Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By gonzales56

Thread: Joint Economic Recovery Plan

  1. #1 Joint Economic Recovery Plan 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    a


    Last edited by Ascended; September 16th, 2012 at 05:13 AM. Reason: Removed at my request
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .


    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:44 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    a
    Last edited by Ascended; January 28th, 2013 at 03:37 PM. Reason: removed at my request
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    What is concerning to situation in Southern European countries in my mind it
    was quite unavoidable as life standards and consumption it those countries were
    overinflated.Definetly Southern Europeans can`t live as Northern Europeans as they
    tried.Ultimately they will be enforced to face reality and reduce consumption.
    The whole Europe experience demografic crisis as number of non-productive people
    is increasing and number of creative people is declining.The weakest countries, of
    cause, fall fist.
    The key to a healthy economy though is to not reduce consumption but, to increase production, savings and consumption.

    A nations currency has to be worth something, and that something is either found in intrinsic value or products, goods and services supplied/provided by a country/people.

    It is actually pretty simple.. What can you offer of value and what do you want in return for your valuable goods, services and products....? Why would anyone reduce their consumption or recommend that private citizens do so? Debt should never be confused with consumption, they are two different things, and those who preach about the "benefits" of reducing ones consumption/wealth/value are usually restricted to thieves in power or in powerful positions.

    I have also never seen a non-productive people. I have always seen a heavily controlled, limited, restricted and regulated people who are not allowed to really flourish or provide for themselves.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 11:42 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    a
    Last edited by Ascended; September 16th, 2012 at 01:21 PM. Reason: removed at my request
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    a
    Last edited by Ascended; September 16th, 2012 at 01:22 PM. Reason: removed at my request
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    What a counterproductive system we have, where a strong economy depends on buying more crap we don't need rather than saving for our future.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    a
    Last edited by Ascended; September 16th, 2012 at 01:22 PM. Reason: removed at my request
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    crap we don't need is crap we don't need---don't matter where it's made

    And consider, the US is so high tech, when it comes to unemployment, which seems to be the focus, it wouldn't matter a darn, because the unemployed are mostly the uneducated and unskilled who's contributions are more often than not done better and more reliably by many machines run by a few technicians. The quandary, which I don't think we're going to solve, is to fix unemployment we either need to repair the epidemic in high school drop out, or increase the number of unskilled jobs often associated with industries we don't like and that we can't compete with compared to overseas anyhow. Remember the Ross Perot chart showing the increase in Arkansas chicken farms driving the jobs recovery under Governor Clinton?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Всем привет 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Posts
    1
    Matching Quote "We have one other pond just like this, White Pond, in Nine Acre Corner, about two and a half miles westerly; but, though I am acquainted with most of the ponds within a dozen miles of this centre, I do not know a third of this pure and well-like character. Successive nations perchance have drank at, admired, and fathomed it, and passed away, and still its water is green and pellucid as ever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    What a counterproductive system we have, where a strong economy depends on buying more crap we don't need rather than saving for our future.
    Saving what?

    You're not looking at the economy as a physical thing if you think that. What happens if you save grain? Save it for a little while, and it can cover a bad year. Save it for a long while and it simply spoils. You get zero benefit.

    Most things in the economy are like that. They have shelf lives. If you want to believe in an economy that has absolutely no connection to the physical one, be my guest. Then you'll have tons of wealth, but it will all be make-believe.

    And.... this is very much our or relates to the current situation. We're in a state of excess savings. Most of the wealth is concentrated on a few wealthy people who mostly don't spend it, but rather survive on a small fraction of it while attempting to save the rest. But what are they saving? Money? What does that money mean if it can't be matched to a good or service?n What is the economy supposed to do with that? Is it supposed to save up labor for later use? Accumulate grapes/oranges/carrots that were never grown? Is there a storehouse of back rubs somewhere where we keep all the massages the unemployed massueses didn't dispense today?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Saving what?

    You're not looking at the economy as a physical thing if you think that. What happens if you save grain? Save it for a little while, and it can cover a bad year. Save it for a long while and it simply spoils. You get zero benefit.
    Any form you like that's reasonably secure. Simple cash has been stable since ~1981. Investments in large caps have been stable over periods more than 5 years for the past 70+ years. Bonds even more so. Then of course their is physical things, homes that even considering this downturn which have generally done a bit better than inflation, timber land, antique cars kept in a garage. The point is there are many things that hold value and many that for only a tiny bit of long term risk continue to accumulate. Finally the more abstract such as education, which has always paid huge dividends for both potential income as well as personal satisfaction. I tend to think we're better off as a nation is folks save a bit for rainy days so they aren't compelled to ask for hand-outs rather than throwing money away on satisfying cumpulsive needs sold by experts on human psychology who rig their advertising to short curcuit our reasoning skills.

