The Glade 4.0

I'm not asking for an explanation Khross. I'm categorically stating that any position that ignores jobs for people that want to work is one of ignorance.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog! We're not here to provide for the economy. It's here to provide for us, and not some of us, ALL of us. If there are folks that want to work and they're not, having a nice shiny economic spreadsheet is the foolish consistency of a small minded person.... one who is absolutely out of touch.

Some may eat well, but if others starve who are willing, ready and able to work, there's a problem.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

And more jobs will only make those problems worse.


That's pretty much all there is to it.

_________________

Repeating an undefended position over and over again isn't really going to make your case.

If more people are working productively at meaningful tasks, then the situation gets better, even if your spreadsheet appears worse (perhaps from misdirected or poor models).

Calling a position that has multiple posts over 10,000 words behind it undefended is amusing ...

We went through this last time I said the U.S. had an over-employment problem. We went through this the time before that, too ...

And I explained it all then. Just because a few posters would rather not read anything longer than 160 characters, I really have no intention of explaining all of this again in great detail.

Especially not to you two.

_________________

How many people would be unemployed by the various spending cuts?

This is where my lack of training in economics fails me:

My understanding is that when a gov't spends money on non-entitlements, that money still goes to purchase goods and services. Be it roads, bombers or research, that money largely goes to purchase goods and materials that still fuel the economy. Even entitlement spending gets dumped back into the economy and possibly at a higher rate since low income people are more likely to immediately purchase goods and services rather than stockpiling it.


What throws the brakes on the economy tends to be withholding spending--when corporations, individuals etc stop buying OR when money starts exiting the system (ie when goods are purchased from an external economy that doesn't feed back into the system at an equal rate)

The argument from the right seems to be that small business owners and big corporations more efficiently create jobs, and fuel the system than Gov't does.

Of course Gov't takes on tasks that we as a society deem morally valuable but are not profitable, but still the money largely remains 'in the system' unless its being sent elsewhere. (overseas aid, etc)


I'm genuinely in the dark here, so if someone wants to point out the flaws in my reasoning, feel free.

TheRiov:

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

_________________

You're parroting Keynesian economics, TheRiov. (Which puts you in common company...most of the west has embraced Keynesian economics with gusto.) Of course, the view from the Austrian camp, is that Keynesian economics do not work, not forever, anyway. It's like constantly pumping yourself full of amphetamines and caffeine to stay awake. Eventually, you've got to sleep, and the longer you artificially keep yourself alert, the harder the crash will be when you finally come down.

Anyway, the debate as a whole is summed up nicely here:

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't remember any of that. Am I supposed to follow you around to make sure I read everything you write? Do I need to click on every thread just to make sure you won't be burdened by having to post a link or copy/paste your previous thoughts? Hell, for all I know, I read your backup, bought it completely, and have forgotten. Post it. Link it. Show your work.

There have been multiple requests in this thread for backup for your statements now. Show your work. Don't blame others for the lack of support for your position.

Is your link meant to imply that government taxing and spending produces a lower velocity of money (compared to private spending) and thus results in slower economic growth?

I remember that, but a volume of words won't make up for lack of quality - if you disagree with the premise of the argument what difference does it make how many words the argument comprises?

It all comes down to what someone thinks is important. People make up this nation and they're the reason for ... literally everything. If some situation is benefiting some but not everyone who is ready, willing and able to work has a job, it's not better.

Politicians don't get it, and it doesn't surprise me that there are others that don't either. It's their loss, in my opinion. Someone who works their way up from nothing to a position where they are blessed with an abundance, well, that person knows how to appreciate what they have more than those who weren't as challenged to get there.

I truly believe that if folks went without a job for a year or three, they'd change their tune and agree - it's all about jobs.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Mexico reports an official unemployment rate of 4.9%...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

And yet, they still come here looking for jobs.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I thought you didn't agree with the US official unemployment rate? How is Mexico's calculated differently such that it's agreeable to you?

