Krugman drives it home again

[Dot Com]

He points out that slowly recovering economies, brought to the brink by wall st greed mind you, are doing quite well in a nascent economy. How you might ask Well, by short-sheeting their employees of course. Its the randian way.

Why Corporations Might Not Mind Moderate Depression

What about actual experience in this depressed economy? Well, that’s the motivating example. You see, from a profits point of view it’s not a depressed economy at all. Look at profits versus compensation of employees (that’s wages and benefits combined) since the slump began at the end of 2007; both are expressed as indexes with 2007Q4=100:

 

[Publius1787]

He points out that slowly recovering economies, brought to the brink by wall st greed mind you, are doing quite well in a nascent economy. How you might ask Well, by short-sheeting their employees of course. Its the randian way.

Why Corporations Might Not Mind Moderate Depression

What about actual experience in this depressed economy? Well, that’s the motivating example. You see, from a profits point of view it’s not a depressed economy at all. Look at profits versus compensation of employees (that’s wages and benefits combined) since the slump began at the end of 2007; both are expressed as indexes with 2007Q4=100:

Large corporations have large amounts of credit, and therefore, staying power. A small business running deficits with a $500,000 line of credit has no chance against a corporation running deficits with a 50,000,000,000 line of credit. Startups cannot thrive in a bad economy and small businesses cannot thrive in a bad economy. The same goes for regulation. Regulation helps large corporations keep their competition from advancing on their territory by creating a barrier to entry. Whereas a small business has to jump through more regulatory hoops that the corporation did years ago with their startup. In any case, large businesses and corporations always weather recessions better than small businesses because of the regulatory environment, economies of scale, and the laws of attrition.

 

[Dot Com]

You COMPLETELY missed the part about suppressed wages & increased profit. Read the OP again

 

[Avorysuds]

Not this shit again....

 

[Publius1787]

You COMPLETELY missed the part about suppressed wages & increased profit. Read the OP again

Wages do not increase with high unemployment and low demand for labor. Wages always increase with high employment and high demand for labor. Wages are always the last thing that rebounds in a recession. Krugman knows this as an economist, however, he uses it as a catapult to forward leftist ideology. No surprise there. Corporations will continue to hoard capital and minimize wages until they are certain that investment in expansion and wages will pay off. It has been the same in every recession in US history. The laws of economics do not bend to the wishes of leftist economists.

 

[Dot Com]

then provide a link proving your assertion

 

[expat_panama]

...the part about suppressed wages & increased profit...

That was what seemed like the nut of Krugman's rant:

Profits took a hit during the financial crisis, but have soared since then, and are now 60 percent above pre-crisis levels; meanwhile compensation has grown hardly at all, and indeed fallen in real per capita terms. The point is that we have a depressed economy for workers, but not at all for corporations.

This is typical for political ideologues like Kruggers, find a convenient time frame for corp profits and wages, mash 'em together into an unexplained index, and then (without supporting proof) allege that wages had "indeed fallen in real per capita terms" while somehow maybe corp profits didn't. Mean old corps, poor poooor employees.

Back to planet earth. Here's total corp profits and total employee pay together going back to 2003:

Reality is that corp owners saw a 17% income cut for three years while employees had a 4% cut over two years. Let's also keep in mind that for every dollar in corp profits there's seven dollars in wages.

Krugman says stuff that's not true and that pleases the party faithful.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yet again, and again, and again...Krugman spouts out nonsense out of his land of oz and the low information rubes fall for it every time.
Pitiful. It really is.
Krugman is a joke. He has been disproved and laughed at for years for his broad stroke opinions based on ideas rather than fact. But he is well educated and has a broad vocabulary so the sheep are easily impressed by his large words and the ability to raise a single eyebrow while wearing a tweed jacket...oh and he has a beard..so he looks smarter too.
Pitiful

 

[Stephanie]

that title just kills me...Now I'll have to try and get that image out of my head...lol

 

[Dot Com]

^ 'tard- iamwhatiseem couldn't provide a link if his life depended on it. Go to the kiddy pool boy.

