|
On October 27 2012 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:39 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:
@Kontys: Yeah, I understand all this actually. I understand what a crisis of effective demand is.
But what I don't believe is that the entire problem is "fictional," in the sense that if only the way the money worked worked better, then everything would be great. Everybody seems to assume this and I think it's a bad assumption. I don't think the entire thing can be written off as some sort of negative feedback cycle in financial system.
edit: I just feel like people who talk about economics and finance and stuff forget that there is a real world out there and that the graphs about interest rates and stuff is just a little back of the envelope model, basically, compared to the real thing. And then you get stuff like the negative feedback cycle explanation, which essentially tells me "there's a financial crisis because there's a financial crisis" and this one remains unconvinced What would you direct human activity toward if you got to decide? How could you be certain that this direction is what's best, or what others want? Yeah, it's a hard problem, isn't it? Why don't we spend some time talking about that, hmmm? Show nested quote +
Wall street cooked it up. The details are many and terrifying, but if I had to point to the most crucial, I'd pick a practice called shadow banking.
Yeah I read the book by Posner and he explained all about the shadow banks.
I am fairly confident we shouldn't just dismiss free market economy because of it's apparent faults. It has great strengths too. There have been times in American history too, when it has worked for "everyone". And there have been times when it has only worked for the few entitled rich people. What it really boils down to, I observe, is how political power is distributed in society. The ones who can rig the rules of the free market are going to benefit, others will suffer.
I am quite pleased with how social democracy works here in Finland, and I am assured it works fine in other nordic countries as well. The thing to do right, is for the state to exploit the business' greed, not deny them their ambitions.
America was also a fine, just society to live in for many decades following the 2nd world war, but the Reagan revolution unfortunately disembowelled the worker union movement, which not only became unable to fight for worker rights, but also lost it's political power, unable to any longer be a major funder for parties and candidates in the political process. 12 years of republican rule came to an end under only after the election of the decidedly "business-friendly" President Clinton.
|
On October 27 2012 05:56 Brainling wrote:
Then that is supply and demand sam.
No. That is differential pay.
|
On October 27 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:21 Holy_AT wrote:
Money does not exist it is just a program running in the heads of people.
And the way Money is being distributed is utter nonsense, the meaning of money and the reasons why it was introduced are no longer the reasons why it is being used to day and for what reasons.
People are programmed in a way that they can not see reality.
Is money here to exchange goods and services ?
How is the relation between money and a certain service ?
Is hard exhausting work rewarded ? Is complicated work rewarded, where you have to think allot until you cant and just blank out on the evening ?
How is it possible that someone earns 1000 times or more then someone else ? Is he doing work that is 1000 x times more exhausting or complicated ? This aint humanly possible.
And because of these malfunctions in the system that work/service is in no relation to the money being earned this system can not endure long term without being destroyed over and over again. Well with technology you can easily be 1000X more productive. Ex. Compare an actor live on stage to an actor in a movie. The actor in the movie can be far more productive because technology will enable one performance to be repeated multiple times at little added cost.
Yes but does the person using this technologie is 1000x times more exhausted or has to solve 1000x times more complicated things then the person who does not use the technologie ?
So why should he be payed more ?
People should get payed for the physical and mental energy they invest (yes mental energy and complexity is difficult to estimate)
|
On October 27 2012 05:58 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:
@Kontys: Yeah, I understand all this actually. I understand what a crisis of effective demand is.
But what I don't believe is that the entire problem is "fictional," in the sense that if only the way the money worked worked better, then everything would be great. Everybody seems to assume this and I think it's a bad assumption. I don't think the entire thing can be written off as some sort of negative feedback cycle in financial system.
edit: I just feel like people who talk about economics and finance and stuff forget that there is a real world out there and that the graphs about interest rates and stuff is just a little back of the envelope model, basically, compared to the real thing. And then you get stuff like the negative feedback cycle explanation, which essentially tells me "there's a financial crisis because there's a financial crisis" and this one remains unconvinced What would you direct human activity toward if you got to decide? How could you be certain that this direction is what's best, or what others want? Yeah, it's a hard problem, isn't it? Why don't we spend some time talking about that, hmmm?
