If you agree with me that Murray's plan is not the best or that some combination of smaller policy changes would be better, would it then make more sense to discuss and compare those better plans and combinations instead? Tell me, what would your ideal solution be here (whether combo or otherwise) when it comes to solving for things such as automation-induced job loss, or job loss and poverty in general? -Meta
Murray's plan stands a snowball's chance ... I'm completely in favor of privatizing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Man's productivity has steadily increased due to technological advances. It's been that way for thousands of years. The key to adaptation to norms of fewer and fewer humans being required to produce the requirements of life (food, shelter, etc ..) is education. Fewer people required to produce the requirements means that economies will (and have been) focus on services. There is nothing to be alarmed about this - it is a natural transition. How will this be done ?? I don't know but it is very rational to be optimistic as Matt Ridley shows in his book "The Rational Optimist - How Prosperity Evolves." The key to maximizing the benefits of this evolution is to keep the government out of it. For example energy policies which result in price of energy increases will slow this evolution down.
Right. Right. It would make it more effective to the extent that it bore on the privileges, especially landowning, that enable the privileged to take for themselves what government and private charities give to the poor. Recovery of the location owners' subsidy is the crucial requirement because of the Henry George Theorem, which implies that nothing else can possibly work.
But you have not identified any, and you won't. No, because the privilege will just be concealed in a non-income benefit. In terms of consumption, that is certainly true. In terms of wealth, privilege, power, and status, it is not true. There can never be enough of those things to satisfy the demands of those who want more of them. But in the end, if landowners can charge others for ACCESS to those benefits, the only ones who get any net benefit will be landowners. They can't. They won't, by ECONOMIC LAW. Get that through your head. We can go beyond what others have been able to accomplish, but not by ignoring reality and pretending that we can amend nature's laws as easily as lawyers' laws.
Yet automation opens up the opportunity for complete reform of the international financial system, as outlined in my post #277. In other words, in a fully automated world, a newly instituted IMF can create money without causing inflation (as demonstrated in #277). Tax cuts which mostly benefit the rich, and therefore are relatively less effective as a means of increasing demand in the economy. In other words, the proposition as you state it is highly contested, even among the most talented 'experts' (as I have already noted). You have your views. Increasing public sector spending, to counteract insufficient demand, is also a Keynesian stimulus, a policy btw that Trump is considering with his job-creating infrastructure proposals (for the "best roads, schools and hospitals in the world"). In a thread entitled "Is Capitalism capable of reform", you and Ted took the line that capitalism is the best system we have, that present (and past) failures of the system are due to government intervention in the free market, and protectionism, etc, ie, failure can be sheeted home to 'liberal policies' - a term indeed employed by yourself and Ted at that time. (However, as I noted, 'liberal and conservative' - as concepts - will soon be swept into the dustbin of history, so we won't have to continue that sterile debate). So I won't argue that ppoint, but as I said, Trump was elected, inter alia, on the back of widespread dissatisfaction among causualties of freetrade induced (or whatever) net benefit 'rust-belts'. In an earlier post you said: "the trick is to enact policies that do more harm than good. That is why Trump was elected" A good demonstration of how bias affects analysis. Are you still claiming, or indeed does anyone know, whether Trump is a free-trader. The whole world is currently discussing that point, along with the possible effects of a return to protectionist policies Might have been a different Ted. Nevertheless he was a 'conservative' who, like Trump, has acknowledged major problems with free-trade. Trump in particular is talking about "smart trade", a different beast altogether.
The gov cannot spend it's way out of a recession. The ARRA clearly shows that. Keynesian stimulus includes gov spending and tax rate cuts. American Keynesians forget about the tax rate cut part of it. Again you don't understand supply side economics. Capitalism is the best economic system we have. That's why the globe is moving away from command & control economies to capitalism. It's "policies which do more good than harm" - and yes, that is why Trump was elected. Reducing the gov imposed costs on production will do that. Trump is threatening tariffs if countries with tariffs on our exports to them do not eliminate those tariffs. That is not protectionism. Trump is a free trader - his point on fair trade is with the tariffs on our exports to other countries. I've never heard Trump quoted on "smart trade" - what is that ??
