Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- From: Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 06:07:16 GMT
The Trucker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:hyOIe.36279$iG6.26170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/hist2005.html
See the Euro. See the Euro fall. Fall, Euro, fall. A stronger dollar would make our trade balance much worse than it already is.
Well, now.... It depends on whether the devaluation in the dollar is _real_ inflation or the price of hoola hoops is _real_ inflation. But, of course, inflation is actually (according to neocons like Greespan) a rise in wages.
Depends on which version of Greenspan. FWIW, Drucker has said that labor isn't a serious component of cost anymore. His argument is that significant work now requires a lot of capital, and that the delta for manhours isn't a hard constraint.
The price of land and food and energy can all rise as they will so long as the serfs get the weenie and wages continue to slide. So long as wages deteriorate then the inflation monster is under control. Perhaps you haven't heard it said in exactly this way, but it is exactly what Greenspan and others say over and over again.
There is some truth to this. What really happened is that certain classes of computer applications have reduced the number of man hours per widget.
Wages for the same task have dropped over the years in real terms. But the shape of people's task load changes to adapt to this.
I don't argue that inflation isn't "under control" (as inflation is defined as a rise in wages). I wonder why any productive person would WANT inflation to be low and "under control".
I dunno if I've said it here often, but a tad more inflation wouldn't scare me in the least. But it became a bugbear in the '70s, and people reflexively want to hear that inflation is low.
loss of US labor markets,
Either there is a metric which shows this at 5% - roughly the turnover noise figure plus a percent or two - or there isn't.
By this sort of reasoning there is no unemployment problem and just as in the case of low inflation the numbers are probably not all that skewed.
If there is an unemployment problem, how do we find that out?
Just think, if we all had jobs working 90 hours per week to make sure that Gates had several jets and several yacts then there would be zero unemloyment and no inflation. Neocon perfection at last. The Egyptian kings did this long ago.
Oh, bosh. Nobody serious is working 90 hours a week. I did when in school, and a couple of critical times since then, but "hours per week" has become some sort of macho thing.
There's a class of supercharged guys ( they're always guys ) who do five or four year bursts of 90 hour weeks, then they cash out. Long work hours are more an affectation meant to indicate commitment than a fact of nature.
*Is* there an army of forgotten chronically unemployed, studying the Unabomber Manifesto out there?
As a matter of fact, a lot of us are more "employed" than we ever were. I used to work about 30 - 40 hours a week and now I work 80 or more. But my wife no longer works and I suppose that this might account for the lower workforce participation. She still, however, does more than her share to support our economy. Still pends and spends.
I thought there were regulations prohibiting that sort of thing for drivers.
Is this *work* work, or just time-in-the-chair ( might be the same thing in your case ).
and points to superficial indicators to support a bogus theory that all is hunky dory.... it isn't.
Then why are there no professional economists who can coherently make a case for this?
Because they are paralyzed by Marx and have a terrible fear of being called a "socialist" or a "communist".
A serious economist should be able to quote Marx all he wants to, so long as it's the parts that aren't patently bogus. Marx was a mid 19th century guy - the world changed a hell of a lot. Some of how it changed was due to his influence.
The guy who scares people is Malthus, and he's hard to defend.
The right has done a very good job of demonizing everything but rightard neo-econ.
I see an awful lot of egregious "left-tard"ism, too. Point is there's plenty of mud to go 'round.
Anyone who sings off key will be attacked immediatly due to the joint sense of self preservation. No one wants to look like a fool so they all are fools together. I am reminded of a quote from Ben Franklin: "We must all hang together or we most certainly will hang separately".
Krugman spends most of his time with his foot in his mouth.
Examples please. Current stuff please.
Oh, where to start. Just Google it up and read carefully. He simply doesn't have the impact he once did.
The probability that they're all bought off seems pretty low. Has Karl Rove ordered them all asassinated? :)
They all get paid to be very much in the corner of the well to do. That has always been the case. It is not some new thing.
To be fair, the best parts of economics *do* favor the well to do, for the simple reason that economics that makes good prediction will appear to, if not "do" do.
If this cannot be conclusively shown, then what are we to make of that?
How would you "show" it if "show it" means data and they control all the data? Logic and reason will "show it" very easily, but that is rejected.
How can they control all the data? The data are an independent input into the formulae.
And the sort of logic and reason that show it are extremely sensitive to initial assumption.
An economist who could prove this would have a best seller on his hands. Where is it?
If not for the fact that I am not a degreed "economist" and the fact that my writing is poor I could have a best seller? It's almost enough to make me get my brain washed :<)
-- Les Cargill .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- From: The Trucker
- Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- References:
- A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- From: imbibe
- Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- From: Phil Scott
- Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- From: The Trucker
- A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- Prev by Date: Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- Next by Date: Re: For Trucker
- Previous by thread: Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- Next by thread: Re: A Big Story, Missed (Samuelson)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|