mcdonalds raising prices 5-10% in the coming weeks

a wee bit of inflation maybe? product prices rising all over the place as far as i can see. i noticed my grocery bills steadily increasing on mah google spreadsheets

11/14/2011 11:45:00 PM

Here's hoping inflation goes up, that might be the only way people might be compelled to actually start spending and investing again and get the economy moving

11/16/2011 3:10:33 PM

That's right, guys. Prices aren't going up fast enough! Grocery bill has gone up 10% on the year, you say? Imagine how great life will be if your grocery bill goes up 30% over the next year! You'll really be feeling the stimulus then...especially when you lose your job.

Jesus Christ...your ideology is a cancer. You're squarely on the side of both previous administrations - "we just need to get people spending!" And with not a fucking care in the world of consequences. Is your goal to have a perfect, socialist utopia where everyone is a subsistence farmer?

You reject capitalism yet you encourage rampant consumerism at every turn. You condone and actually encourage theft on a massive scale. You support the devaluation of money, which is all that most elderly people have to their name. You are a stupid person for advocating these policies.

This central bank stuff is not consistent with socialism as it has been explained to me. It makes no sense to have the Fed controlling our money. That's not democratic in any sense. Why don't you guys come out against this?

11/16/2011 4:01:17 PM

Understanding how to make Capitalism function does not equal endorsing Capitalism, destroyer

11/16/2011 4:02:31 PM

If my goal was a socialist utopia I would start voting Republican to hasten our march towards the final crisis of Capitalism and subsequent collapse and revolution

And...everyone subsistence farming? You really don't understand socialism, it's goals, or even its hypothetical outcome at all, do you

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2011 4:03:47 PM

So you're asserting that capitalism doesn't work unless we have high inflation rates?

Quote :

"If my goal was a socialist utopia I would start voting Republican to hasten our march towards the final crisis of Capitalism and subsequent collapse and revolution"

If that's what you want, then we need to have real capitalism first. Once resources and education become abundant, then we can move towards socialism. We're not even close to that point.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 4:04:14 PM

Quote :

"So you're asserting that capitalism doesn't work unless we have high inflation rates?"

If your definition of "work" is "grow the economy" then there has to be some degree of inflation to encourage investment. An economy doesn't grow when people don't spend, when money doesn't circulate. People don't spend their money when it earns interest sitting under the bed. When everybody saves like this, we all lose out overall because of the loss of growth that circulation would have caused. There's a name for it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift and of course you'll see the name Keynes in the first paragraph so you'll probably close that tab as soon as you open it.

Also, Capitalist growth *requires* constant consumerism, which is another reason I'd like to move on from it.

Also, the price of milk going up 10% does not mean inflation is 10%, that's why most inflation measures are an aggregate of many commodities, so as to try and separate out. Finally "high" inflation rates is a relative term.

Quote :

"If that's what you want, then we need to have real capitalism first."

Not this one again. You already know that I think we've already seen Capitalism in its "purest it's gonna get" form during the 19th century and early 20th (aka: Times that really sucked). So let's not do this dance again unless you have something new on this, because I don't have anything fresh since the last time except maybe a list of the banking crises that occurred.

Quote :

"Once resources and education become abundant, then we can move towards socialism. We're not even close to that point."

I think that's debatable. We have far more abundance than is obvious looking around, it's just largely concentrated and is managed according to profit potential, not public needs.


[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2011 4:08:34 PM

Quote :

"If you definition of "work" is "grow the economy" then there has to be some degree of inflation to encourage investment."

Well, the inflation rate for much of the 19th century was negative, yet investment, economic growth, and living standards improved dramatically during that century.

Quote :

"Capitalism in its "purest it's gonna get" form during the 19th century and early 20th (aka: Times that really sucked)."

While life sucked for the poorest during the 19th century which had to work very hard in unsafe conditions to feed their families, they at least succeeded in their goals, beating the hell out of previous centuries where the poorest just died of starvation.

11/16/2011 4:19:35 PM

Quote :

"Well, the inflation rate for much of the 19th century was negative, yet investment, economic growth, and living standards improved dramatically during that century."

The inflation rate in the 19th century was negative when it wasn't expericing hyperinflative strikes during gold rushes or bank runs or each-decade recessions.

Look at that stable economy

Quote :

"yet investment, economic growth, and living standards improved dramatically during that century"

Same goes for the USSR. Moving from an agricultural to an industrial society will do that, regardless of your underlying economic system.

Quote :

"While life sucked for the poorest during the 19th century which had to work very hard in unsafe conditions to feed their families, they at least succeeded in their goals, beating the hell out of previous centuries where the poorest just died of starvation."

Once again, same goes for Russian peasants after the bolshevik revolution. It's nearly impossible to have technological progress and move from agrarian life to industrial life without having at least some increase in your standard of living.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2011 4:27:38 PM

All of that is completely true.

notes:
we still have recessions about every decade.
Russia peasants in the USSR kept starving to death well after their industrial revolution.

11/16/2011 5:18:19 PM

Quote :

"People don't spend their money when it earns interest sitting under the bed."

Facts not in evidence. People do spend their money, even if their money is gaining value, because there are higher yielding assets, or they just want stuff right now. In parts of the 19th century, we did have price deflation, yet still had strong economic growth at the same time. The people complaining about "shortages of money" at that time were bankers.

Deflation is a boogeyman. It's an excuse for the banks to legally steal from the people and profit from it. There's nothing wrong with thrift. Economic growth will not stop, it'll just be slower than in an inflationary environment, and it will also be more sustainable because you don't have debt-fueled booms.

Quote :

"Also, Capitalist growth *requires* constant consumerism, which is another reason I'd like to move on from it. "

Okay, but you're calling for accelerated consumerism, with no regard for externalities.