    All of these do better than squandering on an extra TV, new car to replace one that's working already or could be easily fixed, or the majority of things you'll see at most retailers. Our system is in large part broken--a new Ipod-5 which will be popular but offers features almost no one needs, all the while designed to waste money and resources by using as yet one more unique charger that will eventually find it's way into a spaghetti junk draw and made from tin hand dug by kids who have virtually nothing.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Saving what?

    You're not looking at the economy as a physical thing if you think that. What happens if you save grain? Save it for a little while, and it can cover a bad year. Save it for a long while and it simply spoils. You get zero benefit.
    Any form you like that's reasonably secure. Simple cash has been stable since ~1981. Investments in large caps have been stable over periods more than 5 years for the past 70+ years. Bonds even more so.
    Do you understand that cash is makebelieve and tangible goods are real? Ideally, money is a map of the physical world, like the instruments in an airplane are a map of the airplane's environment.

    However, when it comes to savings, money and the physical world part ways and go in two entirely different directions. Money can be saved just by the stroke of a pen writing on a ledger that you have X amount of dollars. It will remain that way until somebody writes something different on that page. Real, tangible goods, spoil over time.


    Then of course their is physical things, homes that even considering this downturn which have generally done a bit better than inflation, timber land, antique cars kept in a garage. The point is there are many things that hold value and many that for only a tiny bit of long term risk continue to accumulate.
    They don't hold "value". They hold monetary worth. And reason they hold that worth is because demand for them increases while the supply of them remains more or less the same (or increases less than demand anyway, due to scarcity of viable land plots to build on.)

    The house isn't getting more comfortable or useful. People just want it more.

    Finally the more abstract such as education, which has always paid huge dividends for both potential income as well as personal satisfaction.
    You'll stop thinking that when the government opens the flood gates for economic refugees from India. Whereas immigrants from Mexico largely arrive unskilled and are therefore only a threat to uneducated workers, .... the immigrants from India will be (and already are) arriving with degrees every bit as advanced as the most educated Americans, and just as willing to work for less as the Mexican immigrants are.

    The educated/uneducated distinction has been wonderfully useful at dividing and conquering our nation's work force. After all the talk educated people have made about how the unskilled deserve to lose their jobs to Mexicans, how much sympathy do you think they will get when they start losing their jobs in turn to India? I doubt they'll get much.


    I tend to think we're better off as a nation is folks save a bit for rainy days so they aren't compelled to ask for hand-outs rather than throwing money away on satisfying cumpulsive needs sold by experts on human psychology who rig their advertising to short curcuit our reasoning skills.
    Sure. Save a bit. I'm not advocating zero savings. I'm advocating balance. Neither extreme is good.

    However, if the only production the economy is able to provide is manufactured crap we'll throw away tomorrow, and we don't produce it, nothing is going to replace that lost production. It's just as wasteful either way. Either we waste resources by producing it, or we waste available labor by not producing it. Just depends which thing you want to waste.

    Excess monetary savings won't solve it. You're just saving imaginary production nobody ever made.

    All of these do better than squandering on an extra TV, new car to replace one that's working already or could be easily fixed, or the majority of things you'll see at most retailers. Our system is in large part broken--a new Ipod-5 which will be popular but offers features almost no one needs, all the while designed to waste money and resources by using as yet one more unique charger that will eventually find it's way into a spaghetti junk draw and made from tin hand dug by kids who have virtually nothing.
    I agree about that last part. We should only be producing/purchasing goods made with our nation's own hands, or which are made by the hands of workers who enjoy all the same rights and pay grades we enjoy here.

    Exploiting injustice elsewhere is not only morally wrong, it's economic suicide. But the merchants will benefit. They have a way of benefiting while the rest of the world suffers. Whether it be by inciting wars, or reducing legal systems, they always come out on top.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    They don't hold "value". They hold monetary worth.

    Physical durable things hold both.

    The only real exception is if the totalty of society collapses along with rule of law so the SOB with the best organized and most guns gets to take what ever they want--in which case we're all screwed.

    I completely reject the notion that people must buy crap to support unskilled labor in the US or overseas--that is fundamentally unsustainable and bankrupt philosophy. We cannot run from the fact that technology is replacing people and we simply don't need everyone to work to provide what we need--nor should we. Our entire system is going to have to change in some way such as we all working less to distribute the labor that's needed, or we're supporting an increasingly large number of people who don't manufacture anything. The later isn't such a bad thing anyhow so long as those not making material things are enriching our culture in some other way and not just voting for SOBs who promise to give them something for nothing (especially if they didn't save and plan)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I completely reject the notion that people must buy crap to support unskilled labor in the US or overseas--that is fundamentally unsustainable and bankrupt philosophy.
    I prefer the notion of producing high quality goods that require less raw materials, than an endless supply of crap, and last a long so people are not forever replacing that which they already have. I also like your idea of people having to work less hours, though we've been promised that little gem for years, the 3 day week has long been a dream. It seems though in reality we just have fewer people working the same hours, how do we redress this though? Now that's a question, solve this and you will be a genius.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Saving what?

