Post #387,969
3/27/14 8:19:29 AM
|
Dean Baker: Don't fear the robot overlords.
http://www.cepr.net/...-labor-statistics
Productivity growth will help us, not take all the jobs away.
[...]
So why should we think that productivity growth will lead to a problem of too few jobs, as opposed to providing a basis for rising wages and living standards? if there is some huge productivity boom facing us in the near future, it is hiding pretty well from the folks gathering the data at BLS.
This is an important point because socialism or large-scale redistribution are big deals. We don't expect that our politicians in Washington will be likely to embrace either concept any time soon. But much smaller and simpler policies can ensure that workers have jobs and share in the gains of economic growth. If we get the value of the dollar down against other currencies, we will reduce the trade deficit and create millions of jobs. President Obama could negotiate a decline in the value of the dollar against the currencies of our major trading partners as President Reagan did in the mid-1980s. We could also boost demand with increased stimulus and we could give more workers jobs through work sharing policies. (Read the book, it's free.)
Anyhow, the point is that we are not in a brave new world where the basics of economics and technology are destined to screw the vast majority of workers absent major changes in public policy. We are in the vicious old world where the bad guys are actively manipulating public policy in ways that are screwing workers now. If we are going to make any headway in reversing this process we have to keep our eye on the ball.
I like that Baker continually uses simple and intuitive economic arguments to show how badly reality is misinterpreted these days. I like that we're not destined to have too few workers and (simultaneously) too much unemployment and (simultaneously) too little free time. I know that with the right policies we wouldn't continue having these stupid, easily solvable issues with the US and world economy. I just wish that people in power to actually implement the correct policies (e.g. having a 4% inflation target rather than a 2% inflation ceiling, pushing for a lower dollar, etc., etc.) would listen to him and act on his recommendations.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #387,972
3/27/14 9:38:02 AM
|
Ever the apologist.
|
Post #387,974
3/27/14 10:46:31 AM
|
Eh?
|
Post #387,976
3/27/14 11:29:49 AM
3/27/14 1:14:40 PM
|
Capitalism is the enemy of the People.
You can spin it any way you want, but the truth is in a Capitalist system the benefits of increased productivity are *never* shared with the working class. All you have to do to see this is look at the past 40 years of our own history.
So why should we think that productivity growth will lead to a problem of too few jobs, as opposed to providing a basis for rising wages and living standards?
Well, Sparky, that's because over the last 40 years, increases in productivity have led to fewer jobs and, as a bonus, falling wages. But, no, things will be different now. Promise. New Capitalists aren't at all like the Capitalists of the 20th and early 21st centuries.
Edit: I hate when I make that particular typo.
Edited by mmoffitt
March 27, 2014, 01:14:40 PM EDT
|
Post #387,979
3/27/14 12:03:27 PM
|
Wasn't aware that we weren't Capitalists in the pre-1970s...
Seriously, can you point to a real national economy that works better for the masses? Seems to me that all of them are Capitalist now. Even "Red" China.
The problem isn't Capitalism, the problem is that all real economies need sensible regulations and sensible taxation to keep power and wealth from migrating up to the 1% and staying there.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #387,985
3/27/14 1:11:58 PM
|
he has point, as do you
His is that no matter what, those in charge will fuck over those who are not, and they get that ability via the cash mechanics that got them there.
Yours is that there CAN be a mechanism to limit the damage, and the alternatives are worse. Both of you see the possibility of perfect implementations of your dream state, neither of you will live long enough to experience them.
|
Post #387,987
3/27/14 1:13:38 PM
|
Concur. Sadly.
|
Post #387,986
3/27/14 1:13:04 PM
|
Was speaking of productivity gains.
You should watch Reich's movie. The benefits of enhanced productivity pre-1970 in large measure were shared with the working class. At least since the Reagan Revolution, that is no longer the case. Nor will it be ever gain. This is the period of "the final stages of decay" for your beloved capitalism.
You really think Capitalism works well for all Chinese? You should go visit some of the villages my daughter visited or heck, even breathe the air she had to breathe in Beijing.
|
Post #387,991
3/27/14 2:14:38 PM
|
I agree with Reich's thesis.
Of course the benefits are no longer being shared. The reason isn't because Capitalism is bad. It's because no real economy can work for most people if it's not effectively regulated. Rich people are afraid they're going to lose their baubles, so they always press for policies that keep them rich and increase their power. It's visceral. They don't see that a growing economy and a happy citizenry are the best guarantee of their wealth and that squeezing the 99% always ends badly (eventually). They get richer when the economy is working well than when its limping (while there are individual losers, of course).
Corporations and wealth need to be regulated effectively. That's the bottom line - not whether the system is called Capitalism or Socialism or Putinism or Yanukovychism or Kleptocracy or whatever. The 99% are equally capable of being denied the benefits of their labors under all of them.