Quote :

"Not this one again. You already know that I think we've already seen Capitalism in its "purest it's gonna get" form during the 19th century and early 20th (aka: Times that really sucked). So let's not do this dance again unless you have something new on this, because I don't have anything fresh since the last time except maybe a list of the banking crises that occurred."

Who says those times "really sucked"? There was economic growth. Of course, they didn't have the technology we have now, so it was worse in that sense...but the United States made progress.

Quote :

"I think that's debatable. We have far more abundance than is obvious looking around, it's just largely concentrated and is managed according to profit potential, not public needs. "

There is a lot of abundance, and the central planners prevent it from being unleashed.

Quote :

"we still have recessions about every decade. "

Yeah bro, but at least now that we have the Federal Reserve fulfilling their dual mandate (low unemployment and low inflation), the recessions aren't that bad and they end relatively quickly!!11

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 5:55:09 PM

WTI crude $102.59 QE3?

11/16/2011 6:11:55 PM

Quote :

"Russia peasants in the USSR kept starving to death well after their industrial revolution."

Peasants starved to death in America too throughout 19th century and early 20th. Some still do today. That doesn't mean things aren't better than they were in the past. Somebody's never bothered to look at Tsarist Russia...

11/17/2011 12:23:59 PM

Quote :

"There is a lot of abundance, and the central planners prevent it from being unleashed."

Do you ever think about the fact that any corporation is almost guaranteed to be 100x more centrally-planned, dictatorial, anti-democratic, and redistributionist than our government could ever hope to be be?

So I guess I agree with you then, the central planners enjoying CEO positions in major conglomerates are indeed hoarding wealth and keeping us from recognizing and utilizing our abundances.

11/17/2011 12:32:26 PM

Quote :

"Do you ever think about the fact that any corporation is almost guaranteed to be 100x more centrally-planned, dictatorial, anti-democratic, and redistributionist than our government could ever hope to be be? "

No, corporations and the government are run about the same. The difference is that customers and workers get to leave a corporation if they don't like it, and they wouldn't even need to move.

^^ While I'm sure someone in America manages to starve themselves to death by accident (The Donner party comes to mind), it has been limited to a dozen or so people a year for almost two centuries. In Tzarist Russia and Stalinist Russia starvation was often institutional and the quantity was sometimes hundreds of thousands a year.

11/17/2011 1:07:36 PM

Quote :

"No, corporations and the government are run about the same."

Really? When was the last time you (assuming you're employed by a corporation) even SYMBOLICALLY voted on a company action that affected you? On allocation of resources, policies and rules, any of that? Sure, the OWNERS get to vote on the CEO and certain decisions, but the control structure over employees is ultimately a total dictatorship.

Everything you claim to loath about government, the central planning (hierarchical management), micromanaging people's lives (employee drug testing), regulations (s.o.p. manuals), even taxation (the difference between your pay and their profit) all manifest FAR more extremely in corporate structures.

Quote :

"The difference is that customers and workers get to leave a corporation if they don't like it, and they wouldn't even need to move. "

Lol what? Yeah, it's not like their very livelihood depends on the job. It's not like unemployment's through the roof. It's not like getting a new job often requires you to move (assuming you aren't just a gas station clerk who can do that job anywhere). What fucking planet do you live on where people who hate their jobs just up and leave? Last time I checked the *majority* of Americans were dissatisfied with their jobs. So why do they stay? Because they *depend* on that job to get by, and at least in the immediately tangible senses even more than they depend on the government.

Quote :

"^^ While I'm sure someone in America manages to starve themselves to death by accident (The Donner party comes to mind), it has been limited to a dozen or so people a year for almost two centuries. In Tzarist Russia and Stalinist Russia starvation was often institutional and the quantity was sometimes hundreds of thousands a year."

The point is that Bolshevik Russia was a vast improvement for most of the people over Tsarist Russia. I'm not even necessarily trying to tie that to the politics, the technological advancement alone can likely be attributed.


[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ,]

11/18/2011 12:19:29 PM

double post

[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2011 12:25:21 PM

Quote :

"Really? When was the last time you (assuming you're employed by a corporation) even SYMBOLICALLY voted on a company action that affected you? On allocation of resources, policies and rules, any of that? Sure, the OWNERS get to vote on the CEO and certain decisions, but the control structure over employees is ultimately a total dictatorship. "

And when was the last time you even SYMBOLICALLY voted on a government action that affected you? Many local government hold meetings where attendees can vote. But so do some corporations. But on big national issues, you at best get to vote for people, which then do whatever dictatorial thing they want to do (I'm sure Obama has followed through on all of his campaign promises by now, right?).

No one ever asked me if I should be mandated to buy health insurance. Obama actually campaigned against such a mandate to defeat Hillary for the party primary.

Quote :

"Americans were dissatisfied with their jobs. So why do they stay?"

Because they decided it was in their own best interest to do so. But they have the choice of leaving. If a better job comes along they can and do. The people of Cuba enjoy no such luxury with respect to their government.

I fully admit the US Government is often well run and usually a great regime to live under. But it operates under the assumption that if it wanted to be a bad regime it has the right to do so. This is what I disagree with.

11/18/2011 1:29:17 PM

Quote :

" And when was the last time you even SYMBOLICALLY voted on a government action that affected you? Many local government hold meetings where attendees can vote. But so do some corporations. But on big national issues, you at best get to vote for people, which then do whatever dictatorial thing they want to do (I'm sure Obama has followed through on all of his campaign promises by now, right?). "

Okay, but in a business you don't even get to vote for the people.

