(02-06-2012 11:54 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote: Feminism
You have almost doubled the size of the labour force. In doing so, wages have taken a pounding and have not grown. But the cost of living has also risen as a result and the standard of living has taken a hit.
I'm not here to defend feminism, but this is faulty economics, stating a false outcome.
If jobs were made that brought product to market, this would not happen. The problem here is the creation of non-productive jobs, in itself it may be a aspiration of feminism, but it is not a direct cause.
The cost of living has risen because this extra income pursues existing levels product (supply).
Quote:This is why you are seeing such a large gap between the wealthy and the poor now. Purchasing power for the middle class stopped growing in the 80's. While everyone blames the wealthy, the real culprit is downward pressure on wages.
No, the culprit is post-keynesian economics, Friedman inspired neo-classicism. It hasn't been doward pressure on wages because of women entering the workfroce, it has been the abandonment of the first keynesian tenant, full employment.
This has been replaced with NAIRU, which
specifically implements a section of the labour force as unemployed. This pool of inert labuor in effect serves as a threat to the employed.
Under full employment, a worker has the bargaining position of
'give me a job I like, or I will find someone else who will'
Now we have the employers bargaining position of;
'take the job they way I give you, or I will find someone else who will.'
And we no longer have a keynesian system, the change from Keynesian-inspired politics started in 1971 when Nixon abandoned the gold-backed U.S. dollar exchange, and was completely removed with Reaganomics.
We see the effect in this chart. (
U.S wage share and personal consumption)
This is the real culprit, WAGE SHARE, the amount people are remunerated for selling their labour from roughly 65% in the 1960's, to approximately 58% today. Quite simply, from their labour alone, workers could demand 65% of product brought to market, now they can only demand 58%.
American workers are not earning enough to consume (at healthy levels) what their economy is making. It is called aggregate demand.
They have for a long time made up this nearly 7% gap by taking increasing levels of debt. Now you may argue that the American public would be wise to forfeit that 7% consumption, fine, but aggregate demand is reduced, and for the reduction in demand, there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of product coming to market, reducing employment.
Hignsight shows us the accrural of 7% finally took its toll via peak debt.
The extra 7% has gone mainly to profit share, and paid as dividends to rich, and correspondingly their marginal increase in overall wealth as a percentage of the nation. As we see now, they don't automatically invest it, as the flawed 'trickle down' theory proposes. There is one reason it doesn't work, rich people ALWAYS reduce the velocity of money.
That money will never be invested if no one can afford they product that will be made. Americans can't afford it because their wages are insufficient.
Quote:To make matters worse, women tend to start very few businesses of their own, so the vast majority spend their working lives employed, not employing. The knock on effect is that as a percentage, employees are not starting up as often as they used to, and larger percentages of the workforce only prop up every growing monopolies.
Women working, means women with wages, means more demand for product. We don't need women to be product providers. This does not add up. They actually allow for increased product providers, not less.
Quote:There is also saturation in many fields too, simply because most women pursue particular fields of study in droves.
Keynesian economics
Big government does not work.
Keynesian economics does not automatically equates to big government.
The Keynesian hey-day was 1946 - 1975, it was known as the period of 'all boats rise', most western governments had smaller government than now. It had never had a recession as bad as 2008-now, or 2001, or 1991. You could argue 1991 was the fall out from a major economic adjustment from keynesian to neo-classical systems.
Keynesian economics is about smoothing out the business cycle when aggregate demand is insufficient, it doesn't necessarily require a big government to do it.
Quote:Redistribution of wealth does not work. You cannot manipulate markets through legislation.
Erhh yes it does. 1945 - 1971 showed that.
Rich people will always accrue more and more. It is a pathological behavioural pattern on their behalf. They can't stop, they can never consent to 'enough'.
Now as Adam Smith eloquently put forward over 300 years ago, they are 3 avenues to revenue distribution, wage share (return to labour), profit share (return to capital) and rents. If any of the 3 are out of balance, then the economy will suffer.
The downfall of keynesian economics was the 1970's oil crises, which saw excess return to rents, leaving the other 2 arguing who would pay for it, ala stagflation.
Relating that back to now, I will assert that profit share (return to capital) is excess, and wage share (return to albour) is insufficient.
Keynesian economics points to redistribute it by legislation because the vested parties won't consent to it.
Quote:You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot uplift people by ensuring they are dependent on welfare.
Which is why you implement full employment policies. The Australia government successfully implemented this after WWII.
During WWII, we effectively had full employment, with roughly 8% of the population in the military. Once they come back, they realised we could still have all these bodies active, they just didn't need to be destroying real wealth via brass bullets or iron artillery shells.
In 1951, there were less that 1,600 people collecting unemployment welfare provisions in Australia, some may like to cite generational superior work ethic, I'm not convinced. Give people jobs, they will work, they will develop skills, they will add to productive output.
Quote:Keynesian economics has led to the collapse of credit markets as capitalists have run riot, we are staring down the barrel of a worldwide sovereign debt crisis as governments go broke and basic liberties erode by the day under the assault of lobbyists funded by big business.
No, bankers not assessing risk has led to the credit crisis. The effects of their failure hasn't led to any creative destruction, this is not capitalism.
Quote:Globalisation
Western economies are no longer competitive. Developing economies are industrialising and offering business incentives to invest and trade. Globalisation has blown the lid off the facade that is Keynesian economies which can no longer sustain themselves in a world with more competition.
False dichotomy.
mercantilism has been around for centuries. It is not a keynesian outcome.
In fact Keynes' proposal of the 'bancor' at the Breton Woods conference (which was over ridden by the American's via Harry Dexter) would have dullened the effect of mercantilism.
Quote:What that means for everyone is that the old white collar job where you work for your promotions and stay with the same company for 40 years is dead. Skill up in technical fields, look towards self employment, diversify and dont set roots in one country anymore.
Foresight would be a wonderful gift. The Dow Jones in 1900 was full of railway, tire and steel companies. They don't really dominate the American corporate landscape anymore. It is difficult to say whatwill suffice for the next 45 years.