U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 06-25-2012, 07:30 AM
 
2,091 posts, read 1,328,611 times
Reputation: 788

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
Post WW2 saw the largest world wide growth in history.
Well, I think the next WW will end in a nuclear firestorm. So not much growth after that. Maybe in a few million years though.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2012, 07:32 AM
 
2,091 posts, read 1,328,611 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth View Post
Because everything got blown up in much of the world.
Actually I think for the West the best way to get out of its debt situation is another World War with conventional weapons, but I somehow think someone will push the nuclear buttons eventually.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 05:29 AM
 
33,031 posts, read 24,138,713 times
Reputation: 8998
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
Why not let the market take care of itself? People will create new business operations that will make money, grow, and hire new people. In my area I have seen companies do just that. They have a product that people want and recession or no recession people are buying what they have to sell. here where I live HAAS Automation is expanding. Neff Headwear went from a projected 100 million in sales to 200 million in sales, (According to Forbes online) The tech industry is doing well even paying their interns big bucks to work there. (Facebook interns on average make $5,800 a month I think.)

Why not build your own success and build a business of your own. Then you can add to the employment ranks by hiring some of the many unemployed people in your area.

Tens of millions of people want and need affordable housing, where is "the market" when these people need it?

How do broke unemployed people build a business of their own?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 08:56 AM
 
706 posts, read 1,962,899 times
Reputation: 904
I have an acquaintance who lost her job in a high-unemployment state. She thought she could make popsicles from fresh fruits, and sell them from a pedal cart for the summer. It would cost her thousands of dollars in permits and licenses to do that, which only a well-established corporate entity has the up-front funding to do, and of course, will not do, because the prospective profits don't warrant the enterprise at the corporate level.

In short, "free enterprise" by those who are not already rich has in effect been criminalized, if not simply obstructed by regulatory bodies that are predisposed to favor the rich.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 01:23 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,096 posts, read 12,067,697 times
Reputation: 14239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Zero unemployment in a few months with a stable economy. Here's how:

The government borrows $15 billion from China, and pays $3,000 as a monthly wage to $5-million unemployed workers. On payday, they all go out and spend that $15 billion. Employers hire workers to produce the goods and services those recipients buy, and pay them wages. For each one that gets hired, the government doesn't have to borrow their paycheck next month from China, so that $15 billion keeps going down. After a few months, everyone is hired, there is full employment, the companies that made the goods and services gain the profits from that increased business, and pay tax on the profits, which is used to pay back the loan from China. If we don't attack any other countries during those few months, we can borrow the money from the Defense Department, instead of from China.
Nice try, but Karl Marx already came up with this. We also know from empirical evidence that it does not work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,750,565 times
Reputation: 36343
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Nice try, but Karl Marx already came up with this. We also know from empirical evidence that it does not work.
Did Karl Marx have any other principles besides this, which were tried in conjunction with it, which might have themselves contributed the overall failure?

Idi Amin came up with free-market capitalism as a part of his bold plan. How'd that turn out, Empirically? How were the unemployment rates and distribution of wealth?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 10:10 AM
 
7,100 posts, read 25,477,993 times
Reputation: 7393
Ah yes! spend money making the goods that these people will buy.

Let's don't forget what a lot of "unemployed" spend their money on.
Lottery tickets,
Booze and drugs
dog fight betting
race track betting
etc.

Now, that's not to say that the Unemployed are the only ones that do this. But a lot of money is not spents on durable goods that produce more jobs.

Suppose, instead of trying to cut down on smoking, we tried to increase it. More tobacco farming needed, that's good! More employed making and selling cigarettes and cigars. That's good too! And think of all the medical personel we would need as the health problems brought on by smoking increased. Wonderful! And all we would have to do is increase the amount of advertising. More jobs. Wonderful!!

For those of you that don't understand, the above paragraph was meant to show that not all solutions are good. The cheapest way to end unemployment is to shoot the unemployed. Less paperwork. Just the cost of ammo and the hourly wage of the shooter. And of course, burial expense. Hmmmm, maybe it would work. Just think of how many more undertakers we would need.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 10:32 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,096 posts, read 12,067,697 times
Reputation: 14239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Did Karl Marx have any other principles besides this, which were tried in conjunction with it, which might have themselves contributed the overall failure?

Idi Amin came up with free-market capitalism as a part of his bold plan. How'd that turn out, Empirically? How were the unemployment rates and distribution of wealth?
Each economic philosophy has its drawbacks. Pure capitalism is not ideal, and I think it should be blended with some social safety net concepts. But it still makes for a better foundation than what you're proposing, which is to essentially legislate full employment. Businesses and consumers are not so naive as to feel comfortable spending all of that money and hiring a bunch of people in the face of a massive government debt binge. They will hoard a lot of the cash while waiting for the other shoe to drop (Greece, anyone?).

And to coerce them to spend it as you suggest, the government would essentially have to run the private sector with an iron fist. At that point, you're well down the road of the way it was in my native Czechoslovakia, when we were a Soviet slave nation. Sure, we effectively had no unemployment, but we also had very little growth and lagged our Western counterparts by decades. When everyone is employed by the state, it turns out that no one really has an incentive to work very hard and innovate. Then throw in top of that the oppressive abuse of our rights by a government intent in silencing dissent and keeping unhappy people under control, and you have a recipe for a failed state.

With a capitalist foundation, you run the risk of more boom-bust cycles, but I'd rather take that than what we had. With this system there is a self-healing mechanism in place that will help right the ship...with the alternative, everyone is a poor slave for life and there is no hope except in eventual rebellion.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,750,565 times
Reputation: 36343
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
But it still makes for a better foundation than what you're proposing, which is to essentially legislate full employment. .

No, you've missed the entire point. That's not what I'm proposing.

I'm proposing to essentially legislate INCOME for all members of the national work populace (who are the collective owners of all American wealth and property), whether there is any work for them to do today or not. With the hope that they will turn that pay into demand for consumable goods and services, and thus for labor.

Americans are so terrified that somebody will actually enjoy leisure while at the same time having some income. Runs totally against the grain of the American principles of constant toil and drudgery, with poverty amid plenty for those who can't or won't.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-03-2012 at 03:31 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 04:27 PM
 
7,100 posts, read 25,477,993 times
Reputation: 7393
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I'm proposing to essentially legislate INCOME for all members of the national work populace (who are the collective owners of all American wealth and property), whether there is any work for them to do today or not. With the hope that they will turn that pay into demand for consumable goods and services, and thus for labor.

Americans are so terrified that somebody will actually enjoy leisure while at the same time having some income. Runs totally against the grain of the American principles of constant toil and drudgery, with poverty amid plenty for those who can't or won't.
Sooooo, suppose we find out that are a lot more people that would rather not work than those that do. But everyone gets paid.

Who is going to work enough to pay the tax (and that's what it would be) to pay for those that just sit around, sleep late and enjoy life? Where do you plan to get the money?

A tax, no matter what you call it, is when you take money from one person's pocket and give it to another person with no reward for the first person.

Really....WHERE do you get the money to pay for this?
Rate this post positively 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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:31 AM.

¬© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top