Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiervexx]

I don't think we should necessarily outlaw any of the financial tools that have been abused, but I think some of them should be made less attractive. The path of a bill should be traceable, and there should be platforms of responsibility. Obviously, mass psychology plays a huge role in the economy, and there is little way to control that. Consumer and investor confidence will wax and wane like a heartbeat, but what is the difference between that crashing an economy and just slowing it a bit? How can we allow the movers of money to take chances with the money of people who aren't even aware of how it is being gambled? When it is suggested that we watch more carefully and control the degree to which this happens, the Right cries "Communism!"

I defiantly think that mass psychology and fluctuations in consumer confidence are a major part of the business cycle.  But to be honest I think that the constant creation of financial tools to fool people is also a near unavoidable part of the economy that will continue no matter what regulation does.  Many on the fiscal left have tried to act like that recent recession is so different because of a huge unprecedented lack of regulation but I don't think the instability from these tools is fundamentally anything new.  It's just a small portion of what has always gone on in an economy that is mind-bogglingly complex.

If we are going to rely upon an entire community to do the right thing, we will never mitigate risk. The government can help.

As I already said a few times, I agree that certain regulations might curtail the over leveraging but the government can also do a lot to hurt.  In particular Alan Greenspan did a lot to hurt and contribute to the housing bubble by holding interest rates way down for so long.

You have not yet addressed my belief that bad monetary policy is a huge portion of what made this recession so much larger than normal but this particular piece of business cycle theory is a very important part how how I think the economy works.  Do you agree that tighter credit would by itself do a lot to deter the over leveraging that helped make our economy so unstable?

It can also help us out of this mess, and that is going to require spending.   It doesn't take a financial genius to understand that producing something is a more efficient expenditure than destroying, but the Right tends to be so comfortable with spending on war... and so apprehensive about spending on bettering our communities. For all the discussion of the net gain or loss from green technologies, if the $700 billion that has gone into the Iraq War had gone into such things, we would have better economic prospects. We'd still have the economy around the production of the systems. We'd have an new industry, and it would produce something we use anyway.

What am I missing?

This part is not missing much at all.  You are preaching to the choir if you want to tell me that war spending is far dumber than domestic spending.

It can also help us out of this mess, and that is going to require spending

Well... this really depends on just how much the crowding out effect crushes what is spent.  There is a lot of evidence that the crowding out effect is not one-to-one because of all the lagging mechanics in the market but the benefit in the economy from government spending are further diminished when they spend the money on non-productive goods such as bombs or unnecessary infrastructure.

Pork spending, which is always defended by the party in power as a source of job creation, is often very non-productive.

[85283-071]

Agreed again on pork spending. The struggle there is clearly one of politics, and that might just be one discipline that is more complex than economics. It's a shame, because I think there are enough clearly valuable pursuits in our path that we could employ everyone many times over to achieve them.

I'm all for the rebirth of freight rail. I can't believe that is not a big part of any stimulus plan that also hopes to address reliance on foreign oil.

[Tiervexx]

Agreed again on pork spending. The struggle there is clearly one of politics, and that might just be one discipline that is more complex than economics. It's a shame, because I think there are enough clearly valuable pursuits in our path that we could employ everyone many times over to achieve them.

I'm all for the rebirth of freight rail. I can't believe that is not a big part of any stimulus plan that also hopes to address reliance on foreign oil.

Better rail transit would be very nice but there are wealthy lobbies aiming for it so we won't get it...

I do believe that ideal government would be a great thing to have... but I think that with the way government actually operates we'd often be better off if it did nothing at all.

[CeeGBee]

Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

[85283-071]

Working backwards, the percentage of green and tech jobs now, compared to manufacturing and other jobs lost is not a static number. If this crash has shown anything, it is that the system changes when it breaks. The green economy, if it really does come alive, has barely twitched so far. It's also too general a term to answer with "as soon as..." There is a struggle going on now. Subsidies and credits for US manufacturers of, say, windmill parts, could put Detroit in ther running for the leading position in the manufacturing such things. While we wrestle with whether or not a second round of stimulus will ever be needed, developing economies are offering companies amazing deals to set up shop in their countries. The green jobs are coming. The question is whether or not they are coming here.

We can produce things, and we need to produce things. We're still a nation full of inspired people with great ideas. We can invent, fix and thrive... unless people get in the way on purpose. Otherwise, we might actually only be beginning to sink.

