Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.
"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.
"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.
"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."
Do you see hyperinflation coming to the US anytime soon?
What would happen if every $10 bill in the country transformed into a $5 within a few weeks?
Would the rich profit from that?
Hyperinflation is not coming to America.
Do you see the difference in the US manufacturing base between 1980 and 2009?Democrats get most of their campaign funding from the same 1% of US voters as do Republicans.Isnt Obama and most of the Democrat elite in congress Rich?
Are you saying that Democrats love unemployment because they get to buy votes with other people's money?
Then you would be right on
And it's not the one percent losing their jobs, homes and pensions.
I don't see how anyone can argue that "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican changes anything Wall Street does to Main Street.
Regan Created 21 million jobs
Obama Over---spent 6 trillion dollars and only ........ saved ..........fictiticious jobs.
I see a difference
If the right believes a legitimate role of government involves protecting liberty, that requires ensuring Wall Street doesn't loot your pension plan or any other part of your standard of living."Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.
No. The difference is liberals believe it is legitimate role of government to ensure a certain standard of living. The right does not. The right believes it the role of government to protect your liberty......and that's about it.
"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.
There is no evidence for this and the only reason it is being said is to rationalize the lefts attempt to redistribute wealth downwards.
"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.
"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."
Through what specific policies exactly has the right ensured that the labor pool is less skilled?
"Why would the Fed ever want to make the economy grow more slowly or have fewer jobs? The answer is that the Fed worries that if too many people have jobs, or if it is too easy for workers to find jobs, there will be upward pressure on wages.
"More rapid wage growth can get translated into more rapidly rising prices — in other words, inflation. So the Fed often decides to raise interest rates to slow the economy and keep people out of work in order to keep inflation from increasing and eventually getting out of control.
"Most people probably do not realize that the Federal Reserve Board, an agency of the government, intervenes in the economy to prevent it from creating too many jobs.
"But there is even more to the story. When the Fed hits the brakes to slow job growth, it is not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who end up without jobs.
"The people who lose are those in the middle and the bottom — sales clerks, factory workers, custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who don’t get hired or get laid off when the economy slows or goes into a recession.
The Conservative Nanny State
Is it true over the last thirty years US productivity has risen by 70% yet middle class wages adjusted for inflation have remained stagnant?
High enployment is certainly better for employers than low unemployment.
You guys are aware, aren't you, of the THEORY that there is a "Natural RATE of unemployment" that is thought (by the FED) to be the ideal unemployment rate.
Its 5%.
They believe that unemployment below that number causes inflation, and that unemployment above that number casues DEflation.
Much of their policy on setting rates is based on that theory.
What do you mean by "long term?"Do you see hyperinflation coming to the US anytime soon?
What would happen if every $10 bill in the country transformed into a $5 within a few weeks?
Would the rich profit from that?
Hyperinflation is not coming to America.
Major inflation is coming over the long term. I don't believe we will have an overnight collapse or anything but the government will never be able to pay an interest rate on it's bonds that equals commodities inflation. Saudi prince Alwaleed Bin Talal is ok with our current economic stimulus spending rate as long as it results in full employment & a robust economy so we can pay the debt back. We certainly have him fooled. We need a hell of a lot of innovation to pull this economy out of the ditch & even way more to pay down any debt without the Feds printing press buying up debt.
The richest 10,000 Americans have seen the value of their assets rise 550% since 1978.Is it true over the last thirty years US productivity has risen by 70% yet middle class wages adjusted for inflation have remained stagnant?
No it's not true. Real American wages have risen during that time. However, it is true that wages have lagged productivity growth. But that's different from saying the Fed doesn't want wages to rise.
"The unemployment crisis has been a godsend for America's superrich, who own the vast majority of financial assets - stocks, bonds, currency and commodities...
"America's labor market depression propels asset price appreciation. In the last two years, US corporate profits and share prices rose at the fastest pace in history - and the fastest in the G-7.
"Considering the source of profits, the soaring stock market appears less a beacon of prosperity than a reliable proxy for America's new misery index. Mark Whitehouse of The Wall Street Journal describes Obama's hamster wheel recovery:
"'From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers.
"'But the lion's share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises.
"'Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.'"
"Out of work Americans deserve more than unemployment checks - they deserve dividends.
"The rich would never have recovered without them."
Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout
The richest 10,000 Americans have seen the value of their assets rise 550% since 1978.Is it true over the last thirty years US productivity has risen by 70% yet middle class wages adjusted for inflation have remained stagnant?
No it's not true. Real American wages have risen during that time. However, it is true that wages have lagged productivity growth. But that's different from saying the Fed doesn't want wages to rise.
Has the Fed played a role?
At whose expense, those whose wages have lagged productivity growth?
America is 234 Years Old Today Is It Finished? | Phil
"Why would the Fed ever want to make the economy grow more slowly or have fewer jobs? The answer is that the Fed worries that if too many people have jobs, or if it is too easy for workers to find jobs, there will be upward pressure on wages.
"More rapid wage growth can get translated into more rapidly rising prices — in other words, inflation. So the Fed often decides to raise interest rates to slow the economy and keep people out of work in order to keep inflation from increasing and eventually getting out of control.
"Most people probably do not realize that the Federal Reserve Board, an agency of the government, intervenes in the economy to prevent it from creating too many jobs.
"But there is even more to the story. When the Fed hits the brakes to slow job growth, it is not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who end up without jobs.
"The people who lose are those in the middle and the bottom — sales clerks, factory workers, custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who don’t get hired or get laid off when the economy slows or goes into a recession.
The Conservative Nanny State
This isn't correct. The Fed isn't concerned with rapidly rising wages. They are concerned with rapidly rising wages in the absence of productivity growth, particularly when profit margins are low. The Fed wants wages to rise when productivity is growing.
"The unemployment crisis has been a godsend for America's superrich, who own the vast majority of financial assets - stocks, bonds, currency and commodities...
"America's labor market depression propels asset price appreciation. In the last two years, US corporate profits and share prices rose at the fastest pace in history - and the fastest in the G-7.
"Considering the source of profits, the soaring stock market appears less a beacon of prosperity than a reliable proxy for America's new misery index. Mark Whitehouse of The Wall Street Journal describes Obama's hamster wheel recovery:
"'From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers.
"'But the lion's share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises.
"'Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.'"
"Out of work Americans deserve more than unemployment checks - they deserve dividends.
"The rich would never have recovered without them."
Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout
Who are the rich?
As far as mortal citizens are concerned the rich are the top 10,000 income earners in the US."The unemployment crisis has been a godsend for America's superrich, who own the vast majority of financial assets - stocks, bonds, currency and commodities...
"America's labor market depression propels asset price appreciation. In the last two years, US corporate profits and share prices rose at the fastest pace in history - and the fastest in the G-7.
"Considering the source of profits, the soaring stock market appears less a beacon of prosperity than a reliable proxy for America's new misery index. Mark Whitehouse of The Wall Street Journal describes Obama's hamster wheel recovery:
"'From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers.
"'But the lion's share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises.
"'Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.'"
"Out of work Americans deserve more than unemployment checks - they deserve dividends.
"The rich would never have recovered without them."
Why the Rich Love High Unemployment | Truthout
Who are the rich?
Yes, the Fed has played a role in rising asset prices, but not in mediocre wage growth. This has occurred through much of the world, not just here. That's an outcome, not a biased policy of the Fed to help the rich by screwing everyone else. The Fed has no target or policy or preference for one class of people over another.