What is your point exactly?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I firmly believe that neither side wants to put forth an actual solution. Obama is desperate to share the blame with Republicans. However having had a supermajority, and ramming through bill after bill, its going to take a whole lot of stupidity from Republicans to get caught with that. I think that is why the Republicans keep sending DOA bills to the Senate. I think that they will accept the Reid plan "because Obama refuses to show leadership or fiscal restraint" and "the hour is late". That puts the final knot on the noose for Democrats. They will from start to finish, own the entire failure.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It's easy to have a low unemployment rate when anyone without a job can sneak into another country.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Maybe it wasn't you, but I keep hearing how the US unemployment rate is bunk. Is Mexico's calculated differently? Maybe I'm missing what your point was.

That statement is a fact. The problem here, inasmuch as it is a problem, lies in the insufficient economic knowledge of contemporary generations. That is, the vast majority of you still believe the Rooseveltian lies and the myths created by the Federal Reserve Board and Milton Friedman.

I linked the Wikipedia Entry on The Velocity of Money for TheRiov above. Hopefully, a few of you have read it by now. It's rather important for this explanation.

First things first ...

Inflation is almost always toxic. Over time, the actual value of a commodity should decrease, not increase relative to the buying power of a given currency or money.

Remember that, because it's a basic truth. Unfortunately, inflation and certain methodological considerations are going to defeat that maxim under our current operating model. This is where all the fun complications arise.

In the short term, if you maintain peak monetary movement (that is, you maintain the Velocity of Money), you can offset small amounts of inflation over short periods of time (24-36 months) in terms of absolute dollar savings. Keynes's observation of this came from the German War Debt for World War I. However, even Keynes's was abundantly clear that Germany could not assume the exorbitant and excessively punitive debt the League of Nations levied against Germany. He was also absolutely adamant that such things were short-term solutions only.

Well, the 1930s roll around and the **** hits the fan ...

The U.S. Response to the Great Depression is to ... well, in short, be absolute wrong. In any case, massive bank failures, massive unemployment, massive drought, massive population migration, massive ... just ... economic chaos. At least, that's the picture everyone wants to paint. To be certain, it was not pretty. But it wasn't much different than things are right now.

Over employment, weak savings, declining currency position ...

Irrational stock and bond markets, fluctuating government debt ratings, political and economic uncertainty in places of international interest ...

Declining durable goods production and innovation ...

The neo-Keynesians like to say the United States went through all of this once before, too; that was during the Long Depression of the late 19th Century. But that's not exactly true ... the Long Depression showed growth and expansion during every quarter. It was simply a long correction after the Reconstruction and Westward Expansion era. Plus, influxes of Frontier Resources and Land allowed demand to remain relatively steady in almost all commodity markets and labor needs.

Nevertheless, we flooded the market with jobs, cheap money, and price fixed food during the Great Depression; and we certainly kept at it for way too long. By 1933 international demand for U.S. durable goods was beginning to rise. As political and economic tensions rose, the needs for arms and armaments increased. However, the United States was too busy trying to clean up the mess over-extended Rooseveltian policies created to actually jump full bore onto that re-emerging market. Of course, we also had some minor diplomatic binds in that regard as well. Lacking the ability to fully exploit this market, the U.S. languished a bit longer. More policies complicated the situation and extended the depression, and then World War II happened ...

Well, now we're selling everyone guns and ammo, and almost every human being in the United States is working ... things look **** fantastic on paper, except for the bonds we're having to issue to fund all this production and war-waging. No biggie, if we end the war quickly, we can recover after a short period of austerity.

The war goes on longer than expected (1945) ... the U.S. racks up an enormous debt (albeit modest compared to today) ... and there's a post-war recession that's pretty devastating. The Truman's presidency flounders. Eisenhower pushes us through the Decade of Austerity and actually balances the budget for a single year. (Andrew Jackson is still the last President to pay off the National Debt entirely).

...

