Jim Rogers On Where to Invest
- Quote on Taxes
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Interviews Thomas DiLorenzo
- Save Polaroid!
- Money, Banking, and the Fed
- Governator Down-Sizing California Government
- Government Ponzi Schemes
- This Seems Reasonable
- Man-Made Global Warming?
- Wedding Photos
- Bush: So What?
- GM, Bankruptcy, the Transfer of Wealth, and Wall S...
- Ron Paul and Peter Schiff
- An Interesting Insight Into Greece
- Lew Rockwell on Bailouts
- Quote
- Bush Dodges Shoe
- Quote
- News Max Interviews Ron Paul
- Peter Schiff on the New New Deal
- Ron Paul To Congress
- Bailing Out Chrysler?
- Who Knew?
- Hilarious Bail-Out Satire
- The Story of Stuff
- A Blurb On Why All Bail-Outs Are Bad
- Chinese continues its takeover of the US economy. . .
- Ron Paul: "Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and ...
- To Prorogue or Not To Prorogue
- Best Breakfast Ever.
- Peter Schiff Metaphors
-
▼
December
(65)
19 comments:
An increase in line with inflation is okay.
Inflation is the expansion of the money supply.
So they should get raises that match the expansion of the money supply?
Or are you saying they should get an increase of pay that matches CPI which is reported by the government? I would think this is a conflict of interest.
Either way, in a country that has lost 2 million jobs in the past year and average wages are being forced down due to a declining economy, should government officials be honestly patting themselves on the back with raises?
Inflation is not only the expansion of the money supply; it is also an increase in the cost of products, based on and increase in costs.
"Or are you saying they should get an increase of pay that matches CPI which is reported by the government? I would think this is a conflict of interest.
Either way, in a country that has lost 2 million jobs in the past year and average wages are being forced down due to a declining economy, should government officials be honestly patting themselves on the back with raises?"
I think raises that match inflation are pretty standard in every industry. I don't think they are patting themselves on the backs.
"Inflation is not only the expansion of the money supply; it is also an increase in the cost of products, based on and increase in costs."
Nope. The increase in price of products is the result of inflation.
"I think raises that match inflation are pretty standard in every industry. I don't think they are patting themselves on the backs."
You think? A lot of large companies provide raises to match the increase in the cost of living, but not all, and small businesses have a hard time with this. Remember, inflation is the result of the increase in the money supply. When money is printed, larger corporations, banks, and the federal government benefit from the money first. By the time it trickles down to the little guy, prices have already gone up and the little guy gets screwed. Its a transfer of wealth. The point though is that it makes it easier for large companies to do provide these raises but not small and mid-size businesses. Many industries that are able to will cut back on raises and bonuses as their profit margins shrink. Considering the federal government's revenues are shrinking, the congress should probably take a pay cut. If you look at their salaries, I'm honestly not sure why these individuals are making over 100k in the first place.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287700/inflation
Inflation^
You need to update your definition. Economists have not been using "inflation" to mean only money supply inflation for decades.
Most main-stream economists are wrong.
From http://www.mises.org/story/2781:
Economists of the Austrian School of economics define inflation differently than much of the mainstream of the economics profession. The typical mainstream intermediate macroeconomics textbook defines inflation as "[a]n increase in the overall level of prices" (Mankiw, Macroeconomics 5th Edition, 530). The eminent Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, suggested otherwise:
What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation. (Mises, Planning for Freedom, 79)
"Most main-stream economists are wrong.
From http://www.mises.org/story/2781:
Economists of the Austrian School of economics define inflation differently than much of the mainstream of the economics profession. The typical mainstream intermediate macroeconomics textbook defines inflation as "[a]n increase in the overall level of prices" (Mankiw, Macroeconomics 5th Edition, 530). The eminent Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, suggested otherwise:
What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation. (Mises, Planning for Freedom, 79)"
Yes, but that is FACTION of economics. We use words based on universal or dominant definitions. Inflation is the inflation of the value of money due to an increase in the money supply, increase in wages which causes an increase in prices, a change in the production process which either deflates or inflates the real cost of products.