Krugman slammed it home again

 

[Publius1787]

then provide a link proving your assertion

A link? I was under the assumption that you've had some education on economics. Certainly when you went to college you cracked open an economics textbook and studied how wages correlate with unemployment? If not, then you should certainly understand the simple concept of the demand for labor and how it correlates to wages. From there its one small step to assessing how a recession must life before employment/wages rise again.

Labor demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~kelly/econ150/demand_6perpage.pdf

 

[Dot Com]

if you can't provide links well..... then..... I can't help you there ESPECIALLY if you're countering the OP.

 

[Stephanie]

They should call him, Freddy Krugman

Reading his dribble is zzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Publius1787]

if you can't provide links well..... then..... I can't help you there ESPECIALLY if you're countering the OP.

There are two links above, whip out your calculator. I suppose the best way to explain this to you would be as if I was explaining it to a child.

Lets say you have a population of 100 people in the labor force and you only have 3 businesses. Each business can hire 20 people each granting 60 of them employment. With 40 people still unemployed a business has no incentive to raise the wages of his workers because his workers can be easily replaced by the other 40. In other words, the demand for labor is low. Now if 3 more businesses opened up shop they would have enough employment for 120 people with only 100 people in the labor force. The only way a business can compete for labor in such a market is to increase wages and benefits so as to make his business more labor friendly than the others. In this scenario there is a high demand for labor.

Recessions, where the unemployment is high, are periods of low demand for labor. First, businesses must expand and recover. Only then can enough of them expand to increase the demand for labor to pre recession status. In other words, wages and employment are always the last to rise during a recession. This is the case in every recession. Krugman would not disagree, however, his partisan side that is turning away legitimate economists left and right always takes precedent over the objectivity of economics.

 

[expat_panama]

They should call him, Freddy Krugman Reading his dribble is zzzzzzzzzzzzz

I can kind of see why the pundits love Krugman. I mean he's in the Nobel Prize club with Obama and Gore so he gets to be an icon of the loopy-loony-lefties. At the same time, the stuff he says is so blatantly false to fact and empty that disproving his rhetoric takes so very little effort...

 

[Stephanie]

They should call him, Freddy Krugman Reading his dribble is zzzzzzzzzzzzz

I can kind of see why the pundits love Krugman. I mean he's in the Nobel Prize club with Obama and Gore so he gets to be an icon of the loopy-loony-lefties. At the same time, the stuff he says is so blatantly false to fact and empty that disproving his rhetoric takes so very little effort...

they do love their loony left so called, icons...to them their dribble is Brilliant

 

[Dot Com]

Thanks for the thread-bump Staph

As to the OP, Krugman slammed it home!!!

 

[f252863]

He points out that slowly recovering economies, brought to the brink by wall st greed mind you, are doing quite well in a nascent economy. How you might ask Well, by short-sheeting their employees of course. Its the randian way.

Why Corporations Might Not Mind Moderate Depression

What about actual experience in this depressed economy? Well, that’s the motivating example. You see, from a profits point of view it’s not a depressed economy at all. Look at profits versus compensation of employees (that’s wages and benefits combined) since the slump began at the end of 2007; both are expressed as indexes with 2007Q4=100:

Brought to the brink by Wall Street greed?

If that were true we would be experiencing non-stop depressions/recessions. Greed wasn't invented in 2007.

Everyone is "greedy" in that we all act out of self interest, not sure why this is germaine to the discussion.

 

[f252863]

You COMPLETELY missed the part about suppressed wages & increased profit. Read the OP again

Suppressed wages is a meaningless term.

When I sell something on eBay and it goes for less that what I was looking for was the price suppressed?

 

[The Rabbi]

Big companies love downturns. It allows them to run their competitors out of business and snap up assets cheap.
Krugman is a moron. The stimulus was basically his idea and we all know what a flop that was.