HTH!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #387,994
3/27/14 4:16:34 PM
|
On Capitalism's "Success".
Who is it, again, that is the world's leading debtor nation?
|
Post #387,996
3/27/14 6:34:05 PM
|
Meh.
You know as well as me that it was Ronnie's policies that caused that - not "Capitalism". Having a large trade deficit (getting back to Baker's prescription) causes large external debts.
https://www.cia.gov/.../fields/2079.html
United States $15.68 trillion (31 December 2012 est.)
$15.51 trillion (31 December 2011)
note: approximately 4/5ths of US external debt is denominated in US dollars; foreign lenders have been willing to hold US dollar denominated debt instruments because they view the dollar as the world's reserve currency
How about that. We control the creation of what we owe others. ;-) (Yeah, it's not simple, but it's not horrible either.) China wants dollars because it keeps their exports up (by keeping their currency low). Having large external debts, by itself, isn't an indication of strength or weakness.
The ranking is a little different if you do it per-capita - http://en.wikipedia...._by_external_debt ;-)
You never did answer my question, you know. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=387979 ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #387,997
3/27/14 8:30:08 PM
|
Heh. Back to "the lessor of two evils" are we?
Spoiler alert: I'm not really a Communist. Communism would work if every member of society was Jesus Christ. Since that's not likely to happen, my favorite economic system would be one that resembles small capitalism/big socialism. Publicly owned health care, energy, banking, education (including post-secondary) and transportation (I may have left out something). Private enterprise for the rest except no company would have more than 100 employees. Also, no non-employee, non-company owner shareholders (shareholders without skin in the game other than money are nothing more than parasites).
This system is never going to happen either, but I submit it would be better.
|
Post #387,998
3/27/14 8:39:16 PM
|
Better is better
You say your preferred system won't happen. So of the things that *might* happen, what makes things better?
--
Drew
|
Post #388,003
3/27/14 9:50:11 PM
|
Tilting at windmills
Crazy fuckers never give up.
|
Post #388,012
3/28/14 4:15:47 AM
|
Regulating the ever-loving shit out of employers works
|
Post #388,015
3/28/14 8:09:36 AM
|
What he ^ said.
|
Post #388,076
3/31/14 9:13:28 AM
|
I don't know how many more times ...
socialism can be called upon to save capitalism. In a mature capitalist state, you are either born into the monied class or you will never get there. The wife and I were discussing this last week-end and we agreed that we could not have moved up the economic ladder as far was we have if we were starting now. The upward mobility of the lower economic classes is largely gone. We're not 1 percenters by any stretch, but we're top 10 percenters. I didn't come from that background, but through hard work, an advanced degree and, to be honest, a bit of luck I was able to move up. I have serious doubts about my kids being able to maintain their economic class, let alone move up. This is a consequence of the maturation of our capitalist system over the past 40 years.
I just didn't move up high enough to guarantee my kids their position (i.e. I didn't get to the top 1 percent). And I moved up stupidly - I did it by working, not gambling in the Wall Street Casino. My kids lack of upward mobility exists notwithstanding how well they educate themselves nor how hard they are willing to work. The old idea that in our American Capitalist System, every generation does better economically than the one that preceded it is a thing of the past. We are getting close to the natural maturity of a Capitalist system. We have the robber baron class and the lower class. This situation (only two classes: the monied and the non-monied) is the goal of all Capitalist systems. We're rapidly approaching it. You can see it in our tax laws: as a society through those laws, we allow people born into wealth to keep more of the wealth they receive from passive income (investments, dividends, etc.) than we allow people making a living through earning their income. That is, we've constructed our laws to benefit the capitalists over the working class. This is expected behavior of a capitalist system - once the capitalist class has enough money and influence to dictate to the State what is to be done, it's all over for the working class. It will collapse completely eventually, probably through a bloody revolution. It won't come soon, but I suspect my kids will live to see it.
You asked of the things that can be done in such a corrupt system in the last stages of decay and I think, now, not much. I fear we are past the tipping point. One thing that could be done is to pass a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Bill of Rights is directed at human beings. Constructs of law (i.e. corporations) have no Constitutional Rights. That would help some. Then make all elections funded publicly. No private contributions of any sort. Demand anyone broadcasting on the public's airwaves for profit, set aside "public service time" for political debates and so forth. You could eliminate lobbyists by passing a law stating that only constituents may petition their elected officials (that's all the founders envisioned anyway) and they must do so directly, no hiring of third parties to "represent them to their elected officals." There are things that could be done, but at this stage, none of those things will be done. All of these things should have been done in the preceding 40 years as we watched the consequences of the Reagan Revolution. Instead, we allowed YAN Wall Street Asshat to pass as a Progressive in 2008 and so what remains is the Right and Hard Right in our body politic; neither of which represent anyone but the monied class. That's two advanced forms of cancer that will be fatal to the People.
|
Post #388,079
3/31/14 9:59:00 AM
|
Some good points.