Quote :

"Because they decided it was in their own best interest to do so. But they have the choice of leaving. If a better job comes along they can and do. The people of Cuba enjoy no such luxury with respect to their government. "

That's a pretty big if, and kinda the crux of the argument. With 9% inflation, you're a moron to leave your job if you don't already have another one lined up. Calling that a "choice" seems a bit dubious to me. This is the classic libertarian vs. socialist debate then, is a voluntary contract truly voluntary if one party is entering negotiation operating under threat of homelessness/starvation/poverty should they turn down the job?

Usually the libertarian will retort with "Well then apply for a different job, competition etc." but again the point is that, in a high unemployment economy, a single laborer really has no leverage whatsoever, and ultimately has to settle for whatever he can get. In the old days, this was counteracted with unions, unfortunately unions today are at record low participation levels (despite what Rush might have you think).

[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2011 3:43:48 PM

Quote :

"That's a pretty big if, and kinda the crux of the argument. With 9% inflation, you're a moron to leave your job if you don't already have another one lined up. Calling that a "choice" seems a bit dubious to me. This is the classic libertarian vs. socialist debate then, is a voluntary contract truly voluntary if one party is entering negotiation operating under threat of homelessness/starvation/poverty should they turn down the job?"

The fuck? It's as if jobs will disappear forever and there will never be any want of taking resources and turning them into finished goods. It's as if humans themselves will cease existing if the aggregate demand reaches some tipping point.

Quote :

"a single laborer really has no leverage whatsoever"

Again, the fuck does this even mean? Of course you have leverage wherever there is a skill that is desired. Certainly if you have to you'll work for less wage as the price re-adjusts.

When are you guys going to stop reposting Keynesian bullshit about aggregate demand over and over and over again like it's a new argument? It won't be long before it's thoroughly discredited because lumping all production/services into 1 unit as if they are all the same thing and discuss 1 price level is just stupid.

[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .d]

11/18/2011 4:00:31 PM

Quote :

"It won't be long before it's thoroughly discredited because lumping all production/services into 1 unit as if they are all the same thing and discuss 1 price level is just stupid. "

Keynes rejects the notion of a general price level in A Treatise on Money; you'll probably find some posts from me in the last few weeks explaining such a thing in inflation discussions.

People are talking about propensity to consume and investment falling short of what's required for full employment; part of this is due to depressed demand, as people don't have money (unemployed, underemployed; also, wages have been stagnant). Nobody's pretending this is a "new" argument ... it's the same old Keynesian spiel as always.

11/18/2011 4:24:54 PM

Quote :

"what's required for full employment"

I don't hardly see how anyone can divorce themselves from a general price level and still try to talk about anything in the aggregate.

11/18/2011 5:01:00 PM

I don't hardly know why you expect anyone to respond to you seriously, as your reaction to anything coming close to refuting your stupid intuitions with either:

A) Economics cannot exist because chaotic systems blah blah blah

B) The only correlations that correspond to causation are ones I already believe in

Basically you react to anything approaching a refutation of what you're saying by withdrawing into a vortex of doubt where you ask questions like "Just because I think can I REALLY be sure I am?"

Pretty sure that's why McDanger's blocked your posts, pretty sure it's why I increasingly gloss over them. You're a broken record and your heuristics for avoiding confrontation with anything that might challenge your beliefs are painfully similar to a child clamping his hands over his ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA

11/21/2011 11:01:13 AM

FYI, I up and quit my corporate job because it didn't make me happy.

I then interned, job shadowed, volunteered, and studied to build a marketable skill set in an industry I was fascinated with; while working odd construction and handy jobs to make ends meet.

Now I run my own business doing what I love... soon to open my own brick and mortar location.

So this argument that working for Corps is a dead end is really not true. You just have to man up and accept taking a risk.

Granted, if you have a ton of a debt and dependents, then that risk factor is greatly increased. But it is still possible to do what you love with enough dedication and persistence.

11/21/2011 11:27:04 AM

It also helps if odd construction and handy jobs are available. I know a few guys who lost their jobs in layoff rounds and have been trying to do exactly that, plus landscaping and roofing. Seeing as how a lot of people are out of work themselves, and just about everyone's cutting costs to get by, there's not that many odd jobs left for them to do these days. Plus there's millions of people trying to do exactly the same things, so competition is high even there.

Like you said, it's rarely ever impossible to do it if you have dedication etc, but the fact of the matter is that your economic environment does make a huge difference in your ability to navigate between jobs or even to self-employment. This should be obvious but some people insist on believing that the only relevant variable to the success equation is the TRUE GRIT coefficient.

I think you should also consider the fact that, for your success, there are probably dozens of guys who did the exact same thing, put in just as much effort as you did, and are still scraping by on odd jobs when they can get them. Not to mention there's probably hundreds of thousands of guys who started doing what you did because they lost their Corp job (that they may have even enjoyed) in the recession for no fault of their own.

Personally, I've maintained gainful employment since I was 15, even through the Recession, and worked my ass off every step of the way. And yet I recognize that some luck and some privilege had a lot to do with it at various steps along the way. That doesn't diminish my sense of accomplishment, but some people seem to be so insecure that any suggestion that maybe they had to some luck or help along the way compels them to transform into Super Saiyan Ayn-Randian Ubermench Lvl 5


[Edited on November 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2011 11:33:05 AM

Quote :

"Okay, but in a business you don't even get to vote for the people."

Yes, you do. You choose to be an employee. You choose to be a customer. Private enterprise is the most democratic institution that exists...until they manage to get special benefits through the force of government. Which, of course, won't happen under your ideal system, because only good people will be running the state. The irony is that sociopaths are drawn to power like a moth to the flame.

