Bernanke: “You are all Dead Ducks”

[Diuretic]

Sorry, Duiretic, but this is simply not correct. High demand for labour is fine if wages are in line with the productive capacity of the economy. For example, if the clearing wage in the economy is $15 and the actual wage is $20, then there will be higher unemployment, regardless of the demand for labour. And if productivity growth is high, wages can rise very rapidly and not create any inflation at all.

That's not fair Toro, you're using facts.

I was thinking of the situation here where our reserve bank looks like raising interests rates again to try to combat inflationary pressures arising out of the capacity constraints caused by the negligence of the previous government.

No worries, I stand corrected.

 

[Paulie]

But that is not the case here. We have higher unemployment because there are less constraints on companies to treat employees fairly so we see temporary workers driving wages down, guest workers driving wages down, prison labor driving wages down, under-employment driving wages down, and outsourcing driving wages down. Unionization has been demonized and gutted to a point that almost completely ratifies it.

Meanwhile the cost of living continues to rise.

The problem is not lowering wages, the problem is controlling the cost to the consumer.

I have to agree with this.

There wouldn't be so much of a problem with current wages if the cost of living had not increased to the unbelievably high point that it's at.

 

[Taomon]

I have to agree with this.

There wouldn't be so much of a problem with current wages if the cost of living had not increased to the unbelievably high point that it's at.

Right. No need to raise the minimum wage, which would harm small businesses. No need to create additional social programs, which can become corrupt or ineffectual...and harm local economies.

The problem can be solved very easily in a number of ways. Earning caps are one way. Make a corporate cap on profits to be 500 million (in profits, not earnings) and the rest put back into subsidies to lower cost.

That is one way. There are many others.

 

[Toro]

But that is not the case here. We have higher unemployment because there are less constraints on companies to treat employees fairly so we see temporary workers driving wages down, guest workers driving wages down, prison labor driving wages down, under-employment driving wages down, and outsourcing driving wages down. Unionization has been demonized and gutted to a point that almost completely ratifies it.

Meanwhile the cost of living continues to rise.

The problem is not lowering wages, the problem is controlling the cost to the consumer.

There has been a stagnation of wages that is partly cyclical and partly structural. If you look at the growth in wages, they tend to lag economic growth. This is a long term trend

The lack of wage growth is not Bush's fault or the Republicans fault. It is at least due in part simply to timing.

However, increases to wage gains have been accruing faster to skilled labour and less so to unskilled labour. This has been a multi-decade phenomenon, and it appears to be because of technology. Generally, the higher amount of skill you have, the better you have done. The lower amount of skill, the worse. So those who have a masters degree or higher have seen robust wage growth. White males without a high school degree are actually being paid less in real wages than they were 40 years ago.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Right. No need to raise the minimum wage, which would harm small businesses. No need to create additional social programs, which can become corrupt or ineffectual...and harm local economies.

The problem can be solved very easily in a number of ways. Earning caps are one way. Make a corporate cap on profits to be 500 million (in profits, not earnings) and the rest put back into subsidies to lower cost.

That is one way. There are many others.

That's already been tried. It's called Communism. It doesn't work well at all.

 

[jillian]

That's already been tried. It's called Communism. It doesn't work well at all.

Actually that has nothing whatsoever to do with communism. Communism has to do with State ownership of property.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Actually that has nothing whatsoever to do with communism. Communism has to do with State ownership of property.

Well, technically yes, but wage, price and profit controls are the stuff of the state run economy which has been one of the great socio-economic failures of modern man. The "collective" if fine....if you're a honey bee or ant, but not a human.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the American economy that needs "fixing". Recessions and slowdowns are a NORMAL part of the business cycle. Things get too far out of balance, that they have to re-balance themselves. We've gotten better at keeping things from getting too far out of balance the past 30 year, much better than we used to to, but it still happens.

 

[jillian]

Well, technically yes, but wage, price and profit controls are the stuff of the state run economy which has been one of the great socio-economic failures of modern man. The "collective" if fine....if you're a honey bee or ant, but not a human.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the American economy that needs "fixing". Recessions and slowdowns are a NORMAL part of the business cycle. Things get too far out of balance, that they have to re-balance themselves. We've gotten better at keeping things from getting too far out of balance the past 30 year, much better than we used to to, but it still happens.

Not technically... it isn't communism. You try to defile good laws by labeling them communist... That's a distortion and is intentinonally so.

Regardless of what you think about wage/price controls, they aren't communism. Untempered capitalism was an abject failure (see the great depression)... why people insist on trying to move back to the days before Roosevelt, when children worked in sweat-shops, is beyond me....

 

[Zoomie1980]

Not technically... it isn't communism. You try to defile good laws by labeling them communist... That's a distortion and is intentinonally so.

Regardless of what you think about wage/price controls, they aren't communism. Untempered capitalism was an abject failure (see the great depression)... why people insist on trying to move back to the days before Roosevelt, when children worked in sweat-shops, is beyond me....

Moronic a statement as you've made. The modern global economy and dynamics and safeguards of the modern American economy make episodes like the 1930's impossible. We've only had two mild recessions since 1983, this will be the third and it may only BARELY cross the threshold.

There is NOTHING wrong with the American or Global economy. Any attempt at GOVERNMENTAL controls smacks of STATE RUN ECONOMIES which are still the GREATEST socio-economic FAILURE of modern man. And yes ANY law that invokes government control over free enterprise is vile and disgusting. Socialism is one of the great EVILS still lurking in the world today even though it has been widely discredited and failed economic theory as it destroys any incentive to better one's self because the government will just take it away.

And as for child labor, I could care less about Chinese working conditions. I just don't give a damn. It's THEIR problem if they want to work their brats in slave conditions. But their stuff is CHEAP, which means I LIKE IT, as do MOST Americans. The fact is the quality of life in China has improved DRAMATICALLY since the ending of Maoist economic principals and the embracing of ever more capitalism and it will continue to do so.

 

[jillian]

Moronic a statement as you've made. The modern global economy and dynamics and safeguards of the modern American economy make episodes like the 1930's impossible. We've only had two mild recessions since 1983, this will be the third and it may only BARELY cross the threshold.

There is NOTHING wrong with the American or Global economy. Any attempt at GOVERNMENTAL controls smacks of STATE RUN ECONOMIES which are still the GREATEST socio-economic FAILURE of modern man. And yes ANY law that invokes government control over free enterprise is vile and disgusting. Socialism is one of the great EVILS still lurking in the world today even though it has been widely discredited and failed economic theory as it destroys any incentive to better one's self because the government will just take it away.

And as for child labor, I could care less about Chinese working conditions. I just don't give a damn. It's THEIR problem if they want to work their brats in slave conditions. But their stuff is CHEAP, which means I LIKE IT, as do MOST Americans. The fact is the quality of life in China has improved DRAMATICALLY since the ending of Maoist economic principals and the embracing of ever more capitalism and it will continue to do so.

Or maybe you just have your head up your butt and don't like getting caught misusing words and engaging in propaganda.

In case you had trouble reading my post.... I wasn't talking about Chinese child labor... I was talking about children working in sweat shops HERE. That only stopped because of governmental interference.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Or maybe you just have your head up your butt and don't like getting caught misusing words and engaging in propaganda.

In case you had trouble reading my post.... I wasn't talking about Chinese child labor... I was talking about children working in sweat shops HERE. That only stopped because of governmental interference.

80 years ago? We did a lot of things we aren't proud of in our past. So what? It has NO RELEVANCE to today. Of course the government enacts laws, but those are NOT to manipulate the economy, you dolt, they are primarily to facilitate a civil society and establish equal OPPORTUNITY. No one is entitled to an equal OUTCOME, that IS communism at it's heart. And yes, governmental controls over business is the first step backwards into the BLACK and EVIL and IMMORAL world of socialism and communism. If able bodied, sounded minded people aren't happy with their condition, TOUGH SH!T, it's THEIR fault, they got into it, they can do something about it. No one made those IDIOTS borrow money for houses they couldn't afford and nobody twisted the arms of those lenders from making loans they knew were going to default. They did, they can suffer, they all DESERVE IT!!!

 

[Diuretic]

There's spittle on the inside of my monitor...how the hell did that get there?

 

[Zoomie1980]

It doesn't *have* to create a great deal of misery. That's subject to human control. It's that some people who *aren't* miserable themselves think its ok if others are and blame them for their own condition. The truth is that pure capitalism requires an underclass for cheap labor... no matter where tht labor comes from, so they rail against anything that can possibly lift people up.

Just identified this little leftist nugget.

Yes, capitalism does require a working "underclass" for it to function properly. That's no mystery nor surprise.

Where liberals simply don't get it is that YES....it is OK for some to be "miserable". I have NO problem at all with that!!! Nor should any patriotic American.

Why? Because, in a FREE society, which we have in this country, the "miserable" are "miserable" because the CHOSE TO BE THAT WAY!!!! Yes, it is 100%, without any doubt or debate....THEIR FAULT!!!

That's what you mush-brains just can't get or won't accept. That in a FREE SOCIETY, you are FREE to CHOOSE misery!! And given the choice, plenty will FREELY choose to be "miserable". I have NO PROBLEM with that. Because if any single one of those should ever choose to alter their circumstance; they are FREE to do it!

 

[Diuretic]

Just identified this little leftist nugget.

Yes, capitalism does require a working "underclass" for it to function properly. That's no mystery nor surprise.

Where liberals simply don't get it is that YES....it is OK for some to be "miserable". I have NO problem at all with that!!! Nor should any patriotic American.

Why? Because, in a FREE society, which we have in this country, the "miserable" are "miserable" because the CHOSE TO BE THAT WAY!!!! Yes, it is 100%, without any doubt or debate....THEIR FAULT!!!

That's what you mush-brains just can't get or won't accept. That in a FREE SOCIETY, you are FREE to CHOOSE misery!! And given the choice, plenty will FREELY choose to be "miserable". I have NO PROBLEM with that. Because if any single one of those should ever choose to alter their circumstance; they are FREE to do it!

Given that someone has to be miserable and on the bottom because that's how capitalism works, wouldn't it be fairer if everyone just drew a straw at birth?

I mean surely there's a quota for the various levels of richness and poorness? Maybe people could just change halfway through their lives or something?

I mean, we can't all be rich, it'd be a bit crowded up there and we couldn't all be poor for the same reason.

Mind you if we were all poor we'd probably have a revolution or something.

I think it's probably best to be born to rich parents in a capitalist society, that's the go, all you have to do then is hang on and not be too stupid with your loot! Got it made!

 

[Zoomie1980]

Given that someone has to be miserable and on the bottom because that's how capitalism works, wouldn't it be fairer if everyone just drew a straw at birth?

I mean surely there's a quota for the various levels of richness and poorness? Maybe people could just change halfway through their lives or something?

I mean, we can't all be rich, it'd be a bit crowded up there and we couldn't all be poor for the same reason.

Mind you if we were all poor we'd probably have a revolution or something.

I think it's probably best to be born to rich parents in a capitalist society, that's the go, all you have to do then is hang on and not be too stupid with your loot! Got it made!

People's lot in life is not random in a FREE society at all. No need to draw straws. People will naturally assume whatever levels they choose.

There are no "quotas". People will gravitate to their the level of their choosing all on their own.

If we were all poor through choices not our own, yes, we would, and we have had revolutions of the truely oppressed throughout human history. But in a free society there are no revolutions because all one has to do to better their lot in life is CHOOSE to do so.

And the fact is, upward 90% of the people inhabiting the top 1% of income earners in the United States came from parents OUTSIDE the top 20% almost 97% came from parents outside the top 1%. So no, there is no quantifiable effect of birth station in a free society on the income of one's children.

It's one of the many axioms of the human conditions liberals just refuse to accept. Given FREE CHOICE, most will CHOOSE through their life choices, to exist towards the bottom of in the income spectrum. It's just human nature. They simply cannot grasp the FACT that we are NOT created equal. Not even close.