Let's talk about the ideological underpinnings of the Austrian school for a bit. Arguing that saving is the primary creator of capital is patently absurd. Capital is created through saving, profits from innovation, or profits from low wages. Moreover, the Austrian rejection of spending as a primary economic engine is dishonest. I save AND spend. Both benefit the economy. Only those who believe in low wages would argue that saving is the primary.
"What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation. (Mises, Planning for Freedom, 79)"
No, sorry. When wages increase from raises or union action, the capitalist has the option of passing part or all of the increase to the consumer. If it is all, this creates an inflationary bubble which equalizes the increase in pay, and in general causes an inflation in the non-real cost of prices, hence inflation.
"Yes, but that is FACTION of economics. We use words based on universal or dominant definitions."
The perversion of the definition of inflation for today's use gives a misrepresentation of what inflation is. You argue that inflation can occur because of the increase in wages, which increases the price of the product, which increases others' wages (I think i have your argument right). This cannot happen without printing more money, and this doesn't need to happen. You don't need MORE money to fuel an economy, economies increase via production. A stable money supply would cause prices to decrease. People would make less money but be able to purchase more because they are producing more to trade.
So anyway, inflation, buy your description can't exist without an increase in the money supply and therefore INFLATING the money supply fuels INFLATION.
"The perversion of the definition of inflation for today's use gives a misrepresentation of what inflation is."
Not at all. The economic debate provides us with the modern definition. It is your RELIGIOUS support of one part of economics that has made you choose the word "perversion" to describe scientific debate.
"You argue that inflation can occur because of the increase in wages, which increases the price of the product, which increases others' wages (I think i have your argument right). This cannot happen without printing more money,"
Ah, yes, it can happen without more money, because it is a price inflation, not a money inflation. The increase in wages is passed off to the consumer as an increase in the overall price of products and/or services of that product. Since no increase in real value has been gained as a wage or a profit, this means that micro inflation has occured, WITHOUT an increase in the money supply.
"and this doesn't need to happen. You don't need MORE money to fuel an economy, economies increase via production. A stable money supply would cause prices to decrease. People would make less money but be able to purchase more because they are producing more to trade."
You are talking about productivity gains. Yes, it is true, productivity gains cause an deflation of the value of money, and conversely, an increase in the real cost of the extraction of basic resources causes an inflation of prices.
So anyway, inflation, buy your description can't exist without an increase in the money supply and therefore INFLATING the money supply fuels INFLATION.
"Not at all. The economic debate provides us with the modern definition. It is your RELIGIOUS support of one part of economics that has made you choose the word "perversion" to describe scientific debate."
As per Wikipedia:
"Inflation originally referred to the debasement of the currency. When gold was used as currency, gold coins could be collected by the government (e.g. the king or the ruler of the region), melted down, mixed with other metals such as silver, copper or lead, and reissued at the same nominal value. By diluting the gold with other metals, the government could increase the total number of coins issued without also needing to increase the amount of gold used to make them. When the cost of each coin is lowered in this way, the government profits from an increase in seigniorage.[11] This practice would increase the money supply but at the same time lower the relative value of each coin. As the relative value of the coins decrease, consumers would need more coins to exchange for the same goods and services. These goods and services would experience a price increase as the value of each coin is reduced.[12]
By the nineteenth century, economists categorized three separate factors that cause a rise or fall in the price of goods: a change in the value or resource costs of the good, a change in the price of money which then was usually a fluctuation in metallic content in the currency, and currency depreciation resulting from an increased supply of currency relative to the quantity of redeemable metal backing the currency. Following the proliferation of private bank note currency printed during the American Civil War, the term "inflation" started to appear as a direct reference to the currency depreciation that occurred as the quantity of redeemable bank notes outstripped the quantity of metal available for their redemption. The term inflation then referred to the devaluation of the currency, and not to a rise in the price of goods.[2]"
This is important because the perversion of the term today hides what inflation actually is. Prices rise can rise or drop for many reasons. Oil has dropped significantly, but not because of deflation, its because there is a mass liquidation of assets occurring in the world. Calling this deflation is like calling the drop of prices of TVs deflation. Its not, its just a shift of supply and demand of the product.