Quote :

"That's a pretty big if, and kinda the crux of the argument. With 9% inflation, you're a moron to leave your job if you don't already have another one lined up. Calling that a "choice" seems a bit dubious to me. This is the classic libertarian vs. socialist debate then, is a voluntary contract truly voluntary if one party is entering negotiation operating under threat of homelessness/starvation/poverty should they turn down the job?"

It's not much of a debate. You have a choice to leave. The idea of "positive liberty" is completely absurd and should be marginalized. You don't have a single fucking claim to other people's labor.

The grand assumption by socialists is that there will be a single factory in town. This ignores globalization and the blatant realities of the modern era, which points to ultra-specialization, niche markets, and ever-expanding opportunities. No one is trapped in a single job, in a single place, with a single company. People break out from this supposed "wage slavery" every day. You want to utilize government as a way to make it so that people don't ever have to leave their comfort zone, which is stupid. Really, really stupid.

Unions are fine, until they manage to strong arm the government into subsidizing less productive industries, which almost always happens.

Quote :

"Economics cannot exist because chaotic systems blah blah blah"

You don't understand the argument if this is how you're restating it.

Human behavior (which includes economics) cannot be accurately modeled. Economics is a social science. I do not deny that there is value to empirical data and econometrics. I'm just willing to admit the limitations of it. On the other hand, you and McDanger envision some pseudo-technocratic utopia where you're "optimizing the economy" from atop an ivory tower. It's arrogant, it's destructive, and the global economy is headed for a very dark place if we don't reject this ideology in its entirety.

Quote :

"I think you should also consider the fact that, for your success, there are probably dozens of guys who did the exact same thing, put in just as much effort as you did, and are still scraping by on odd jobs when they can get them. Not to mention there's probably hundreds of thousands of guys who started doing what you did because they lost their Corp job (that they may have even enjoyed) in the recession for no fault of their own."

This is certainly not the case. In MattJMM2's case, he works in an area (personal training) where the market is saturated with completely unqualified trainers. Trainers that advocate dubious programming and conditioning methods that simply don't work and are a waste of the customer's money. He has set himself apart by actually getting the proper education and experience necessary to provide a quality service.

In every industry, there are limitless possibilities for innovation and improvement. You want to engineer a system that caters to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather have a system that adequately rewards passion, dedication, and creativity.

11/21/2011 1:12:41 PM

Quote :

"Yes, you do. You choose to be an employee. You choose to be a customer."

Being an employee: Submitting to another person's dictatorial control in order to earn a wage to feed yourself

Being a customer: Paying for an item because you need/want it and it's at a cost that suits you

Being an appointee by a Democratically elected President:

Which of these are Democratic?

Destroyer says:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

Quote :

"Private enterprise is the most democratic institution that exists..."

Lol you're absolutely insane. You love Capitalism so much you'll make it synonymous with anything else that's good. You might have a point if "Democracy" meant "One dollar, one vote"

Quote :

"It's not much of a debate. You have a choice to leave. "

Once again the libertarian's warped notion of voluntary action comes into play again. If I put a gun to your head and told you to to never quit your job, would you have a choice? No? So then why is it when a person is threatened with poverty by leaving their job it's still a choice? It's like libertarians are only able to conceive of an involuntary situation IF there's a clear human aggressor present. Seriously, can you at least *try* for a moment to consider that it's possible for a person to be in a coercive situation *without* there being a directly coercing person holding a gun to their head?

Quote :

"The idea of "positive liberty" is completely absurd and should be marginalized. You don't have a single fucking claim to other people's labor."

The right to protection private property is a positive liberty you fucking moron. I pay taxes every hour I work so the police can disproportionately shield the rich from crime.

Quote :

"The grand assumption by socialists is that there will be a single factory in town. This ignores globalization and the blatant realities of the modern era, which points to ultra-specialization, niche markets, and ever-expanding opportunities. No one is trapped in a single job, in a single place, with a single company. People break out from this supposed "wage slavery" every day. You want to utilize government as a way to make it so that people don't ever have to leave their comfort zone, which is stupid. Really, really stupid."

Libertarianism relies on constantly assuming there's always another job available somewhere, every person has the money and ability to move, that taking and leaving jobs is zero-cost, and a host of other assumptions that can basically be summed up as a frictionless marketplace. Oh, surprise, libertarianism relies on having no connection to reality whatsoever and concocting your entire philosophy based on the glossary definitions found in the back of an econ101 textbook.

There is no "Grand assumption" of a single factory, quite the opposite, the "grand assumption" is that the entirety of the ownership class benefits from driving down wages as a whole. That's not a grand assumption, it's basic market economics that you should be acquainted with.

Quote :

"Human behavior (which includes economics) cannot be accurately modeled. Economics is a social science. I do not deny that there is value to empirical data and econometrics. I'm just willing to admit the limitations of it. On the other hand, you and McDanger envision some pseudo-technocratic utopia where you're "optimizing the economy" from atop an ivory tower. It's arrogant, it's destructive, and the global economy is headed for a very dark place if we don't reject this ideology in its entirety."

Give me a fucking break. Capitalism makes more assumptions about human behavior than any other, in fact it makes one large assumption that is basically a distributed Just World theory. You believe that the human species, which only recently evolved in small groups of a hundred or so, has a set of behavorial patterns, wants, needs, thought processes, that when scaled to 7 billion people and extrapolated into a post-industrial, post-computerized society, "just works out fine if you let the market flourish." Every species on Earth falls prey to tragedies of the commons, will eat its food supply dry without natural predators, yet somehow you people believe humans are different. If you can't see how your ideology makes vast, vast assumptions of about human behavior, and especially aggregate human behavior, you're seriously blinded by dogmatism.