You might enjoy DeLong's little piece - http://delong.typepa...ance-of-marx.html Or maybe not. ;-)
Over at the New York Times Room for Debate:
I have long thought that Marx's fixation on the labor theory of value made his technical economic analyses of little worth. Marx was dead certain for ontological reasons that exchange-value was created by human socially-necessary labor time and by that alone, and that after its creation exchange-value could be transferred and redistributed but never enlarged or diminished. Thus he vanished into the swamp, the dark waters closed over his head, and was never seen again. READ MOAR at the Equitablog.
[...]
His NYTimes piece is here - http://www.nytimes.c...ility-to-reinvent
There are comments at all 3 places.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #388,083
3/31/14 1:58:36 PM
|
That's not optimism. That's delusional.
Karl Marx in his day could not believe the volume of production could possibly expand enough to reemploy those who lost their jobs as handloom weavers as well-paid machine-minders or carpet-sellers. He was wrong. The optimistic view is that our collective ingenuity will create so many things for people to do that are so attractive to the rich that they will pay through the nose for them and so recreate a middle-class society.
Um, care to consider this: http://www.shadowsta...employment-charts
Median income in the US (adjusted for inflation) between 1999 and 2012 FELL from $56,080 to $51,017. That's a 9 percent drop in median wages!
Right, tell me again how the rich are going to "pay through the nose."
|
Post #388,093
3/31/14 9:42:19 PM
|
DeLong is an economist with a strong interest in history.
His Socratic-esq dialogs are entertaining - e.g. http://delong.typepa...ncial-crisis.html
He knows that it's perfectly within the capabilities of our leadership to fix our economic problems. The economics is well understood. I think that's what he's getting at - he doesn't accept that it's inevitable that we'll slouch toward the 1% owning everything and an eventual revolution of the proletariat.
He pulls his hair out like all of us over the stupidity of our politics - https://www.google.c...t+vote+republican
He's not saying our destiny is to tax the rich and have more leisure time. That is a possible outcome - we know how to do it - but it's not inevitable.
Now whether he's given a fair summary of Marx, I can't say. Marx wrote a lot and I've only read a little of his writing.
If you like graphs of how far we've fallen and where we are in our recovery, then you should read Calculated Risk if you aren't already - http://www.calculatedriskblog.com
You're welcome! ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #388,084
3/31/14 2:03:29 PM
|
And Thanks!
Better articulated view that I adhere to. ;0)
http://www.nytimes.c...-would-have-known
|
Post #397,052
12/12/14 8:24:35 AM
|
LessEr. LessOr is opposite of Lessee...
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
|
Post #397,054
12/12/14 8:38:14 AM
|
Miss the quotation marks around it? ;0)
|
Post #397,125
12/14/14 6:56:43 PM
|
Those are around the whole expression.
Gave the impression you were only pointing out that you were referring to the whole phrase as something other people use to say in that context, *not* that you were making a joke of that particular word. The quotes would have been around only that, if that were the case. So my impression remains. --
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
|
Post #397,145
12/15/14 8:49:42 AM
|
I yield. ;0)
|
Post #388,007
3/27/14 11:49:28 PM
|
the bigger problem
In the last thirty years we have more and more stupid people in charge of the system, both in government,communication, finance and industry.
I have met leaders of all that you couldn't trust with a sharp stick because they will poke their eyes out.
The smart ones who understood how shit works are dying out.
These folks make decisions that effect all of us. From the health care rollout, the financial meltdown, wall street, fleet street and GM the stupid reigns. A result is a stupid trickle down effect.
The science we depend on is rapidly failing in 20 years, no one will understand how to create a circuit and will depend on machines to do it for them.
It will get worse quick. No one reads the manuals, hell they dont even publish manuals. I can get more information on a labia tightening procedure than nother can get on how to hook up the network gear he just bought.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
Post #388,009
3/28/14 12:03:25 AM
|
Hey!
:-)
There are still lots of sharp people out there. Trouble is, too many of them can't get jobs that pay a decent wage any more. For example, a very sharp new guy at work has a significant other who is working as an unpaid intern in some Congressman's office. She just got her PhD...
:-(
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who is so glad he's not trying to start a new career these days...)
|
Post #388,010
3/28/14 1:53:28 AM
|
It all depends on being born into the right family . . .
. . and sent to the right school to play football - and being 6 foot plus.
Nothing else counts - nothing at all.
