• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone willing to make a friendly wager?


As Technology increases the more you can do with less employees.

3. There were a myriad of factors that made the recession (2007) as bad as it was. Fear of facing Japan's problem with Deflation (and the habitual tendencies they believed it caused) was what lowered Interest Rates and made Subprime loans even more attractive to Borrowers (and of course, you have the principal-agent problem stepping in when it comes to a Loan Officer's commission on the original loan and subsequent refinancing as well as those CDSs)

And how was the problem fixed? Oh wait, another asset bubble.

4. Here, we disagree fundamentally. To say 'so companies outsourced' would bring up the question of: Why did they continue to outsource once Labour was weakened considerably?

Already answered. Because labor was cheaper overseas. As long as labor is cheaper then jobs will go oversees. Hence Unions failing to move into the 21st century. Unions still think locally and not globally.

America is always going to have an absolute /dis/advantage when it comes to labour cost, and we have an absolute advantage when it comes to capital cost. Frankly, I think that Labour needs to be stronger and SYSTEMICALLY (i.e. a fixed tax/portion structure) take a greater portion of profits to be re-distributed amongst the workers.

First off.. it's the US of America, as there are 2 other "Americas" (central and south). US won't have an absolutely disadvantage if unions thought globally. Instead of worrying about wages in the 1st world and raising them to the point of out-pricing themselves, they need to raise the wages in the 3rd world. Your solution still doesn't fix the problem rather it would make it worse and that 20th century thought process is what help cause the problem as you can't tax a company that moves overseas. So you have to raise wages in the 3rd world in which the comparative advantage would be neutral on labor and that's the 21st century solution to the problem.


This is where we can't really continue, you seem to view Labour more like a commodity. I view Labour as Humans, therefore I'm willing to make certain /economic/ concessions (which again I believe are still beneficial for society overall in an economic and non-economic sense) for a superior standard of living amongst the greater portion of Americans at the cost of the "Job Creators" (obviously, as you can likely tell by now, I don't consider them to be so)

Labor is a commodity. This is something in economics which is the foundation of all theories. You exchange your services for payment.
 
this might shock you, but I agree with that.

So the question is whether this is an inflation issue, or an income issue, or an income disparity issue.

I believe that it is an income disparity issue, because the real (inflation adjusted) GDP/worker has continued to increase, and the amount of real income that has been lost by the median income is roughly equal to what has been gained by those at the top. So we are producing more per worker, but yet the median worker, and the median family, is falling behind. Since real GDP/worker keeps increasing, the cause of the median worker falling behind inflation can't be inflation.

This is where we need strong enough redistributive mechanisms to combat this issue. So if during that time period, the median worker lost 4.3%, despite the fact that they produced X% more per worker, then we need enough additional redistribution to have allowed the median worker's income to keep pace with GDP/worker, so let's just say that X = 5.7% (totally made up number, but it makes the math easy), so during that 8 year time span, we would have needed 10% (loss of real income + gain in GDP/worker) additional redistribution, or about 1.25% per year (10%/8 years). It's not totally horrible, but extend this trend out over 100 years, it's a pretty dire projection for the typical American family. The amount of increase in redistributive forces is fairly small, maybe something like a 2% increase in taxation on the rich (which could be easily accomplished without actually raising the top income tax bracket rate), and a 2% reduction in the income tax rate on the bottom few income tax brackets.

I'll admit that I don't know the exact amount of increased redistribution needed to create an economy where all income classes (with the possible exception of those who have ZERO income from work) increase in real income at about the same rate. But it is a doable thing. Hey, some of us are getting tired of hearing about "class warfare", so let's kill that class warfare issue by allowing all income classes to win - at about the same rate. "A rising tide raises all boats, at the same rate."


