Criticism of billionairism

[JohnfrmClevelan]

There's no short term correlation, but over long time periods there certainly is.

Short term fluctuations are dictated more by demand, and that can be seen in the dollar index.

Over a long period of time, you can find the same kind of "correlations" between lots of stuff - population rises slowly over time, too. Lots of stuff does. That doesn't mean that money causes inflation any more than it means an increasing population causes inflation.

The economy grows; it only makes sense that more money is needed over time.

 

[phattonez]

Over a long period of time, you can find the same kind of "correlations" between lots of stuff - population rises slowly over time, too. Lots of stuff does. That doesn't mean that money causes inflation any more than it means an increasing population causes inflation.

The economy grows; it only makes sense that more money is needed over time.

I think you miss my point. I'm not saying that any increase in money is going to cause prices to rise, or that any increase in supply will be catastrophic. I'm just saying that there is a correlation between supply and prices, but it has to be considered with other factors, especially growth and demand. But yes, supply is certainly one of those factors. Doubling the money supply over night will cause prices to rise. Over 20 years? Probably a negligible effect.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[tosca1]

We have a highly educated, highly skilled workforce. If we didn't allow other countries to dump their products here we'd still be wealthy and we'd have higher wages.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Allowing countries to dump products in the USA isn't the only problem. It's part of the problem.
I don't doubt that you've got highly skilled and educated workers.........but if there are no jobs, what good would being highly skilled be?

 

[phattonez]

Allowing countries to dump products in the USA isn't the only problem. It's part of the problem.
I don't doubt that you've got highly skilled and educated workers.........but if there are no jobs, what good would being highly skilled be?

Why would there be no jobs here?

 

[tosca1]

Why would there be no jobs here?

Do I mean there's zero jobs???? Of course not!

Why was unemployment high if there were jobs? Were they all just lazy?

 

[phattonez]

Do I mean there's zero jobs???? Of course not!

Why was unemployment high if there were jobs? Were they all just lazy?

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

 

[tosca1]

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

You don't???

Then why the heck are we talking about businesses and job creation, and businesses going out of the country.....if you don't even know what I'm talking about when I said you had a high unemployment rate....because companies were going overseas! :lol:

heck, isn't bringing back businesses one of the platform of Trump? Creating incentives (and making an offer they can't refuse), for them to come back? :mrgreen:

 

[Individual]

I don't know how often I can make this point. Wages aren't rising and they're lower than they were in the 70s.

You can read what you want into your chart. In the early 1970's, the Intel 8008 chip resulted in a large number of high paying job opportunities, and the Intel 8080 chip along with Motorola 6502 only added more. Then came Atari, Commodore and more businesses creating many high paying job opportunities as most of the assembly was initially done by hand, and people wanted accessories too.
And like most jobs which require skills, automation comes about, making the products much less expensive and reducing the number of high skilled workers needed, and/or moving production to where costs could be cut even greater.
Wages haven't reduced, the number of workers earning them has.

It does matter. The maintenance on the debt is a real expense, and it's entirely pointless. We don't need to be paying it.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

If you owe no debt, you pay no interest. Increasing the recorded/printed amount of a fiat currency devalues the currency as it enters the market. A lender would be foolish to lend if the repayment of the loan didn't result in offsetting the inflation over the period of the loan repayment.

 

[charliebrown]

You could have a billionaire who created numerous employees millionaires over an extended period of time and you can have billionaires that have exploited human beings over an extended period of time. We need a much better news sources calling out the demons and praising the angels. We should not be lumping all billionaires into a single basket. That would be prejudice.

 

[Individual]

You could have a billionaire who created numerous employees millionaires over an extended period of time and you can have billionaires that have exploited human beings over an extended period of time. We need a much better news sources calling out the demons and praising the angels. We should not be lumping all billionaires into a single basket. That would be prejudice.

It would appear there are two baskets, one for those who appear republicans and another for those who appear democrats.