The Socialist idea of the future isn't that we can model humans perfectly on day one, or even entirely ever. The idea is that at least trying to is better than just letting things run wild. Best part is if something doesn't work well, we can change our models and adapt them. Your ideology is 100% inflexible, you can't learn from your mistakes and make modifications because your ideology is based on One Big Idea which precludes conscious interference altogether.

And no, neither McDanger nor I envision this ivory tower shit you keep spitting out. Us, and most Socialists, demand Democratic management of production. There'll be plenty of computers gathering data, preparing models, producing graphs and charts and whatever, but the goal is to present that information to the people who work, and let the workers decide how their resources and products are allocated.

Can you please read that over again so you stop making this stupid accusation; I don't accuse you of being a Capitalist because you secretly desire to form a worldwide conglomerated monopoly where everyone works for company currency that only buys goods at the company store, so please do me the reciprocal favor of not pretending I've ever advocated we make a SKYNET to run the economy. You're relying on these kinds of strawmen more and more and sooner or later I'm hoping you'll realize that and ask yourself why you're resorting to that.

Quote :

"This is certainly not the case. In MattJMM2's case, he works in an area (personal training) where the market is saturated with completely unqualified trainers. Trainers that advocate dubious programming and conditioning methods that simply don't work and are a waste of the customer's money. He has set himself apart by actually getting the proper education and experience necessary to provide a quality service. In every industry, there are limitless possibilities for innovation and improvement. You want to engineer a system that caters to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather have a system that adequately rewards passion, dedication, and creativity."

You missed the entire point of my post, which is in order to get that education he relied on there being a demand for construction and odd jobs. In other words, his economic mobility was limited by environmental conditions, not his own passion or dedication.

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/22/2011 11:31:08 AM

Quote :

"If I put a gun to your head and told you to to never quit your job, would you have a choice? No? So then why is it when a person is threatened with poverty by leaving their job it's still a choice?"

Because poverty is not life-threatening. A bullet to the head is.

Quote :

"The idea is that at least trying to is better than just letting things run wild."

Let me rephrase that. "The idea is that letting humans with a government badge run wild is preferable to letting humans without a badge run wild."

Quote :

"quite the opposite, the "grand assumption" is that the entirety of the ownership class benefits from driving down wages as a whole."

And your solution to this perverse incentive is to give that same power class the legal authority to impose lower wages on the whole through legislated restrictions to prevent competition?

You accept that the rich and powerful in a capitalist setting don't have their workers or customers best interests in mind but someone believe that same person in a political capacity magically does have their constituents bests interests in mind?

It doesn't matter how much friction there is in labor markets, an employee can always choose to suffer the costs without threat of death. Only Congress can imprison someone for quitting their job. Ask someone trying to leave the military before their contract is up how much friction the government imposes upon labor markets.

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/22/2011 12:08:02 PM

Quote :

"Being an employee: Submitting to another person's dictatorial control in order to earn a wage to feed yourself Being a customer: Paying for an item because you need/want it and it's at a cost that suits you Being an appointee by a Democratically elected President:"

When you're an employee, you are not necessarily submitting to another person's dictatorial control. You are there to do a job. You can leave.

The customer sound parts great.

Appointments are not democratic in any sense. The people don't choose appointments. Elected representatives choose appointments. In some cases, appointees choose appointments.

Quote :

"Lol you're absolutely insane. You love Capitalism so much you'll make it synonymous with anything else that's good. You might have a point if "Democracy" meant "One dollar, one vote""

Yes. You keep what you earn through your labor. You then choose which enterprises you want to support. This is far, far more democratic than being told to suck it by the 51% that decided they wanted to rob you of everything you have or use your money in a way that you find abhorrent.

Quote :

"Once again the libertarian's warped notion of voluntary action comes into play again. If I put a gun to your head and told you to to never quit your job, would you have a choice? No? So then why is it when a person is threatened with poverty by leaving their job it's still a choice? It's like libertarians are only able to conceive of an involuntary situation IF there's a clear human aggressor present. Seriously, can you at least *try* for a moment to consider that it's possible for a person to be in a coercive situation *without* there being a directly coercing person holding a gun to their head?"

If you put a gun to my head, I wouldn't have a choice. If you said "do the work we hired you to do, or leave", then I absolutely have a choice.

You're asking if force can be called force if it isn't actually force. No, it can't.

Quote :

"The right to protection private property is a positive liberty you fucking moron. I pay taxes every hour I work so the police can disproportionately shield the rich from crime."

How's that working out?

Quote :

"Libertarianism relies on constantly assuming there's always another job available somewhere"

There pretty much is. What are the odds that the only job available anywhere is the one you're currently employed at?

Quote :

"every person has the money and ability to move"

Quote :

"that taking and leaving jobs is zero-cost"

Libertarianism doesn't assume either of these.

Quote :

"There is no "Grand assumption" of a single factory, quite the opposite, the "grand assumption" is that the entirety of the ownership class benefits from driving down wages as a whole. That's not a grand assumption, it's basic market economics that you should be acquainted with."

They benefit from driving down wages, but they also benefit by having better employees. You compete for better employees with higher wages. That's basic market economics, which you don't understand.

Quote :

"Give me a fucking break. Capitalism makes more assumptions about human behavior than any other, in fact it makes one large assumption that is basically a distributed Just World theory. You believe that the human species, which only recently evolved in small groups of a hundred or so, has a set of behavorial patterns, wants, needs, thought processes, that when scaled to 7 billion people and extrapolated into a post-industrial, post-computerized society, "just works out fine if you let the market flourish." Every species on Earth falls prey to tragedies of the commons, will eat its food supply dry without natural predators, yet somehow you people believe humans are different. If you can't see how your ideology makes vast, vast assumptions of about human behavior, and especially aggregate human behavior, you're seriously blinded by dogmatism."

