Finally, something we can agree to. Should you change your mind and decide to join the conversation, let us know. -Cheers
Econ4Every1... I don't lightly send an e-mail to Canada's retired Prime Minister Stephen Harper but I did just that last week and although I concentrated on climate change the idea of financing a shift over to truly effective ways to address climate stabilization is implied. Please see post #26 here: http://www.politicalforum.com/canada/477572-kellie-leitch-national-leader-conservative-party-3.html
Wow! Impressive statistics Econ4Every1. I will have to read all of this several more times to come up with a comment on this....... but...... I can think of a related question. Was I at least significantly correct back in 2006 to assert that the change in Canadian Central BAnking policy in 1974 was a major, if not even THE major cause of inflation in Canada, from 1974 until 2006? Obviously.... increases in the cost of financing government, business and personal debt.... is a part of inflationary pressure that is not fully understood or written about by the majority of political leaders. www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.ca/ I gave more details on this in my 2008 campaign..... www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/
I've asserted that supply side economic policies will grow the economy by ~ 3% per capita. The Obama economy has grown by ~ 1% per capita. That's a factual statement which you cannot explain.
The government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers the market needs to do so because the market is a hell of a lot better to determine winners If there is a demand for devolved land on city outskirts then the private sector will do so because their would be money to be made
Before I answer, tell me did you read this post? http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=387345&page=4&p=1066986176#post1066986176 If so (or if not) follow up with this one as well....Then let's continue this discussion. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=491205&page=2&p=1067003817#post1067003817 One thing I want to point out, there doesn't seem to be a distinction between "debt free" money and "interest-free" money. In a fiat economy, all money is a debt, but it doesn't have to have interest attached. However, creating interest-free money comes with consequences you need to understand.
This is called a contradiction (see bolded text). Claiming it's a fact is not how you lend evidence to a position, well, unless your Donald Trump. Are you Donald Trump? No, then you can't simply make statements and claim they are fact without evidence. -Cheers
Anyone with a working knowledge of economic performance of the US economy knows that statement is factual.
AFM, you are the poster child for "how to lose a formal debate". The fallacy you just committed is called the consensus fallacy or "Argumentum ad populum".
Yes, even I understand this, and in this dysfunctional post-GFC economy there are fewer people in this category, as shown by the fact that even near zero interest rates can't entice people to borrow. (Indebtedness, houses lost, jobs lost, casualisation of remaining low-wage workforce etc etc). Not to mention the government (public sector) forced to rescue the private financial system, restraining vital future public spending. (eg bridge collapses, claiming lives, through indebted governments unable to properly maintain public infrastructure). [Mervin King, in a 2010 paper outlining financial reform, described this situation as a legacy of debt that will be handed onto the next generation]. You seem to know all about banking. Why cannot electors vote to authorize public sector creation of debt-free money for vital public expenditures (including more teachers, nurses), especially in the current low-inflation environment with idle productive capacity and under-employment?
US HAS RETURNED TO ITS NEAR LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT-POINT POSSIBLE Look, you've got this quite wrong. (Presuming you are talking about the US.) Job creation started two years ago (in 2014) and consumer confidence is solidifying daily. See the GDP-series here, from the St. Louis Fed. If the Fed had to rescue the private sector financing it was because of all those "false mortgages" that it had written (that had put one helluva lotta people on the payroll to building houses). Any economic system is circular. To get something out, you've got to put something in. Or, you wait till it happens all by itself. The Replicants refused stimulus-spending when they took control of the HofR in 2010. So, the consequence was inevitable. It took another four-years for the economy going sideways - all by itself - recovered to the point where it actually started to create employment in 2014. And there is no more silly a notion than "Debt-free Money". About Financial Legacy: This too since the dawn of time has been the same. We are all beneficiaries of our precursors on this planet. And vice-versa, we are victims as well because of their machinations. MY POINT Such is life. On this planet. Maybe on some other solar-system it is different. But, I doubt it ...