Nothing can cause prices to rise across the board except for the depreciation of the currency which is why it is important to understand what inflation actually is.
"Ah, yes, it can happen without more money, because it is a price inflation, not a money inflation."
That's irrelevant. If wages go higher, that does not cause inflation. The price might be passed on in the product, the company could simply absorb the cost, or cut other expenses to balance the increase. The auto sector is a perfect example because american companies charge less on their cars but pay more in wages. Based on what you think, you'd expect american cars to be more expensive. Competition is keeping prices down. But, again, just because competition is keeping prices down, doesn't mean there's deflation. Deflation is the contraction of the money supply and prices would go down across the board if this was occurring.
"Since no increase in real value has been gained as a wage or a profit, this means that micro inflation has occured, WITHOUT an increase in the money supply."
I don't understand this conclusion. If the demand for cash is higher in one sector because of higher wages and higher prices, either cash needs to be reallocated away from other sectors causing a transfer of wealth, or more cash needs to be printed (money supply inflated). There's nothing wrong with a voluntary transfer of wealth, that's why wages in profitable industries are higher. This can also be done via government subsidies with tax money, which is of course, immoral. Printing money to support this is also immoral because it devalues the savings of individuals, essentially robbing them of wealth. This is a hidden tax and is done without consent of the public. So in the end, there is nothing positive about artificially keeping prices higher, and there is nothing positive about inflating the money supply. It only helps those at the top, the wealthy classes that support these policies and pump out propaganda supporting them throughout the media. Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff could be selfish, I'm not one to judge, but they're also right, and they're also on the complete opposite end of the spectrum philosophically and politically than just about all of the corporate elite that enjoy the fruits of the policies you support the most.
"productivity gains cause an deflation of the value of money"
This is a false statement. Efficiency goes up, costs come down, prices go down, profits go up, and the currency would be worth more because you can buy more with it. This has nothing to do with deflation.
"INFLATING the money supply fuels INFLATION."
Inflating the money supply IS inflation
"This is important because the perversion of the term today hides what inflation actually is. Prices rise can rise or drop for many reasons. Oil has dropped significantly, but not because of deflation, its because there is a mass liquidation of assets occurring in the world. Calling this deflation is like calling the drop of prices of TVs deflation. Its not, its just a shift of supply and demand of the product."
I don't remember citing supply and demand related increases and decreases as inflation.
"That's irrelevant. If wages go higher, that does not cause inflation. The price might be passed on in the product, the company could simply absorb the cost, or cut other expenses to balance the increase. The auto sector is a perfect example because american companies charge less on their cars but pay more in wages. Based on what you think, you'd expect american cars to be more expensive. Competition is keeping prices down. But, again, just because competition is keeping prices down, doesn't mean there's deflation. Deflation is the contraction of the money supply and prices would go down across the board if this was occurring."
Yes, this is true, but the car company example is not a great example, because their profits are high enough to absorb higher wages. It is much different with smaller corporations and the petty bourgeosie.
"I don't understand this conclusion. If the demand for cash is higher in one sector because of higher wages and higher prices, either cash needs to be reallocated away from other sectors causing a transfer of wealth, or more cash needs to be printed (money supply inflated).
It means that workers X have asked for a raise Y. The employers says yes, but increases the cost of his products to perfectly reflect the increase in the wage. Say 10 cents on each unit. This leads to a inflation of a price without an increase in the money supply.
"There's nothing wrong with a voluntary transfer of wealth, that's why wages in profitable industries are higher."
