The Jobless Summer - only 1 in 4 teens employed in US

then please explain to me why every nation that has tried this stimulus crap have all turned out in dissaster? Japan is a great example of failed keynessian witchcraft....and now the US has done the same....with the same predictable results!

 

I think its the other way around.......you keynessians just wont look at the obvious....that every county that it was put into place has turned into dissaster! (keynessian witchcraft)

 

I'm not a Keynesian. Ranting about Keynesianism is just rant. A mundane version at that.

 

so then tell me:

1) do you believe in sound money?

2) do you believe in outsorcing?

3) do you believe in deficit spending?

 

These are nonsense questions that only reaffirm your disregard of basic economics. Your views on trade are inconsistent with support of market forces. Your rant about deficit spending just informs me that you're not aware of what Keynesianism entails. One cannot refer to Keynesianism by referring to deficit spending (which can be understood within various political economy, from conservatism to variants of Marxist analysis)

 

IMHO, it is primarily driven by the agricultural industry. It is capital intensive to farm on a developed scale, so low-cost labor (mostly illegal immigrants or under the table) is allowed to substitute for "teching up". Without adequate policy to incentivize farmers to become more capital intensive while preserving their independence, low-skill/low-wage labor persist.

 

Given the low wage abundance goes further than agriculture (which has a relatively low share of overall employment), you'd have to go for some spillover effect on the wage distribution. Out of interest, how are CEO paid compared to the average production worker? When I was a nipper we were taught that, due to greater mobility, their relative compensation was considerably higher than their European counterparts. Still the case? And to what extent should we instead reject the supply & demand approach, using these compensation differentials to suggest artificial pyramid systems designed to manipulate economic rents?

 

interesting how you avoided my questions

 

Avoided? I informed you that they are nonsensical. Its not interesting that you couldn't respond.

 

Typical Reiver reply (in essence)...

'you WILL talk about exactly what I wish to talk about and how I wish you to talk about it. If you don't, I will insult and belittle you until you do or you go away.
Oh, and don't mention numbers or facts. I realize I act like some sort of an economics expert - but I will not use numbers or facts to justify my positions...I am a pure theorist (in other words - I never have to prove anything I say).
I am little more then an online bully with a good vocabulary.'

 

One just expects sense! All three questions were nonsensical. Even if we ignore that and try to translate them into something meaningful the fellow has let himself down. As noted, one shouldn't hide from capital mobility. Its part of the invisible hand after all. As also noted, referring to deficit spending as somehow a sufficient criteria for Keynesianism shows a basic innocence of political economy

 

deficit spending "IS" one of the main factors of keynessian economics!

 

As already remarked, deficit spending is consistent with a range of political economy: from the folly of conservatism to Marxist variants. You're only describing that you do not understand Keynesianism. Perhaps you will in the long term (I'll ignore Keynes' remark on the subject!)?

 

non·sen·si·cal (nn-sns-kl)
adj.
1. Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words.
2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonsensical


Here are the questions:

'1) do you believe in sound money?

2) do you believe in outsorcing?

3) do you believe in deficit spending?'


Well, they certainly have a meaning.

And they are not foolish or adsurd...they are stand alone questions, not statements.


Clearly Reiver does not fully understand what 'nonsensical' means and/or he is not capable of understanding these simple questions.

Noted.

 

You honestly thought the questions made sense? Wow, given my very high opinion of you, I'm notably surprised!

Do I believe in sound money? Well gosh, it beats unsound money. The local pub won't accept monopoly money. Shame really.

Do I believe in outsourcing? Yes it exists. I don't play pretend.

Do I believe in deficit spending? Yes it exists. I don't play pretend.

 

exactly right

 

just listen to your answers LOL.....thats like someone asking do you believe in theft and you would say " yes it exists" what kind of answer is that? all you are saying it exists you are not for or against it!

 

By saying what he actually is for and what he is about negates his ability to flip flop, or have someone else prove he is wrong. Serious megalomania issues at play. Don't sweat the small stuff. We post for others reading, not because we think we will change the mind of the person we are actually having a back and forth with. Keep it all in perspective.

 

I'm merely able to use the English language correctly. Note, out of kindness, I also translated your attempt at questioning. The outcome wasn't very jolly for you. Outsourcing, for example, can only be attacked by also attacking the invisible hand and therefore the very nature of capitalism. Properly conducted critique would have to refer to perceived market failure (such as the loss of organisational knowledge due to the pursuit of short term economic rents). We both know you're not referring to anything as sophisticated. You're merely advertising the flaw in right wing ideology, where its non-economic cat-calling encourages an open assault on individualism.

I've already highlighted the ignorance demonstrated in the standard 'yeah but, deficit spending' anti-Keynesianism whinge. It completely ignores the nature of Keynesian analysis, which provides a key defence of capitalism by promoting a superior analysis of key apparatus- including the use of beahavioural economics and the impact of imperfect competition on the labour market. Then again, perhaps you complain about deficit spending (despite its compatability with conservatism) because deep down you have a hatred for capitalism?

 

Outsourcing obviously benefits the company doing the outsourcing....there is no question aout that. But does it benefit the employees? Does it benefit the suppliers to that company? Does it benefit the community at large? Over time, outsourcing destroys the nation as the entire manufacturing base is stripped and the wealth is destroyed.........you cant have mass production without mass consumption!

 

This is just repetition of your disregard of the invisible hand. The pursuit of profit creates further economic opportunities. By ignoring simple logic you've merely demanded an attack on individualism. Seems awfully common amongst the right wing!

 

LOL. At this point, only one finger on the "invisible hand" is sticking up. We just simply want the "high five" back.

 

or perhaps the five finger discount

 

Or perhaps some economic sense? You fellows are deliberately peddling drivel and its not appreciated

 

Like the mom who drank her own milk: "it's all coming back to me now".