economics: Germany
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jul 2010 09:05 On Jul 8, 2:43 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jul 6, 1:07 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:12:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > wrote: > > > >On Jul 6, 10:54 am, John Larkin > > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > >> wrote: > > > >> >On Jul 6, 7:37 am, BillSloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> > BillSloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> >> > So, implicitly, as of 1937 Roosevelt's first and second stimulus > > >> >> > packages (aka The New Deal) still hadn't worked, right? > > > >> >> They had worked, and had gotten unemployment down from 25% to 9%. In > > >> >> 1937 - in a premature fit of "fiscal responsiblity" the residual > > >> >> stimulus was stopped - too early - and unemployment went back up to > > >> >> 17%. > > > >> >Nope, but here's a nice picture for you: > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Origins > > > >> >> > The fact is > > >> >> > that government has no ability to create jobs. Not then, not now. > > > >> >> Palpable nonsense. Since you acknowledge that it has the ability to > > >> >> destroy them you should be able to understand that it also has the > > >> >> capabliity to create them, > > > >> >"Ability to destroy" does not imply ability to create. That a > > >> >teenager can wreck your car proves he can make them? That's dumb. > > > >> There's the time factor, too: things take a long time to build, but > > >> they can be destroyed essentially instantly. Jobs, businesses, > > >> productive infrastructures, even if set free, will take a generation > > >> to grow back. The US electorate hasn't that sort of patience, so we > > >> get idiotic macroeconomic things like "stimulus", the equivalent of > > >> shooting speed into your arm instead of exercizing and eating your > > >> broccoli. > > > >I've been thinking about this for decades, and six ways from Sunday > > >for the past year and a half. We *can* fix this, and in less than a > > >generation. Less than a decade, if we have the will. > > > >Just as long as Obama's assaults on our institutions don't stand. > > >Those cured, the patient will heal herself. It's part of the synergy, > > >the miracle of our system, of entrepreneurship. We just have to stop > > >him killing it. > > > The worker-guy jobs are the hardest to rebuild. If we buy most of our > > manufactured stuff from China, and use latino immigrants for cheap > > off-the-books domestic labor, a lot of American workers won't have > > jobs. > > > To some extent this is the globalization problem. But our tax and > > immigration policies just make it worse. > > I actually think those aren't so hard to cure, the worker-guy jobs. > However advanced automation gets, the start-ups, the mom-'n'-pops > always start with humans. That's the most versatile, natural labor > source, and the one of first resort. > > Perversely, labour "advocates" have made labour unaffordable. It seems perfectly affordable in Germany, despite the rather better protection of workers rights there, and the more generous social security provisions. Sadly, US right-wing nitwits seem to like the hole they've dug for themselves, and want to keep on digging it deeper. Their grandfathers were frightened by the International Workers of the World, and their grandchildren haven't outgrown their infantile anxieties. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Jul 2010 09:13 On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Jul 6, 4:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > So, implicitly, as of 1937 Roosevelt's first and second stimulus > > > > packages (aka The New Deal) still hadn't worked, right? > > > > They had worked, and had gotten unemployment down from 25% to 9%. In > > > 1937 - in a premature fit of "fiscal responsiblity" the residual > > > stimulus was stopped - too early - and unemployment went back up to > > > 17%. > > > Nope, but here's a nice picture for you: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Origins > > Nope? The graph reiterates what I said - the unemployment figures are > year by year figures that smooth out the 9% - and you still think that > it constitutes some kind of counter-argument? Excuse me, that graph was a little small. Here's a bigger copy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif Now, after 5 years and two monster spendulus programs, FDR had driven unemployment down to 9% by 1937? When foolhardy fiscal restraint drove it back up to 17%? Nope, still don't see it. Hold on a sec while I smash my glasses... Sorry. Still looks to me like FDR got a small, fake dip with his jobs- for-clunkers programs, which snapped back the moment he stopped them, 'til the war put everyone to work. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Jul 2010 14:23 On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Jul 6, 4:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > At least FDR got something tangible, some infrastructure, > > > > however much it cost him. We still use some of it today. Barack's > > > > money is gone, with nothing to show for it. > > > > > > - you've got 10% unemployment, not 25%. > > > > > It's 18%, actually. > > > > According to whose web-site? > > > Obama's. > > > >http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.htm > > > > says 9.5%. This has to be the "official" figure. > > > > I'm sure that you can find some right-wing nit wit who has counted > > > everybody who isn't actually working - as in sick, retired or getting > > > an education - as unemployed, but it is ratehr difficult to compare > > > their "unemployment" level with historical numbers. > > > The number you cite doesn't count people who've given up--we had > > 652,000 of those *last month*. (That's why unemployment's "down", the > > "progress" the President touted last week.) It's the for-dummies > > number. > > > Your figure counts scientists mowing lawns part-time or selling > > newspapers on street corners as "employed." > > > So, the number of people who want full-time work but can't find it is > > ~18%. Or maybe 17%--I haven't added it up recently. > > In other words, you