Clearly, when the income of the bottom 90% peaks a little, the income of the top 1% drops about an equal amount. When the income of the top 1% peaks, the income of the bottom 90% drops about an equal amount. Back in the good ole days, the top 1% had about 10% of our income, while the bottom 90% acquired close to 70% of the national income. These days, the bottom 90% only have about about 50% of our income (and declining) while the top 10% acquire around 20% (and increasing).

Again, similar results. Which prove that inflation isn't the issue, we had inflation for most every year in these graphs. The issue is simply income disparity. If we want the middle class to be able to reclaim their income percentages of the mid 20th century, we are going to have to have redistribution comparable to what we had during the mid 20th century.

Already gave a walk through.

One has to understand the relationship between why there has been productivity increases in the US and how Fed policy (inflation) actually harms the middle and lower classes. Technology has overtaken demographics in the US. 50, 60 years ago the Fed could inflate and wait for wages to increase. Today, it can't as with the technology boom has led to massive productivity increases while driving down the costs of items (deflation). Any signs of deflation and the Fed gets spooked and allows inflation to rise. So instead of nominal and real wages catching up with the previous inflation and becoming equal again. The Fed allows inflation to rise again so wages never catch up. So what happens is those with access to the money first get profit and it never gets passed down like it did 50, 60 years ago.

If the Fed didn't spook at deflation every 2 seconds real wages would have increased, wages would be stable and prices would have fallen due to increase productivity and everybody in the middle class and poor class would have a higher living standard.
 
Seriously?

fredgraph.png

Seriously!

You just don't know how to do the calculations. You always multiply by one divided by the index, and then multiply by 100: [(1/gdpdef) * 100] * nominal gdp = real gdp. Just so we are clear....

Here we have nominal GDP, real GDP, and real GDP factored the way you did it (it's green)

fredgraph.png


If scaled to the left, your calculation is so close to zero it doesn't even show up! Because it looks like:

fredgraph.png


See the difference?

fredgraph.png


Now do you understand your errors?
 
As Technology increases the more you can do with less employees.

That's the whole Point.

As technology increases the RETURN ON CAPITAL INCREASES.

WHO OWNS THE CAPITAL?

THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION?

WHO DOES THE INCREASED WEALTH GET FUNNELED TO?

The answer for the above three questions is the Rich.

There needs to be a stabilizing mechanism, like an adjusted tax structure.

And how was the problem fixed? Oh wait, another asset bubble.

I don't even know what we're arguing about here frankly. Boom and busts are apart of the cycle.

Already answered. Because labor was cheaper overseas. As long as labor is cheaper then jobs will go oversees. Hence Unions failing to move into the 21st century. Unions still think locally and not globally.

So what's the point of dismantling Unions.

Even with completely dismantled Unions we'd have a drop in aggregate demand (not to mention fixed costs for labour, like Mortgage which would make the Borrower EVEN WORSE off let alone take an already larger portion of their incoming LEAVING LESS FOR CONSUMPTION.)

With or without unions we can't compete on a labour-to-labour level. We excel in industries more heavily based on Capital, like I said.

First off.. it's the US of America, as there are 2 other "Americas" (central and south). US won't have an absolutely disadvantage if unions thought globally. Instead of worrying about wages in the 1st world and raising them to the point of out-pricing themselves, they need to raise the wages in the 3rd world. Your solution still doesn't fix the problem rather it would make it worse and that 20th century thought process is what help cause the problem as you can't tax a company that moves overseas. So you have to raise wages in the 3rd world in which the comparative advantage would be neutral on labor and that's the 21st century solution to the problem.


Oh, you know your geography. +1.

The problem with the third world is simply an exacerbation of the problem here. THE RICH HAVE TOO MUCH POLITICAL POWER. THEY CAN BUY THE JOURNALS, THE THINK TANKS TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO SAY.

The omnipotent dollar.

And yes, we should raise the Wages in Third World Countries. I argee whole heartedly, we should raise them in 1st world countries too.

The wealthy have too much political power in most third world countries, it's very likely it won't happen.