If you don't have those credentials, it doesn't matter how smart or how educated you are - you're not in the game.
|
Post #388,018
3/28/14 11:52:54 AM
|
Not true
I was born into the servant class. I did very well. I fucked up and didn't play by the rules and got caught. But that was MY fault. I chose that direction. I never went to college, never played sports, and am short. I never joined the right groups, I never shmoozed the right people. But I made myself useful, and was part of the American dream, no matter who hated me because of who my parents were. I do not blame the system for my choices. I'm sure I would have done FAR worse in any of the other possible systems.
|
Post #388,019
3/28/14 12:15:24 PM
|
But ...
If you had been from the right family, it never would have occurred to anyone to look around after doing what they were supposed to be there for. Or rather, they would have known better than to satisfy their curiosity.
Having the right connections isn't just about improving the upside, though it certainly does that. It's also about eliminating the downside. This not only insulates you from bad decisions and bad fortune, but also gives you a safety net to try riskier things -- which is where the biggest upside opportunities come from.
--
Drew
|
Post #388,014
3/28/14 6:50:16 AM
|
This could be just-as-Big. Maybe terminal--for most of us.
http://www.theguardi...stice-lets-end-it
Inherited wealth is an injustice. Let's end it
Inheritance, which rewards the wealthy for doing nothing, is once again becoming a key route to riches  just as it was in the Victorian era
James Butler
theguardian.com, Wednesday 26 March 2014 11.08 EDT
Inherited wealth is the great taboo of British politics. Nobody likes to talk about it, but it determines a huge number of outcomes: from participation in public life, to access to education, to the ability to save or purchase property. When David Cameron recently promised to raise the threshold for inheritance tax to £1m and praised "people who have worked hard and saved", he is singing from the hymn sheet of inherited inequality: it is, after all, easier to save if you inherit substantial sums to squirrel away, or if you can lock money in property that is virtually guaranteed to offer huge returns. Hard work has very little to do with it.
[. . .]
Emphasis: yada.
The UK numbers (nor ΔUS) don't much matter--the Disparities Do.
And whatever REGULATIONS (US or UK) as could get through Plutocrat-'selected'/electees as actually Govern:
would. be. (sabotaged) pap. ... THINK, for just one: Single-Payer Med.
So long as Accumulated-$$Wealth Rules: 'We' Don't get a meaningful "vote". EVER, I aver.
(And the young/white Aynish arrogant-ones Like This Fine: because they're already on a fast-track to each's very-own Hedge Fund, etc. wash/rinse.)
Worship of $$ is obsession-with-Power (over those who are "One-down") --Alistair Sim's phrase, well over 50 years ago/great movie, that..
School for Scoundrels, pretty sure/in B&W--no cgi, 3-D or guitars.
The more the disparity in $/hr. the more sociopaths are created: rather than 'social'--ists.(Obvious-by-inspection?)
I may well be unutterably-dense, because someone has to e x p l a i n to me how it Can Be, that:
Working-within ... a system which has been co-opted/thus is corrupted/non-functional by-def'n:
Any Group could create Radical Change?? [Radical means: in fucking-Root concepts!]
Well...? I'm Listening.
Oh. And. Talk-not about patience.. about creeping-gradualism, aka: "over Generations.." and cha.cha.cha. like that.
(Unless I am also completely 'at-sea' re. those little 'planetary Problems' about which we have all heard. (Too.))
This is Simple: (I think)
If I am correct-er (than the peace-loving gradualists, ordinarily a Laudable bunch..)
Murica shall remain the stagnant cess-pool of Brave jingoistic Slogans and Cowardly (non-)Actions forever
==as it goes Down with whimpers, gnashing-of-teeth wailings ... and futile/occasional self-immolations.
So: what does that Leave? as regards 'Action'-soon enough to attend to planet-wide Problems?
Er.. IN TIME.
Sorry. It's late.. long day. Hadn't the time to make it Briefer: get off asses and Fight?
Nawww.. ya gots to then explain what 'fight' might mean: to all IQs + all-mindsets: in each's argot.
No Wonder! that Bertie damn near went-mad, tryin to put All of Math into a step-by-step ... progression of Boolean fucking-logic, eh?
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
|
Post #388,054
3/30/14 11:31:08 AM
|
so you own nothing, the government rents it to you no thx
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
Post #388,066
3/30/14 3:55:15 PM
|
Digital-think slogans can not be reasoned-with (or against.)
|
Post #388,086
3/31/14 2:31:31 PM
|
Well, you're right about that...
>>> "The UK numbers (nor ÄUS) don't much matter--the Disparities Do. "
From the comments:
One sentence basically says it all: "The top 1 percent of Americans gained 93 percent of the additional income created in the country in 2010, as compared with 2009." Now think of that in terms of a party with 100 people and big pizza with 100 slices. Basically it means that one rich guy gobbles up 93 slices of pizza. The other 99 get to divvy up the other seven.
http://www.amazon.co...ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
It's at my local library, probably yours too!
|