Wall street cooked it up. The details are many and terrifying, but if I had to point to the most crucial, I'd pick a practice called shadow banking.
Yeah I read the book by Posner and he explained all about the shadow banks. I am fairly confident we shouldn't just dismiss free market economy because of it's apparent faults. It has great strengths too.
Yeah. Me and Marx both agree with you. (one difference possible is that I don't think the faults are merely "apparent.")
There have been times in American history too, when it has worked for "everyone". And there have been times when it has only worked for the few entitled rich people. What it really boils down to, I observe, is how political power is distributed in society. The ones who can rig the rules of the free market are going to benefit, others will suffer.
Yes, good, how does this occur?
I am quite pleased with how social democracy works here in Finland, and I am assured it works fine in other nordic countries as well. The thing to do right, is for the state to exploit the business' greed, not deny them their ambitions.
Interesting, well, I'll have to take a look at how they do things in Finland. Do you have any thoughts about why things have worked well there (assuming they have) and about the overall sustainability of the system? I certainly agree with your proposition about greed and ambition.
America was also a fine, just society to live in for many decades following the 2nd world war, but the Reagan revolution unfortunately disembowelled the worker union movement, which not only became unable to fight for worker rights, but also lost it's political power, unable to any longer be a major funder for parties and candidates in the political process. 12 years of republican rule came to an end under only after the election of the decidedly "business-friendly" President Clinton.
It's not clear that organized labor is coming back. I'm not sure that a return to social democracy is possible in America.
|
On October 27 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:56 Brainling wrote:
Then that is supply and demand sam.
No. That is differential pay.
No. Differential pay is the theory that dictates geographical pay differences, it's actual name is "compensation differentials". It has to do with the fact that in certain areas, you are more likely to die, get sick, miss work, be unemployed or just generally have a lower cost of living.
This has nothing to do with why a burger flipper gets paid less than I do.
|
On October 27 2012 06:05 Brainling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:56 Brainling wrote:
Then that is supply and demand sam.
No. That is differential pay. No. Differential pay is the theory that dictates geographical pay differences, it's actual name is "compensation differentials". It has to do with the fact that in certain areas, you are more likely to die, get sick, miss work, be unemployed or just generally have a lower cost of living. This has nothing to do with why a burger flipper gets paid less than I do.
sorry, I didn't know there was a thing called "differential pay." I just used "pay" to mean "people getting paid" and "differential" to mean the adjective of "different."
Differential pay can be created by S&D, but it is not equivalent to it, which was what you said.
|
Yeah, there is actually a thing called differental pay, or compensation differentials, hehe 
At any rate, S&D is at the core of why people make different amounts.
Of course, it's not perfect. There are still gender and race biases involved in many areas, there is still basic cognitive bias (I am going to pay my buddy more than some other guy), and there is still basic greed (thus why we have such a top heavy pay structure).
So in a sense, we're saying the same thing. At a very basic, naive level, it's all S&D. Obviously in the real world of grays, that's not the case, there is way more to it.
If you ever really want to read about the shady side of pay fraud, read about why it was made taboo to talk about your pay with your co workers
|
On October 27 2012 05:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 05:21 Holy_AT wrote:
Money does not exist it is just a program running in the heads of people.
And the way Money is being distributed is utter nonsense, the meaning of money and the reasons why it was introduced are no longer the reasons why it is being used to day and for what reasons.
People are programmed in a way that they can not see reality.
Is money here to exchange goods and services ?
How is the relation between money and a certain service ?
Is hard exhausting work rewarded ? Is complicated work rewarded, where you have to think allot until you cant and just blank out on the evening ?
How is it possible that someone earns 1000 times or more then someone else ? Is he doing work that is 1000 x times more exhausting or complicated ? This aint humanly possible.