The Neo-Conservative B.S. you're peddling is the same **** the IMF FORCES GOV'TS TO TAKE TO MAKE EXTERNAL DEBT PAYMENTS THEY CAN'T MEET THEMSELVES. (Frankly, they should do as Iceland did in the Crisis and Renig on these debts. Lord knows they have far better legal reasons to do so.) It's similar non-sense that caused the IMF Crisis of South Korea and the foolishly jacked up High Interest rates (like the Depression) for overall Asian mandate (or rather heavily advised) by the IMF and other Global Lenders (Malaysia being a large exception, like the Russians they froze their credit markets) for the 90s Asian Financial Crisis (another example of the caprices and failures of the laize-fair (wanna correct my spelling, it'll be a really substantially point you'll make if you do!) capitalism, including the foolish euphoria that led to a heightened boom. People were investing SIMPLY BECAUSE THE RETURNS WERE GOOD. There were also other institutional errors like the Bangkok International Bank, but that's not really the point though it did originate the Crisis) and the 2001 Malawi Famine (despite above average rainfall, when the IMF clearly stated rainfall numbers were well below average)


Labor is a commodity. This is something in economics which is the foundation of all theories. You exchange your services for payment.

Like I said before. I think the current Economic profession is lacking and we have a fundamental disagreement I do not see us breaching.
 
Last edited:
That's the whole Point.
As technology increases the RETURN ON CAPITAL INCREASES.
WHO OWNS THE CAPITAL?
THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION?
WHO DOES THE INCREASED WEALTH GET FUNNELED TO?
The answer for the above three questions is the Rich.
There needs to be a stabilizing mechanism, like an adjusted tax structure.

Absolutely right, Return of Capital increases but so does Leisure Time for the individual (worker).This is very important because it means people are working less hours for their earnings. Basically Leisure time has increased by 4-8 hours a week for someone working 40 hours. That's roughly 5 to 10 weeks of extra time people didn't have before. So it's trade off. Leisure Time.

Capital, in the US, is owned by the Federal Reserve. All US dollars have a few key words at the top of them.. "Federal Reserve Note". All Notes issued are loans (debts) to the economy that has to be paid back with interest.

Means of production is not the issue here.

Wealth is actually funneled in how the pyramid in issuing of money is given. At the top is the Fed, since it's the issuer. It's a massive scam. The Fed and it's partners do very well for themselves. Very simply there is a total of $55 trillion in debt the US has because of this system (that's Federal Government, State, Local and personal debt). The collection on interest alone at 3% over one year is $1.65 trillion. Of that members of the Fed get 6% interest for being members. So it's in the interest of every member to keep this system going as the more debt issued the bigger return they get. It's why I believe the Fed has to go. Why I don't like Keynesian, Post-Keynesian and MMT with a passion as all they do is keep that system going.


I don't even know what we're arguing about here frankly. Boom and busts are apart of the cycle.

and it shouldn't be.



So what's the point of dismantling Unions.

Unions haven't been dismantled. In fact while private membership has gone down, public (Government) membership has gone up. But I am not talking about dismantling Unions, that's your figment of your imagination.

Even with completely dismantled Unions we'd have a drop in aggregate demand (not to mention fixed costs for labour, like Mortgage which would make the Borrower EVEN WORSE off let alone take an already larger portion of their incoming LEAVING LESS FOR CONSUMPTION.)

This is not true. Has aggregate demand dropped over the last 30 years? Absolutely not. Rather it's increased despite the decline in "dismantling" you say that is happening. There is a fixed wages that will always be paid. That's minimum wage. I have no problem hiking minimum wage and then tying it to CPI if unions went away if you or any economist can show aggregate demand has suffered directly to it. So this point of yours is moot.


With or without unions we can't compete on a labour-to-labour level. We excel in industries more heavily based on Capital, like I said.