Re life on planet earth: Why were Keynes' 1944 proposals rejected (Bankor, deficit/surplus stabilisers, etc)? My point is we could achieve much more, if motivated by just a bit less self-interest. ---- Under-employment in the US is currently around 13% (google it). This is the figure that more accurately relates to the effective demand in the economy. Low wages are another factor.. Re the GFC and forced Govt. rescue of banking sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package (The US package is also discussed). The Fed did not write all those subprime mortgages, and in any case, all those clever bank-originated derivatives played their part in destroying Lehmans, a process that required govt intervention before the whole system collapsed world-wide. (I think it was termed 'socialisation of the losses, privatisation of the profits'). On "debt free" money: there are a million dicussions of it, accessible by googling; perhaps you might expand your concept of the term a little, before rejecting it outright. http://www.michaeljournal.org/artic...he-solution-debt-free-money-issued-by-society etc etc. The key is separation of the public and private sectors, with the public sector taking up the slack left over by the private sector. When real full employment at above poverty level wages is achieved, along with maximisation of the economy's productive potential, at that point the private sector might actually be capable of functioning without public sector input. I'm not encouraged by your proposition the the US economy is now performing 'just swimmingly', and all that's required is raising taxes on the wealthy. Trump of course intends to lower both company and personal taxes, so I'm not sure how your hoped-for increased public expendidures on education will eventuate.
Not sure if you are quoting...or if this is something you are asserting yourself, but... ...there is a bit of a fallacy in that. We can get to zero unemployment by continuing on the path we are travelling now...the one that got us to where we are...the spot your comment considers "near lowest." We've gotten to "near lowest" by lowering wages for the lowest percentile workers. All we'd have to do to approach zero...would be to lower them even more. Hell, workers in Bangladesh and rural China work for less. Why can't the peons here do the same? Oh...and we could require that no assistance be given to people who do not work. Just let them starve to death. We'd easily be able to get much closer to the "lowest possible" point than we are right now. That seems to be where we are heading. I guess some people wonder whether that would be a good thing or not.
(You should employ a "winky" when you are joking ;^) It is almost impossible to live on the current minimum wage (Federal) of $7.25 per hour or $15K à year) in the US - unless you find accommodations that are rent and food-free. I would prefer that unemployment be "zero". But there is not a nation on earth (that collects the data) that has ever indicated such. Germany, which is in dire need of trained employees, has an unemployment rate today of around 4.6% - about 0.3% less than that of the US. The "migrants" to Germany will prove to be a boon to the German economy. But, that's because German women aren't having enough babies to replenish the German labor-force. Which is not the case in the US.
Debt-free money is a misnomer. It is money loaned interest-free by the Central Banks. The national reserve banks pay the interest on the money, since they borrow it off the market. Were the Central Banks to simply print-money, it would stimulate inflation. There is no such think as debt-free money except to individuals who receive free-loans for a variety of reasons. In France, for instance, we have an untaxed "subsistence payment" that can be obtained from the government if you can prove you have no other income (other than begging). Entrepreneurs in Germany can obtain "grants" to kick-start their companies - so there is no "debt" that ever appears on their books.
I suspected most people would "get it" without the wink. This was not particularly subtle. In any case...we COULD reduce the unemployment to zero by slaughtering everyone not working. Sure would not be a world I'd want to live in, though. We also could get back all those jobs we've lost to third world countries (so there would be fewer to slaughter)...if our workers would just work for third world wages. Also not a world I'd want to live in. Yeah, that is the problem with "earning" a living these days. I would prefer that unemployment be as high as possible...with the work that can be done by machines being done mostly by machines. And I would like to see everyone share in the bounty...so that people CAN live reasonably without working. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. I am almost certain it eventually will happen.
. Chris Brown addresses that point in this article: "If someone tells you that the government can't afford something,like say...Paying benefits to SS recipients or fund healthcare or build a bullet train from NY to LA....Be sure and ask why. If they say the US government can't afford it, remind them how silly that is. The government can create all the money it wants and it can use those dollars to purchase whatever it wants from the US private sector. At that point, you'll probably be told (in a scolding voice) that when the government creates money that it results in inflation. To which, you'd point out that they said *money* was the limitation and now they've rightly identified the real limitation. Now that we've identified the real constraint, make sure you both agree on the cause of inflation driven by demand. Simply put, inflation driven by demand happens when demand for goods and services exceeds the private sectors ability to supply them. Now in the case of a bullet train from Boston to LA, do you really believe that there isn't enough labor and raw materials in the nation to supply what's needed to build a train? Really? I mean we've funded billions, even trillions of dollars to fight 2 wars, but we don't have the resources to build a train without causing insurmountable shortages such that it will cause the value of the dollar to fall long term? What about healthcare? Does anyone really believe that the nation can't find people to step up into those jobs (if the training was freely available) without creating massive permanent labor shortages? The reality is that we have 20 million people (source BLS) who are under/unemployed with a net 145k new workers entering the job force each month (Source WSJ). The labor is there. The private sectors productive capacity is at 75%, which is 5% lower than the 40-year average, 10% lower than the 40-year high and 17% lower than the 75-year high (1940's). (Source https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/) The reality is that we fear inflation more than we fear unemployment and wasting potential productivity."