And because of these malfunctions in the system that work/service is in no relation to the money being earned this system can not endure long term without being destroyed over and over again. Well with technology you can easily be 1000X more productive. Ex. Compare an actor live on stage to an actor in a movie. The actor in the movie can be far more productive because technology will enable one performance to be repeated multiple times at little added cost. But see that analogy is terrible because you are talking about art! An actor on a stage is different than an actor in a movie. It's totally disingenuous to think about it as "production" which can be compared in this way.
Fair enough. It's just an example, don't be too hard on it
|
On October 27 2012 05:48 Brainling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:43 Brainling wrote:On October 27 2012 05:21 Holy_AT wrote:
Money does not exist it is just a program running in the heads of people.
And the way Money is being distributed is utter nonsense, the meaning of money and the reasons why it was introduced are no longer the reasons why it is being used to day and for what reasons.
People are programmed in a way that they can not see reality.
Is money here to exchange goods and services ?
How is the relation between money and a certain service ?
Is hard exhausting work rewarded ? Is complicated work rewarded, where you have to think allot until you cant and just blank out on the evening ?
How is it possible that someone earns 1000 times or more then someone else ? Is he doing work that is 1000 x times more exhausting or complicated ? This aint humanly possible.
And because of these malfunctions in the system that work/service is in no relation to the money being earned this system can not endure long term without being destroyed over and over again. Labor is just another economic resource. Supply and demand. Can you justify this claim? also, can you elaborate on the logical structure of the fragment "supply and demand" and how it fits into your claim? Ask an economist? They'll tell you that labor is a supply and demand resource. Let me reverse your question: Why do you think a ditch digger should make as much money as I do? What skill does he bring to the work force that I don't? What skills do I bring to the work force that he doesn't? Do you feel people should be justly compensated for the unique abilities they bring?
I would like to say that the software engineer should earn somewhere between two and ten times what the ditch digger earns, depending on the ability and experience of the software engineer. However, this only works well if the ditch digger is able to live cheaply. In many western countries the cost of living for a ditch digger has increased faster than the cost of living for a software engineer, which is why one person earning ten times that of another is a problem.
To put it another way: Do you spend more than 20% of your net income on basic living expenses? What happens when a person takes home less than 20% of what you do? They have to reduce their living expenses. How many houses are there that are worth only 20% of what your house is? Could someone cook a meal for only 20% of the cost of your meal?
If think that the skills of the software engineer should make him worth more. But what has actually happened is the lack of skills of the ditch digger has made him worth less.
|
For reference, I currently make 6x what a ditch digger has to make at minimum, in Washington state, where I live.
Minimum wage is 8.75/hr
I make 53/hr.
In the eyes of the economy, I am currently worth almost exactly 6x what a basic ditch digger is (and that's assuming they don't make more than minimum wage). So that's well within your range of error.
Now, is minimum wage too low? Abso-fucking-lutely. It's an unlivable wage, and that should never be the case. I would much rather see that ditch digger make 15-20 an hour, and keep my ratio to his pay at ~600%. He would make more money, and a livable wage, and I would make more money, and yahoo.
Of course, you have to deal with pay grade inflation...but one problem at a time.
|
On October 27 2012 05:46 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:44 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, I think that's the problem. Our entire economic thinking is based on the idea that the potential for consumption is without limit of any kind, and our economic policies are based on stimulating that consumption without any consideration of what consumption is and is not a good idea in the first place. It's all just sort of lumped together into this amorphous pile of GDP, and making that number bigger is a "good" thing.
Which is to say, I don't think the "normal operating level" is in fact a "normal operating level," I think it's a historically situated state of affairs which is coming to an end and we are willfully oblivious to this...
edit: just look at how the economy wants to make things that fall apart quickly and have to be replaced, as opposed to making things that last for a long time and therefore preclude future demand... that's not rational at all. Well.. the operating level is defined by technological achievement and worker productivity. In terms of recessions and depressions, philosophical musings about what human activity should be directed at are futile. It's about how money works as a system. Or.. how it breaks down. No, that's when you need philosophy the most... Is philosophy going to feed clothe and house millions of jobless people? Don't be facile... Show nested quote +
Political scientists call pushing your own agenda on the back of difficult short term circumstances "shock doctrine". I am very sad to see it having been used mostly for the purposes of conservatives and libertarians during the last few years.