Let me walk you through this one more time. Income rates per GNI. Every country in dark red is "1st world", every country not dark red is "2nd and 3rd" world. Raising the wages in those countries to all 1st world would create a more comparative advantage. It would also bring the capital advantage the 1st world has into equilibrium. Basically, it would be a neutral ground. So there would be no "advantage" but rather National economies built upon needs of the country and real expertise, not based on how much capital one can suck out of 3rd world economies.

Unions should be organizing workers and striking countries in which every US company and European company sends their manufacturing to. There should be no reason for Unions to bitch and moan about US and European labor decline when they aren't in China, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia and other places fighting for wage increases for workers who get a mere $3 to $5 dollars per hour when the US and European worker get 3 to 4 times that.


The problem with the third world is simply an exacerbation of the problem here. THE RICH HAVE TOO MUCH POLITICAL POWER. THEY CAN BUY THE JOURNALS, THE THINK TANKS TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO SAY.

Why is that? Unions don't have money and power? Oh wait they don't organize in those countries because they now prefer highbrow discussions and toss union dues to political ads.




And yes, we should raise the Wages in Third World Countries. I argee whole heartedly, we should raise them in 1st world countries too.

The wealthy have too much political power in most third world countries, it's very likely it won't happen.

Then do it and stop bitching. You can only raise the wages in the 1st world when the wages in the 3rd world catch up. Or you end up with the same situation all over again. Think of it this way.. you need the horse before you can pull the cart. 1st world is roughly about 1 billion people. 2nd and 3rd world is 6 billion. Raising who's wages first has the biggest positive?

You think the wealthy in the 1900s and early 20th century didn't have tonnes of political power in Europe and the US? Some how that didn't prevent unions then.. why does it now?

The Neo-Conservative B.S. you're peddling is the same **** the IMF FORCES GOV'TS TO TAKE TO MAKE EXTERNAL DEBT PAYMENTS THEY CAN'T MEET THEMSELVES. (Frankly, they should do as Iceland did in the Crisis and Renig on these debts. Lord knows they have far better legal reasons to do so.)

I am not peddling any Neo-Conservative B.S. (you might want to actually look up what they argue for). I total agree with you that they should renig like Iceland did. Also argued many a times for the "PIIGS" to leave the Euro.

It's similar non-sense that caused the IMF Crisis of South Korea and the foolishly jacked up High Interest rates (like the Depression) for overall Asian mandate (or rather heavily advised) by the IMF and other Global Lenders (Malaysia being a large exception, like the Russians they froze their credit markets) for the 90s Asian Financial Crisis (another example of the caprices and failures of the laize-fair (wanna correct my spelling, it'll be a really substantially point you'll make if you do!) capitalism, including the foolish euphoria that led to a heightened boom. People were investing SIMPLY BECAUSE THE RETURNS WERE GOOD. There were also other institutional errors like the Bangkok International Bank, but that's not really the point though it did originate the Crisis) and the 2001 Malawi Famine (despite above average rainfall, when the IMF clearly stated rainfall numbers were well below average)

And ironically, I agree with you as well. I find the IMF to be the one of the banes of the world. Personally, I would have no problem if IMF went away and the $2.5 or so trillion in debt just "disappeared".



Like I said before. I think the current Economic profession is lacking and we have a fundamental disagreement I do not see us breaching.

I think it's down to 20th century thought vs 21st century thought.
 
"Absolutely right, Return of Capital increases but so does Leisure Time for the individual (worker).This is very important because it means people are working less hours for their earnings. Basically Leisure time has increased by 4-8 hours a week for someone working 40 hours. That's roughly 5 to 10 weeks of extra time people didn't have before. So it's trade off. Leisure Time.

Capital, in the US, is owned by the Federal Reserve. All US dollars have a few key words at the top of them.. "Federal Reserve Note". All Notes issued are loans (debts) to the economy that has to be paid back with interest.

Means of production is not the issue here.