That's not going to happen and you know it. Europe is in the doldrums, but when Demand starts perking up and jobs are being created they will be of an upmarket nature. And Europe, which subsidizes postsecondary education, will be ready to employ its younger generations. As I never tire of saying, we are in an historical transition from the Industrial to the Information Age, and Europe is more prepared for the types of jobs that the Information Age will create than is the US. (The US has only 44% of those with a High-school diploma graduating today with a postsecondary degree ...)
Of course we are not going to slaughter the unemployed in order to obtain maximum employment...and of course I know it. But I think there are some who are giving the notion "there will not be enough decent paying jobs for everyone who needs and wants one"...extremely short shrift. Bad move. Paying humans good wages to do the kinds of jobs a VAST majority of humans can do...is not in the books. The case for that has been compellingly made by more erudite than I. Speak of improving skills to the point where most will be able to have jobs that pay a living wage if you want...but I think that is little more than dreaming and/or wishing. That day is done. We should, instead, be working on the question, "How do we insure that everyone has sufficient without having to earn it?" "Earning a living" either is an anachronism already...or very, very soon will become one.
I agree. However for a while yet most will be employed (or un/under-employed) in the present day economy with all its faults eg, rising inequality. Innovative financial reforms are required now (eg as outlined in the Chris Brown manifesto), to ameliorate the effects of the present dysfunction that is manifested in political gridlock all around the world. Go Trump.........(I'm holding my breathe, though perhaps I shouldn't).
The Information Age will do pretty much what the Industrial Age did, but differently. That is, the US created the foundation of the economy with advanced technology that matured in the middle of the 19th century. We are repeating that very same phenomenon today in Information Technology. (And I am proud to have been a part of it a long time ago at its inception.) So, when you've been left bounded hand-and-foot on the tracks with a fast train approaching, there is not much "theory" that applies to the solution. You never should have been on those tracks in the first place. And, to avoid finding yourself in that condition, you'd better do some very clever thinking. Foremost of which is "Let me get some professional attributes that separates me from the crowd". We could have made that possible (nearly free, gratis and for nothing), and we were given the opportunity to do so by Bernie & Hillary. But, no, we stoopidly slapped that opportunity down. The above is the way I see our circumstance today. It may take another 4 years (maybe even 8 years) to get back to the right track. History is never made overnight ... PS: Nobody wants to spend their lives below the Poverty Threshold, but nearly 40 million Americans are doing so today. The only way out for most of those who are of working-age is to get the qualifications necessary to find better jobs. They are available, but they aint cheap! But, that's the fault of who? My answer: Far too many who either: (1) Stayed at home (rather than voting for Hillary) to spectate the last election popping beers in front of the BoobTube. Or (2) Actually believed the patent-BS that Donald Dork was shoveling them and voted for him.
The Trump supply side economy will grow at ~ 4% per year once all his reforms are implemented. That's hard for the French to comprehend - their average yearly gdp growth has been less than 1% for the last ~ 30 years. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp-growth
THE EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO We shall see, but that will be physically impossible to do. The BLS-stats (Employment-Population Ratio) show what is happening to employment in the US: Trump is going to need a miracle to get back up to where the US E-to-p Ratio was in 2007 before the Sub-prime Mess caused the Great Recession. Now, you take that line in the infographic above and project it out in a straight line. The straight line is the most plausible evolution of the ratio. I did, in fact. The linear projection gets back to an E-to-p Ratio value of 63% in 2022 - long after Trump loses his next election. NP Here is history of the E-top Ratio back to 1968: It is going to take one helluva lotta growth for the ratio to get back to its highest value historically recently of 64.5% in 2000; the year before Billy-boy left the presidency. And here is the Unemployment Rate history back to 1968: The US has never again been below the threshold of 4% unemployment since 1968. The world economy has since changed profoundly since - so statistically there is no "going-back"; and only forward in movement. Much has changed since then in the American economy* ... *Of course, Donald Dork could build his wall around China in stead of Mexico, and that would help a lot to reduce competition for American exports ... !
Still no understanding of the effect of Obama's economic policies on real unemployment (U6) and LFPR ?? Look at the Reagan economic performance after the recession he was forced to cause to reduce the double digit inflation rates of Carter's failed Keynesian economic policies. Your assumption of a straight line is ridiculous.
