We will keep doing stupid stuff as long as we rely on gooberment for K-12. The problem isn't outsourcing, it is the people that expect a middle class lifestyle, while having less skill than the unskilled labor offshore. Even the offshore labor is being replaced by automation.
Again, after the fact. You keep saying your economic analysis is wonderful. If so, at what? Telling the government what rat hole to dump the money into? If your tools were any good, they would be used to grow the economy as fast as possible with only minor, localized shocks.
Capitalism is prone to crisis. That's none of my doing! The problem is that you don't care about the consequences (i.e. elimination of exchange opportunity through the destruction of human capital), reflecting either utopianism (where you ignore economic reality) or an authoritarian personality
Capitalism is prone to the fluctuations of the business cycle (a recession is certainly nothing to be feared - it merely gives the market an opportunity to clear of bad investment through liquidation of debt). But government intervention is prone to unintended consequences (such as the creation of crises which increase the volatility of business cycles, and the destruction of capital). The problem is that you don't care about the consequences, reflecting utopianism (where you ignore economic reality), an authoritarian personality, and lack of intelligence. You are operating from the premise that the government must intervene based on utilitarianism - which in itself is irrational & based on a weak theoretical foundation which lacks rigor. This does not come as a shock, as you are an incrediby irrational individual.
So your economic models don't work with capitalism? I don't care about the concequences, yet you want to wait until after the shock. ROTFL. You keep saying you have the lock on economic reality, but are ignorant on the workings of business. Reminds me of the statement us engineers use frequently - "Nothing is impossible to those that don't actually have to do it".
Shocks are predicted to happen (some time!)by the models, but we can't refer to your standard utopianism where they simply disappear in a puff of smoke.
What value are your models if they can't predict better than "some time". You can do as well with tarot cards. Do you understand the value of effective models? Not only do they predict future events, but identify what factors have the greatest control. You are the one that keep hyping your great understanding, that if only you ran the world, it would be a utopia. Would there still be shocks?
Certainty is for you utopians. Economics is after all arguably the study of uncertainty Completely wrong. I refer to market socialism and the protection of property rights. Of course! One would expect greater stability though (e.g. there will be a reduced tendency towards market concentration and the problems that can generate)
It is, Reiver linked you to a thread with over 1000 posts. He does like to maximize transaction costs - ROTFL....
There hasn't been a transaction, unless you two are getting cosy! Back to serious matters. How do you think hysteresis in unemployment can be avoided?
Typical Reiver. Rather than spend the one or two minutes to write a concise definition, you expect Random_Variable to read through a 1000 posts for the one or two with content. That is more of a "transaction" than most things I spend money on.
How does one 'fix unemployment' when one knows the tendency for capitalism to deliver mass unemployment?
Before the prosperity from fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, everyone worked, very old, very young, just to survive. (If 100% employment your only goal, the the man made global warming crowd is trying to help with that.) Socialism doesn't prevent unemployment, it just reduces any incentive to work effectively, so more employees are required to accomplish the same output. And it pays better for non-work. True socialism eliminates private ownership of the means of production, which fails due to tragedy of the commons. There is a value to ownership. With technology, the barrier to entry to capitalism has fallen. Many software millionaires / billionaires started with a computer and an internet connection, something most teenagers have. Fabless IC design requires design software, money for prototypes, and a contract with a foundry. The list goes on. Even during the crash of 2008, the level of unemployment is hugely defined by education and skill set. The tech crash of 2000, despite being "The Beer Game" on steriods, recovered quickly, because the unemployed had skills that translated easily, for another employer, of for their own start-up (funded by pre-crash IPO money). Your hatred for capitalism is amusing.
You do like to utilise a wide range of political economic schools. From post-keynesian, its now much more mercantilist in tone. See Johnson's 1932 article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics: This article discusses relation between unemployment and consumption. It is not correct to presume that the Mercantilist infatuation with the desirability of a large population was a desire for mere numbers. People were indeed regarded as factors of production, but only potential sources of wealth unless employed. But industry, in the minds of the Mercantilists, would not emerge spontaneously; it would have to be induced by legislation. Every "useless and destructive course of life" ought to be repressed, every institution which fostered idleness, eliminated. Conversely, every activity which stimulated industry should be encouraged. Trade was believed to have this beneficial effect, by altering the manners of the people, and by stimulating that human tendency which medieval moralists condemned, avarice. The program designed to repress idleness was in many ways similar to the scholastic. The main difference was that the sphere of its influence was to be the nation rather than the municipality and the purpose primarily economic rather than quasi-moral. I don't have any hatred for capitalism. I don't deal in such shallow huff and puff. I leave that to the fake libertarians!
You are the one caught in economic schools of thought. I don't see any having a lock on reality. The world, and business model, has changed since the 30's. Today (even in this bad economy) the power of the skilled employee is on par with, or higher than, the employer. We are no longer "a" means of production, we are "the" means of production. ROTFL - All you deal in is huff an puff.
The problem is that you don't quite realise what you're saying. We saw that when you, by mistake, made statement consistent with post-'Keynesian thought. I'm not sure if that's a bother or a delight. Such innocence is perhaps a little of both. Your latest error is, when trying to answer a simple question over hysteresis (which has become more important as skiils and therefore human capital dominate), to make comment with the stink of mercantilism to it. An oops moment!
Reiver - what/who created the market for subprime lending (which eventually played a central role in the financial crisis)?
Each economic school has its blind spot. Keynes "paradox of thrift" is such an example. So rather than bow at the alter of any, I adopt that explanation which best addresses a given situation. You seem to miss the point that I am addressing unemployment as a way to avoid hysteresis. As an engineer, I find many "problems" have been solved in other disciplines. As I said, but you missed, your mysterious hysteresis is nothing but an underdamped feedback loop. So, you can belittle all you want, it is the last refuge of those that are dead wrong. I have better things to do - bye.