Wealth is actually funneled in how the pyramid in issuing of money is given. At the top is the Fed, since it's the issuer. It's a massive scam. The Fed and it's partners do very well for themselves. Very simply there is a total of $55 trillion in debt the US has because of this system (that's Federal Government, State, Local and personal debt). The collection on interest alone at 3% over one year is $1.65 trillion. Of that members of the Fed get 6% interest for being members. So it's in the interest of every member to keep this system going as the more debt issued the bigger return they get. It's why I believe the Fed has to go. Why I don't like Keynesian, Post-Keynesian and MMT with a passion as all they do is keep that system going."

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.

Now.

"Absolutely right, Return of Capital increases but so does Leisure Time for the individual (worker).This is very important because it means people are working less hours for their earnings. Basically Leisure time has increased by 4-8 hours a week for someone working 40 hours. That's roughly 5 to 10 weeks of extra time people didn't have before. So it's trade off. Leisure Time."

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.

"Means of production is not the issue here."

But it is the central issue in my perspective.

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).

What IS capital?

It's more than money. So, where did you go off on?

I meant the Capital improving Industrial Productivity.

Yes, that is, in a sense money, but in the more real, technical sense it's the Equipment.

So, WHO gets ALL of the bonus from the extra productivity of the Equipment? The Rich.

So, WHO gets ALL of the bonus from the extra productivity of the Labour? The Poor/Middle.

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.

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.


"and it shouldn't be."

I'm just going to say: corrections will always need to be made. No system will ever be perfect. And in an economic arena mistakes lead to 'big kabuluhis'

If we disagree, we disagree this argument has no substance for the rest of what we're talking about.

"Unions haven't been dismantled. In fact while private membership has gone down, public (Government) membership has gone up. But I am not talking about dismantling Unions, that's your figment of your imagination."

Yes, it was a figment of my imagination. It seemed you were heading there from my seat.

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.


"This is not true. Has aggregate demand dropped over the last 30 years? Absolutely not. Rather it's increased despite the decline in "dismantling" you say that is happening. There is a fixed wages that will always be paid. That's minimum wage. I have no problem hiking minimum wage and then tying it to CPI if unions went away if you or any economist can show aggregate demand has suffered directly to it. So this point of yours is moot."

Aggregate demand dropped? I don't believe so.

Portion of goods purchased on credit? Yes.

Did population increase? Yes.


"Let me walk you through this one more time. Income rates per GNI. Every country in dark red is "1st world", every country not dark red is "2nd and 3rd" world. Raising the wages in those countries to all 1st world would create a more comparative advantage. It would also bring the capital advantage the 1st world has into equilibrium. Basically, it would be a neutral ground. So there would be no "advantage" but rather National economies built upon needs of the country and real expertise, not based on how much capital one can suck out of 3rd world economies.

Unions should be organizing workers and striking countries in which every US company and European company sends their manufacturing to. There should be no reason for Unions to bitch and moan about US and European labor decline when they aren't in China, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia and other places fighting for wage increases for workers who get a mere $3 to $5 dollars per hour when the US and European worker get 3 to 4 times that."

Basically: Let's all go back to the gold-backed system.

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.


"Why is that? Unions don't have money and power? Oh wait they don't organize in those countries because they now prefer highbrow discussions and toss union dues to political ads."

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.

"Then do it and stop bitching"

Lol.

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)

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.

What? I don't even get the point you're trying to make

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.


---

(I'm going to stop at Neo-Conservative B.S., since we agree at those points below)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
1) 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.

-----

1) First off, if everything in the Economic study had to do with Politics, there would be much more focus on how Capitalism inherently funnels economic power and political power to the top.

I mean, we can go back to the High Middle Ages when Italian Merchants (and eventually Frenchmen, Marchad) began to position there family, once they achieved power, into positions of noble status, public office and (most importantly for the time) Church 'office'.

Whether this is on purpose in the hopes of suppressing knowledge I TEND TO BELIEVE, but I cannot prove it therefore it the way the system is, simply by evidence, with our current structure.

