U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,467 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4671

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
Yikes I'm glad I don't do whatever it is you do haha I run my own company and no, I don't file anything with any US Commerce Department, whatsoever, let alone anything that takes 750 hours. I spend maybe 25-40 hours per year on accounting, that's about it, and I just do it myself.
But your sky isn't pink.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,467 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
The only thing Greenspan and Bernanke agree about modern money is that it can be created out of thin air. And there is no set dollar limit for any project.

I am not fully onboard with a central jobs guarantee program, as it is too complicated and too many moral hazards. But modern money can be created in order put to work any and everyone wanting or needing a job. And even how to fund those in the distant future without one.
Okay.

1) I'm not talking about anything as narrow as "modern money," which as nearly as I can tell is an extended argument about how to carefully rearrange the men on the chessboard so everyone keeps winning.

2) Imagine a triangle with Greenspan at one corner, Bernanke at another, and... oh, say, Marx at the third. How long is the line between Ben and Alan, and proportionately, how long are the lines between them and Karl? I am, loosely speaking, talking about a different triangle, from a corner at which the grouping of ALL current mainstream economists is one indistinguishable star and Marx and most economic socialists are a small cluster, and both are so far away we can imagine they are fireflies.

3) Until you can let go of your death grip on the narrowness of current economic models and the idea that small pawn moves within that rigid, closed game - or even a wild rook shot exposing your queen - are crazy-arse radicalism that can even begin to address the reality of the next century, we might as well be conversing in different languages.


There already are not jobs for everyone. There are certainly not "good" jobs - stable and life-supporting - for everyone. This curve is going to decline, steadily in the next decade and precipitiously after that. Throwing "modern" or "fiat" or "printed" money at the problem doesn't begin to slow it, much less fix it.

Devise an economic system that acknowledges this curve and does not depend on two pawn moves and landing on Free Parking to throw more monopoly money into a 'central jobs guarantee program,' because every bit of that is dependent on other mainstream absolutes that may well have crumbled as well.

Put another way, if labor-as-productivity is the basis for all wealth, what happens when you take it away?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:32 PM
 
8,350 posts, read 3,522,958 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Okay.

1) I'm not talking about anything as narrow as "modern money," which as nearly as I can tell is an extended argument about how to carefully rearrange the men on the chessboard so everyone keeps winning.

2) Imagine a triangle with Greenspan at one corner, Bernanke at another, and... oh, say, Marx at the third. How long is the line between Ben and Alan, and proportionately, how long are the lines between them and Karl? I am, loosely speaking, talking about a different triangle, from a corner at which the grouping of ALL current mainstream economists is one indistinguishable star and Marx and most economic socialists are a small cluster, and both are so far away we can imagine they are fireflies.

3) Until you can let go of your death grip on the narrowness of current economic models and the idea that small pawn moves within that rigid, closed game - or even a wild rook shot exposing your queen - are crazy-arse radicalism that can even begin to address the reality of the next century, we might as well be conversing in different languages.


There already are not jobs for everyone. There are certainly not "good" jobs - stable and life-supporting - for everyone. This curve is going to decline, steadily in the next decade and precipitiously after that. Throwing "modern" or "fiat" or "printed" money at the problem doesn't begin to slow it, much less fix it.

Devise an economic system that acknowledges this curve and does not depend on two pawn moves and landing on Free Parking to throw more monopoly money into a 'central jobs guarantee program,' because every bit of that is dependent on other mainstream absolutes that may well have crumbled as well.

Put another way, if labor-as-productivity is the basis for all wealth, what happens when you take it away?
Nothing is perfect. Modern money can guarantee that all our jobless masses will at least be fed, clothed and housed. Money is the key and that can be created and distributed centrally. I would like to see our future middle class enjoy progressively better standard of living. New central moneys can certainly help, but we still will need the resources. If those go, then the ball of wax melts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,467 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Nothing is perfect. Modern money can guarantee that all our jobless masses will at least be fed, clothed and housed. Money is the key and that can be created and distributed centrally. I would like to see our future middle class enjoy progressively better standard of living. New central moneys can certainly help, but we still will need the resources. If those go, then the ball of wax melts.
Okay. Modern money policy will save the world. Got it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:24 PM
 
8,350 posts, read 3,522,958 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Okay. Modern money policy will save the world. Got it.
Our country if necessary, not the world. We are not that generous. China might be.

All it takes is fiat and resources.

Same as with WW2. We had the resources, both physical and labor. Initially we didn't have the GDP and we didn't have the industries. The industries had to be created on short notice through central edict. GDP had to necessarily rise and quickly to service the War and the people at the same time. So massive fiat was created. Mostly through thousands of private bank loans. But private bank loans don't have to necessary, since fiat can be created from thin air. As were trillions created by the Fed with QE's.

We are always resource limited, but should not be dollar strapped if one understands modern money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:51 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
21,160 posts, read 26,135,284 times
Reputation: 39817
That's the whole point of the increased tarrifs. Making imported goods more expensive gives manufacturing inside the USA a chance to compete.

It's been overwhelming for American factories, paying $25 an hour plus thousands in benefits and insurance to compete with foreign factories paying 25 cents an hour with no benefit package for their workers.

It's a trade off. Goods cost more for consumers but living wage jobs are created.

And Incidentily, most foreign countries were already charging very high import duties on American goods whole senine ttheir goods to the USa for ltitle ir no im port duty. So whines about retaliation lack some validity.

Last edited by oregonwoodsmoke; Yesterday at 02:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Boston
5,214 posts, read 1,523,919 times
Reputation: 3863
6.6 million job openings in the USA according to the Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:17 AM
 
3,731 posts, read 2,079,616 times
Reputation: 6492
sigh... reading this thread makes me sad for our future. If the posters in this sub-forum are a representation of the greater US populous we are witnessing the de-evolution of people first hand.


How can a group of people have so much access to knowledge, data, and education yet take huge steps backward in their intelligence?


Maybe it's laziness... People no longer have to work to get anything so nothing is "worth" it any longer? Maybe it's arrogance or maybe it's just the fascination with misinformation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,467 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
6.6 million job openings in the USA according to the Washington Post
Got a breakdown by level, compensation and benefits? Because every investigation I've seen that goes past a superficial number shows most of them to be low-paid, hourly, part-time and lacking benefits. Hardly "jobs" at all in the sense the word is usually tossed around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Boston
5,214 posts, read 1,523,919 times
Reputation: 3863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Got a breakdown by level, compensation and benefits? Because every investigation I've seen that goes past a superficial number shows most of them to be low-paid, hourly, part-time and lacking benefits. Hardly "jobs" at all in the sense the word is usually tossed around.
"The Pew Research Center estimates that as many as 10,000 Boomers reach retirement age every day, leaving behind jobs that require more technical knowledge.

Retirements and new growth mean 3.5 million new manufacturing jobs will need to be filled by 2025, said Carolyn Lee, executive director of The Manufacturing Institute at the National Association of Manufacturers. If present trends hold, as many as 2 million of those jobs are expected to go unfilled.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the economy will need as many as 100,000 new information technology workers per year over the next decade. Right now, only about 60,000 of these workers enter the workforce each year.

Want a factory job, get an engineering degree.

Too many people riding in the wagon; not enough people pulling it.



https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ing-skills-gap
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top