[CeeGBee]

So then, you're saying you take it on faith that new commodities will be invented that will
be  wanted/needed  by enough  people-with-the-means-to-purchase-them to replace the
textile/appliance/automotive (for example) jobs we've lost and are continuing to lose?

[85283-071]

I'm saying that the ideas are there, and we must put them in motion or die. We could just cease to be a prosperous nation, but so far the new has replaced the old. It hasn't always been perfectly synchronized with the needs or wants of the people, but that's because business tends to deplete the old before moving on to the new. Big business is not necessarily the best custodian of the human condition.

[Tiervexx]

Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

Manufactured goods have not been the majority of our economy for a long time.  Services are extensive and rapidly growing.

The whole point behind international trade is that nations can do what they are best at and don't have to be self-sufficient.  Developing nations are just better suited towards manufacturing simple goods than we are.

[CeeGBee]

Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

Manufactured goods have not been the majority of our economy for a long time.  Services are extensive and rapidly growing.

The whole point behind international trade is that nations can do what they are best at and don't have to be self-sufficient.  Developing nations are just better suited towards manufacturing simple goods than we are.

...BECAUSE the manufacturing sector has been shrivelling, and it's not a sustainable condition.
Capital within the system circulates just fine among the advertizers, marketers, retailers, wholesalers,
chefs, waiters and hairstylists, but at the base of it all, we're borrowing from China (among others) to
but manufactured goods wholesale from China (among others)...

The water swirls nicely in our jacuzzi, but it leaks.

[Tiervexx]

Would either of you economic geniuses like to comment on the long-term prospects for our economy
as we become more and more of an importer/consumer nation, and produce less and less of the things
we need here?


[...and I will take points off if you say something stupid about "high tech jobs" or "new green jobs", both
of which  are  being created, but only in a tiny fraction of the number of traditional manufacturing
jobs that are leaving the US never to return.]

Manufactured goods have not been the majority of our economy for a long time.  Services are extensive and rapidly growing.

The whole point behind international trade is that nations can do what they are best at and don't have to be self-sufficient.  Developing nations are just better suited towards manufacturing simple goods than we are.

...BECAUSE the manufacturing sector has been shrivelling, and it's not a sustainable condition.
Capital within the system circulates just fine among the advertizers, marketers, retailers, wholesalers,
chefs, waiters and hairstylists, but at the base of it all, we're borrowing from China (among others) to
but manufactured goods wholesale from China (among others)...

The water swirls nicely in our jacuzzi, but it leaks.

Switzerland has a very healthy economy by primarly providing banking and financial services.  The US is of course too large to do that but that is an example of how an economy can be largely service based without so much dependence on manufacturing.

It is definitely possible for the US economy to completely shift away from manufacturing although it would of course be very difficult.  I'm sure you think it is more practical to keep more manufacturers and I agree.

We tax our companies too highly.  Many manufacturers are very tempted to move overseas because of the easier tax situation.

Also... Cap n Trade = our manufacturing sector evaporates.  A much better way to control CO2 is to copy France's nuclear energy program.

[85283-071]

How far off are we, do you think, from mustering the political will for that?

[Tiervexx]

How far off are we, do you think, from mustering the political will for that?

well... nobody talks about it at all.

I'm sure Obama could sell the idea to people if he tried.  It's not hard to see the case for it.

[85283-071]

Combined with Shai Agassi's battery station plan, oil could be demoted to [component of plastics status.

[CeeGBee]

We pamper our workforce, what with all that minimum-wage, OSHA, sexual-harrassment, workman's-comp
bullshit.  Many manufacturers are very tempted to move overseas because of the cheaper labor situation.

Fix'd.

After you figure in the MASSIVE tax-credits, write-offs and exemptions that the GOP and corporate America
leave out of their calculations, our actual corporate tax rate is lower than most of the "developed world".....

[Tiervexx]

We pamper our workforce, what with all that minimum-wage, OSHA, sexual-harrassment, workman's-comp
bullshit.  Many manufacturers are very tempted to move overseas because of the cheaper labor situation.

Fix'd.

After you figure in the MASSIVE tax-credits, write-offs and exemptions that the GOP and corporate America
leave out of their calculations, our actual corporate tax rate is lower than most of the "developed world".....

American manufacturing workers all make WAY more than the minimum wage so that's not even a factor.

Corporate tax is only a fraction of what they pay.

As for the sexual harassment... It would make things much easier and in my opinion more fair to businesses if the victim could only sue the employee that was actually doing the harassment.  This would be a huge weight off the shoulders of the companies and would spare everyone the mandatory sensitivity training since it would only be their ass on the line if they did it.