As for the APPOINTMENT of the Federal Reserve BOARD, IIRC either 6 or 9 of the 12 national seats HAVE TO BE PRIVATE BANKERS. Aka, The Banking Industry has forced it way into the politics of the Monetary Structure threw lobbying. It's just an example, and even with this example that is negative to my point of *RELATIVE* A-POLITICSM, I give it to you because well... I like the Fed. I know they've made mistakes, and I don't think any of them qualify for its dismantlement. You're not going to budge me from this, like I will be unable to budge you from your point of view so let's let it go.

2) Assuming I didn't know what Leisure time is

-----

Well, okay?

3) "Means of Production is machinery, tools and factories... Those fixes add value at the end of the production, so Joe somebody owns that production and will realize that value."

----

And as Capital (and its Means of Production) continues to increase in its percentage of cost and profit Joe (A.K.A. Joe that owns multi-corp) will continue to realize more profit, based on percentage and less will be derived from and given to the workers.

Thanks for proving my point in your own words.

As for the rest of what you said, I fundamentally disagree and will thus not claim 'victory' or 'defeat' but I will merely ignore this. Because, well, we can go on a long long way before I prove it to you. I've seen it before, a thousand times and I just don't have the energy for it.

4) "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."

---

Again, more pedantry to defend yourself. You know, very well what I meant.

5) 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.

-----

Right, right.

So the more DEPEDENT profits are ON CAPITAL, THE LESS IMPORTANT LABOUR IS. AND THE MORE PROFITS FUNNEL TO THOSE THAT HAVE CAPITAL.

See? Do you fundamentally see what I'm getting at? I've spelt it out for you god knows how many times already.

One more try, last one:

A Business has two Workers:
1 is the Owner
The Second is... Ralph.

1 Purchased some Machine to make a thousand credit cards and then subcontracts the remainder of the credit card production cycle to another Business (therefore we don't have to deal with all the different departments of a specific credit card factory)
1 Purchased the Material for the Machine and Ralph to Use.

The Machine can produce 1,000 Credit Cards each subcontractable at a Competitive rate of.... 2$, with only 8 man hours of operation.

So the Firm Produces in One Day:
1,000 Credit Cards * 2$.

Thus 1 acquires 2,000$.

1 Pays Ralph a competitive rate of 20$ an hour.

Ralph makes 160$ but 1 pockets 1,840.

THIS IS A SIMPLIFICATION, so please, no pedantry.

Do you see what point I'm trying to make? Do you get it? (Obviously I excluded the cost since It'd be a needless calculation, I want you to see the underlying Cash Flow [since you seem to have a mild penchant for Accounting] and where it would tend to funnel towards)

6) "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. "

----

See above.

7) "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."

That's not a split. Again. See above.

8) "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. "

----

Are those jobs will continued to be Outsources to the PRIMARY GLOBAL OUTSOURCER:
MORE EFFICIENT MACHINES (I.E. CAPITAL)

9) Something about raising wages in 3rd World Countries again and then Practicability being invoked

----

Too much political power in the wrong hands in most 3rd world countries. Often supported by the established Superpower (America)

10) "So you had no point." -Aggregate Demand

"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."

"Yep, it did.. but it doesn't mean it caused Aggregate Demand to increase." - Population

----

10a, I forgot why we were arguing but I'm sure I didn't have any point that was important taken out. Besides, the whole reason I said Aggregate Demand fell was in a theoretical No-Union world.

And, you should know this for personal edification, higher GDP growth does not at all mean any or even much of that benefit is trickling down.

10b, God I'm starting to get tired. But, the Credit Card companies that essentially offer usury rates are completely innocent, obviously.

10c, Yerp, but makes it more likely. Kind of like working out makes it more likely for you to have a higher muscle mass.

11) "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."

----

Nope. I already told you.

Completely adjusted tax structure.

BECAUSE INFLATION HAS TO DO WITH MORE MONEY CHASING THE SAME OR ROUGHLY SAME QUANTITY OF GOODS.

A structural tax reform would STRUCTURALLY, BY PERCENTAGE, NOT BY ABSOLUTE MONEY, adjust the spending habits of the entire nation because THAT MONEY CAN BE COUNTED ON TO BE TAXED AND REDISTRBUTED IN THAT MANNER FOR DECADES, because IT IS a rigid fiscal law. I don't feel like explaining it to you because I feel like you're going to deflect in a hundred different ways that's eventually going to wear me down from basically repeating myself which is working VERY WELL right now.

12) "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."

Perfect Analogy.

A Battle.

And the Rich are winning.

13) "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."

----

Well I meant smaller 3rd world countries that are actually 3rd world countries. But anyways, it's not a fallacy to base a significant portion of their advantage being in wage.

And a significant disadvantage being in Capital.

So even if they can compete globally, they now have to face their cheaper Labour versus far more productive capital.

They're losing globally as well.

Look up which has destroyed more jobs: Outsourcing or Mechanization, please.

14) "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."

There's not enough political power for change in China and India.

The Indian administration has the benefit of the American backing which protects their national image, same with Philiphines and many other less developed but US friendly nations.

As for China, they apply a more liberal, and effective, use of the rifle than the Americans did (and again they have a greater political will to do so. They've already murdered like what, 100,000,000 people? That wouldn't be including the former laws against excessive child bearing which are now causing their own demographic crisis) (which was to a relative slight extent. Focus on the word relative, god for once please, because I know about the Miners getting shot and the Strikers getting shot, and the black Strikes getting broken up by police)
 
Last edited:
1) 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.

-----

1) First off, if everything in the Economic study had to do with Politics, there would be much more focus on how Capitalism inherently funnels economic power and political power to the top.

I mean, we can go back to the High Middle Ages when Italian Merchants (and eventually Frenchmen, Marchad) began to position there family, once they achieved power, into positions of noble status, public office and (most importantly for the time) Church 'office'.

Whether this is on purpose in the hopes of suppressing knowledge I TEND TO BELIEVE, but I cannot prove it therefore it the way the system is, simply by evidence, with our current structure.

As for the APPOINTMENT of the Federal Reserve BOARD, IIRC either 6 or 9 of the 12 national seats HAVE TO BE PRIVATE BANKERS. Aka, The Banking Industry has forced it way into the politics of the Monetary Structure threw lobbying. It's just an example, and even with this example that is negative to my point of *RELATIVE* A-POLITICSM, I give it to you because well... I like the Fed. I know they've made mistakes, and I don't think any of them qualify for its dismantlement. You're not going to budge me from this, like I will be unable to budge you from your point of view so let's let it go.

2) Assuming I didn't know what Leisure time is

-----

Well, okay?

3) "Means of Production is machinery, tools and factories... Those fixes add value at the end of the production, so Joe somebody owns that production and will realize that value."

----

And as Capital (and its Means of Production) continues to increase in its percentage of cost and profit Joe (A.K.A. Joe that owns multi-corp) will continue to realize more profit, based on percentage and less will be derived from and given to the workers.

Thanks for proving my point in your own words.

As for the rest of what you said, I fundamentally disagree and will thus not claim 'victory' or 'defeat' but I will merely ignore this. Because, well, we can go on a long long way before I prove it to you. I've seen it before, a thousand times and I just don't have the energy for it.

4) "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."

---

Again, more pedantry to defend yourself. You know, very well what I meant.

5) 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.

-----

Right, right.

So the more DEPEDENT profits are ON CAPITAL, THE LESS IMPORTANT LABOUR IS. AND THE MORE PROFITS FUNNEL TO THOSE THAT HAVE CAPITAL.

See? Do you fundamentally see what I'm getting at? I've spelt it out for you god knows how many times already.