You mean like what the IMF does? My point is that I don't believe the circumstances are short term.
I meant the British government gleefully boosting social immobility, American republicans trying to defund practically every social program, and the failed doctrine of austerity in Europe. You raise a fair point in "what the IMF does". Well, that's just how things are, I guess..? The rich developed countries don't want to actively engage in developing the developing world. At least not if it means potentially having to shoulder financial losses. Is it right? Who knows.. these rich governments have expensive social programs to run in Europe. And the US has expensive tax cuts to fund.. you know, because you are never rich enough to not spend on candidates endorsing them.
The circumstances, as in elevated unemployment, and low income growth are short term most definitely. Unemployment is short term, simply because the economy doesn't just throw away factors of production. Low income growth because there is nothing to suggest worker productivity would depreciate in the short term: Income growth will pick up once the growth gets going again.
|
On October 27 2012 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:34 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 05:21 Holy_AT wrote:
Money does not exist it is just a program running in the heads of people.
And the way Money is being distributed is utter nonsense, the meaning of money and the reasons why it was introduced are no longer the reasons why it is being used to day and for what reasons.
People are programmed in a way that they can not see reality.
Is money here to exchange goods and services ?
How is the relation between money and a certain service ?
Is hard exhausting work rewarded ? Is complicated work rewarded, where you have to think allot until you cant and just blank out on the evening ?
How is it possible that someone earns 1000 times or more then someone else ? Is he doing work that is 1000 x times more exhausting or complicated ? This aint humanly possible.
And because of these malfunctions in the system that work/service is in no relation to the money being earned this system can not endure long term without being destroyed over and over again. Well with technology you can easily be 1000X more productive. Ex. Compare an actor live on stage to an actor in a movie. The actor in the movie can be far more productive because technology will enable one performance to be repeated multiple times at little added cost. But see that analogy is terrible because you are talking about art! An actor on a stage is different than an actor in a movie. It's totally disingenuous to think about it as "production" which can be compared in this way. Fair enough. It's just an example, don't be too hard on it
Haha sorry Jonny I keep criticizing your examples :D
But there's a philosophical strategy here, which is that I feel like people always talk about economics in abstract terms, and then they give examples that are just examples and so we shouldn't criticize them, but all the examples seem to leave themselves open to criticism...
I just want people to think about the real world and give compelling examples
|
On October 27 2012 05:56 Brainling wrote:
Then that is supply and demand sam.
The supply is either constrained or not, and there is either demand or there is not. The ratio of those two things will determine fair market value.
Now, if you want to discuss whether workers are currently getting paid fair market value, that's definitely a discussion we can have, and one we would probably agree on (in most cases, they aren't). There is certainly an issue with the current pay structures, but that has way more to do with the decision makers skewing things toward themselves, than some break down in the basic idea of supply and demand.
Current pay structures are FAR too top heavy, that's not in doubt...but I don't think the basic idea of S&D and incentive pay is a bad thing.
problem arises when you have too much power, influence or are today "too big too fail" you are able to figt against such nasty things as competition. The most know form to do that are kartells or monopolies.
Money monopoly is the biggest today and is at the heart of our economy. And its a kartell between goverments and the private sector and as such pretty durable.
its a complexe and not easy to grasp thing, when you never thought about what money is and where it comes from today. Banking History from 1776 to 1913 tells you a lot.
|
On October 27 2012 06:19 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:56 Brainling wrote:
Then that is supply and demand sam.
The supply is either constrained or not, and there is either demand or there is not. The ratio of those two things will determine fair market value.