Vonluntary? Most significant increases in wages have occured after industrial action. After the employer has been foreced in some way.
"This can also be done via government subsidies with tax money, which is of course, immoral."
Not if the alternative is the economy effecting million negatively.
"Printing money to support this is also immoral because it devalues the savings of individuals, essentially robbing them of wealth."
If it is done repeatedly, yes, it is immoral. If it is done to momentarily keep the system in place, no it is not immoral.
"This is a hidden tax and is done without consent of the public."
If the public doesn't seek to overturn the FED and the the current Treasury regulatory regime, then, yes, it is with their consent.
"So in the end, there is nothing positive about artificially keeping prices higher, and there is nothing positive about inflating the money supply."
Not as a permanent policy, no.
"It only helps those at the top, the wealthy classes that support these policies and pump out propaganda supporting them throughout the media."
This is where the Czar tougue in cheek is coming from.
"Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff could be selfish, I'm not one to judge, but they're also right, and they're also on the complete opposite end of the spectrum philosophically and politically than just about all of the corporate elite that enjoy the fruits of the policies you support the most."
If so, they'll have to talk a different talk to get my support. As far as I'm concerned, it is their free market ideology that has caused this mess.. 4 million jobs lost since 2001..
"I don't remember citing supply and demand related increases and decreases as inflation."
You didn't, but a lot of what you say seems to mirror what most of the talking heads on TV say, so I just assumed it would be a decent example of something current. But if you don't agree that the dropping price of oil causes deflation, than thats good.
"Yes, this is true, but the car company example is not a great example, because their profits are high enough to absorb higher wages. It is much different with smaller corporations and the petty bourgeosie."
Right, but that has nothing to do with how you use the word "inflation". But I'm glad you agree with what I said.
"It means that workers X have asked for a raise Y. The employers says yes, but increases the cost of his products to perfectly reflect the increase in the wage. Say 10 cents on each unit. This leads to a inflation of a price without an increase in the money supply."
This completely ignores competition in the market place. I know you think all labour should exist within the government monopoly so competitive forces wouldn't exist, unfortunately this has been tried over and over again throughout history and fails, over and over again.
This also ignores where the money comes from. There's an assumption people can afford to pay 10 cents more; if they can't, the business doesn't sell, they go out of business and there is no increase in prices. Hence, not inflation. If businesses would do this, again, car prices would go up.
Prices don't start from labour or expenses (bottom - up), they start from the top down. Banks lend to companies, companies buy raw resources. If there's easy credit (low interest rates or inflation), more companies have more money, buying more resources, this injection of purchasing power causes prices to go up. The higher prices of resources causes a high price in energy, production, etc. The horrible thing about it is that, when the easy money is first spent, the prices haven't gone up so the rich benefit as they are the first to spend it; the prices go up after, making the people (middle class and poor) who never see a dime of it poorer. This is why is immoral and rip on you and me.
"Vonluntary? Most significant increases in wages have occured after industrial action. After the employer has been foreced in some way."
And now that industry is going bankrupt. The US had the largest middle class in the world at the turn of the 20th century and the largest influx of immigration in the world. They may not have been as "rich" as they are now, but they were the richest in the world. You can't argue with that. The voluntary transfer of wealth I was talking about is when you see companies like Microsoft and Google emerge. The market has directed funds to these companies voluntarily because they provide value.
"Not if the alternative is the economy effecting million negatively."
SO they effect 360 million negatively plus every nation around the world holding US government bonds and Treasury notes. Mm-hmm. . .millions are going to be affected anyway and the realization that Obama can't fix this will hit around April.
"If it is done repeatedly, yes, it is immoral. If it is done to momentarily keep the system in place, no it is not immoral."
So, you're for taxation without any representation?
"Not as a permanent policy, no."
Not ever. By doing so you're prolonging the adjustment that needs to take place and making it worse.