One more try, last one:

A Business has two Workers:
1 is the Owner
The Second is... Ralph.

1 Purchased some Machine to make a thousand credit cards and then subcontracts the remainder of the credit card production cycle to another Business (therefore we don't have to deal with all the different departments of a specific credit card factory)
1 Purchased the Material for the Machine and Ralph to Use.

The Machine can produce 1,000 Credit Cards each subcontractable at a Competitive rate of.... 2$, with only 8 man hours of operation.

So the Firm Produces in One Day:
1,000 Credit Cards * 2$.

Thus 1 acquires 2,000$.

1 Pays Ralph a competitive rate of 20$ an hour.

Ralph makes 160$ but 1 pockets 1,840.

THIS IS A SIMPLIFICATION, so please, no pedantry.

Do you see what point I'm trying to make? Do you get it? (Obviously I excluded the cost since It'd be a needless calculation, I want you to see the underlying Cash Flow [since you seem to have a mild penchant for Accounting] and where it would tend to funnel towards)

6) "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. "

----

See above.

7) "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."

That's not a split. Again. See above.

8) "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. "

----

Are those jobs will continued to be Outsources to the PRIMARY GLOBAL OUTSOURCER:
MORE EFFICIENT MACHINES (I.E. CAPITAL)

9) Something about raising wages in 3rd World Countries again and then Practicability being invoked

----

Too much political power in the wrong hands in most 3rd world countries. Often supported by the established Superpower (America)

10) "So you had no point." -Aggregate Demand

"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."

"Yep, it did.. but it doesn't mean it caused Aggregate Demand to increase." - Population

----

10a, I forgot why we were arguing but I'm sure I didn't have any point that was important taken out. Besides, the whole reason I said Aggregate Demand fell was in a theoretical No-Union world.

And, you should know this for personal edification, higher GDP growth does not at all mean any or even much of that benefit is trickling down.

10b, God I'm starting to get tired. But, the Credit Card companies that essentially offer usury rates are completely innocent, obviously.

10c, Yerp, but makes it more likely. Kind of like working out makes it more likely for you to have a higher muscle mass.

11) "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."

----

Nope. I already told you.

Completely adjusted tax structure.

BECAUSE INFLATION HAS TO DO WITH MORE MONEY CHASING THE SAME OR ROUGHLY SAME QUANTITY OF GOODS.

A structural tax reform would STRUCTURALLY, BY PERCENTAGE, NOT BY ABSOLUTE MONEY, adjust the spending habits of the entire nation because THAT MONEY CAN BE COUNTED ON TO BE TAXED AND REDISTRBUTED IN THAT MANNER FOR DECADES, because IT IS a rigid fiscal law. I don't feel like explaining it to you because I feel like you're going to deflect in a hundred different ways that's eventually going to wear me down from basically repeating myself which is working VERY WELL right now.

12) "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."

Perfect Analogy.

A Battle.

And the Rich are winning.

13) "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."

----

Well I meant smaller 3rd world countries that are actually 3rd world countries. But anyways, it's not a fallacy to base a significant portion of their advantage being in wage.

And a significant disadvantage being in Capital.

So even if they can compete globally, they now have to face their cheaper Labour versus far more productive capital.

They're losing globally as well.

Look up which has destroyed more jobs: Outsourcing or Mechanization, please.

14) "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."

There's not enough political power for change in China and India.

The Indian administration has the benefit of the American backing which protects their national image, same with Philiphines and many other less developed but US friendly nations.

As for China, they apply a more liberal, and effective, use of the rifle than the Americans did (and again they have a greater political will to do so. They've already murdered like what, 100,000,000 people? That wouldn't be including the former laws against excessive child bearing which are now causing their own demographic crisis) (which was to a relative slight extent. Focus on the word relative, god for once please, because I know about the Miners getting shot and the Strikers getting shot, and the black Strikes getting broken up by police)

Quote properly or I won't know what to respond too.
 
Back
Top Bottom