Now, if you want to discuss whether workers are currently getting paid fair market value, that's definitely a discussion we can have, and one we would probably agree on (in most cases, they aren't). There is certainly an issue with the current pay structures, but that has way more to do with the decision makers skewing things toward themselves, than some break down in the basic idea of supply and demand.
Current pay structures are FAR too top heavy, that's not in doubt...but I don't think the basic idea of S&D and incentive pay is a bad thing. problem arises when you have too much power, influence or are today "too big too fail" you are able to figt against such nasty things as competition. The most know form to do that are kartells or monopolies. Money monopoly is the biggest today and is at the heart of our economy. And its a kartell between goverments and the private sector and as such pretty durable.
I agree with this. It's an unfortunate, but natural, side effect of an unfettered free market. It doesn't take long for the government and private sector to realize they can be richer together than apart, and this usually comes in the form of special interest and the private sector pushing cushy laws, especially in the tax and employment areas.
|
On October 27 2012 05:59 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 05:21 Holy_AT wrote:
Money does not exist it is just a program running in the heads of people.
And the way Money is being distributed is utter nonsense, the meaning of money and the reasons why it was introduced are no longer the reasons why it is being used to day and for what reasons.
People are programmed in a way that they can not see reality.
Is money here to exchange goods and services ?
How is the relation between money and a certain service ?
Is hard exhausting work rewarded ? Is complicated work rewarded, where you have to think allot until you cant and just blank out on the evening ?
How is it possible that someone earns 1000 times or more then someone else ? Is he doing work that is 1000 x times more exhausting or complicated ? This aint humanly possible.
And because of these malfunctions in the system that work/service is in no relation to the money being earned this system can not endure long term without being destroyed over and over again. Well with technology you can easily be 1000X more productive. Ex. Compare an actor live on stage to an actor in a movie. The actor in the movie can be far more productive because technology will enable one performance to be repeated multiple times at little added cost. Yes but does the person using this technologie is 1000x times more exhausted or has to solve 1000x times more complicated things then the person who does not use the technologie ? So why should he be payed more ? People should get payed for the physical and mental energy they invest (yes mental energy and complexity is difficult to estimate)
They get paid more not because they do 1000X more work but because they produce 1000X more product. As in their wage is not dependent upon their inputs (work, effort) but their outputs (putting asses in the theater).
|
On October 27 2012 06:17 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:44 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, I think that's the problem. Our entire economic thinking is based on the idea that the potential for consumption is without limit of any kind, and our economic policies are based on stimulating that consumption without any consideration of what consumption is and is not a good idea in the first place. It's all just sort of lumped together into this amorphous pile of GDP, and making that number bigger is a "good" thing.
Which is to say, I don't think the "normal operating level" is in fact a "normal operating level," I think it's a historically situated state of affairs which is coming to an end and we are willfully oblivious to this...
edit: just look at how the economy wants to make things that fall apart quickly and have to be replaced, as opposed to making things that last for a long time and therefore preclude future demand... that's not rational at all. Well.. the operating level is defined by technological achievement and worker productivity. In terms of recessions and depressions, philosophical musings about what human activity should be directed at are futile. It's about how money works as a system. Or.. how it breaks down. No, that's when you need philosophy the most... Is philosophy going to feed clothe and house millions of jobless people? Don't be facile...
Political scientists call pushing your own agenda on the back of difficult short term circumstances "shock doctrine". I am very sad to see it having been used mostly for the purposes of conservatives and libertarians during the last few years.
You mean like what the IMF does? My point is that I don't believe the circumstances are short term. The circumstances, as in elevated unemployment, and low income growth are short term most definitely. Unemployment is short term, simply because the economy doesn't just throw away factors of production. Low income growth because there is nothing to suggest worker productivity would depreciate in the short term: Income growth will pick up once the growth gets going again.
But I wanna know what sectors are the future... What kind of jobs are people going to be doing in the future? You talk about this "growth" thing, again, as this undifferentiated GDP tumor, but I want to know what it actually looks like for the people doing things and living lives...
As we continue to move from labor-intensive to capital-intensive things (I know there is a countercycle because of globalization), are there infinite new horizons that open up? Or is there actually a limit to what things are worth doing?
edit: the problem with capital is that it is coercive... it forces people to live in a world of neverending crisis and reorganization and you can't have a nice, calm community, pass down a metier to your children... fuck, these days you can't even pass down a metier to yourself twenty years in the future. I get the "creative destruction" thing but people focus too much on the first word and not enough on the second.
|
I should imagine the banks are simply waiting for the markets to bottom out so they can spend those reserves in such a way as to make the most money possible. This kind of opportunity doesn't come along very often. Normally, competition between lenders keeps the money flowing.
|
On October 27 2012 06:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:17 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:44 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, I think that's the problem. Our entire economic thinking is based on the idea that the potential for consumption is without limit of any kind, and our economic policies are based on stimulating that consumption without any consideration of what consumption is and is not a good idea in the first place. It's all just sort of lumped together into this amorphous pile of GDP, and making that number bigger is a "good" thing.
Which is to say, I don't think the "normal operating level" is in fact a "normal operating level," I think it's a historically situated state of affairs which is coming to an end and we are willfully oblivious to this...
edit: just look at how the economy wants to make things that fall apart quickly and have to be replaced, as opposed to making things that last for a long time and therefore preclude future demand... that's not rational at all. Well.. the operating level is defined by technological achievement and worker productivity. In terms of recessions and depressions, philosophical musings about what human activity should be directed at are futile. It's about how money works as a system. Or.. how it breaks down. No, that's when you need philosophy the most... Is philosophy going to feed clothe and house millions of jobless people? Don't be facile...
Political scientists call pushing your own agenda on the back of difficult short term circumstances "shock doctrine". I am very sad to see it having been used mostly for the purposes of conservatives and libertarians during the last few years.
You mean like what the IMF does? My point is that I don't believe the circumstances are short term. The circumstances, as in elevated unemployment, and low income growth are short term most definitely. Unemployment is short term, simply because the economy doesn't just throw away factors of production. Low income growth because there is nothing to suggest worker productivity would depreciate in the short term: Income growth will pick up once the growth gets going again. But I wanna know what sectors are the future... What kind of jobs are people going to be doing in the future? You talk about this "growth" thing, again, as this undifferentiated DGP tumor, but I want to know what it actually looks like for the people doing things and living lives... As we continue to move from labor-intensive to capital-intensive things (I know there is a countercycle because of globalization), are there infinite new horizons that open up? Or is there actually a limit to what things are worth doing?
There are basically infinite new horizons, that's not really the issue. The issue is: Do you have a work force with the skills to work in those horizon fields? It's not a matter of "do we have a place to go", it's a matter of "do we have a plan to get there".
If you're in an industry like mine, you feel pretty good about this. Computer use is more ubiquitous now than ever, and that won't abate probably ever. But what if you're a highly skilled welder? What do we do with that person? As a society, do we have a responsibility to make sure that person is given new educational and advancement opportunities in to the capital-rich work force? I personally say yes, we do.
|
On October 27 2012 06:26 Brainling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:21 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 06:17 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:44 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Kontys wrote:On October 27 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, I think that's the problem. Our entire economic thinking is based on the idea that the potential for consumption is without limit of any kind, and our economic policies are based on stimulating that consumption without any consideration of what consumption is and is not a good idea in the first place. It's all just sort of lumped together into this amorphous pile of GDP, and making that number bigger is a "good" thing.
Which is to say, I don't think the "normal operating level" is in fact a "normal operating level," I think it's a historically situated state of affairs which is coming to an end and we are willfully oblivious to this...
edit: just look at how the economy wants to make things that fall apart quickly and have to be replaced, as opposed to making things that last for a long time and therefore preclude future demand... that's not rational at all. Well.. the operating level is defined by technological achievement and worker productivity. In terms of recessions and depressions, philosophical musings about what human activity should be directed at are futile. It's about how money works as a system. Or.. how it breaks down. No, that's when you need philosophy the most... Is philosophy going to feed clothe and house millions of jobless people? Don't be facile...