I don't believe that everything will work out fine. I believe that you don't know how to manage shit (otherwise you would be), and I want to make sure that people like you aren't holding a gun to my head telling me how to live.

Quote :

"The Socialist idea of the future isn't that we can model humans perfectly on day one, or even entirely ever. The idea is that at least trying to is better than just letting things run wild. Best part is if something doesn't work well, we can change our models and adapt them. Your ideology is 100% inflexible, you can't learn from your mistakes and make modifications because your ideology is based on One Big Idea which precludes conscious interference altogether."

It's not! That's the entire fucking point. People trying to model human behavior has caused serious problems for us. Entire economies have been based on the assumption that we can "engineer" the economy. This is what Krugman (who is a puppet of corporate interests) believes and states in his column.

Quote :

"And no, neither McDanger nor I envision this ivory tower shit you keep spitting out. Us, and most Socialists, demand Democratic management of production. There'll be plenty of computers gathering data, preparing models, producing graphs and charts and whatever, but the goal is to present that information to the people who work, and let the workers decide how their resources and products are allocated. "

Yeah, and that's pretty dumb. Organization an enterprise takes way more expertise than operating machines or performing physical labor. Do you not see why having years of experience is more valuable than labor that can be performed by anyone with a functioning body?

Quote :

"Can you please read that over again so you stop making this stupid accusation; I don't accuse you of being a Capitalist because you secretly desire to form a worldwide conglomerated monopoly where everyone works for company currency that only buys goods at the company store, so please do me the reciprocal favor of not pretending I've ever advocated we make a SKYNET to run the economy. You're relying on these kinds of strawmen more and more and sooner or later I'm hoping you'll realize that and ask yourself why you're resorting to that. "

You missed the point big time. You say that people will become wage slaves and have no other options. I'm saying that's highly unlikely and probably closer to impossible in a free market economy.

Quote :

"You missed the entire point of my post, which is in order to get that education he relied on there being a demand for construction and odd jobs. In other words, his economic mobility was limited by environmental conditions, not his own passion or dedication."

What scenario are you envisioning where demand magically evaporates? As long as wages are allowed to fall, there will be demand for labor.

11/22/2011 12:17:45 PM

Quote :

"The right to protection private property is a positive liberty you fucking moron. "

Good thing you have no right to other people protecting your private property. Don't believe me? Try calling up the local police and demanding your right to an officer stationed at your house while you're not home to protect your goods. Try suing when you get assaulted and the police don't respond to your 911 call until its too late (hint, it's been done before, the courts ruled in favor of the police). Ask anyone who's had an abusive spouse violate their restraining order how well their demands for "protection" have gone. I hope you don't seriously think you have a right to police protection, or you are in for a very rude awakening.

11/22/2011 1:50:39 PM

Quote :

""The Socialist idea of the future isn't that we can model humans perfectly on day one, or even entirely ever. The idea is that at least trying to is better than just letting things run wild. Best part is if something doesn't work well, we can change our models and adapt them. Your ideology is 100% inflexible, you can't learn from your mistakes and make modifications because your ideology is based on One Big Idea which precludes conscious interference altogether.""

Your entire premise rests on the assumption that we will in fact

#1) Be able to collect enough data to
#2) Be able to craft a model based on that data that can then be used for policy

And when I point out that just the US economy has a few hundred million actors making probably quadrillions of transactions a year and I think from today (maybe not 100? 1000? 10000? years from today) it's ludicrous to fathom you can actually achieve this goal you get all huffy and puffy like I'm an anti-scientist or something.

Do you even grasp the enormity of what you are proposing? Or are you so arrogant like every other economist that you really do grasp it and think that despite all evidence up to now that we can't control it that it's just a matter of time until we can?

11/22/2011 5:01:37 PM

Before this thread devolves any further into the classic "SOCIALISM BAD....NO, CAPITALISM BAD" argument that all soapbox threads eventually end up at I wanted to ask if there were any alternative scenarios that people wanted to discuss that didn't involve Fiat currency. In this case I'm specifically thinking nominal GDP level targeting or maybe something similar. To me, it seems to take a lot of power out of the FED's hands but still offers some flexibility. The FED seems to be against it so I thought maybe the anti-fed folks might be atleast a little interested.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/11/22/federal_reserve_rejects_ngdp_targeting.html

I just wanted to see what some responses were to these types of alternatives.


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/ngdp

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 5:26 PM. Reason : moar links]

11/22/2011 5:16:35 PM

Well, those of us that just posted we don't believe in model nirvana don't believe in ANY alternative that would be proposed where we try and inspect the economy, apply statistics, correction factors, and which butterfly flapped its wings in Africa and then decide...yup, this is what we need to do with the money supply or the interest rates now that are FAIR to everyone regardless of race, creed, or status.

11/22/2011 5:23:00 PM

I take it you prefer fiat currency then? I didn't realize that.

I think nominal GDP is pretty common, easily understood, and is relatively hard to manipulate like maybe some other inputs people might have trouble agreeing with. If we make the FED open and accountable enough we could tell if they were doing their job or not if we had simple criteria to judge them by (their current mandate is pretty vague)

Quote :

"and which butterfly flapped its wings in Africa and then decide...yup, this is what we need to do with the money supply or the interest rates now that are FAIR to everyone regardless of race, creed, or status. "

A rising tide raises all ships correct? In this case the tide is being measured in GDP. Doesn't a growing GDP mean that businesses are growing and most people in America are doing ok? (if they aren't its their own fault etc etc)

11/22/2011 5:39:06 PM

GDP also includes government spending. If we build bombs and planes, enlist some soldiers, and destroy an entire country's infrastructure, you can bet your ass GDP will go up. Did we experience real economic growth?