"This is where the Czar tougue in cheek is coming from."
LOL there is no tongue in cheek! You have too much faith.
"If so, they'll have to talk a different talk to get my support. As far as I'm concerned, it is their free market ideology that has caused this mess.. 4 million jobs lost since 2001.."
Thats fine. But they've still been right all the way through this so far, and you can't deny that. Its not because of them 4 million jobs have left the US. The US lost 2 million of those jobs in the past year. Wait until 25% of retail outlets go bankrupt in the US within the next 3 months. So if they talked a talk that predicted the wrong outcomes of events you'd support them?
"This completely ignores competition in the market place. I know you think all labour should exist within the government monopoly so competitive forces wouldn't exist, unfortunately this has been tried over and over again throughout history and fails, over and over again."
No, it ignores it in the short-term for companies that can get away with increasing their price per unit. If their product demand is inelastic, they can bloody well do it.
"This also ignores where the money comes from. There's an assumption people can afford to pay 10 cents more; if they can't, the business doesn't sell, they go out of business and there is no increase in prices. Hence, not inflation. If businesses would do this, again, car prices would go up."
You are ignoring inelasticity.
The prices of cars have gone up with the increase in benefits and wages.
"Prices don't start from labour or expenses (bottom - up), they start from the top down. Banks lend to companies, companies buy raw resources."
Resources are bottom-up, Josh. Resources demand labour power to extract, which means that the amount of the loan is dependent on the price of labor. Setting up a factory also entail paying labour wages, so, yes, the business starts bottom-up, always.
"If there's easy credit (low interest rates or inflation), more companies have more money, buying more resources, this injection of purchasing power causes prices to go up. The higher prices of resources causes a high price in energy, production, etc. The horrible thing about it is that, when the easy money is first spent, the prices haven't gone up so the rich benefit as they are the first to spend it; the prices go up after, making the people (middle class and poor) who never see a dime of it poorer. This is why is immoral and rip on you and me."
High demand for a resource is not immoral if the the funds used to buy are bought with responsible loans or real money. Again, you are just angry with fiat currencies, even though ALL CURRENCIES in history have been fiat.
"And now that industry is going bankrupt. The US had the largest middle class in the world at the turn of the 20th century and the largest influx of immigration in the world. They may not have been as "rich" as they are now, but they were the richest in the world. You can't argue with that. The voluntary transfer of wealth I was talking about is when you see companies like Microsoft and Google emerge. The market has directed funds to these companies voluntarily because they provide value."
Those industries are going backrupt because people on the right and in the center don't understand economics. They don't understand that paying people slave wages will ALWAYS lead to a luxury economy where only a small fraction of the population can afford products. They didn't understand or ignored liberal economists when they argued that removing trade barriers would greatly effect the average wage domestically. They didn't care, because they wanted short-term profit. They wanted to invest in those companies that were moving to Mexico and China regardless of the economic consequences. Whelp, now here we are. 6 million jobs lost in the last 9 years. 12 dollar an hour jobs for working families. WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD THE RIGHT HAS CREATED>>>
"SO they effect 360 million negatively plus every nation around the world holding US government bonds and Treasury notes. Mm-hmm. . .millions are going to be affected anyway and the realization that Obama can't fix this will hit around April."
When that happens, we'll probably not be stuck in this never-ending anti-New Deal conversation anymore.
"So, you're for taxation without any representation?"
You do know the 16th and 17th amendments, right? And you are in favor of republican representation in government, right? If not, then you are for a dictatorship of property, because the representation for those taxes was decided in the election.
"Not ever. By doing so you're prolonging the adjustment that needs to take place and making it worse."
I don't believe in the 'adjustments'. I believe that your free market ideology is to blame.
"LOL there is no tongue in cheek! You have too much faith."
Yes, there is. The Huff is simultaneously making fun of you and attacking the Obama administration. You see, Josh, the left and liberal media is capable of subtleties, unlike the libertarians and right wingers.
