Let's get the last bit of writing out of the way: I support the Federal Reserve less-political (i.e. long term Chairman appointment) institution being in charge of our monetary policy. Have they ever made a mistake? Yes. Has a president ever made a mistake? Well, let's not go tearing down the whole Presidential system.
How is it less political if the appointment process political? You have 100 senators who know as much about monetary policy as they do in flipping hamburgers. Only 20% of Congress has some degree relating to Accounting, Business or Economics. And you expect these people to pick the next Fed chairman without politics involved? There is a reason why economics is also considered the study of political economy as everything is political in economics.
Also a false analogy, a President can be impeached by Congress. On the other hand Congress can't impeach members of the most powerful organization in the world. Btw, Alan Greenspan sat at the Fed for a long time without much question from the economically ignorant Senate and we saw how well that worked out.
I don't get it?
I worked 40 hours before, so now that I work 40 hours today I can have 4-8 hours extra a week of leisure time? Did you forget a sentence or word? I don't understand, frankly it was probably just a typing error.
Yes, there is work you get paid for, your 40 hours, then the work you do at home (unpaid). The advancements in technology has decreased the amount of work you do at home. Affording you increased leisure time that you didn't have before.
Leisure Time, Also with your paid work hours, what you work now is on avg 1.7 hours less then it was in the early 1990s as the avg work week was 40.9 hours, and today it's 39.2.. With Obamacare coming online, some workers will gain more hours in leisure time since 30 hours is the mandated "full time" under Obamacare. The challenge and unknown fact is if the 30 hours is going to make the salary of 40 hours. 2
But it is the central issue in my perspective.
And your perspective is short sighted.
The Means of Production are the 1% & company. They own the currency (I mean the bank account, for christ's sake we both know I don't care that a piece of paper says "Federal Reserve Note" on it).
Absolutely a short sight and ill-informed understanding. Means of Production is
machinery, tools and factories. That's anything from a screwdriver to a dump truck. If you fix up your own house (paint the walls, fix the deck, fix wiring, and so on), you own the means of that production and millions do these things all the time. Those fixes add value at the end of the production, so Joe somebody owns that production and will realize that value. He didn't need a company to do that. All he needed was his two hands and tools and material he bought for $300 and turned that into a profit. So this 1% mumbo jumbo is just that. It's BS.
Buddha, that currency in that bank account they have is a Federal Reserve Note. It has no real value as it's a fiat currency and you better care as that's what wages are paid in. But it's perceived value comes from laws that mandate it be used and that it's the only major currency you can buy Oil in from OPEC. It's why it's also known as a Petrodollar.
Once the US dollar loses that Petrodollar status, game is over. To prevent this the US is always heavily involved in the Middle East. Iraq changed it's Oil for Food Program from dollars to euros in 2000, US invaded in 2003, first thing changed in Iraq after the invasion was "over", US converted all sales back to US dollars. Libya and Gaddafi proposed the Gold Dinar for Africa which would be used in the sale of Africa Oil, we know what happen to Gaddafi and that plan (Libya's new government created a central bank which handles it's oil sales in dollars). Syria and Iran both sell Oil in currencies that aren't the US dollar and we know the position of the US Government on them. China and Russia have an oil deal now where the Yuan is going to be currency of the deal.
With these facts and problems it's down right asinine to equate having dollars in your bank account as "wealth" as it has no value. Now if you wanna argue assets, sure, but those aren't in a bank account.
What IS capital?
It's more than money. So, where did you go off on?
I meant the Capital improving Industrial Productivity.
Capital is falls into 3 smaller groups, Human (2 subset of Instructional and Social), Financial, and Public. So let's not broadly say Capital because you'll run into some issues.
Yes, that is, in a sense money, but in the more real, technical sense it's the Equipment.
Capital is a produced thing that can enhances a person's power to perform economically useful work. That's all it is. We as Humans all have capital. The equipment is useless without Human Capital.
So, WHO gets ALL of the bonus from the extra productivity of the Equipment? The Rich.
Wrong, While it cuts costs for Companies, the use of the equipment still requires being used by Human Capital. But it decreases the cost of the production which allows the labor to afford the product produced. So it really is a split of the bonus.
So, WHO gets ALL of the bonus from the extra productivity of the Labour? The Poor/Middle.