    You're not looking at the economy as a physical thing if you think that. What happens if you save grain? Save it for a little while, and it can cover a bad year. Save it for a long while and it simply spoils. You get zero benefit.
    Any form you like that's reasonably secure. Simple cash has been stable since ~1981. Investments in large caps have been stable over periods more than 5 years for the past 70+ years. Bonds even more so. Then of course their is physical things, homes that even considering this downturn which have generally done a bit better than inflation, timber land, antique cars kept in a garage. The point is there are many things that hold value and many that for only a tiny bit of long term risk continue to accumulate. Finally the more abstract such as education, which has always paid huge dividends for both potential income as well as personal satisfaction. I tend to think we're better off as a nation is folks save a bit for rainy days so they aren't compelled to ask for hand-outs rather than throwing money away on satisfying cumpulsive needs sold by experts on human psychology who rig their advertising to short curcuit our reasoning skills.

    All of these do better than squandering on an extra TV, new car to replace one that's working already or could be easily fixed, or the majority of things you'll see at most retailers. Our system is in large part broken--a new Ipod-5 which will be popular but offers features almost no one needs, all the while designed to waste money and resources by using as yet one more unique charger that will eventually find it's way into a spaghetti junk draw and made from tin hand dug by kids who have virtually nothing.
    What someone consumes or acquires is up to them right? I personally agree with you concerning savings / store of wealth and valuables.

    Just as a side note, grain can be stored for decades and still be very good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    They don't hold "value". They hold monetary worth.
    Physical durable things hold both.

    The only real exception is if the totalty of society collapses along with rule of law so the SOB with the best organized and most guns gets to take what ever they want--in which case we're all screwed.
    I guess what I'm trying to say is their worth isn't going up. It's staying exactly the same. Their monetary price goes up, however. Or maybe the number of people is going up, and so houses are more scarce in terms of per capita scarcity. That still doesn't make a house "more valuable"

    That would be like arguing that if air became scarce enough to sell, then air would be more valuable. God help us all if some merchant out there gets the idea to destroy the world's air supply so they can sell us manufactured air.

    (Ironically, that would increase the USA's GDP. - at least on paper.)


    I completely reject the notion that people must buy crap to support unskilled labor in the US or overseas--that is fundamentally unsustainable and bankrupt philosophy. We cannot run from the fact that technology is replacing people and we simply don't need everyone to work to provide what we need--nor should we. Our entire system is going to have to change in some way such as we all working less to distribute the labor that's needed, or we're supporting an increasingly large number of people who don't manufacture anything. The later isn't such a bad thing anyhow so long as those not making material things are enriching our culture in some other way and not just voting for SOBs who promise to give them something for nothing (especially if they didn't save and plan)
    I agree the purpose shouldn't be just "giving people a livelihood", because as you mentioned, if their production is truly needless then all we're doing is redistributing wealth anyway. We might as well call a duck a duck, and formally redistribute it.

    However, if that worker sits idle, and their labor could have created something of even minimal value, then we aren't going to get some other item in place of that item by sending them home for the day. It's not a trade. It's not like we give up a cheap hand calculator and in return we get a pomegranite. What happens is we give up the pocket calculator and get nothing at all.

    The money system masks that reality. In the money system, every dollar unspent appears to be an opportunity gained. That's just a fine example of a mismatch between theory and practice.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    However, if that worker sits idle, and their labor could have created something of even minimal value, then we aren't going to get some other item in place of that item by sending them home for the day. It's not a trade. It's not like we give up a cheap hand calculator and in return we get a pomegranite. What happens is we give up the pocket calculator and get nothing at all.

    Is this logic correct though? Lets look at this in a bit more detail. For this idea to be of any significance it would require it to be implemented on a sufficiently large scale. Large scale production of very low value items has been outsourced in recent years because of the cheaper labour costs of poorer countries. This means that any workers involved in such production would only ever receive extremely low wages, wages that anyone would find near impossible to live on in a rich country. This in turn could lead to a whole new class of extreme poverty and all the crime & associated horrors that go with it, or massive demands for state subsidies to top up these workers wages to ensure they have enough money to live on. Thats just to start with, what else could we expect? We could well see changes in our educations systems, these would be focused on weeding out the people that are likely to end up as labor for low value mass production factories.
    We would see large volumes of ever rarer and more expensive natural raw materials being wasted to produce cheap rubbish that no one really wants. Also it would have a knock on effect on the producers and manufacturers of higher value higher quality products. Many people might decide against paying 50 or 60 times the amount for a quality product, that may last years, of that of a cheap product that can just throw away and get another one.
    Also we can expect extra pollution from the production of more products and also the waste problem as they are quickly disgarded as no longer wanted.