"Thats fine. But they've still been right all the way through this so far, and you can't deny that. Its not because of them 4 million jobs have left the US. The US lost 2 million of those jobs in the past year. Wait until 25% of retail outlets go bankrupt in the US within the next 3 months. So if they talked a talk that predicted the wrong outcomes of events you'd support them?"
Yup, because at least they are not YOU.
Anyway, most of this argument we are having is merely my way of trying to be civil. I really think the inner-contradictions in capitalism will eventually lead to revolution. It might not be this crisis, it might well be this crisis, but when the revolution comes, it won't be a free market one, because the market is systematically discrediting itself. It seems to have forgotten that it got most of its political legitimacy by paying its workers high wages. Once that legitimacy is eliminated, and if the currency markets and regulators cause a crisis of enough magnitude, then welcome to the next round..
"No, it ignores it in the short-term for companies that can get away with increasing their price per unit. If their product demand is inelastic, they can bloody well do it."
Well it ignores both, and thank you for providing more support that you're wrong about inflation.
"You are ignoring inelasticity.
The prices of cars have gone up with the increase in benefits and wages."
The demand for cars is not inelastic.
"Resources are bottom-up, Josh. Resources demand labour power to extract, which means that the amount of the loan is dependent on the price of labor. Setting up a factory also entail paying labour wages, so, yes, the business starts bottom-up, always."
Yea, I knew I didn't explain that well, but you missed the point. The point is that prices of products are not dependent on labour, and therefore an increase in the price of labour does not cause inflation.
"High demand for a resource is not immoral if the the funds used to buy are bought with responsible loans or real money."
Again, you missed the point. The point is that inflating the money supply only ever helps the rich because they can spend the money first before prices rise due to the extra supply of cash.
"Those industries are going backrupt because people on the right and in the center don't understand economics."
Neither do the left.
"They didn't understand or ignored liberal economists when they argued that removing trade barriers would greatly effect the average wage domestically."
Clinton freed up trade with China and imposed NAFTA. It was Reagan that enacted the protectionist policies you advocate.
"WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD THE RIGHT HAS CREATED"
As previously pointed out, the right and left have constructed this together and continue to do so.
"When that happens, we'll probably not be stuck in this never-ending anti-New Deal conversation anymore."
Why?
"You do know the 16th and 17th amendments, right? And you are in favor of republican representation in government, right? If not, then you are for a dictatorship of property, because the representation for those taxes was decided in the election."
Inflation is caused by the FED and no elected official has any oversight over the FED.
"I don't believe in the 'adjustments'. I believe that your free market ideology is to blame."
So you think mal-investment should be propped up instead of liquidated?
"The Huff is simultaneously making fun of you and attacking the Obama administration."
I read the huffington post on a regular basis and have listened to Arianna Huffington many times. These people are IN LOVE with Obama, and they have a strong voice in the american left.
"Once that legitimacy is eliminated, and if the currency markets and regulators cause a crisis of enough magnitude, then welcome to the next round.."
Whats the next round?
"The demand for cars is not inelastic."
I was talking about all products, not just cars.
"Yea, I knew I didn't explain that well, but you missed the point. The point is that prices of products are not dependent on labour, and therefore an increase in the price of labour does not cause inflation."
I totally disagree. Prices in the long run are very dependent on the cost of labor.
"Again, you missed the point. The point is that inflating the money supply only ever helps the rich because they can spend the money first before prices rise due to the extra supply of cash."
What money? The newly printed money or the money rich people have in the bank?
"Neither do the left."
I'm pretty sure I understand that prices have dropped since the corporations started moving to China and Mexico. And I'm pretty sure I understand it is due to those corporations paying slave wages.
"Clinton freed up trade with China and imposed NAFTA. It was Reagan that enacted the protectionist policies you advocate."