Political scientists call pushing your own agenda on the back of difficult short term circumstances "shock doctrine". I am very sad to see it having been used mostly for the purposes of conservatives and libertarians during the last few years.
You mean like what the IMF does? My point is that I don't believe the circumstances are short term. The circumstances, as in elevated unemployment, and low income growth are short term most definitely. Unemployment is short term, simply because the economy doesn't just throw away factors of production. Low income growth because there is nothing to suggest worker productivity would depreciate in the short term: Income growth will pick up once the growth gets going again. But I wanna know what sectors are the future... What kind of jobs are people going to be doing in the future? You talk about this "growth" thing, again, as this undifferentiated DGP tumor, but I want to know what it actually looks like for the people doing things and living lives... As we continue to move from labor-intensive to capital-intensive things (I know there is a countercycle because of globalization), are there infinite new horizons that open up? Or is there actually a limit to what things are worth doing? There are basically infinite new horizons, that's not really the issue.
No, but this is what I don't believe, can you convince me?
The issue is: Do you have a work force with the skills to work in those horizon fields? It's not a matter of "do we have a place to go", it's a matter of "do we have a plan to get there".
There's a third question, which is "is it worth going?"
(edit: also, "which of the places that we could go do we want to go?", perhaps a corollary of above)
If you're in an industry like mine, you feel pretty good about this. Computer use is more ubiquitous now than ever, and that won't abate probably ever.
If I were you, I would be worried. You program things, right? What happens when billions of Indian kids and Chinese kids learn to program? you think the internet is a big place now... My coder friends say most of programming now is not engine things inside the program, it's interface things that hook up to the real world, and that there's a real inefficiency because of parallel development due to proprietary software. How many coders can the world support?
But what if you're a highly skilled welder? What do we do with that person? As a society, do we have a responsibility to make sure that person is given new educational and advancement opportunities in to the capital-rich work force? I personally say yes, we do.
Yeah, deskilling is a major problem, that's why you can't pass down metier.
|
On October 27 2012 06:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 05:34 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 05:21 Holy_AT wrote:
Money does not exist it is just a program running in the heads of people.
And the way Money is being distributed is utter nonsense, the meaning of money and the reasons why it was introduced are no longer the reasons why it is being used to day and for what reasons.
People are programmed in a way that they can not see reality.
Is money here to exchange goods and services ?
How is the relation between money and a certain service ?
Is hard exhausting work rewarded ? Is complicated work rewarded, where you have to think allot until you cant and just blank out on the evening ?
How is it possible that someone earns 1000 times or more then someone else ? Is he doing work that is 1000 x times more exhausting or complicated ? This aint humanly possible.
And because of these malfunctions in the system that work/service is in no relation to the money being earned this system can not endure long term without being destroyed over and over again. Well with technology you can easily be 1000X more productive. Ex. Compare an actor live on stage to an actor in a movie. The actor in the movie can be far more productive because technology will enable one performance to be repeated multiple times at little added cost. But see that analogy is terrible because you are talking about art! An actor on a stage is different than an actor in a movie. It's totally disingenuous to think about it as "production" which can be compared in this way. Fair enough. It's just an example, don't be too hard on it Haha sorry Jonny I keep criticizing your examples :D But there's a philosophical strategy here, which is that I feel like people always talk about economics in abstract terms, and then they give examples that are just examples and so we shouldn't criticize them, but all the examples seem to leave themselves open to criticism... I just want people to think about the real world and give compelling examples
I know, its hard because real life examples are complicated. Like the stage / movie actor comparison, you can explain it with "supply and demand" but then breaking down why supply and demand lead to that wage difference is complicated. Technology plays a factor, as does the public's preferences for leisure activities, as does the actor's opportunity costs (what else they could be doing for a living) etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
