Why most Americans aren’t seeing any recovery

It increasingly creates a consumer market out of the whole country. But, in terms of the poor, it has contrubuted to a wage depression where more and more people are trapped or descend into the very low-to-minimum wage labor bracket. In time, the poor might not even make enough to shop at the cheapest of places.

It is mostly false prosperity based on massive loans.

It's hard to really decipher their motives or what they really intend to do. Just like we seen with Obama, they always wrap bad policies in nice wrappers and great benefits- the "velvet glove", as someone else put it. I'm sure there is some sort of struggle between Democrats and Republican's, but I doubt the center of that struggle is the well being of the American people- especially the poor.

 

Based on your opinion? Or, by some economist no one will waste their time or reputation "peer reviewing"? Not to mention, reports that cost $30 to see how stupid their assumptions were, and no information on the assumptions that didn't yield "interesting" results (meaning the results were what the world expected, and no one will publish that.....).

What is the counterfactual? What would "non-Thatcher" do to make the unions happy? To afford the union demands for higher wages? To stop stagflation?

What are the counterfactuals? What would "non-Thatcher" do? What would have been the results, and why?

What are the counterfactuals? What would "non-Thatcher" do? What would have been the results, and why?

Typical Reiver arrogance.

You make your typical wild accusation, and refuse to describe the counterfactuals. Rather than man up and defend your position, you try to make this my problem.

Play that silly game with someone that falls for it.

 

Think what life would be like if those items weren't cheaper?

Cars are needed to get you to and from work, cell phones so a potential employer can tell you that you have a job, microwaves give you more time to spend with family.

As best I can tell the battle is who has the most say over corporate money - taxes, corporate welfare, and regulation. No power means no contributions, means you don't get elected. Power means you get contributions, a cushy job (lobbyist with a big budget and expense account), and well employed friends and family. The middle class have little say, and with 47% of the population getting something from the government, the poor become a politicians voting block (job security).

 

Nope. Based on economic history.

There isn't a non-Thatcher. Try to make sense. You could try and refer to In Place of Strife, but we both know you haven't got an argument.

Stagflation reflects cost-plus pricing. For unions you'd have to refer possible over-employment, as predicted by the concept of efficient bargaining. Empirically, such a bargain isn't shown in UK data.

Again, you only show the negative effects of not having an argument. The use of family credit is a matter of fact. The impact on wages, as shown by the concept of reservation wages, is also known: wage reduction (essentially the in-work benefit becomes corporate welfare)

Takes effort to create a low skilled equilibrium! They had to ensure demand is shifted towards product reliant on low wage labour (typically product with low income elasticity)

Noting the obvious doesn't take much effort.

No, I summarise what happened and you're incapable of coming out with a counter-argument.

The game playing is all yours. You've chosen a decidedly silly one here too! Can't you even blag some knowledge?

 

Imagine if the US became a labor state whose population recieved crumbs in wages to furnish cheap products to other people in other parts of the world. Would the end justify the means?

In the US, one part of America's standards of living is lowered to supply cheap products. Point is that many of the poo cannot afford many of these things as we can. It's like lowering the price on a car, but lowering the amount of money the person who builds it gets paid. The benefit is canceled by the loss.

Sounds like a good theory. I've heard others, including that the Republican Party is increasingly becoming the minority party in America. It's getting harder and harder for them to force any issue, so they have resorted to "marching on Rome" so to speak. Either way, I'm not sure how this will benefit them, especially considering that they might have to do this again...and again...and again when they don't get what they want. Whether Obamacare is right or wrong, I do believe that seige warfare is probably going to harm them more than not in the long run.

 

Like the economic history of the Great Depression, only one way to explain that......

Obviously you still don't understand the concept of counterfactual - Non-Thatcher means, who else was possible, what would they do, what would happen, and why?

We have had cost plus pricing since before 1970, where is the stagflation? Why did it go away under Thatcher?

Over employment, or most productive?

How do you bargain with unions that want double digit increases, and strike when they don't get their way?

Counterfactual - what would have happened, and why?

Counterfactual - what would have happened, and why?

What was the alternative to "in-work benefits", welfare to those that don't work - incentivizing them to not work (they can't afford to lose those benefits). Corporate welfare? Would it be better to set a 30,000 Pound Sterling minimum wage.

That you agree that you are arrogant explains a lot.

You state the world was screwed up by Thatcher, but can't answer simple questions how another party (non-Thatcher) would have resolved it.

Your arrogance seems to be based on self delusion, not skill.

 

What is the cause of poverty? Are there no good paying jobs? Or, are there reasons the poor don't qualify for those jobs?

What are those reasons? Who is responsible for each of those reasons?

In the 1950's we didn't import much. The level of poverty was less, but the standard of living was less also (the poor of today have more than the middle class of the 1950's).

The problem is as much productivity from automation and software, as it is imports. Automation makes products cheaper to make, and last much longer.

Closing the borders will only speed up the deployment of automation.

The number of good paying jobs for the unskilled will continue to fall.

I'm not so sure. Look how hard it was for the Democrats to pass Obamacare with total control of government, and what they created gave more money to insurance companies and medical providers (expecting much of it to come back). The cost of health care has been shifted to the young (that don't vote - until now) and wealthier, so the "poor" get cheap coverage (assuring their votes).

Also, did the Democrats regulate the financial industry in any meaningful way? They didn't want to kill the golden goose....

The Republican's would have been better off requiring Obamacare fully engage as part of the budget deal (no delay's, no exemptions), before the 2014 election.

 

You could whinge and whine about the different sources of economic instability, even try and compare marxist analysis with orthodox business cycle theory. Not relevant here. Every aspect of my comment is just reference to economic history.

It means you're not capable of providing a counter-argument.

The instability effects are minimised through government interventionism. Under Thatcher, policy was initially skewed through monetarism (which encouraged further instability; e.g. increase in inflation) and ideological attack (e.g. assault on worker organisation because of union participation in the downfall of previous Tory regime)

Productive.

You shift away from confrontation, as classified by the 'monopoly union' analysis into the bargaining over economic rents.

I can see why you just say "counterfactual" now. When you try to offer more you make a pig's ear of it! If you knew about the history, you'd know that there was a deliberate effort to reduce wages (e.g. elimination of wages councils). In-work benefits accentuated those reductions.

Why are you asking silly questions? Its called a minimum wage for a reason!

An immature effort! I've referred to the economic history (all obvious points) and you've failed to make one valid argument in response.

Resolved it? Again you should your 'innocence'. The problems were created by Thatcherism. No Thatcherism? No such problems. We wouldn't have seen, for example, the initial increases in prices if the government hadn't idiotically switched to indirect taxation through VAT increases.

Given you have no knowledge of Thatcherism and you're incapable of even blagging an argument, you're not in a position to judge anything.

 

Full employment of resources, but especially the market for labor should be a fixed Standard in our republic as a promotion of the general welfare.

One way to ensure everyone sees a recovery, is to ensure full participation in our Institution of money based markets, as a civil responsibility to better ensure market based metrics to any form of Capitalism but not necessarily socialism, in those alternatives.

 

Lol, straight up lie here or ignorance. VAT was introduced earlier than Thatcher by someone other than Thatcher. And I will preemptively squash your attempts to weasel your way out of that by saying you implied it through context...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7582869/VAT-a-brief-history.html

 

Seems like you need to brush up on your comprehension! There was no reference to the introduction of VAT. There was reference to the deliberate switch to indirect tax (fed by ideological folly and justified through the likes of Friedman guff). VAT increased rapidly and that kick started further inflationary problems.

 

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

 

You made a crass error, be a grown up and admit it