And most of them regularly buy lottery tickets.....(another fundamental aspect of human nature the successful have overcome...the desire for a "free lunch" as the only means of bettering one's self)

 

[Diuretic]

People's lot in life is not random in a FREE society at all. No need to draw straws. People will naturally assume whatever levels they choose.

There are no "quotas". People will gravitate to their the level of their choosing all on their own.

If we were all poor through choices not our own, yes, we would, and we have had revolutions of the truely oppressed throughout human history. But in a free society there are no revolutions because all one has to do to better their lot in life is CHOOSE to do so.

And the fact is, upward 90% of the people inhabiting the top 1% of income earners in the United States came from parents OUTSIDE the top 20% almost 97% came from parents outside the top 1%. So no, there is no quantifiable effect of birth station in a free society on the income of one's children.

It's one of the many axioms of the human conditions liberals just refuse to accept. Given FREE CHOICE, most will CHOOSE through their life choices, to exist towards the bottom of in the income spectrum. It's just human nature. They simply cannot grasp the FACT that we are NOT created equal. Not even close.

And most of them regularly buy lottery tickets.....(another fundamental aspect of human nature the successful have overcome...the desire for a "free lunch" as the only means of bettering one's self)

People will naturally assume whatever levels they choose.

Oh, I choose to be filthy rich. Nope, that didn't work.

Of course there have to be quotas. Not everyone can fit at the top, so if one moves up, one has to move down.

There are no "free" societies, there are only illusions of freedom. As long as that con job is still effective all will be well.

It's still better to be born with rich parents, it's like being given a ten block start in a three-legged race.

For someone to have "free choice" as you put it, they have to have a real free choice. The fact is that in any stratified society my analogy about the three-legged race applies. Freedom is an illusion, it's a shibboleth and when closely examined its fetish nature is easily seen.

Buying lottery tickets is another con, but it's a sign of the desperation they feel. They have to buy lottery tickets because they have no other way of getting out underneath the heap that is on top of them.

As I said, it's better to be born to rich parents than poor parents. It's better to be born in to the upper layers of society than the lower layers. Freedom is an illusion for all, but the rich can afford nicer prisons.

 

[Zoomie1980]

People will naturally assume whatever levels they choose.

Oh, I choose to be filthy rich. Nope, that didn't work.

Assuming you are an American (your aren't) if you are not well off you haven't really chosen to be. What have you done to attain and advanced education or skills? What idea for a business have you come up with and when have decided to assume the risks for getting it started? What is your plan to accumulate capital and find others with capital willing to invest in your idea? If you have not done any of these things, then you have not chosen to be "rich"? Obviously you have not or you would be.

Of course there have to be quotas. Not everyone can fit at the top, so if one moves up, one has to move down.

No quotas needed. As I stated, in a free society people will voluntarily fill all the levels needed. Most will gravitate to towards the bottom because they are either too lazy or cowardly to try anything else other than just "existing". Making money is HARD and requires more WORK than the vast majority of people are willing to endure. Taking all the "hard" courses in college majoring in something that is actually VALUED (because those are usually "hard and challenging" and most people, given the choice, are simply too lazy). And also most are far too afraid to take the risks as well. Are you willing to mortgage your home or bet your life savings on an idea to start a business? Probably not, but then most people wouldn't.

There are no "free" societies, there are only illusions of freedom. As long as that con job is still effective all will be well.

Everything is relative. Western Europe is much less "free" than America. Starting a business in France or Germany is a nightmare of red-tape and ridiculous labor laws. But then Singapore, Malaysia and other Pacific Rim economies as well as Eastern Europe are substantially freer than the United States in terms of business and economic activity.

It's still better to be born with rich parents, it's like being given a ten block start in a three-legged race.

That hasn't been so in the United States over the past 50 years. The "wealthy" as in those in the top 5% are far more likely to come from modest backgrounds than wealth. Lots of kids squander their inheritance...because...as I stated above, most will gravitate towards the bottom...even children of wealth.

For someone to have "free choice" as you put it, they have to have a real free choice. The fact is that in any stratified society my analogy about the three-legged race applies. Freedom is an illusion, it's a shibboleth and when closely examined its fetish nature is easily seen.