    This could see the start of a race to bottom, as manufacturers try to out do each other to produce the cheapest 'crap'.

    Also then we must look at manufacturering in general, rich countries tradionally make large investments to produce high value products and as such generate huge incomes in return. Whilst in contrast poorer countries mass produce cheap products but generate only very small incomes from it.

    Is this really such a good idea in the round?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    However, if that worker sits idle, and their labor could have created something of even minimal value, then we aren't going to get some other item in place of that item by sending them home for the day. It's not a trade. It's not like we give up a cheap hand calculator and in return we get a pomegranite. What happens is we give up the pocket calculator and get nothing at all.

    Is this logic correct though? Lets look at this in a bit more detail. For this idea to be of any significance it would require it to be implemented on a sufficiently large scale. Large scale production of very low value items has been outsourced in recent years because of the cheaper labour costs of poorer countries. This means that any workers involved in such production would only ever receive extremely low wages, wages that anyone would find near impossible to live on in a rich country. This in turn could lead to a whole new class of extreme poverty and all the crime & associated horrors that go with it, or massive demands for state subsidies to top up these workers wages to ensure they have enough money to live on. Thats just to start with, what else could we expect? We could well see changes in our educations systems, these would be focused on weeding out the people that are likely to end up as labor for low value mass production factories.
    I was leaving wages out of it. As Lynx pointed out, we can artificially augment the workers' wages as a form of redistribution. Or we can give them partial welfare to supplement their paychecks.

    If they produce nothing, we'd be giving them welfare anyway.

    We would see large volumes of ever rarer and more expensive natural raw materials being wasted to produce cheap rubbish that no one really wants. Also it would have a knock on effect on the producers and manufacturers of higher value higher quality products. Many people might decide against paying 50 or 60 times the amount for a quality product, that may last years, of that of a cheap product that can just throw away and get another one.
    Also we can expect extra pollution from the production of more products and also the waste problem as they are quickly disgarded as no longer wanted.
    Now this is where my argument would begin to fail. If the cheap products we make require both

    A) - Human labor

    and

    B) - Natural resources

    Then by choosing not to make those products we do get to keep B) - The natural resources. We never get to keep A) - Human labor. Every minute of lost working time is permanently lost.



    This could see the start of a race to bottom, as manufacturers try to out do each other to produce the cheapest 'crap'.

    Also then we must look at manufacturering in general, rich countries tradionally make large investments to produce high value products and as such generate huge incomes in return. Whilst in contrast poorer countries mass produce cheap products but generate only very small incomes from it.

    Is this really such a good idea in the round?
    If we're not paying the workers much, or using up precious resources, then it's a horrible idea.

    I always think of an economy as being like a soup recipe. If the recipe calls for 2 kg of carrots, mixed with 10 kg of tomatoes, and you've got a whole basement full of carrots, and only one box of tomatoes, - then sometimes you just have to accept that some of the carrots are going to go to waste. Either that, or you need to come up with a new recipe for a different kind of soup.

    Right now, labor would correspond to the "carrots" in that analogy. Unskilled labor, anyway. We've got so much of it, it's hard to put it to any use other than to just make a lot of carrot soup.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Right now, labor would correspond to the "carrots" in that analogy. Unskilled labor, anyway. We've got so much of it, it's hard to put it to any use other than to just make a lot of carrot soup.
    Well how about this, instead of them being used as cheap labour in factories producing goods nobody really wants, we start giving them training in basic skills so they can look after the elderly. Whilst the government might have subsidise this it would still be worth it as it would allow many more old people to remain in their own homes without having to go into carehomes. With an ageing population and no current answer as to how to cope with it this might solve two problems in one go.

    It would provide work for the unemployed in the short term until such time as more jobs are created within the economy.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 14th, 2012, 11:48 AM
  2. Use of Co2 for Oil Recovery
    By Power_guy in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 16th, 2010, 08:00 PM
  3. recovery software
    By chenmeifang in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 17th, 2009, 08:43 AM
  4. U.S., Japan to conduct joint research on sonic boom modeling
    By hitechwave.com in forum In the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 8th, 2008, 11:04 PM
  5. Parkour and Joint Pains
    By cambece in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 18th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •