China's growth is not due to trade
highfl...@gmail.com
in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it? I think that it shows
that most of China's growth is due to internal dynamics such as rising
asset markets and domestic demand growing. True the catalyst for this
may have been trade but I would ponder whether it is the change in the
institutional paradigm in China that has caused the high growth we have
seen.
The working paper can be seen at:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=437
The paper is called:
143. China's Nexus of Foreign Trade and Economic Growth: Making Sense
of the Anomaly
Dic Lo, August 2004
BO L.
"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:nvmoi19qhp80hjhuq...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Sep 2005 06:51:40 -0700, highfl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>I have just read a really interesting working paper on China's growth
>>in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
>>China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
>>imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it?
>>
>
> they get when they export is tons of green-tainted paper. How is that
> good for their country?
Is that why the economies of India and China are growing at rates of 8% to
10% annually?
And all that "green-tainted paper" they have represents ownership of a
percentage of the assets of the U.S. Study some basic economics rather than
quoting free-trade propaganda.
BO L.
<highfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126965100.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have just read a really interesting working paper on China's growth
> in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
> China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
> imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it? I think that it shows
> that most of China's growth is due to internal dynamics such as rising
> asset markets and domestic demand growing. True the catalyst for this
> may have been trade but I would ponder whether it is the change in the
> institutional paradigm in China that has caused the high growth we have
> seen.
>
> The working paper can be seen at:
> http://www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=437
This comes from a school of Asian studies at a London university. That
really is objective isn't it? You did really well here!
The China - U.S. trade imbalance alone accounts for 14% of China's GDP.
China's growth is not due to trade? Give me a freaking break!
The Trucker
news:nvmoi19qhp80hjhuq...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Sep 2005 06:51:40 -0700, highfl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
>>China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
>>imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it?
>>
>
> they get when they export is tons of green-tainted paper. How is that
> good for their country?
They can use it to buy oil. They recently attempted to
buy a big pool of oil (Unocal). If they can't buy it that
way then they will probably buy it from the Middle
East and Russia and store it in their domain. We be
on the awl standard.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
xy...@hotmail.com
> >in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
> >China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
> >imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it?
> >
>
> they get when they export is tons of green-tainted paper. How is that
> good for their country?
How is that good? It's good because still others are willing to give
up their resources in order to obtain the green-tainted paper. Why are
they willing to give it up? Because still others are willing to give
up their resources for the green-tainted paper.
That's the positive part of obtaining the green-tainted paper, although
the negative of course is that still one must give up resources to
obtain it.
BO L.
> Let me ask you something, Mr. Genius, that 20 dollar bill that you
> have in your pocket represents ownership of what, exactly? Thank you!
What do you think China is going to do with our dollars? Use them for
wallpaper?
BO L.
>
> Why is it not objective? It appears to me your dogma is being
> shattered by facts and you are reacting with passion to defend it. No
> reason in sight, though.
Your dogma that free trade is good is being shattered by the very real fact
that it's killing the middle-classs in the U.S. Just keep it up. In a few
years there will be another class revolution!
highfl...@gmail.com
that the paper I quoted at the start of this thread is implying that
there is much more going on in China than just trade. While it seems
counter-intuitive, there is a domestic dynamic of rising asset prices
and greater investment that is driving most of China's growth. This is
the point. The charge of Mercantillism mentioned earlier is little
more than harkening back to Adam Smith, as if someone from that long
ago could give us general timeless laws that could apply to all
history.
BO L.
See the post Trucker made regarding China's attempt to purchase a U.S. oil
company and stop dodging my points.
BO L.
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:55:26 GMT, "BO L." <b...@XXXX.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
>>news:619ri1hg2j98vifo8...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Why is it not objective? It appears to me your dogma is being
>>> shattered by facts and you are reacting with passion to defend it. No
>>> reason in sight, though.
>>
>>Your dogma that free trade is good is being shattered by the very real
>>fact
>>that it's killing the middle-classs in the U.S.
>>
>
You can call it chicken soup for all I care. The fact is the middle-class
is struggling big time because of it while the elite prosper like never
before. What the elite fail to realize is that there are more of us than
them and that will ultimately determine who is right and what is good.
>It is quite obvious to
> me you don't like freedom. May I ask why?
And how do you define "freedom"? According to you, freedom must include
free-trade. In our history, platation owners thought the ability to own
slaves was a matter of their freedom; having children work in filthy coal
mines was a matter of freedom of those who owned the mines; and dumping
toxic chemicals anywhere a corporation pleased was considered a matter of
their freedom. Before you talk about freedom, you need to acknowledge whose
freedom you are talking about.