And that's the split. Without equipment poor and middle class couldn't afford that product. Imagine a world with no assembly line, do you think you'd be able to afford a car? Of course not because you aren't driving a Lotus, Ferrari or whatever hand made car you want.
In this new age, Labour once increased productivity threw simple organizational re-arrangements. That will not be happening in the future, or if it does, to an immensely marginal extent.
What is this suppose to mean? Reading from some socialist blog that threw some words together and it sounded good to you to repeat?
Therefore, there needs to be an all together structural shift. I thought I said and answered that when I went on the rant of Means of Production, w/e, the 3 line question thing. Guess not, my fault.
A structural shift is already happening and always happen. Globalization is the newer of the structural shifts you choose to ignore and the west is starting to enter the mass-retirement era. For the US that's roughly 70 million who will be leaving the workforce, which will leave a massive amount of available jobs yet a smaller labor force. This leads to higher wage offers to fill those spots.
Yes, it was a figment of my imagination. It seemed you were heading there from my seat.
Don't jump to conclusions.
And okay? I care a bit more about private sector unions then government unions, but I didn't say that so yes: My focus was on the loss of union membership in the more dynamic and higher employment industries that make up the Private Sector.
Which leads me back to my point. Those private sector union jobs are being shipped overseas. Shouldn't unions be trying to raise the wages in those countries those jobs are being sent to? Just as a matter of principle and one of practicality.
Aggregate demand dropped? I don't believe so.
So you had no point.
Portion of goods purchased on credit? Yes.
And what does a credit expansion fuel? Booms followed by a bust. Who allows credit expansion? Government and the Fed which goes back to original point.
Did population increase? Yes.
Yep, it did.. but it doesn't mean it caused Aggregate Demand to increase.
Basically: Let's all go back to the gold-backed system.
Assumption again.
As well as ignoring underlying issues I've already stated like Property Value which is based on the Demand for that Land derived from Employment Opportunities, Education, Safety and a myriad of other factors that would continue to lead to less costly labor abroad.
And how do you fix that problem? Increase wages, but where? You can't demand that increase in the 1st world because it would lead to the same problem because inflation would be included. So the only option is to increase wages outside of the 1st world. To raise their living standards. If you fail to do this, you fail all together.
First of all its about relativity of Financial sector contributions verus (as you admitted) public sector union contributions (and to a lesser degree private)
Then you have the buying off of union reps as another form of political investment for larger industry trusts.
Again, it's the same problem as the early 20th century. Did it stop progress in the 1st world? Absolutely not. But now you are cry foul of it? Maybe you should take the time and read up on the labor movement. It's also been a battle of money vs money. It's who has the resolve that wins. You can't tell me it can't be done.
Raise 3rd World Wages to erode their own comparative advantage. (And in the way your describing, which is very vague and thus, could be alot of different things, that would just be a tie to the minimum wage indexed. Which is not what I'm for, I'm for an adjusted tax structure altogether)
The 3rd world has it's own comparative advantages outside of wages. You are excusing exploiting due to a fallacy that it's wages which is the comparative advantage. Every 3rd world country as the develop will have to increase their wages no matter what. It's a natural cycle. But places like China, India, Vietnam, Korea, and Indonesia aren't 3rd world but rather 2nd world who have failed to make the jump to 1st world due to mobility.
India has it's niche. China has it's.. and so on. Germany has it's niche, UK has it's. Their wages aren't destroying their comparative advantage.
They did try "and stop bitching", it led to: Long (USA-backed) bloody civil wars and very little reform outside of Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Cuba.
And I don't condone US involvement in any countries problems. So this is an argument that falls on deaf ears.
19th and 20th century are completely different from the 21st in this regard. There were abuses. They were fixed, after a large amount of time and public upheaval because they were SO egregious. So obvious. They couldn't be hidden. They've learned to hide them. The current abuses are far more underhanded. I could give you the vaunted Costa Rica as an example (and that was in the 20th century), but I fear it'd just be a waste of time.
So abuses in China, India and so on are so hidden.. we never hear about them and aren't really abuses? Come on.. sell the bs elsewhere. 2nd and 3rd world labor laws and wages are stuck in the 19th and 20th century and you are arguing it's different.. 1st world labor issues are 21st century and they are caused by failure to address the issues in the 2nd and 3rd world.