Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 31, 2015, 11:40:48 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
84578 Posts in 2264 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Political Economics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print
Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 233287 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6251


« Reply #1550 on: October 15, 2014, 02:30:44 AM »

This is an important piece IMHO.  Sorry I can't cut and paste well from my phone.
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/278857171.html?section=opinion

Related: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/two-pictures-that-perfectly-capture-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-welfare-state/
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 12:03:43 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4296


« Reply #1551 on: October 22, 2014, 07:11:22 AM »

I really have to question if it has made health care any better since I am in that field.  So far it is no more than a game of numbers and I honestly don't believe much of what I read anymore.   Too many agendas.

This could go under technology but I thought this thread might be the most fitting place:

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher-productivity-and-better
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6251


« Reply #1552 on: November 10, 2014, 09:55:01 AM »

One more political economic lesson from the cartoon front:

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6251


« Reply #1553 on: December 07, 2014, 12:38:16 PM »

Famous people caught reading the forum?  This has already been widely reported here.  No one is saying which direction the cause and effect arrow is pointing...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120414-729164-income-inequality-is-greatest-in-the-most-liberal-states.htm

Income Inequality Is Greatest In the Most Liberal States

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6251


« Reply #1554 on: December 10, 2014, 11:35:54 PM »

Refuting liberals is hard work - because their lips just keep moving.

Here is "Forward Progressives" pushing the idea that 5 charts demonstrate what a great economic success the Obama administration has been:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/5-charts-proving-how-successful-president-obama-been/

(Read progressives as always in quotes.)

Unsurprisingly, there are flies in their ointment.

1.  Progressives compare minor upward results with the depths of the crash (that they caused), not with previously successful periods.

2.  They judge job growth as positive even when most of it was below the level required to break even.

3.  They call it unemployment falling when the real change is a rapidly declining workforce participation rate.  There are more people not working now than ever before.  Even with funny math, the stated unemployment rate is worse than when they took majority power in Washington.

4.  Progressives claim stock gains with the blatant hypocrisy that they would most certainly be criticizing these gains if it was someone else's policies sent the financial gains only to the wealthiest among us.  The rich and powerful gained while the middle declined.  Startup under Obama were like a Neal Young song; they "start off real slow and then fizzle out altogether".

5.  Progressives chart the highest debt added in history to look like a trend line down when in fact their own budgets and forecasts have it going right back up.

6.  Lastly, how do you say Chutzpah?  From the author of Audacity, they claim oil production in the US is way up under Obama!  Yes it is!  Is there one person smart enough to vote that doesn't know that Obama fought against oil production at every turn?

Take a close look at a liberal viewpoint and most often you will find a lie or deception in the first substantive point.  And here is no exception.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32291


« Reply #1555 on: December 20, 2014, 11:14:05 AM »

Friday, December 19, 2014
Jaguar Inflation -- A Layman's Explanation of Government Intervention
By Robert Prechter, CMT

I am tired of hearing people insist that the Fed can expand credit all it wants. Sometimes an analogy clarifies a subject, so let's try one.

It may sound crazy, but suppose the government were to decide that the health of the nation depends upon producing Jaguar automobiles and providing them to as many people as possible. To facilitate that goal, it begins operating Jaguar plants all over the country, subsidizing production with tax money. To everyon'’s delight, it offers these luxury cars for sale at 50 percent off the old price. People flock to the showrooms and buy. Later, sales slow down, so the government cuts the price in half again. More people rush in and buy.

Sales again slow, so it lowers the price to $900 each. People return to the stores to buy two or three, or half a dozen. Why not? Look how cheap they are! Buyers give Jaguars to their kids and park an extra one on the lawn.