(more later)

_________________

TL;DR

It all boils down to the fact that Americans in general consume way more than they can afford. That's the fundamental problem. So yes more jobs are bad, because the only way to get more jobs is to borrow more money. I'm not sure how you can fix this because it's ingrained in the culture by now. Americans work harder and produce more than almost anyone else in the world yet we're drowning in debt, because we can't stop buying ****. It's also why Germany can have a $250 billion trade surplus despite the fact that Germans in general are supremely lazy ****, (five weeks mandatory paid vacation a year, plus 10 mandatory paid federal holidays, and a 35-hour workweek when they do work) it's because they're also incredibly cheap. Remember Wal-Mart had to pull out of there because they couldn't compete on price.

Arathain:

Eh, I can play your game. You and Taskiss have both made the positive assertion that jobs will solve our economic problems.

Prove it.

You can't. You won't even try. You both continue come to these forums and demand everyone disprove your opinions, but neither of you ever actually support your positions with anything.

There's nothing in my above post that requires justification. There's nothing in my above post that isn't substantiated by any of the dozens of economic books, articles, theses, etc. I've linked over the years.

As it stands, you're now telling me I have to justify basic economic principals?

Unless something extraordinary happens, production of a given commodity always becomes more efficient over time. Consequently, the actual cost of production goes down and the Supply/Demand curve shifts downward. The Law of Supply and Demand is a fantastic thing. However, if you feel it needs to be justified, I'm not even going to bother finishing the post.

I'll just state this simple truth:

More jobs will only make our problems worse.

I'll leave it to you guys to spend the next 15 years studying micro, macro, political, and social economics.

_________________

You misrepresent my position. I've made no claims that jobs will 'solve' anything.

I've said that "it's all about jobs". There are certain economic benefits to be had by lower unemployment, and I don't dispute that there are also detriments, but the biggest factor in my assertion isn't economic at all, it's a recognition of the importance of gainful employment as it relates to the goals of society.

Spend time around some folks that are unemployed if you want to figure out why that's a truth, Khross. It doesn't take a citation to prove what I've said, it just takes observation. People that are unemployed for a length of time and want to work are in pain, and people that are employed feel it too, if they spend time around the unemployed. Perhaps it's like being around people that are hungry...but I lack experience there. I don't lack experience around being around the unemployed though, and the lack of concern for those without jobs by those in elected positions astound me.

If our society can't provide jobs for those that want them, there's a problem.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Oh, you want to play games? Well, start with your own. You have just made a positive assertion that I made a positive assertion that jobs will solve our economic problems..

Prove it. Where was this?



You've linked over the years? Who gives a crap what you linked years ago? It's not my job to dig and find justification for your statements. Just provide the links. As for "nothing in your post requires justification". Are you kidding me?



This definitely requires justification.



As it relates to your point? If requested? Yes. I understand basic economic principles, but such vague statements like "almost always toxic" don't really mean anything. Nor was it directly related to your point. You said their more to follow, and I assume it will be in there somewhere?



Thanks for clarification. See? It's not that bad. It would be even easier if your panties weren't so tight. So you're focusing on efficiency? I assumed that was the case. That ignores a lot of variables, and may be too "pure" in terms of theory to justify in a real world setting. It ignores issues such as availability of a resource (you may be more efficient, but if the only available oil is deeper, then your cost will still increase), and explosions in demand (China, oil). If this is critical to your point, you'll need to deal with such anamolies.



Sure it is, but so's my dick. What's your point?



It's not truth until it's justified.



Ok, I'll get right on that. In the meantime, I'll just state this simple truth: Inflation is critical to our economy, because it is keeping the rat armies from taking control.

I'll leave it to you to spend the next 15 years studying rat biology, diet, and the inherent problems in the Cheetos black market.

Khross can you clarify if your statements (generally given as absolute fact) are, in actuality, the consensus of Economics scholarship as a whole, or if you're giving us the tenants espoused by your particular school Economics?

I'm not looking for reasons why X school is greater than Y school, or why Z school has been utterly disproved, etc--though you can give that too. But if you could answer the first question first.