can find people in the statistics whom you think > ought to be counted as unemployed, and if I went to the trouble of > trawling through the statistics and trying to duplicate your anti- > Obama mind-set I might be able to recreate your 18% unemployent > figure. > > Not of figure that tells us much about the current state of the > economy, because we can't easily go back and perform the same > conjuring trick on earlier statistics > > > You can confirm these and more at the right-wing Obama > > administration's BLS website. Your link, for starters, and > > > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm > > > and > > > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm > > In other words, the 18% comes out of your fertile imagination, lightly > constrained by the official numbers. If a republican were in power, > your prejudices would work differently. No, actually it's an official government figure; I just explained to you how it's calculated. Like with the money supply's M1, M2, & M3, the government publishes a number of stats on unemployment. You cited the "for dummies" number, the number the President uses when he says 652,000 people--in one month--giving up entirely and dropping out of the work force is a good thing. So, wait a minute, if they all quit looking, everyone will be employed! Hooray! You've solved it! Better, job-hunting should be banned! It's un-American! Meanwhile I added it up for your convenience, but you yourself can find that (and all the various official unemployment measures) from official .gov sources if you look. You might have to dig--this administration doesn't put them front and center. Bad for business, you know. Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 8 Jul 2010 18:35 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 05:43:08 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jul 6, 1:07�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:12:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 6, 10:54 am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > So, implicitly, as of 1937 Roosevelt's first and second stimulus >> >> >> > packages (aka The New Deal) still hadn't worked, right? >> >> >> >> They had worked, and had gotten unemployment down from 25% to 9%. In >> >> >> 1937 - in a premature fit of "fiscal responsiblity" the residual >> >> >> stimulus was stopped - too early - and unemployment went back up to >> >> >> 17%. >> >> >> >Nope, but here's a nice picture for you: >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Origins >> >> >> >> > The fact is >> >> >> > that government has no ability to create jobs. Not then, not now. >> >> >> >> Palpable nonsense. Since you acknowledge that it has the ability to >> >> >> destroy them you should be able to understand that it also has the >> >> >> capabliity to create them, >> >> >> >"Ability to destroy" does not imply ability to create. That a >> >> >teenager can wreck your car proves he can make them? That's dumb. >> >> >> There's the time factor, too: things take a long time to build, but >> >> they can be destroyed essentially instantly. Jobs, businesses, >> >> productive infrastructures, even if set free, will take a generation >> >> to grow back. The US electorate hasn't that sort of patience, so we >> >> get idiotic macroeconomic things like "stimulus", the equivalent of >> >> shooting speed into your arm instead of exercizing and eating your >> >> broccoli. >> >> >I've been thinking about this for decades, and six ways from Sunday >> >for the past year and a half. �We *can* fix this, and in less than a >> >generation. �Less than a decade, if we have the will. >> >> >Just as long as Obama's assaults on our institutions don't stand. >> >Those cured, the patient will heal herself. �It's part of the synergy, >> >the miracle of our system, of entrepreneurship. �We just have to stop >> >him killing it. >> >> The worker-guy jobs are the hardest to rebuild. If we buy most of our >> manufactured stuff from China, and use latino immigrants for cheap >> off-the-books domestic labor, a lot of American workers won't have >> jobs. >> >> To some extent this is the globalization problem. But our tax and >> immigration policies just make it worse. > >I actually think those aren't so hard to cure, the worker-guy jobs. >However advanced automation gets, the start-ups, the mom-'n'-pops >always start with humans. That's the most versatile, natural labor >source, and the one of first resort. > >Perversely, labor "advocates" have made labor unaffordable. Oh, labor is affordable. It's employment that's unaffordable. People are cheap and productive. Government isn't either.
From: krw on 8 Jul 2010 18:36
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:13:15 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jul 6, 5:57�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Jul 6, 4:25�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> > > > So, implicitly, as of 1937 Roosevelt's first and second stimulus >> > > > packages (aka The New Deal) still hadn't worked, right? >> >> > > They had worked, and had gotten unemployment down from 25% to 9%. In >> > > 1937 - in a premature fit of "fiscal responsiblity" the residual >> > > stimulus was stopped - too early - and unemployment went back up to >> > > 17%. >> >> > Nope, but here's a nice picture for you: >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Origins >> >> Nope? The graph reiterates what I said - the unemployment figures are >> year by year figures that smooth out the 9% - and you still think that >> it constitutes some kind of counter-argument? > >Excuse me, that graph was a little small. Here's a bigger copy: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif > >Now, after 5 years and two monster spendulus programs, FDR had driven >unemployment down to 9% by 1937? When foolhardy fiscal restraint >drove it back up to 17%? > >Nope, still don't see it. Hold on a sec while I smash my glasses... > >Sorry. Still looks to me like FDR got a small, fake dip with his jobs- >for-clunkers programs, which snapped back the moment he stopped them, >'til the war put everyone to work. All he needed to pull the country out of the Great Depression was to do the census a few years early. |