The Keynesian Nightmare Continues...

No. You can argue that more of these beneficial exchanges take place under capitalism than any other system, but it has nothing to do with Capitalism.

Again, same thing happens in Cuba. You can argue it doesn't happen as much as it would under a Capitalist system, but it does happen.

It seems clear from the data that a lot more of these mutually beneficial exchanges were taking place during the Keynes years. Note real wages and home ownership....

Ludicrous. More exchanges were happening yet GDP is out of site relative to our Keynes orgy of the late 30s to early 40s.

As to your wage silliness, it's about a more competitive labor market, not dwindling transaction numbers. You know, that supply demand relationship that you're so loathe to recognize. Maybe you'll tell me that our eroding educational advantage and diminishing skill sets justify real wage increases and rising income levels. Globalization makes it hard for a lazy ass union guy to demand what he wants whe he can be outsourced and upgraded.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Capitalism is not a zero sum game though. The very fact of increasing wealth precludes it from being that. Some commodities markets are nearly zero sum games but still the increase in demand due to population precludes that.

Do you or anyone know gibbs background? He still posts like the limits of his experience are defined by the covers of someone's theoretical book or the walls of a lecture hall.

My background is somewhat colorful. I am not an academic. I am not as young as you think I am either.

Take a look at the data. Why didn't elite power grow when real wages were going (it went down commensurate with the distribution of wealth.)? Why have real wages not grown since the neoliberal age and the restoration of elite class power?

Wealth has been siphoned into the US from foreign tribute in a variety of ways. Most of the world lives on less than $2 / day.
 
Hence they're "toxic" assets. :crazy:

I can see you haven't done a lot of IPOs regarding zero-sum analysis. In addition, just take a look at the data; why can't real wages grow along with elite economic power grow? Why? It's not a zero-sum game!

You are saying this can happen. It didn't. Elite economic power fell during a period of real wage growth and real wealth distribution? Why?

Why?

Why?

I haven't even busted the foreign tribute data on yo azz yet.

Again, you wouldn't know a derivative transaction if it slapped you across the face. They're toxic to those who have no business meddling in them and they damn well should be.

As to your labor absurdity, supply and demand for overpriced American dwindling skills, effort and education dictates. It's not a particularly hard relationship for those who view economics as something other than bullshiz social engineering. I know the relationship is hard for you to grasp, but the reality of the marketplace dictates pricing. There is no remote reaso to think we should see real wage growth when cheaper, better labor available in droves elsewhere. Man, makes being a union honk suck, no? Makes having overpaid for all the union crap during our runup look stupid, no?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
My background is somewhat colorful. I am not an academic. I am not as young as you think I am either.

Take a look at the data. Why didn't elite power grow when real wages were going (it went down commensurate with the distribution of wealth.)? Why have real wages not grown since the neoliberal age and the restoration of elite class power?

Wealth has been siphoned into the US from foreign tribute in a variety of ways. Most of the world lives on less than $2 / day.

Elite class power gibberish is senseless. You're talking about wages and not wealth. The idea that the average Joe now has a retirement replete with stocks, bonds, money market et al would have made people faint in the 60s, but don't let that slow you on esoteric rants about elite power.

Again, real wages are a market priced function and have nothing to do with our macroeconomic principles at hand. I know you're going to search far and wide to try and get around this piece, because it shreds the boneheaded argument that you've posted 47 graphs supporting, buy it isn't macroecon. It's supply and demand pricing for services.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
tumblr_l8asrcq0191qzmowao1_500.jpg
 
Take a look at the data.
I DID. Did you?
Why didn't elite power grow when real wages were going (it went down commensurate with the distribution of wealth.)?
I showed you a graph that if you invert will match the one that you posted. The centralization of power will ALWAYS result in a class system. Liberal ideals have centralized economic power in the US federal gov't and run up unsustainable but self perpetuating debt. The powerful still get what they want at the expense of those not politically connected. They've even been creative enough to charge it to future generations who cannot fend for themselves.

Keynes and Progressive policies have landed us where we are. ALL centrally planned economies have failed through history. ALL of them.
Why have real wages not grown since the neoliberal age and the restoration of elite class power?
I for one would not expect real wages or real wealth distribution to grow until we actually reverse and undo what Keynesian and Progressive ideals have done over the last 90 years.

Since we are not likely to get that Genie back in the bottle... I am concerned that an economic and probably politcal collapse will be necessary to "re-set" the system.

Wealth has been siphoned into the US from foreign tribute in a variety of ways. Most of the world lives on less than $2 / day.
this is THE single most ridiculous contention of the left.

Yeah... you bet. The only reason the US has been successful is by taking advantage of the rest of the world... It couldn't have anything to do with: freedom, the free market system that ruled without rival until around 1910 but progressively lost out to the left over the next 60+years, innovation, ethics, honesty, hard work, effective use of resources, business intelligence, internal stability, etc, etc, etc.

The US succeeded because we had the BEST system for creating and sustaining wealth. We will NOT help the rest of the world by becoming poorer... that's just plain stupid.
 
Townhall - Quotables: On 'Islam,' ObamaCare, Jobs, Books, 'Newsweek,' Etc.


Economist David Malpass, president of Encima Global LLC: "Washington's excess spending is now running $1.5 trillion annually, and both the Treasury and the Fed are relying heavily on short-term credits for funding. The marketable national debt has ballooned to more than $8 trillion, but wait -- the Obama administration has budgeted an increase to $20 trillion over the next few years, bringing it to more than 90 percent of GDP. Even that huge sum -- $100,000 thousand for every working-age American -- doesn't include the rapidly escalating debts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the government's unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. And to keep the debt estimate down the budgeteers are making wishful assumptions that millions of high-paying jobs will reappear and health care reform will pay for itself."

Michael Fleischer, president of Bogen Communications in New Jersey, in a Wall Street Journal op/ed headlined, "Why I'm Not Hiring": "When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in (employee) Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33 percent surtax on Sally's job each year....A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price."
 
Take a look at what's going on in France for a great look at what a Keynesian economy brings to a country. The Sarkozy government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.
 

VN Store



Back
Top