Top 10 Ridiculous Examples of Corporate Greed

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For starters the government could reduce the amount of imported goods it buys, and it could also renegociate trade agreements.

you mean between NY and California??? Right now the idiots are relying on free trade!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Simple: because you make sure it will be spent locally.

so you have local inflation , price confusion, and a soviet economy? Don't forgot, free money lunacy is one of a 1000 interventions culture creep supports!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

 

[Rshermr]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It[supply side economics] will work when the economy is really good,

you mean it was really good back in the stone age before the plow shovel and shoes were invented???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.

you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,

How does a tax decrease tank the economy?

 

[Andylusion]

B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals

how would this help rather than hurt??

It would increase aggregate demand and reduce debt.
Arguably , it has never been tried. And IMHO you can't have a negative trade balance when implementing this policy.
This would ensure to a certain extent that the money is spent in the local economy.

Actually it has been tried numerous times. It never works.

Here's the problem:

While in the extreme short term it may increase demand slightly. But even then, this short term stimulation isn't anything enduring.

The public knows that this one time payout isn't going to last. So they are not going to significantly change any aspect of their personal budgets.

Similarly, business isn't going to significantly change anything either, because they too know the boast in sales will be temporary.

Cash for clunkers is a good example. Yes, in the extreme short term, it boasted car sales. But the moment the money ran out, sales crashed to a lower point than they were before the program started. Over the course of time, the spike, and crash in sales, balanced each other out to nearly no real effect.

However, the effects that do linger, are the costs of the program.

In the short term the effect of borrowing money, takes money away from investment which could be used for growth and jobs.

In the long term, the effect of borrowing is that taxes will have to be raised on the public, which will harm economic growth far more than even the short term boast in sales.

 

[Andylusion]

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.
.

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:

"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."



"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.

Not true. And we have hashed this out over and over, and every single time, this same stupid mindless claim pops back up.

The money the bank lends out, come from bank deposits. The money deposited is in fact an asset. It's dumb to consider it otherwise. If someone leases me a car, and I use it to drive people around for Uber, that car is an asset. Period. It is an asset.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I didn't say that , you said it.
So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market. Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing. Assume they open a factory in China, that's probably even worse.

In the best case scenario they could buy capital goods ( e.g. machinery ) in the local market . Now assuming that's what happens , in my example you would get a total production of 110 and wages at 44, which would be an actual increase in the output of labour , although proportionally you would remain with the same ratio ( 60 / 40) .
But, this is not what's been happening lately in the U.S. ( in the last 30 years or so ) . Average wages have stagnated while gdp has increased, oh , and of course private debt (specially household debt) has soared.

Big mistake : look at the aggregate figures, not at the individual cases.
Microeconomy and microeconomy are related but are not the same subject at all.
Here you go pal... why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

I didn't say that , you said it.
So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market. Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing. Assume they open a factory in China, that's probably even worse.

In the best case scenario they could buy capital goods ( e.g. machinery ) in the local market . Now assuming that's what happens , in my example you would get a total production of 110 and wages at 44, which would be an actual increase in the output of labour , although proportionally you would remain with the same ratio ( 60 / 40) .
But, this is not what's been happening lately in the U.S. ( in the last 30 years or so ) . Average wages have stagnated while gdp has increased, oh , and of course private debt (specially household debt) has soared.

Big mistake : look at the aggregate figures, not at the individual cases.
Microeconomy and microeconomy are related but are not the same subject at all.
Here you go pal... why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

Again ?
To be precise, the internal market has grown but only because population has increased and household debt is at an all time high.
Regardless, the purchasing power of consumers has not gone up, a higher percent of their income goes to service debt and a lower percent to purchase goods and services.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

Again ?
To be precise, the internal market has grown but only because population has increased and household debt is at an all time high.
Regardless, the purchasing power of consumers has not gone up, a higher percent of their income goes to service debt and a lower percent to purchase goods and services.

a higher percent of their income goes to service debt

Higher than when? Based on your obvious confusion?
And why would you show a chart of median income if you're trying to show anything about purchasing power?
I mean besides your ignorance of economics?

 

[CultureCitizen]

B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals

how would this help rather than hurt??

It would increase aggregate demand and reduce debt.
Arguably , it has never been tried. And IMHO you can't have a negative trade balance when implementing this policy.
This would ensure to a certain extent that the money is spent in the local economy.

Actually it has been tried numerous times. It never works.

Here's the problem:

While in the extreme short term it may increase demand slightly. But even then, this short term stimulation isn't anything enduring.

The public knows that this one time payout isn't going to last. So they are not going to significantly change any aspect of their personal budgets.

Similarly, business isn't going to significantly change anything either, because they too know the boast in sales will be temporary.

Cash for clunkers is a good example. Yes, in the extreme short term, it boasted car sales. But the moment the money ran out, sales crashed to a lower point than they were before the program started. Over the course of time, the spike, and crash in sales, balanced each other out to nearly no real effect.

However, the effects that do linger, are the costs of the program.

In the short term the effect of borrowing money, takes money away from investment which could be used for growth and jobs.

In the long term, the effect of borrowing is that taxes will have to be raised on the public, which will harm economic growth far more than even the short term boast in sales.

Milton Friedman clearly stated that Helicopter money should be a one time event. In assuming people will not significantly change any aspect of their personal budgets you make a mistake.
Which people? And why?
I have a mortgage. If I was given $10,000 I am absolutely certain I would use it to pay part of my mortgage.
That would then leave more money to spend in other things ( a car, a second house , a masters degree)

Business, well again, I work in a company which also has loans. They would of course do the same. And that would be specially true if after the helicopter drop the Fed warns that interests will rise to 3%.

Sory , your example on clunkers does not have the same rules. The main reason is the high level of debt of households.
In this case ( the current situation ) the helicopter money drop would achieve:
1) Debt reduction
2) Returning the interest rate to a healthy level.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.
.

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:

"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."



"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.

Indeed, banks create money

Yes, loans increase the money supply.

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money

Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?

If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.

Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)

Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:

"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."



"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.

Indeed, banks create money

Yes, loans increase the money supply.

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money

Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?

If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.

Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)

Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?

Why not consider that helicopter money?

Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.

Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.

 

[Andylusion]

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

Again ?
To be precise, the internal market has grown but only because population has increased and household debt is at an all time high.
Regardless, the purchasing power of consumers has not gone up, a higher percent of their income goes to service debt and a lower percent to purchase goods and services.

I'm not entirely sure how true that claim is. Certainly to some extent, people have borrowed money to achieve a life style at age 30, that their parents only acquired at age 50. As a result of spreading the belief that debt is good, and that everything is fine as long as you can make the payments, instead of remaining on Judeo-Christian values that being debt was bad, yes you are correct that more money is going to debt service.

However, your graph is inherently inaccurate. The issue comes from the use of household income.

In the 1940s, barely 8% of the population lived in alone. Today almost 30% of the population lives alone.

Moreover, many parents pay for their college age sons and daughters to live in their own apartments and places. For the purposes of 'household income', whatever income they earned at home, would be added to the family income. However the moment they moved out for college, even while living on the money of their parents, their income from the part time, or summer job, would be considered a separate income.

So a father making $60,000 a year, with a daughter that earns $15,000 a McJob, would be read as a single household with a $75,000 income.

But once the daughter moved out, you would have two separate households, one at $60,000, and another at $15,000. Both lowering the statistical average dramatically.

Additionally, with people moving away from Judeo-Christian values, of staying together for life, divorce dramatically increased in the 1970s. Once again, this broke up families turning one household with a high income, into two households with much lower incomes.

IF the man is making $60K, and the women $40K, you have one household making $100,000 a year. Divorce changes that into two households, making $40K and $60K.

So any statistical graph based on household income, is inherently flawed and completely useless to determine any economic effect. Wage could be increasing across the entire spectrum of income ranges, but with divorce and higher levels of single people, the "household income" numbers won't show it.

In fact, in an odd irony, the high number of people living alone, in and of itself, suggests that income levels have gone up. In times gone past, trying to live alone would be more economically difficult.

 

[Andylusion]

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:

"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."



"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.

Indeed, banks create money

Yes, loans increase the money supply.

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money

Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?

If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.

Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)

Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?

Oh bonkers. Because helicopter money is by definition, the idea of handing out money randomly without strings.

Banks do not hand out money randomly. If you don't have a job, you don't get a loan. I don't have a job right now. If I show up at the bank and ask for a loan, they will laugh at me.

Moreover, banks don't just hand out money without strings. You have to pay it back, and generally if you don't you lose your house or car or something.

Let me put it another way. Helicopter money can't result in you going bankrupt. Loans can. Not the same.

 

[CultureCitizen]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.

you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,

How does a tax decrease tank the economy?

The budget has to be reduced and the government has to cut spending, laying off people and reducing purchases.
Bad idea during a recession, but probably acceptable with a low level of private debt.

 

[Andylusion]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.

you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,

How does a tax decrease tank the economy?

The budget has to be reduced and the government has to cut spending, laying off people and reducing purchases.
Bad idea during a recession, but probably acceptable with a low level of private debt.

They said the same thing after World War 2. They warned that cutting all these jobs, and cutting the spending, would cause a drop in purchases.

They were wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.

you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,

How does a tax decrease tank the economy?

The budget has to be reduced and the government has to cut spending, laying off people and reducing purchases.
Bad idea during a recession, but probably acceptable with a low level of private debt.

The budget has to be reduced

But it wasn't.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

Again ?
To be precise, the internal market has grown but only because population has increased and household debt is at an all time high.
Regardless, the purchasing power of consumers has not gone up, a higher percent of their income goes to service debt and a lower percent to purchase goods and services.

a higher percent of their income goes to service debt

Higher than when? Based on your obvious confusion?
And why would you show a chart of median income if you're trying to show anything about purchasing power?
I mean besides your ignorance of economics?

Higher than any time between 1990 to 2006.
And the chart is the real median household income.

Would you rather have the share of labour out of gdp? ... see it tumbling down since 1970.
Share of Labour Compensation in GDP at Current National Prices for United States

 

[CultureCitizen]

help increase the aggregate demand.

Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?

Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.

And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.

you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,

How does a tax decrease tank the economy?

The budget has to be reduced and the government has to cut spending, laying off people and reducing purchases.
Bad idea during a recession, but probably acceptable with a low level of private debt.

The budget has to be reduced

But it wasn't.

Of course, but the debt increased.