Different times. And, yes, Republicans have to keep their constituents happy too, which includes many workers. Besides, Clinton was president during the height of free market zealotry. He was also not an economic liberal, obviously. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, which is why Hillary was rejected this time around.
"As previously pointed out, the right and left have constructed this together and continue to do so. "
I'm a marxist, Josh. I consider libertarians and free marketeers right wing.
"Inflation is caused by the FED and no elected official has any oversight over the FED."
The population has not called for the elimination of the FED and hence it is still a legitimate government organization.
"So you think mal-investment should be propped up instead of liquidated?"
Generally, no, but when it comes to the center of the economy, high wages, and in context of the double whammy, yes, I do.
"I read the huffington post on a regular basis and have listened to Arianna Huffington many times. These people are IN LOVE with Obama, and they have a strong voice in the american left.
"
They are still making fun of you. And they still think of the democatic party as a party of the capitalist elite. They are just playing pragmatic politics.
"I was talking about all products, not just cars."
The demand for all products is not inelastic; and we were talking about cars.
"Prices in the long run are very dependent on the cost of labor."
Prices are not based on cost, they're based on maximizing profit; selling the most product at the highest price.And if the cost of labor forces the company to raise prices so high they are priced out of the market, no more labour.
"What money? The newly printed money or the money rich people have in the bank?"
The rich have first access to the printed money and are able to spend it before inflation kicks in. This increases the spread of the distribution of wealth.
"I'm pretty sure I understand that prices have dropped since the corporations started moving to China and Mexico. And I'm pretty sure I understand it is due to those corporations paying slave wages."
The right don't understand this?
"Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, which is why Hillary was rejected this time around."
Hillary was rejected because she voted for the war.
"I'm a marxist, Josh. I consider libertarians and free marketeers right wing."
Some of the right wing are libertarians and free marketeers, but not all libertarians and free marketeers are right wing, this is the problem with labels.
"The population has not called for the elimination of the FED and hence it is still a legitimate government organization."
I never claimed it didn't have legal legitimacy. So did Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein.
"Generally, no, but when it comes to the center of the economy, high wages, and in context of the double whammy, yes, I do."
Why generally no, but now yes? Jobs are jobs. Why is it good for small businesses and bad for big businesses? I know you're going to say there are more people dependent, but I would like you to answer in relation to why its good for small businesses to liquidate mal-investment. Please explain why this good is no longer good.
"The demand for all products is not inelastic; and we were talking about cars."
No, I was using the universal "products" to describe all products that are elastic.
"Prices are not based on cost, they're based on maximizing profit; selling the most product at the highest price.And if the cost of labor forces the company to raise prices so high they are priced out of the market, no more labour."
The price reflecting a maximization of profit is still first based upon the cost of labor and other costs.
"The rich have first access to the printed money and are able to spend it before inflation kicks in. This increases the spread of the distribution of wealth."
Oh, you're talking about the corrupt politicians, not "the rich".
"The right don't understand this?"
Yes, they do, because they CAUSED it.
"Hillary was rejected because she voted for the war."
That was the other factor, yes.
"Some of the right wing are libertarians and free marketeers, but not all libertarians and free marketeers are right wing, this is the problem with labels."
Opposition to war does not make you leftwing, Josh. It makes you opposed to war.
"I never claimed it didn't have legal legitimacy. So did Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein."
Those people were not democrats, bonehead. Nor did they govern democratic governments.
"Why generally no, but now yes? "
Beacuse it would make the system crash.
"Jobs are jobs."
No, jobs are not jobs. There are jobs that are central to the economy and jobs that are not, like Polaroid.
"Why is it good for small businesses and bad for big businesses? I know you're going to say there are more people dependent, but I would like you to answer in relation to why its good for small businesses to liquidate mal-investment. Please explain why this good is no longer good."
Small businesses are not central to the ecnonmy. They do not effect as many people as they ones we are talking about.
Also, malinvestment is not the primary cause of those companies "liquidating". The double whammy is.
Post a Comment