The Recovery Thread

[Foxfyre]

The so called underclass is astonishingly rich by historical standards. If you look at the US definition of poverty it includes modern plumbing and various other amenities that Louis XIV could only dream of. With a slow cooker from goodwill the broke can live at levels that defined rich just a century ago through the use of food stamps. Enough 15 bean soup to feed a family of four for a week runs about $6.

This is the one fact that the more socialist minded among us seem to most overlook.

(Socialism in this context means those who think it just and important to redistribute wealth from the rich to the less rich.)

The USA's poor enjoy some of the highest standard of living in the world. There are billions of people who covet living as well. Hundreds of millions would trade their circumstances to live just as our homeless live. And because of our Constitution, respect for unalienable rights, the great experiment that is the USA gives our poor opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. That is opportunity that most of the rest of the world's poor do not have.

And it is because we have rich people who are citizens in the same boat with poorer people that our poor do as well as they do. I think we shouldn't mess with that system.

this relatively favorable circumstance for american poor has been facilitated by socialism.

(socialism in this context means policies subsumed in a capitalist economy effected through progression or coercion in an income tax system and health and human services expenditure).

There is some truth to that, but the component you left out is that we were able to do that BECAUSE we have the rich in a classless society and that provides the means for more prosperity for all. Kill the goose (the rich) on the theory that everybody else can then better distribute the golden eggs among themselves, we would quickly discover that the eggs don't last all that long. And suddenly we have much more limited means to acquire more. And when that happens, we have much less ability to enable the poor to live well.

 

[antagon]

i hadn't left that out. i did indicate that there was a capitalist society to contribute the 'socialist' policy to. i simply see the economy as more circular and less hierarchical because of the interdependence of all of the participants.

 

[Foxfyre]

i hadn't left that out. i did indicate that there was a capitalist society to contribute the 'socialist' policy to. i simply see the economy as more circular and less hierarchical because of the interdependence of all of the participants.

Less heirarchal is a good way to describe the classless American system. The only heirarchy is in the vanity and general snootiness of some but there is no heirarchy built into the system.

So granted our poor live well through benevolence of the government. The issues left are whether it is necessary to give government power to do that and whether the negatives associated with that offset the good and also whether such a system can be sustained without lessening opportunity for all.

 

[antagon]

i hadn't left that out. i did indicate that there was a capitalist society to contribute the 'socialist' policy to. i simply see the economy as more circular and less hierarchical because of the interdependence of all of the participants.

Less heirarchal is a good way to describe the classless American system. The only heirarchy is in the vanity and general snootiness of some but there is no heirarchy built into the system.

So granted our poor live well through benevolence of the government. The issues left are whether it is necessary to give government power to do that and whether the negatives associated with that offset the good and also whether such a system can be sustained without lessening opportunity for all.

the point of the circular observation of wealth in an economy is to shed light on the questions which you've brought up. for me this light is bright enough to settle the matter as follows:

it is necessary for the optimal function of a capitalist economy that the government has the power to effect the policies i had described as the context of 'socialism' earlier. this moves the question to the extent to which the government should pursue these policies and indeed the method of these policies as you point out.

the way the circular observation informs an observer on this matter is that it avails them of the fact that wealth is a proceed from commerce and commerce is in turn a proceed of the interaction between supply and demand. the reality that without demand (quantified ($)) there is no gauge by which to rationally invest in supply or direct innovation, indicates that the impetus of supply is demand. without the investment and innovation seeded in rational perception of demand, there is no return on such - there is no wealth.

carrying this out to policy, we have learned in the last hundred years, that carefully applied 'socialist' mechanisms create more wealth across the board of a capitalist economy. the pie is not merely divvied, it is grown overall. as i've admonished before, i don't see policy like this as 'benevolence' - social engineering - such as you've described. it is instead economic engineering, a crucial requirement of capitalist economics which can be indicated by 'developed' or 'developing/undeveloped' based on the extent which government policy has established this economic engineering. unlike the performance of the economy itself - functions of the private and public participants within the economy - this matter of development or engineering is relegated largely to the government.

like any economic observation, the law of diminishing returns applies. externalities to policy may also cause problems. these are the concerns addressed by how and how much.

i am intrigued by your characterization of america as classless. do you mean that there is no way to differentiate actors in our economy for the purpose of deciding these questions of policy?... or that one should not try to do so?

 

[Foxfyre]

By classless I mean there is nothing in our Constitution or social structure or culture to prevent the poorest of the poor from aspiring to become the richest of the rich, and we have seen it happen again and again and again. The unique experiment that is the USA secures the rights of each citizen who is then free to exploit his own abilities and opportunities presented to their fullest.

We do no favors to anybody when we tell them or suggest that they can't make it without Big Brother's help. And when we do that, we have assigned whole generations to near permanent unemployment and a mindset that they are disadvantaged victims without any way out. And the kids who grow up seeing their parent receiving a government check instead of a paycheck grow up thinking that is their ace in the hole, their right, and they aren't expected to do anything more than accept it.

It is a cruel thing we do in the name of benevolence sometimes.

 

[Terry Shoeman]

If your looking for where the jobs are... look at where the products you buy are made.

The WTO is steering our ship. Read the trade report/recommendations to Obama from his chief trade advsior.

The message is simple " Do not protect American industries"

 

[antagon]

By classless I mean there is nothing in our Constitution or social structure or culture to prevent the poorest of the poor from aspiring to become the richest of the rich, and we have seen it happen again and again and again. The unique experiment that is the USA secures the rights of each citizen who is then free to exploit his own abilities and opportunities presented to their fullest.

where castes are more often associated with mechanisms to suppress upward mobility, class has been used by economic scholars to asses the roles or status of individuals acting in a society or an economy... it is like 'middle class' in the lower/middle/upper system or marx' prole/bourgeoisie system. i dont subscribe to either of these because they have been deprecated history and cant inform future policy as before.

We do no favors to anybody when we tell them or suggest that they can't make it without Big Brother's help. And when we do that, we have assigned whole generations to near permanent unemployment and a mindset that they are disadvantaged victims without any way out. And the kids who grow up seeing their parent receiving a government check instead of a paycheck grow up thinking that is their ace in the hole, their right, and they aren't expected to do anything more than accept it.

It is a cruel thing we do in the name of benevolence sometimes.

i dont believe that people are told or suggested rhetorically into dependency on government. i see that matter as an externality to the issue of the economy's capacity to involve them otherwise. i've suggested that studying externalities or mixing social implications into economic policy can detract from the effect of such policy, even obscure the aims which i put forward above.

notwithstanding the 'cruelty' you've associated with the US policy, can you recognize that developed nations empower people of all economic strata more effectively than before such policy was enacted?

 

[Foxfyre]

By classless I mean there is nothing in our Constitution or social structure or culture to prevent the poorest of the poor from aspiring to become the richest of the rich, and we have seen it happen again and again and again. The unique experiment that is the USA secures the rights of each citizen who is then free to exploit his own abilities and opportunities presented to their fullest.

where castes are more often associated with mechanisms to suppress upward mobility, class has been used by economic scholars to asses the roles or status of individuals acting in a society or an economy... it is like 'middle class' in the lower/middle/upper system or marx' prole/bourgeoisie system. i dont subscribe to either of these because they have been deprecated history and cant inform future policy as before.

We do no favors to anybody when we tell them or suggest that they can't make it without Big Brother's help. And when we do that, we have assigned whole generations to near permanent unemployment and a mindset that they are disadvantaged victims without any way out. And the kids who grow up seeing their parent receiving a government check instead of a paycheck grow up thinking that is their ace in the hole, their right, and they aren't expected to do anything more than accept it.

It is a cruel thing we do in the name of benevolence sometimes.

i dont believe that people are told or suggested rhetorically into dependency on government. i see that matter as an externality to the issue of the economy's capacity to involve them otherwise. i've suggested that studying externalities or mixing social implications into economic policy can detract from the effect of such policy, even obscure the aims which i put forward above.

notwithstanding the 'cruelty' you've associated with the US policy, can you recognize that developed nations empower people of all economic strata more effectively than before such policy was enacted?

The USA is not just any developed nation however. All the others DO have classes including the ruling class who determine what rights the citizens will have and what property they will be allowed to hold.

The USA was the first nation in history to be designed on a principle of no ruling class. The government was assigned to secure and protect the rights of the people and the people, no matter who their parents are, would then be the first people in history with complete freedom and license to choose to their own goals and be in charge of their own destiny.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless, but it does not encourage helplessness or encourage dependency. The more our government presumes to do that, the less free we become and the less opportunity there is for all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is the one fact that the more socialist minded among us seem to most overlook.

(Socialism in this context means those who think it just and important to redistribute wealth from the rich to the less rich.)

The USA's poor enjoy some of the highest standard of living in the world. There are billions of people who covet living as well. Hundreds of millions would trade their circumstances to live just as our homeless live. And because of our Constitution, respect for unalienable rights, the great experiment that is the USA gives our poor opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. That is opportunity that most of the rest of the world's poor do not have.

And it is because we have rich people who are citizens in the same boat with poorer people that our poor do as well as they do. I think we shouldn't mess with that system.

this relatively favorable circumstance for american poor has been facilitated by socialism.

(socialism in this context means policies subsumed in a capitalist economy effected through progression or coercion in an income tax system and health and human services expenditure).

There is some truth to that, but the component you left out is that we were able to do that BECAUSE we have the rich in a classless society and that provides the means for more prosperity for all. Kill the goose (the rich) on the theory that everybody else can then better distribute the golden eggs among themselves, we would quickly discover that the eggs don't last all that long. And suddenly we have much more limited means to acquire more. And when that happens, we have much less ability to enable the poor to live well.

American history clearly invalidates your reasoning. When tax rates were much higher the golden goose was not even plucked, much less killed. Now, with tax rates at 50 year lows, recession occurs. The problem is elsewhere, foxfyre, not with tax rates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By classless I mean there is nothing in our Constitution or social structure or culture to prevent the poorest of the poor from aspiring to become the richest of the rich, and we have seen it happen again and again and again. The unique experiment that is the USA secures the rights of each citizen who is then free to exploit his own abilities and opportunities presented to their fullest.

We do no favors to anybody when we tell them or suggest that they can't make it without Big Brother's help. And when we do that, we have assigned whole generations to near permanent unemployment and a mindset that they are disadvantaged victims without any way out. And the kids who grow up seeing their parent receiving a government check instead of a paycheck grow up thinking that is their ace in the hole, their right, and they aren't expected to do anything more than accept it.

It is a cruel thing we do in the name of benevolence sometimes.

Upward and downward social mobility does not mean a classless society. Doubt me? If you have a time machine, try and sell that idea in classical Rome in 100 BCE, or Elizabethan England, or even to Ronald Reagan, if you can catch up with him.

You basic premise that government should not be involved in empowering individual and economic advancement are clearly rebuked by the various GI bills or the NDEA scholastic entitlements.

You simply are not making your case.

 

[antagon]

By classless I mean there is nothing in our Constitution or social structure or culture to prevent the poorest of the poor from aspiring to become the richest of the rich, and we have seen it happen again and again and again. The unique experiment that is the USA secures the rights of each citizen who is then free to exploit his own abilities and opportunities presented to their fullest.

where castes are more often associated with mechanisms to suppress upward mobility, class has been used by economic scholars to asses the roles or status of individuals acting in a society or an economy... it is like 'middle class' in the lower/middle/upper system or marx' prole/bourgeoisie system. i dont subscribe to either of these because they have been deprecated history and cant inform future policy as before.

We do no favors to anybody when we tell them or suggest that they can't make it without Big Brother's help. And when we do that, we have assigned whole generations to near permanent unemployment and a mindset that they are disadvantaged victims without any way out. And the kids who grow up seeing their parent receiving a government check instead of a paycheck grow up thinking that is their ace in the hole, their right, and they aren't expected to do anything more than accept it.

It is a cruel thing we do in the name of benevolence sometimes.

i dont believe that people are told or suggested rhetorically into dependency on government. i see that matter as an externality to the issue of the economy's capacity to involve them otherwise. i've suggested that studying externalities or mixing social implications into economic policy can detract from the effect of such policy, even obscure the aims which i put forward above.

notwithstanding the 'cruelty' you've associated with the US policy, can you recognize that developed nations empower people of all economic strata more effectively than before such policy was enacted?

The USA is not just any developed nation however. All the others DO have classes including the ruling class who determine what rights the citizens will have and what property they will be allowed to hold.

The USA was the first nation in history to be designed on a principle of no ruling class. The government was assigned to secure and protect the rights of the people and the people, no matter who their parents are, would then be the first people in history with complete freedom and license to choose to their own goals and be in charge of their own destiny.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless, but it does not encourage helplessness or encourage dependency. The more our government presumes to do that, the less free we become and the less opportunity there is for all.

im talking about developed nations. the US was not a developed nation at the time of its inception, and neither were those others in its company now.

nowadays, the statement that all developed nations have this ruling class mechanism cannot be supported. most all of them are patterned after the US in this respect.

re: your closing statement, can you discern what i have characterized as 'externality' from economic activity or economic policy? can you qualify how externality is a valuable preoccupation when assessing economic policy? can you disqualify assessments such as yours from subjective bias and ad absurdem description?

 

[loosecannon]

The USA was the first nation in history to be designed on a principle of no ruling class.

what planet do you live on?

The government was assigned to secure and protect the rights of the people and the people, no matter who their parents are, would then be the first people in history with complete freedom and license to choose to their own goals and be in charge of their own destiny.

Unless their parents were slaves, or unless they were women, or unless they didn't own property.

That sounds like a nation designed to be exclusively class based and with a well defined ruling class.

 

[loosecannon]

can you qualify how externality is a valuable preoccupation when assessing economic policy? can you disqualify assessments such as yours from subjective bias and ad absurdem description?

rhetorical questions?

 

[william the wie]

OK I'll bite. What does this section have to do with "recovery"?

 

[loosecannon]

Dread Thrift?

 

[antagon]

OK I'll bite. What does this section have to do with "recovery"?

i forgot.

 

[antagon]

can you qualify how externality is a valuable preoccupation when assessing economic policy? can you disqualify assessments such as yours from subjective bias and ad absurdem description?

rhetorical questions?

gentle nudge toward pragmatism and empirical presumptions. she was insisting on tackling what i pointed out as unsupported externalities, so i just asked why and how.

its like the tree falling in the forest. are all unanswered questions rhetorical?

 

[Toro]

New jobless claims were 407,000, well below expectations and the lowest level since August 2008.

Econoday Report: Jobless Claims November 24, 2010

This is good news but it remains to be seen whether this was an anomaly.

On the negative side, durable goods orders declined 3.3%, -2.7% excluding transportation. Economists were expecting no change.

Econoday Report: Durable Goods Orders November 24, 2010

However, durable goods is one of the most volatile data series.

 

[Toro]

Some good news on the labor front. Initial claims dropped below 400k for the first time in three years.

In what the government describes as a clean report, initial jobless claims fell a very steep and very surprising 34,000 in the December 25 week to a suddenly sub-400,000 level of 388,000 (prior week revised 2,000 higher to 422,000). Adjustments become a big factor during the shortened weeks of the holidays which focuses attention on the four-week average, and the average confirms improvement in the labor market, falling a steep 12,500 to 414,000.

Results on the continuing-claims side are mixed. Slightly more received continuing benefits in the December 18 week than the prior week and the unemployment rate for insured workers rose one tenth to 3.3 percent. A drop in the four-week average is the positive news, down slightly to 4.120 million and down more than 150,000 from the month-ago comparison.

Econoday Report: Jobless Claims December 30, 2010

The data may be skewed by the holidays however.

Also, job openings are rising.

As the economy gradually recovers, some big U.S. companies are cranking up their recruiting and advertising thousands of job openings, ranging from retail clerks and nurses to bank tellers and experts in cloud computing.

Many of the new jobs are in retailing, accounting, consulting, health care, telecommunications and defense-related industries, according to data collected for The Wall Street Journal by Indeed Inc., which runs one the largest employment websites. It said the number of U.S. job postings on the Internet rose to 4.7 million on Dec. 1, up from 2.7 million a year earlier. The company daily collects listings from corporate and job-posting websites, removing duplicates.

Job Postings Surge as Economy Warms - WSJ.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, more and greener shoots for sure.

Happy Days, here again?

Mo' n Better Stimulus?

To put it in perspective, to match the 400,000 private sector people who Obama unemployed last month, we could and should fire 20% of the entire federal government