Finally, the country is awash in Jaguars. Alas, sales slow again, and the government panics. It must move more Jaguars, or, according to its theory -- ironically now made fact -- the economy will recede. People are working three days a week just to pay their taxes so the government can keep producing more Jaguars. If Jaguars stop moving, the economy will stop. So the government begins giving Jaguars away. A few more cars move out of the showrooms, but then it ends. Nobody wants any more Jaguars. They don't care if they're free. They can't find a use for them. Production of Jaguars ceases. It takes years to work through the overhanging supply of Jaguars. Tax collections collapse, the factories close, and unemployment soars. The economy is wrecked. People can't afford to buy gasoline, so many of the Jaguars rust away to worthlessness. The number of Jaguars -- at best -- returns to the level it was before the program began.

The same thing can happen with credit.

It may sound crazy, but suppose the government were to decide that the health of the nation depends upon producing credit and providing it to as many people as possible. To facilitate that goal, it begins operating credit-production plants all over the country, called Federal Reserve Banks. To everyone's delight, these banks offer the credit for sale at below market rates. People flock to the banks and buy. Later, sales slow down, so the banks cut the price again. More people rush in and buy. Sales again slow, so they lower the price to one percent. People return to the banks to buy even more credit. Why not? Look how cheap it is! Borrowers use credit to buy houses, boats and an extra Jaguar to park out on the lawn. Finally, the country is awash in credit.

Alas, sales slow again, and the banks panic. They must move more credit, or, according to its theory -- ironically now made fact -- the economy will recede. People are working three days a week just to pay the interest on their debt to the banks so the banks can keep offering more credit. If credit stops moving, the economy will stop. So the banks begin giving credit away, at zero percent interest. A few more loans move through the tellers' windows, but then it ends. Nobody wants any more credit. They don't care if it's free. They can't find a use for it. Production of credit ceases. It takes years to work through the overhanging supply of credit. Interest payments collapse, banks close, and unemployment soars. The economy is wrecked. People can't afford to pay interest on their debts, so many bonds deteriorate to worthlessness. The value of credit -- at best -- returns to the level it was before the program began.

See how it works?

Is the analogy perfect? No. The idea of pushing credit on people is far more dangerous than the idea of pushing Jaguars on them. In the credit scenario, debtors and even most creditors lose everything in the end. In the Jaguar scenario, at least everyone ends up with a garage full of cars. Of course, the Jaguar scenario is impossible, because the government can't produce value. It can, however, reduce values. A government that imposes a central bank monopoly, for example, can reduce the incremental value of credit. A monopoly credit system also allows for fraud and theft on a far bigger scale. Instead of government appropriating citizens' labor openly by having them produce cars, a monopoly banking system does so clandestinely by stealing stored labor from citizens' bank accounts by inflating the supply of credit, thereby reducing the value of their savings.
I hate to challenge mainstream 20th century macroeconomic theory, but the idea that a growing economy needs easy credit is a false theory. Credit should be supplied by the free market, in which case it will almost always be offered intelligently, primarily to producers, not consumers. Would lower levels of credit availability mean that fewer people would own a house or a car? Quite the opposite. Only the timeline would be different.

Initially it would take a few years longer for the same number of people to own houses and cars -- actually own them, not rent them from banks. Because banks would not be appropriating so much of everyone's labor and wealth, the economy would grow much faster. Eventually, the extent of home and car ownership -- actualownership -- would eclipse that in an easy-credit society. Moreover, people would keep their homes and cars because banks would not be foreclosing on them. As a bonus, there would be no devastating across-the-board collapse of the banking system, which, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, is inevitable under a central bank's fiat-credit monopoly.
Jaguars, anyone?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6251


« Reply #1556 on: January 24, 2015, 09:29:42 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/23/dem_sen_bernie_sanders_the_reality_is_that_real_unemployment_is_not_55_percent.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32291


« Reply #1557 on: January 25, 2015, 05:49:47 AM »

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6251


« Reply #1558 on: January 25, 2015, 01:11:12 PM »


In Seattle, the adoption of a $15 per hour minimum wage begins April 1, 2015.  The legislation will phase-in a $15 per hour minimum wage annually over 3 to 7 years, depending on employer size.
http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/MinimumWage/default.html

(You were duped, and so was I most of the way through writing a reply!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question on minimum wage is not how much to pay, but who should decide. 