11/22/2011 5:57:00 PM

What's your definition of economic growth?

I realize that nothing the government does is legitimate to you, but the fact is someone in a factory added value to resources to create products (in this case bombs). If businesses were in the business of bombing other countries would it be any different? For instance if industry in the US joined together and decided that the most cost efficient way for them to compete with businesses in China was to bomb Chinese infrastructure and they bought bombs and mercenaries (instead of say TV commercial spots) then how is that, with respect to the bomb making factory, any different from our government buying bombs? It doesn't matter where the revenue comes from (I don't care how government comes up with their revenue whether its printing presses or taxes.) The fact is someone gets paid to add value to something, which is what creates wealth Note that in some cases multinationals do employ mercenaries and buy ammo to protect their assets, does this not produce increases in GDP?

When the government buys paper to put in their printers so that they can conduct business does the paper company not make money off that contract and then pay the people that work for them blah blah blah?

I don't really want to argue this though. Again, is there anyone out there with some thought on Nominal GDP targetting or something similiar? I'm not 100% sold on it but am very interested in others thoughts.

11/22/2011 6:18:39 PM

Quote :

"I realize that nothing the government does is legitimate to you, but the fact is someone in a factory added value to resources to create products (in this case bombs). If businesses were in the business of bombing other countries would it be any different? For instance if industry in the US joined together and decided that the most cost efficient way for them to compete with businesses in China was to bomb Chinese infrastructure and they bought bombs and mercenaries (instead of say TV commercial spots) then how is that, with respect to the bomb making factory, any different from our government buying bombs? It doesn't matter where the revenue comes from (I don't care how government comes up with their revenue whether its printing presses or taxes.) The fact is someone gets paid to add value to something, which is what creates wealth Note that in some cases multinationals do employ mercenaries and buy ammo to protect their assets, does this not produce increases in GDP?"

I think what you're saying is implausible. Private corporations could not invade and occupy countries with any degree of success. The reason governments can do it is because they have control of the people and the money.

While Krugman et al will say that, yes, war is a way to ramp up growth, even if it's not the best way, I disagree. It only ramps up growth on one side - our side. It ignores the death and destruction on the other side. It also ignores the lost productivity on our side. What if every dollar spent on bombs was instead spent on infrastructure? We could have fiber all over the United States if we had not pissed away so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Economic growth is when people are creating things of value and selling them on the free market. Economic growth is not destroying things. China has been posting monstrous GDP figures for a while, using dubious methods like destroying perfectly good buildings and building brand new ones. It's not unlike "Cash for Clunkers".

The GDP figure is shit. It can be (and is) manipulated. Let's not target some artificial number, just allow markets to work.

11/22/2011 6:30:28 PM

Quote :

"I think what you're saying is implausible. Private corporations could not invade and occupy countries with any degree of success. The reason governments can do it is because they have control of the people and the money. "

We haven't seen anything of the degree I described, but its still a possibility. If private companies generated enough revenue, and especially if they decided to collude together to attack a third world shit hole, lets say Libya, they could pull it off (although I do think they would be pretty harshly condemned blah blah blah)

Quote :

"While Krugman et al will say that, yes, war is a way to ramp up growth, even if it's not the best way, I disagree. It only ramps up growth on one side - our side. It ignores the death and destruction on the other side. It also ignores the lost productivity on our side. "

What about the death and destruction that happened at Bhopal? What about the destruction that may occur due to climate change etc etc blah blah blah. We buy things from third world nations and heap our externalities on them all the time because in the end it makes us wealthier. Its not that much different than explicitly bombing them.

Quote :

"It also ignores the lost productivity on our side. What if every dollar spent on bombs was instead spent on infrastructure? We could have fiber all over the United States if we had not pissed away so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

Obviously, I agree that infrastructure spending is better, it will create larger gains in GDP over time, but what is the difference between employing someone to make bombs versus fiber optic cable? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely (it remains to be seen) give us access to new Oil fields and new mineral ores etc etc blah blah blah. It seems like you are arbitrarily deciding what is an economic good and what is an economic "bad." Instead why not just count everything?

Quote :

"Economic growth is when people are creating things of value and selling them on the free market"

If bombs were sold on the free market, lets say to mining companies, and the government happened to buy some from a private company to blow up pirate ships then what would be the difference (ignoring what the government uses them for?)

Quote :

"using dubious methods like destroying perfectly good buildings and building brand new ones. "

Who decides what's dubious and what isn't? Is it ever OK to knock down an old building? Sounds like you want some elitist economist to review data and decide whats ok to include in GDP and what isn't.

Quote :

"just allow markets to work."

because I happen to think there is a middle ground, that is to say that market failures DO exist and in some cases we can help to correct them. I happen to think nominal GDP growth is a middle ground discussion. It probably isn't perfect, but thats why I want to raise a discussion about it.

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM. Reason : anyone, bueller?]

11/22/2011 7:08:39 PM

destroyer, this is who you are arguing with:

Quote :

"Major : Theater, acting, the arts"

No use in trying man.

11/22/2011 7:19:46 PM

LMFAO

this is too good. Tell me you're just kidding, I can never tell.

As if some arbitrary government subsidized degree means anything to anyone these days. Shah. . . . . . .. (pushes long hair behind his ears). Bachelor degrees are meaningless. If anything, just cracking a random book in the library should allow anyone to allow him/herself to educate themselves and pull themselves up by their boot straps.

Is this the first time you have read my posts? I assure you I have enough brain cells to back up more than 3/4s of the shit I post on TWW (better than average IMO).