Education is free in this country through grade 12. And students can spend their time taking "shop", remedial grammer, and cooking classes or they can opt to take advanced math, science, language and prepare themselves for college. Most opt for the easy stuff and thus squander the opportunity. For those the really try most can pay for 100% of their college. There is also ROTC and countless minority, low income and all sorts of scholarships out there. My daughter works 30 hours a week and takes an 18hr load to pay for what scholarship doesn't cover. The rest is loans. I pay for nothing for her even though I could. But that is "hard" and MOST will not do it. But there is NOTHING preventing them from doing it other than fear of hard work, but most 18-25 year olds want to party and have sex and screw off, not work hard to gain skills and knowledge that will make them wealthy by age 50. Again, CHOICE given, and most will gravitate, by laziness, to the bottom.

Buying lottery tickets is another con, but it's a sign of the desperation they feel. They have to buy lottery tickets because they have no other way of getting out underneath the heap that is on top of them.

It's not desperation at all. It;s the "free lunch" syndrome. And it's "EASY". NO hard work or education needed. Of course there is virtually NO chance of success, because there is really no risk either. Great reward comes only through both great labor. great motivation, and great educated risk. Every able bodied, sound mined adult citizen of the US can get an education or technical training in a high demand skill at any time usually with little or no money of their own....if the WANT to. But almost NONE "want" to.....because it is HARD and most people do not like HARD...

As I said, it's better to be born to rich parents than poor parents. It's better to be born in to the upper layers of society than the lower layers. Freedom is an illusion for all, but the rich can afford nicer prisons.

Maybe in Belgium or France, but not the US. The statitistics prove it. I make a VERY good living, make a LOT of money. My mother dropped out of school after the sixth grade and eventually became a hair dresser. My father dropped out of school at age 15, lied about his age, joined the Merchant Marine in 1942 then the Air Force. He was a used car salesman. We weren't dirt poor but we didn't have much. I got an education and majored in math, chemistry and computer science. I did very well for my self. My wife was born to tennant farmer. Also got an education she paid for all herself and worked through school and is now a cheif nurse at a major medical center.
That's how it is here. You make YOURSELF and you don't need the STATE to help, just provide the opportunities....which this state....does to EVERYONE.

 

[Diuretic]

Good on you Zoomie, you've done well and probably against the odds. But for every Zoomie there's a hundred, maybe a thousand non-Zoomies. Okay, some of them might be bone-idle, in which case they've only got themselves to blame. But many aren't they're just unlucky enough to find themselves unable to move upwards as it were.

My point is that if you take an objective look at the available evidence you'll see that the US - and I'm sorry to be so negative but the facts are there - is a very unfair society. Now I need to get everyone to hold off for a moment before launching flames. "Unfair" is I admit a subjective term. I think it's unfair that there should be a small amount of people holding huge amounts of wealth and resources. You and others might think that's fine. So on that we'll have to beg to differ or we'll simply keep parsing and spiralling downwards. Many Americans who don't see their country's economic and social system as "unfair" look at other countries and think they're not free or they're hidebound by tradition or they're "socialist" and "over-taxed" and all the rest of it. But ask folks that live there and they tell you they're happy.

And isn't happiness (contentment) the whole point?

.

 

[eots]

Just identified this little leftist nugget.

Yes, capitalism does require a working "underclass" for it to function properly. That's no mystery nor surprise.

Where liberals simply don't get it is that YES....it is OK for some to be "miserable". I have NO problem at all with that!!! Nor should any patriotic American.

Why? Because, in a FREE society, which we have in this country, the "miserable" are "miserable" because the CHOSE TO BE THAT WAY!!!! Yes, it is 100%, without any doubt or debate....THEIR FAULT!!!

That's what you mush-brains just can't get or won't accept. That in a FREE SOCIETY, you are FREE to CHOOSE misery!! And given the choice, plenty will FREELY choose to be "miserable". I have NO PROBLEM with that. Because if any single one of those should ever choose to alter their circumstance; they are FREE to do it!

what a stupid little nut shell you put it all into

 

[jillian]

what a stupid little nut shell you put it all into

Couldn't have said it better myself.