The journalism here is quite misleading.  This policy is for a little municipality called SeaTac, population 26k located in the overpriced airport area of Seattle Tacoma.  It affects a .007 proportion of the (3.6 million) Seattle metropolitan area.  Airport areas are notoriously over-priced because of a captive audience.  That means the nation should do this??  (Seattle itself is only 18% of the "Seattle" metro area.) 

Alternatives to paying minimum wage workers include installing more labor saving innovations and setting up shop elsewhere.  Neither happens instantly.  From automated gas pumps to automated teller machines to automated french fry cookers, the effects are seen in the longer term. 

Even if you believe in having our all-knowing government meddle in minimum wage law, the correct number for each industry and each location is different.  Note that this experiment is in one city, not a metropolitan area, a whole state, much less a nation.   

You've got to love the thought process of the liberal commentary:  "They forgot the words of wisdom from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an address given in Cleveland, Ohio on October 16, 1936  "It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker." 

That of course has absolutely NOTHING to do with the minimum wage situation around the airport.  Maids don't rent rooms at The Ritz or buy many Boeing products!  What they do is end up on public support when jobs disappear.

"The biggest sign that the higher wage did not impact Seatac however comes with the news that the Seatac airport will be undergoing a half-billion dollar renovation and expansion."

Huh?  The public sector expanding means what??  Good grief!  Are these liberal sources coming from Crafty's facebook friends?  )

The minimum wage is entry pay for mostly unskilled work - the bottom wrung of the economic ladder.  The worker is supposed to gain skills and experience and move up the ladder.  But not if the government forces entry level work to be ever more lucrative, or if it causes the elimination of the first step on the ladder for more and more people.

What percent of American households live off of minimum wage with no other support? Almost none.  The average family income of a minimum wage worker is $53,000.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

False reporting of a false issue, IMHO.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32291


« Reply #1559 on: January 26, 2015, 11:41:29 AM »

Jobs Boom Thanks to Ending Unemployment Benefits Extension
Jan. 26, 2015
Print Email Bigger Smaller

“After a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999,” Barack Obama boasted in his State of the Union address. Indeed, he mentioned “jobs” some 19 times. The trouble is, it’s not his policies that are growing the job market – it’s the end of his policies. Democrats have long claimed that paying people not to work creates jobs, but as Ronald Reagan once quipped, “Our liberal friends … know so much that isn’t so.” According to a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, roughly 60% of 2014’s job growth came because Democrats' lavish unemployment benefits were not extended again. The study is by no means the last word on the subject, as there are innumerable factors that go into something so complex as the job market. But as National Review’s Patrick Brennan summarizes: “The general economic consensus has always been that unemployment insurance slightly boosts the unemployment rate. … [W]e still have unemployment insurance, of course, because we want a safety net for people in the event of job loss. That just has to be balanced against the costs that the program imposes on the labor market.” More…

Oh, and by the way, look to Texas for all the jobs. According to American Enterprise Institute’s Mark J. Perry, “It’s a pretty impressive story of how job creation in just one state – Texas – is solely responsible for the 1.169 million net increase in total US employment (+1,444,290 Texas jobs minus the 275,290 non-Texas job loss) in the seven year period between the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 and December 2014. The other 49 states and the District of Columbia together employ about 275,000 fewer Americans than at the start of the recession seven years ago, while the Lone Star State has added more than 1.25 million payroll jobs and more than 190,000 non-payroll jobs (primarily self-employed and farm workers).”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32291


« Reply #1560 on: January 26, 2015, 12:26:55 PM »



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/business/economy/middle-class-shrinks-further-as-more-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up.html?emc=edit_th_20150126&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32291


« Reply #1561 on: January 28, 2015, 10:39:44 AM »

How Student Debt Harms the Economy
In 2010-13, the percentage of younger people owning part of a new business dropped to 3.6% from 6.1%.
Mitchell E. Daniels
Jan. 27, 2015 6:34 p.m. ET
WSJ

To the growing catalog of damage caused by the decades-long run-up in the cost of higher education, we may have to add another casualty. On top of the harm high tuition and other charges are inflicting on young people, and the way their struggles are holding back today’s economy, we must add the worry that tomorrow’s economy will suffer, too.