 

[phattonez]

You can read what you want into your chart. In the early 1970's, the Intel 8008 chip resulted in a large number of high paying job opportunities, and the Intel 8080 chip along with Motorola 6502 only added more. Then came Atari, Commodore and more businesses creating many high paying job opportunities as most of the assembly was initially done by hand, and people wanted accessories too.
And like most jobs which require skills, automation comes about, making the products much less expensive and reducing the number of high skilled workers needed, and/or moving production to where costs could be cut even greater.
Wages haven't reduced, the number of workers earning them has.

This makes no sense. If the necessary result of automation is that our economy can produce more but most everyone is poorer, then why should most everyone support it?

If you owe no debt, you pay no interest. Increasing the recorded/printed amount of a fiat currency devalues the currency as it enters the market. A lender would be foolish to lend if the repayment of the loan didn't result in offsetting the inflation over the period of the loan repayment.

And if I own a printing press, then why do I need any debt at all?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

You could have a billionaire who created numerous employees millionaires over an extended period of time and you can have billionaires that have exploited human beings over an extended period of time. We need a much better news sources calling out the demons and praising the angels. We should not be lumping all billionaires into a single basket. That would be prejudice.

I can get behind this as a concept. Wealth in itself isn't the evil. It's greed and the desire to get ahead by keeping others down that's evil.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Individual]

This makes no sense. If the necessary result of automation is that our economy can produce more but most everyone is poorer, then why should most everyone support it?

It would be pointless to respond to a premise I don't agree with.

And if I own a printing press, then why do I need any debt at all?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Feel free, go ahead and print yourself a few billion dollars.

 

[phattonez]

It would be pointless to respond to a premise I don't agree with.

Yet that's our economic reality. We have increased production but lower incomes. So why should anyone support this economic setup?

Feel free, go ahead and print yourself a few billion dollars.

It would be pointless to respond to a premise I don't agree with.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Individual]

Yet that's our economic reality. We have increased production but lower incomes. So why should anyone support this economic setup?

Take a step back and look at reality.
We do have increased production, not as a result of human labour, but as a result of human ingenuity.
Prior to 1913, when money was gold and silver, our money supply was the result of human labour and its value remained relatively constant.
Paper money has been used on occasion many times in the past, but quickly became unredeemable at face value in real money, gold or silver, much like all the things we spend our money on today.
Could we return to gold as a currency? Obviously no, there simply isn't enough gold and if what exists were to be distributed equally around the world it would amount to less than an ounce per person.
So we're pretty much confined to a fiat currency.
And ask yourself, what is it that effects the price of things when you know that government will always take action to put an end to deflation?

It would be pointless to respond to a premise I don't agree with.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

And if I own a printing press, then why do I need any debt at all?

Then be more careful when you post.

 

[Conaeolos]

I don't know how often I can make this point. Wages aren't rising and they're lower than they were in the 70s.

Should they be? Or is it equivalent pay for equivalent work?

We visited this a little in another thread, but I thought here might be a better place to discuss it.

Your chart take from a particular sub-section:
"Number of males 15+ with wage and salary income"

Charts that still show the year to year increases use:
"Number of males 15+ with earnings"

Here is an interesting insight, both of these subsections have gone down year to year as a percentage of males:

"Number of males with wage and salary income"
74% in 1967 to 64% 2017.

"Number of males with earnings"
80% in 1967 to 70% 2017.

The all inclusive group that has stay consistent all that time at 90%:
"Number of males 15+ with income"

Those in the category, wage and salaried earnings, have stayed relatively consistent in terms of median since 1970, because jobs of this nature haven't changed much since 1970. That said 12% less males relay on these for their incomes.

When you include nonwage/salaried earning(commissions and the like) and income without earning median still raises 13%, with these gains being in non wage/salaried earnings as seen by changes in the mean.

That means, if we distribute all males into 4 income categories and contrast wage peak of 1972 and 2017, in 2017 dollars:

1972:
8% No income
31% under 25,000
47% 25,000-75,000
14% 75,000+:

2017:
10% No Income [Avg Schooling doubled / more seniors]
28% under 25,000
40% 25,000-75,000
22% 75,000+:

So basically your argument is circular as today the money is in commission and investment.

Males working full-time is down 13%. Part-time 11%. The fact despite this income for everyone is up seems to me a good thing, but than I think passive income is better than worked income.