Is it so hard to think that Burt Reynolds is my TWW alter ego. If it matters that much what I studied then you are trully an elitist prick. I am THE TerdFerguson, nothing will change that:


goddamn, if someone can't even discuss classic TV then how can one expect them to discuss anything more complicated?










I'll post it again. Is there anyone willing to discuss any policies that fall between the "what we have is perfect" or "ZOMG FED RESERVE IS SATAN" points of view? What can we change that gives us some flexibility but takes some power from the federal reserve?????





[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 8:10 PM. Reason : grasping at straws. I can't believe how heavily people believe in systems they know so little about]

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 8:26 PM. Reason : I can assure you I have the credentials and experience to reveue data and proceed with discussion, ]

11/22/2011 8:07:01 PM

Quote :

" I assure you I have enough brain cells to back up more than 3/4s of the shit I post on TWW"

I apologize...I tend to tune out people who think living standards are increased by funneling resources into instruments of death and destruction.

11/22/2011 9:54:08 PM

Actually, my original argument was that a growing GDP is a relatively safe measurement of how a country is doing. Its used pretty commonly by economists of every school. Granted, it doesn't take into account a host of other things, like how that money is distributed etc, but I'd add that those indicators are much easier to manipulate.

Then you and d357r0yer made the argument that certain things that you don't like shouldn't be included in our countries GDP and I can't understand why. Its because GDP includes EVERYTHING that makes it hard to manipulate.

^I mean right now I can think of several TWWers that are employed by the defense industry or our military. When they go to the gas station and buy a 40, why should that not be included in our countries GDP, just because you don't like what their jobs are? Seems arbitrary.



but what I really wanted to discuss was some middle ground between let the FED do whatever it wants and end the FED. That is to say, if we could change the FED's mandate what are some proposals?

11/23/2011 7:45:46 AM

Quote :

"Actually, my original argument was that a growing GDP is a relatively safe measurement of how a country is doing."

And destroyer rightly pointed out the incorrectness of this statement. The government for decades has goosed GDP through various means to get steady GDP growth each year. The problem is these signals end up distorting the market and what we end up being left with are things we overpaid for (houses) and the interest on the borrowed money we used to pay for them...a nice double whammy of fail. All the while GDP and employment numbers looked great...until they weren't and on an ongoing basis aren't.

11/23/2011 8:07:05 AM

Quote :

"Then you and d357r0yer made the argument that certain things that you don't like shouldn't be included in our countries GDP and I can't understand why. Its because GDP includes EVERYTHING that makes it hard to manipulate. "

I didn't make that argument and I don't think he did either. We're arguing that it isn't...with everything that is in it...isn't a good measure of a societies improvement.

Since you think the bomb building should be counted, lets devote an entire nations resources to building these things...how better off would we be? Contrast that with...say, housing, food, medicine. Granted, we could trade all these bombs for those things so not all is lost but if every nation did the same then we'd collectively be in the shitter...this is not so for quality of life enhancing things.

11/23/2011 8:40:34 AM

Can you name some specific means so I can get a better idea of what you are talking about? I don't really see this as a problem with how GDP is calculated but with both government and FED policies.

If you are talking more generally about keeping interest rates low for too long then that is one of the problems that I think nominal GDP targeting would solve. Anytime that we overshoot the nominal growth we are looking for (say 2%) the FED would be FORCED to raise interest rates and tighten monetary policy to bring growth back down to the target. The best part is we would all know what was coming (we would have lots of groups calculating GDP throughout the quarter as a check on each other) as most people can calculate the percent change if they are given the GDP from this quarter and last quarter. It makes it much easier to hold the FED accountable when their mandate isn't all vague.

It would basically end this "wall street holds its breath right before the FED makes an announcement" crap we keep seeing because it would take a good bit of the decision making out of the hands of the FED.

[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 8:50:29 AM

I think the argument that we can't use GDP targeting because we don't like what GDP can include is an irrelevant one. It is not the job of the fed to manage where the money is spent, only to set interest rates to best facilitate the spread of that money. Whether or not the government spends it on wars or parks or internet is between the government and the people, not the fed. Interest rates will still interact with the spread of that money no matter what it was used for.

If you two simply opened your ears and minds, you'd find this idea would be in line with your own dogmatic economic beliefs when compared to the current way the fed works. It takes the mystery and unpredictability out of what the fed does, and in effect WEAKENS it, which one would think you, of all people, would embrace.

11/23/2011 9:37:49 AM

Quote :

" only to set interest rates"

The point is, they have to base their rate on something, which is what Turd is attempting to discuss because apparently targeting inflation hasn't worked out very well for us.

11/23/2011 9:45:27 AM

Quote :

"The point is, they have to base their rate on something"

Yes, the argument has been "why not base it on GDP?", to which the response has been "SPENDING MONEY ON WARS IS BAD!", and while I agree with the sentiment, it is irrelevant to whether or not GDP targeting would produce good interest rates. What the GDP consists of has nothing to do with the Fed, it's between the people and thier leaders.

11/23/2011 9:54:44 AM

Quote :

" it is irrelevant to whether or not GDP targeting would produce good interest rates"

Well, that might be the case, but it is relevant as to whether GDP targeting will produce a better outcomes for the populace. The very question is what should the Fed do differently and your response to that question is the Feds job is to do its currently mandated job.

~

[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 10:31:14 AM

^^so what are your thoughts?

Its obvious to me that the FED isn't only considering inflation and employment when determining its policy but also weighs political pressure and probably the pressure from the financial sector. It seems like GDP targeting would alleviate most of that pressure and would create a more predictable monetary system.

I can see how there might be situations where if GDP tanked big time the FED would go into overdrive and could possibly create some stagflation type problems? There is still a lot of room for refinement though with something like caps on the amount of NGDP that could be produced in a single year.

[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 10:39:32 AM