Ever-escalating tuitions, especially in the past dozen years, have produced an explosion of associated debt, as students and their families resorted to borrowing to cover college prices that are the only major expense item in the economy that is growing faster than health care. According to the Federal Reserve, educational debt has shot past every other category—credit cards, auto loans, refinancings—except home mortgages, reaching some $1.3 trillion this year. Analyses in The Wall Street Journal and by Experian in 2014 show that 40 million people, roughly 70% of recent graduates, are now borrowers. In the class of 2014, the average borrower left with an average load of $33,000.

Even though the debt balloon is a fairly young phenomenon, several damaging results are already evident. Research from the Pew Research Center and Rutgers shows that today’s 20- and 30-year-olds are delaying marriage and delaying childbearing, both unhelpful trends from an economic and social standpoint. Between 25% and 40% of borrowers report postponing homes, cars and other major purchases. Half say that their student loans are increasing their risk of defaulting on other bills. Strikingly, 45% of graduates age 24 and under are living back at home or with a family member of some kind.

Now comes evidence that it’s not just consumer spending that these debts are denting, but also economic dynamism. A variety of indicators suggest that the debt burden is weighing on the engine that has always characterized American economic leadership—and the factor that many have assumed will overcome many structural and self-imposed challenges: our propensity to innovate and to invent new vehicles of wealth creation.

For instance, the U.S., despite its proud protestations about how creative and risk-taking it is, has fallen in multiple world-wide measures of entrepreneurship. A drop in such activity by the young is playing a part. From 2010 to 2013, the Journal reported on Jan. 2, the percentage of younger people who reported owning a part of a new business dropped to 3.6% from 6.1%. Over the past 10 years, the percentage of businesses started by someone under 34 fell to 22.7% from 26.4%. Common sense says that the seven in 10 graduates who enter the working world owing money may be part of this shift.

New data strengthens this hypothesis. Working with the Gallup Research organization, Purdue scholars devised last year’s Gallup-Purdue Index, the largest survey ever of U.S. college graduates. Among its findings: 26% of those who left school debt-free have started at least one business. Among those with debt of $40,000 or more, only 16% had done so.

Controlling the cost of higher education, and expanding access to its undeniable benefits, is first of all a social and moral obligation of those in a position to affect it. Purdue is midway through what is so far a three-year tuition freeze. Coupled with reductions in the costs of room and board and textbooks, these actions have brought down our total cost of attendance for each of the last two years, for the first time on record.

Aggressive counseling of students about the dangers of too much borrowing, and the alternatives available to them, has also helped, as total Purdue student borrowings have dropped by 18% since 2012. That represents some $40 million these superbly talented young engineers, computer scientists and other new workers will have to spend, or perhaps invest in their own dreams of enterprise. At Purdue, where we give students the ownership of any intellectual property they create, and support their attempts to give birth to new products and companies, a significant number of such dreams are likely to become real.

Today’s young Americans have a very legitimate beef with previous generations. A pathetically weak recovery has left millions of them unemployed, underemployed and with falling incomes, not the rising ones their predecessors could expect. And, never forget, they are already saddled with a lifetime per capita debt of some $700,000 (to date) to pay not for debts they incurred, but for those run up in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Social Security Disability and Medicare, explicitly designed to tax the young to subsidize their elders.

For future generations to enjoy the higher living standards America has always promised, nothing matters more than that the U.S. remains a land where miracles of innovation and entrepreneurship happen consistently. As a matter of generational fairness, and as an essential element of national economic success, the burden of high tuitions and student debt must be alleviated, and soon.

Mr. Daniels, the former governor of Indiana (2005-13), is the president of Purdue University.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!