• 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!

Discussion on the Job Guarantee Bill

JP Hochbaum said:
Here is why ending the fed is just plain ignorant.

1) when on the gold standard we saw more depressions and recessions and more sever and longer lasting.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your own Christina Romer says differently.

The first section of the paper presents a compilation of facts about short-run
fluctuations in real economic activity in the United States since the late 1800s. I put
particular emphasis on data series that I believe are consistent across the entire
20th century, and focus especially on the comparison between the periods before
World War I and after World War II. The bottom line of this analysis is that
economic fluctuations have changed somewhat over time, but neither as much nor
in the way envisioned by Burns. Major real macroeconomic indicators have not
become dramatically more stable between the pre-World War I and post-World
War II eras, and recessions have become only slightly less severe on average
Click to expand...

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/cromer/JEP_Spring99.pdf

2) the federal reserve exists to control that, and while it has failed at times to do this, it is mostly because they are powerless in certain cases. Because politicians haven't given them enough tools to do so.

3) if we end the fed tomorrow, we go into utter chaos.
Click to expand...

Two utterly unsubstantiated claims.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Australia's minimum wage is twice ours, and their fast food burgers still are less tan ours.

It is not only sustainable but incredibly economically beneficial
Click to expand...

This is interesting - I did not know that.

I shall have to look into it.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
3) if we end the fed tomorrow, we go into utter chaos.
Click to expand...

And your link to unbiased proof of this is what?


And this link should explain why the Fed has done far more harm then good:

"Why Was the Fed Created?" with George Selgin -- Ron Paul Fed Lecture Series, Pt 1/3 - YouTube


And the worst depression and the depression with the worst deflation in U.S. history both occurred within 20 years of the Fed's creation.

As for recessions?

There is nothing wrong with recessions (as opposed to depressions) - imo - they are necessary evils.

There has been - on average - a recession every 6 years since America began.

Prices get too high - and recessions bring them back to where they should be.

A normal part of market economies.
 
Last edited:
Phattonez, using only half the context to spin it his way...

When Romer continues.....

"Having said this, however,
it is important to note that in each case the postwar standard deviation is at
least slightly smaller than its prewar counterpart. Based on these four indicators, it
appears that the volatility of the U.S. macroeconomy has declined 15 to 20 percent
between the pre-1916 and the post-1948 eras."
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Phattonez, using only half the context to spin it his way...

When Romer continues.....

"Having said this, however,
it is important to note that in each case the postwar standard deviation is at
least slightly smaller than its prewar counterpart. Based on these four indicators, it
appears that the volatility of the U.S. macroeconomy has declined 15 to 20 percent
between the pre-1916 and the post-1948 eras."
Click to expand...

Remember a few things that can skew that data.

1. She's not including WWII and the Great Depression, which should be included since the central bank was already instituted way before then. That would introduce a ton of volatility.
2. Is minimizing volatility our only goal? I'd also like to see a comparison for growth rates.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Ah yes, artificially set wage values at a level that may or may not be sustainable. Sounds brilliant.
Click to expand...

Any manager or business operator who is so profoundly unimaginative that they can't conceive of a working arrangement with duties and contributions warranting the kind of pay a JG would have as a floor...is stupid to the point of being a danger to themself and those around them.

Most existing wage rates have jack **** to do with the practical demands of a job. Practical demands exert some influence over wages, but at the end of the day wages primarily reflect the bargaining power of those involved. Factors like urgency (needing a job YESTERDAY), access to transportation, family ties to an area (limiting the search area), and a host of other influences often easily swamp the consideration (if any) of skill or competence in a specific position.

Poor people are poor primarily because they are underpaid. Outside of a relative handful of extreme circumstances, the vast majority of able-bodied, able-minded people are quite willing and able to do a wide range of relevant, productive tasks, and do many things within that range well enough to support a sustained economic effort (whether in a business, a nonprofit, a service agency, etc.).

Put more bluntly...short of major disability, we're all perfectly capable of doing things which warrant a living wage. There's no need to sabotage the discussion with phantoms of meaningless make-work because there's plenty that needs to be done, and tons of people willing and able to do it. There's no basis for phantoms of unsustainable JG wages because (as stated clearly) the JG wages would be a floor.

Given that a JG would be a fallback plan, JG work would still be rare enough that employers seeking to receive subsidization by offering JG positions would still have to meet a number of restrictions and goals. Priority could (and in my book, should) be given to subsidizing JG positions with a demonstrated higher chance for transition to gainful non-JG positions. It could also be tempered with time limits *for the employer* (to discourage employers from churning through JG employees as a de facto source of cheap labor). In any case, there are many easily conceivable policy mechanisms for avoiding the dynamic of turning JG workers into another variation of expendable temps.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
2) the federal reserve exists to control that, and while it has failed at times to do this, it is mostly because they are powerless in certain cases. Because politicians haven't given them enough tools to do so.
Click to expand...

the worst depression of all was not only not prevented by the Fed, their actions made it worse.

not a good track record to go back on at all.
 
phattonez said:
The per-capita growth in that era makes the present day look like the dark ages.
Click to expand...

Post numbers please. All I can find is this chart

Table 1:* GDP per Capita in the United States
Year GDP per capitaa Annual growth rate from previous period
1820 1,257
1870 2,445 1.34
1913 5,301 1.82
1950 9,561 1.61
1973 16,689 2.45
1990 23,214 1.94
1998 27,331 2.04
a.* Measured in 1990 international dollars.
Source:* Maddison (2001), Tables A-1c and A-1d.
 
phattonez said:
They can't take on debt because there is no savings. When all of the incentives are against savings (artificially low interest rates, credits for buying rather than saving, etc.), how do you expect capital accumulation and growth to occur?
Click to expand...

That is not an incentive against saving. If you have the money to save you have the money to use credit.
 
ARealConservative said:
the worst depression of all was not only not prevented by the Fed, their actions made it worse.

not a good track record to go back on at all.
Click to expand...

In fact, they probably helped cause it.

The Fed increased the monetary supply during 1921-1929 by approximately 62%.
 
Last edited:
2. Is minimizing volatility our only goal? I'd also like to see a comparison for growth rates.
Click to expand...

I posted per capita growth rates since 1820 (every 50 years). I can't find anything that supports this idea of massive growth pre-Fed. In fact it seems as if growth rates have been highest post 1950.
 
iliveonramen said:
I posted per capita growth rates since 1820 (every 50 years). I can't find anything that supports this idea of massive growth pre-Fed. In fact it seems as if growth rates have been highest post 1950.
Click to expand...

Of course growth is better after 1950.

Because, among other reasons (like after WW2 - Europe, Russia and Japan were either broke and/or destroyed and/or Communist...so America were easily the 'big boys' on the block for decades) America started pouring debt into her economy during peacetime like she had at virtually no other time before.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

It sure helps your prosperity when you can print all the 'world reserve currency' you wish whenever you feel like it - which America could after WW2 thanks to Bretton Woods.
 
Last edited:
JP Hochbaum said:
They were still on the gold standard.
Click to expand...

the Fed existed, had powers, and failed to help in any way in regards to largest depression we have ever saw. That is their track record mr apologist.
 
DA60 said:
In fact, they probably helped cause it.

The Fed increased the monetary supply during 1921-1929 by approximately 62%.
Click to expand...

Please post! I can not find anything regarding this increase in money supply...all I can find is a decrease in money supply as the Fed raised interest rates during a depression in 1928 and again when there was a run on the dollar.
 
iliveonramen said:
Post numbers please. All I can find is this chart

Table 1:* GDP per Capita in the United States
Year GDP per capitaa Annual growth rate from previous period
1820 1,257
1870 2,445 1.34
1913 5,301 1.82
1950 9,561 1.61
1973 16,689 2.45
1990 23,214 1.94
1998 27,331 2.04
a.* Measured in 1990 international dollars.
Source:* Maddison (2001), Tables A-1c and A-1d.
Click to expand...

GDP is not wealth. You have to consider that government spending is not worth the full amount that we spend on it. Correspondingly, you can easily inflate GDP numbers by just increasing government spending. However, this does not mean that standard of living is actually improving.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Australia's minimum wage is twice ours, and their fast food burgers still are less tan ours.

It is not only sustainable but incredibly economically beneficial
Click to expand...

A McDonald's double cheeseburger in Australia costs $2.00.
A McDonald's double cheeseburger in America costs $1.00.

Current dollar-to-dollar conversion rate:

2.00 AUD Australian Dollar = 2.06 USD US Dollar

Australia's minimum wage is $15.96 per hour or $606.40 per week.
Click to expand...

15.96 AUD Australian Dollar = 16.43 USD US Dollar

Daily chart: The Big Mac index | The Economist

Indexes Difference
Consumer Prices in Australia are 57.41% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Australia are 60.39% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in Australia are 72.06% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Australia are 64.79% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in Australia are 48.01% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Australia is 14.73% lower than in United States
Click to expand...

....you were saying?
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
A McDonald's double cheeseburger in Australia costs $2.00.
A McDonald's double cheeseburger in America costs $1.00.

Current dollar-to-dollar conversion rate:

2.00 AUD Australian Dollar = 2.06 USD US Dollar



15.96 AUD Australian Dollar = 16.43 USD US Dollar

Daily chart: The Big Mac index | The Economist



....you were saying?
Click to expand...

Well done.

(I could not rep you for some reason)
 
tessaesque said:
A McDonald's double cheeseburger in Australia costs $2.00.
A McDonald's double cheeseburger in America costs $1.00.

Current dollar-to-dollar conversion rate:

2.00 AUD Australian Dollar = 2.06 USD US Dollar



15.96 AUD Australian Dollar = 16.43 USD US Dollar

Daily chart: The Big Mac index | The Economist



....you were saying?
Click to expand...

Also, this:

Salaries And Financing
Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) - USA 2,921.98 $
Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) - Australia 3,996.32 $
Difference of: +36.77 %

And yet, the COL is more than 36.77% higher, on average, than in the USA, when all factors are considered. So how exactly is their having 2x the minimum wage helping them???
 
And now come the wave of posts from conservatives that are just to numerous and onerous to address.

The fallacy of using numerous posts withoutu actually posting anything substantive. IN other words I am louder therefore I am right! lol

Have fun guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom