Everyone That Wants A Job Should Have One

The Federal Reserve has the power to print unlimited amounts of money. Therefore, there is no good reason why everyone that wants a job should not have one. If the private sector cannot provide enough jobs, the government, using the power of the Federal Reserve should fill the gap.

Instead, what does the Fed do? Merely provide a safety net, so that the wealthy and powerful can gamble with large sums of money, knowing that the Fed will step in to bail them out when they wreck things. It's a dirty insider game that is making a few people filthy rich, while not benefiting the common man.

They should use that enormous power for providing people that want to work with jobs, not providing cover for the greedy speculators.

How The Federal Reserve Became History's Biggest Bad Bank

Excerpt

 

The unemployment rate wouldn't be so high if more people actually wanted jobs.

 

I think it's absurd to attribute the high unemployment rate to people not wanting to work.

 

This approach would certainly be better than the current one, although I think this is actually a better demonstration of why we need a system where they can't just continually print money.

 

Less absurd than blaming fiscal policy by the FED.

 

I agree. That ability to print money to high heaven is a problem. It's a mechanism begging for powerful people to misuse it. And that's exactly what happens. But like I said, if they are going to do it, it should be used to do things like provide jobs for people.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think what I said is absurd at all, neither have you demonstrated that it is absurd.

 

Printing money doesn't create jobs, except for maybe at the money printing factory.

 

Please tell me this is a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

This is like something out of the СССР...

 

No bloody point when your bankrupt.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-dol...d-japans-kamikaze-quantitative-easing/5335129

Regards
Highlander

 

IMO, if a person truly wants a job...they will find one.

If you can possibly answer why there are unemployed people, you will see that the root reasons for unemployment can be solved by the individuals. Maybe they need additional training, maybe additional education, maybe they're too lazy, maybe they need to relocate?

Show me someone who has taken these and other steps to be more employable and I'm guessing you'll be showing me someone who is working.

Or...tens of millions of Americans can continue to (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about government not solving all of their problems...

 

LOL, this is what I was thinking when I read that sentence, I thought that was sarcasm. Duh!

 

Heck, a part of it is probably how institutionalised people have become living under Big Government's protective umbrella.

 

No it is not. Do you care to elaborate?

- - - Updated - - -

Of interest here is "what I was thinking." That is the core of the problem. lol

 

Not to jump the gun, but I am taking it for granted that you subscribe to the notion that increasing the money supply simply increases inflation.

Before attempting to counter this notion, we should note that this view is a result of reaching full output capacity, at which time, increases to the money supply no longer result in an increase in output, but rather inflation, due to too much money chasing too few goods. To refute this position, we note that a lack of full employment, implies that there is the capacity to increase real output. As a result of this, increases in aggregate demand, in this situation, will result in an increase in the incentive for businesses to increase real output. And as it is generally accepted that increases to the money supply result in an increase in aggregate demand, the increase in real output, refutes the notion of maximum capacity, which weakens the case for the inflationary pressures that are put forward from the classical point of view. Thus, the power of the Federal Reserve, can be used to create employment.

There you go.

 

The underlying implication of those who think Precisions thesis is a joke seems to be that the market is a natural phenomenon rather like gravity, the logic of which cannot be challenged. But the market is a human construction that can, and indeed continues to be bucked in a variety of ways on a regular basis. This has been the case since the foundation of neoclassical economics of which the current capitalist variant, 'Chicago School' neoliberalism, is predicated on. During the post-war period, there was a concerted policy effort from the various social democratic and liberal governments' in the West geared towards the creation of full-employment. In fact, this was codified in the 1945 UN Declaration of Human Rights. There is nothing fanciful about such a notion at all.

 

It's purely Soviet thinking.. It's as freaking Communist as you can get without erecting a red flag and purging the opposition.

 

Why bother with jobs? Why not just give everyone a check? Is there something magical about laboring with no productive result mixed with a paycheck that makes it greater than the sum of the paycheck?

If, as you claim, the Federal Reserve can generate wealth by the printing press, then jobs really aren't needed.

 

Universal heathcare provision, full employment and the post-war notion of consensus....Ooooooooh, the big commie bogeyman strikes again.

 

Perhaps you can point us to where this thing, which you refer to as "the market" exists and by which we can examine it as it moves about.

Yes, "it" is a human construction in that it is a conceptual label for economic transactions between humans. Are there "unnatural" economic transactions going on between humans?

 

There are always jobs that need doing and workers that need to do them. However, the market, contrary to mythology, is the most inefficient allocator of resources known to man because it is a system predicated on the maximisation of profit as opposed to meeting human need for the betterment of society as a whole.

 

"Need" is highly subjective. By what mechanism do you determine the amount or level of "need" that necessitates a job?

I see, it's more efficient to politically determine what is needed to be done, then?

This monolithic "market' that you refer to is not predicated on "maximizing profit." From where do you derive that notion? Is every transaction that you engage in done for the purpose of maximizing profit? if it is, why do you expect the political leaders to do anything other than to use their power to profit for themselves? If humans, as you allege, can't be trusted to engage in economic transactions because they want to gain from it, then you'll have to give us an objective explanation as to why they can be trusted to not want to profit from the sort of political power necessary to intrude on individual economic calculation.

 

Certainly. The market, alternatively known as the free market, exists in the vast majority of the nations of the world underpinned by the economic orthodoxy pertaining to neoclassical (capitalist) economics. Naturally, economic transactions between humans existed before capitalism but it's specifically economic transactions pertaining to the capitalist mode of production we are talking about here.

 

Planned economy and a giant failed police state. Have fun with that.

 

I could create full employment, on a new liveable wage of £10 ph, within two years, if I were in the chair, and had a free hand.

 

'Need' as understood as basic human necessities to sustain life like food, water, shelter and health care. A centralized planned economy whereby resources are effectively allocated towards meeting these needs is the 'mechanism'.

- - - Updated - - -

Have fun with your Stalin-esque stereotype.