Indeed, those of us not entrapped by particular ideologies are postively enfused by the prospect. I'm not sure that it is a 'natural transition'.... and I would say the propostion that prosperity will evolve by simply keeping the government out of the process, is a tad .......optimistic. (Wars, negative effects of competition, protectionism) Policies which discourage further exploitation of fossil fuels? Obviously no-one wants to pay more for goods or sevices. But let me use this as a case study, to demonstrate that we need not forever be constrained by some immutable law of economics that cannot be violated. Imagine - for the moment - that scientists suddenly prove that burning fossil fuels is resulting in dangerous climate change, and that the entire world has to cease burning fossil fuels as fast as is practicable. No more policy back-flips permissable. (Not that I think the scientists will be able to prove this any time soon, if ever, but let's continue....) Now, the issue of compensation of the fossil fuel industry - and cost to consumers - arises as the industry is wound down as quickly as possible, without causing reduction in energy supplies. Now how to fund the massive investment in renewable energy? (And why not massively increase investment in nuclear fusion research as well? Remember, research, like education, mainly 'consumes' time, employing brain power and transferring knowledge.) For one thing, the resources and knowhow released by the winding up of the fossil fuel industry would move into the renewable industry. But apart from this, a special fund created and managed by the IMF could create the 'money' (which is only a means of exchange, with no intrinsic value other than enabling desired processes to occur) to facilitate all the processes involved in this change from one industry to the other. Total debt incurred by the IMF? Let's say US$100 trillion. Why can this 'debt' not be simply written off by the IMF itself. (Or hundred times that - it doesn't matter). Remember, the actual, real physical, technological and human resources required would largely transfer accross industries without causing a marked drain on total availble already existing global resources. (In fact the process might result in releasing resources, but either way it doen't matter, because the IMF is funding all required demolition, remediation and new manufacturing activity). Why would this scheme necessarily result in inflation?
Can you please quote the points to which you are replying. Otherwise you are not debating with anyone, only repeating your own biases.
Can you describe how the following scheme will result in (unmanagable) inflation? Obviously no-one wants to pay more for goods or sevices. But let me use this as a case study, to demonstrate that we need not forever be constrained by some immutable law of economics that cannot be violated. Imagine - for the moment - that scientists suddenly prove that burning fossil fuels is resulting in dangerous climate change, and that the entire world has to cease burning fossil fuels as fast as is practicable. No more policy back-flips permissable. (Not that I think the scientists will be able to prove this any time soon, if ever, but let's continue....) Now, the issue of compensation of the fossil fuel industry - and cost to consumers - arises as the industry is wound down as quickly as possible, without causing reduction in energy supplies. Now how to fund the massive investment in renewable energy? (And why not massively increase investment in nuclear fusion research as well? Remember, research, like education, mainly 'consumes' time, employing brain power and transferring knowledge.) For one thing, the resources and knowhow released by the winding up of the fossil fuel industry would move into the renewable industry. But apart from this, a special fund created and managed by the IMF could create the 'money' (which is only a means of exchange, with no intrinsic value other than enabling desired processes to occur) to facilitate all the processes involved in this change from one industry to the other. Total debt incurred by the IMF? Let's say US$100 trillion. Why can this 'debt' not be simply written off by the IMF itself. (Or hundred times that - it doesn't matter). Remember, the actual, real physical, technological and human resources required would largely transfer accross industries without causing a marked drain on availble already existing global resources. (In fact the process might result in releasing resources, but either way it doen't matter, because the IMF is funding all required demolition, remediation and new manufacturing activity).
The real world data shows just the opposite. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is ~ 1 deg C and global warming is net beneficial for the next 3 deg C. - - - Updated - - - Read the Commanding Heights by Yergin and Stanislaw. I'm repeating the truth.
Keep thinking the way you are thinking, Bring. There were lots of people like you in France during the late 18th century...and in Russia during the early 20th. If we have to make the changes the way they did it...I guess we have to. But I can hope that brighter minds will prevail and accomplish the needed adjustments without all that killing.
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and not the most common or important failure mode. How do you imagine that much purchasing power could be injected into the economy without causing inflation?
No, there was almost no one like me in either place. How's that working? History shows that the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages.
From the Commanding Heights: a system that takes the pursuit of self-interest and profit as its guiding light does not necessarily satisfy the yearning in the human soul for belief and some higher meaning beyond materialism. In the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s, Republican soldiers are said to have died with the word "Stalin" on their lips. Their idealized vision of Soviet communism, however misguided, provided justification for their ultimate sacrifice. Few people would die with the words "free markets" on their lips. Exactly why Trump was elected - people don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about free-markets per se. but they do regard the descent of their own communities into 'rustbelt' status as unacceptable - a process btw ignored by both the Dems and the Repubs over four decades, and which Trump brilliantly exploited (even I preferred his statements about poverty, over Clinton's 'business as usual' approach. Not that I expect much from Trump; economists are already noting the contradictions of both tax cuts and increases in government spending (on infrastructure) on the one hand, and the likely effects of ballooning deficits and debt on the other). I'm not sure one ought to be arguing from that platform. There is a certain group in the ME, aka ISIS, who claim to have access to the truth (in their case, the Koran, ie, the final, perfect Word of God).
Looking at the scenario outlined, ie: The fossil fuel industry is being wound down as quickly as possible. and the renewable industry is expanded as quickly as possible, consistent with maintaining (or expanding) energy supplies. 1. Labour not employed in the new industry could be compensated by an early retirement package paid over time, equivalent to fair estimates of what they would have received in the obsolete industry. So far, no increase in purchasing power (given the number of employees involved is relatively small) 2. So now the world receives its energy from renewables instead of fossil fuels. So what? (Apart of course from the many advantages eg clean air[B/], regardless of the disputed carbon dioxide issue). How is this actually injecting massive purchasing power into the economy. People (the world economy) are (roughly, for the sake of the argument) in the same position as before. The change from one industry to the other, funded by the IMF, has 'cost' US$1000 trillion (or whatever), but that massive 'spend' has not been injected into the world economy, rather it has merely transformed the energy industry from one form into another form. That's all. The transformation of the industry: demolition: remediation, recycling of the massive resources in the fossil fuel industry, into the renewable industry, and transfer of labour over to the manufacturing and maintenance required for the renewable industry - how does this result in a US$1000 trillion injection into the world economy (or whatever the actual 'cost' of the exercise is) and cause inflation? The spend relates to the energy industry only . There would no draw on resources (labour and materials) in excesss of those already consumed by the fossil fuel industry. Ultimately, net resources are likely to be released, and btw energy prices fall as free sun and wind increasingly power the grid Interestingly, with massive uptake of battery technology - as resources (including research, development and manufacturing) are released from the fossil fuel industry - this process could begin immediately, and be completed within a decade. [Even so, nuclear fusion technology ought to be pursued as a valuable execise in itself. Rather than 'up-grading' nuclear arsenals....]
I disagree with most of what you say, Bring...but I gotta give credit where credit is due. HISTORY DOES INDEED indicate "that the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages." You are right on the button there. I'm hoping our society here in America can be the first to get past that...without the need for widespread social war and killing. Maybe we can't. But we will make the transition...peacefully or through another reign of terror.
Not necessarily..... people could begin to move away from the cities to the rural areas. http://www.politicalforum.com/econo...ter-fed-policy-pay-off-usa-national-debt.html Could a real estate boom plus better Fed policy pay off USA national debt?
as well as much experience in maintaining their privilege. Last night I watched a show called "The divided states of America". It explored how Obama gradually lost the tremendous country-wide support won at the election and shown at his inauguration.. Summary: at the height of the evolving catastrophe of the GFC, Obama gathered all the bank CEO's to discuss how to deal with the situation. Tim Geithner, an 'insider', urged Obama not to adopt any radical solutions at that dangerous juncture for the world economy. Inexperienced Obama rolled over; the bankster CEO's couldn't believe their luck, no one was sent to jail while millions of ordinary Americans lost their life savings and their houses. Little was done to change the bankster casino culture.. Meanwhile a right wing grassroots movement - the tea party - was maneouvering to capture the outrage of the nation, since Obama was now increasingly identified with Wall Street elites. Obama continued to believe in the possibility of compromise with the Repubs, but they had no such intentions; they even planned at times to give the impression of working with the president, but in reality were only prolonging the negotiations for interminable periods. Republican strategists, who after Obama's election feared loss of power for a generation, began to sense a change in the nation's mood. Obama switched course to the health care issue, but this was characterised by the right as an attack on their savings, and the eventual plan adopted by congress was widely despised. He also stumbled over the matter of black-white relations. The rest is history. The Repubs are now in control of all branches of government, led by a very unorthodox president who himself in running into all kinds of public relations disasters......
Nope. Can't work. Henry George Theorem. If they move to another area, the landowners THERE will just take it. Short answer: no.
I note your comment (from the thread 'Monetary Sovereignty' #15): Sufficient funds, eg, to create public housing to eliminate the scourge of homelessness? Could this by-pass the Henry George theorem, since rents in public sector housing could be fixed or waived altogether as oppropriate? Obviously a well designed land tax should be part of a suite of progressive taxation measures (as opposed to regressive), since income and wealth inequality are currently soaring in conjuction with continuing entrenched poverty. [But I wonder - as automation fulfils society's basic needs as well as 'wealth' creation - whether taxation can finally be abolished, and people - everyone - 'paid' above poverty level wages for useful 'work'.] In any case, can some-one show this to Trump? https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...al-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/ I think Trump has sufficient "boldness"; but the present financial strait-jacket in which he must operate will likely stifle his promised economic growth strategy.
Probably. But that is a bad way to solve that problem, like solving the problem of hungry children by operating government soup kitchens. There are far more effective and less costly ways. In a sense, because when government owns the land, it recovers the land value it creates at that location. But the result would be inefficient allocation of sites, which is one problem with public housing. Remember: government soup kitchens is a stupid way to solve the problem of hungry children. Obviously to us, but not to the majority. Hence the educational effort here. As long as landowner privilege remains, it will all be taken by landowners. Might as well show it to Honey Boo-boo. He owes his soul to the banksters. He will not touch a hair of their anointed heads.
Yes - another example of a flawed analysis by failing to realize the fact that small business income via the pass through methodology was included as the result of tax reform in the '80's. Some posters are famous for this.