The Trucker
news:1127224567....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here's a news flash for ya: Wealth of Nations _STILL_
stands quite tall in the eyes of most people with any
common sense at all. And although Smith might have
denigrated mercantilism, he was addressing the gold
standard of his day more than anything else; the notion
that the nation with most gold wins. Today sovereignties
are bastions of culture and religion and they exist so
as to provide a means for cultural separation that is
_REQUIRED_ if freedom of religion is to exist on a
global level. As such, each sovereignty is in competition
with the forces of EVIL so as to maintain their religious
and cultural identities. That is the "mercantilism" of
today and Smith would have yielded to it. There
is more than economics at work here; more than
political economy.
The Trucker
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:19:18 GMT, "BO L." <b...@XXXX.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
>>news:rt2ui19jlgftielic...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:52:57 GMT, "BO L." <b...@XXXX.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ss8ri1lvjm6ur54va...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Let me ask you something, Mr. Genius, that 20 dollar bill that you
>>>>> have in your pocket represents ownership of what, exactly? Thank you!
>>>>
>>>>What do you think China is going to do with our dollars? Use them for
>>>>wallpaper?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll answer your question after you answer mine.
>>
>>See the post Trucker made regarding China's attempt to purchase a U.S. oil
>>company and stop dodging my points.
>>
>
> dodging?
>
> Ok, I'll answer your question: China is going to use dollars to IMPORT
> stuff. It is when they IMPORT that they get something of real value,
> not Uncle's Sam fiat money. Got it?
Growth in China depends on oil and "Uncle Sam's fiat money" buys
oil. And if some OILY king even suggests that he will want gold
or some gold backed currency for oil in lieu of dollars then
that OILY king will find that he suddenly has WMD and Terrorist
camps and a nuclear bomb or two in his posession. He doesn't
of course, but Pinocchio will concoct WHATEVER story might
be needed to "legitimize" an invasion. "Power the death ray",
croaked Ming the Merciless. So long as the dollar is accepted
for oil then China's growth will be based on "Uncle Sam's
fiat money" which China gets in trade for the hoola hoops
the American dingbat buys at WallMart.
Dan in Philly
> I have just read a really interesting working paper on China's growth
> in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
> China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
> imports.
That makes sense. Growth can come from two sources, exports or domestic
demand. But both will be correlated with imports. If exports (e.g of
clothing) do especially well one year, the manufacturers will need more
imported oil to generate electricity for their factories. And if domestic
demand (e.g. consumption) does well in a different year, then familes are
spending more money heating their house, again using more imported oil.
Dan in Philly
BO L.
>
> Ok, I'll answer your question: China is going to use dollars to IMPORT
> stuff. It is when they IMPORT that they get something of real value,
> not Uncle's Sam fiat money. Got it?
and as I said in my original response to you, "And all that "green-tainted
paper" they have represents ownership of a
percentage of the assets of the U.S."
IOW - we have future obligations to provide China with a service, our
assetts or some other commodity. How is that good for the U.S.?
BO L.
>>>You can call it chicken soup for all I care. The fact is the
>>>middle-class
>>is struggling big time because of it while the elite prosper like never
>>before. What the elite fail to realize is that there are more of us than
>>them and that will ultimately determine who is right and what is good.
>>
>
> food they can afford. Must be tough for them, indeed.
Do you get your information from Rush Limbaugh?
There will be more poor people because of Walmart. Walmart provides shit,
non-union jobs at the retail end while it destroys domestic production
because of all of it's importing from China. People are very short sighted
when it comes to the "good buys" they get at Walmart. There is a great
price to be paid. I believe it's more important to preserve the
middle-class in this country and current free trade policies are about
moving middle-class jobs offshore.
>
> I'm talking about EVERY BODY's freedom. Why should YOU have the
> authority to prevent me from trading with my friend in South Africa?
> Because I'm not trading with you?
I'm saying if you want to sell your items in America, we should have
regulations mandating that you produce them here and hire legal American
workers to do so. Producing in an offshore company, paying workers cheap
wages and then selling the end-product in the U.S. is leeching off our
economy and will hurt us in the long run. We need reasonalbe protection
measures to prevent this.
Also, if you believe that anybody should be able to trade with anybody from
anywhere, why can't I buy prescription drugs from Canada? That's Bush's
double statndard: one rule for worthless individuals and one rules for big
corporations.
The Trucker
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:24:10 GMT, "BO L." <b...@XXXX.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
>>news:hdf1j1pn0h6m3aafm...@4ax.com...
>>>>>You can call it chicken soup for all I care. The fact is the
>>>>>middle-class
>>>>is struggling big time because of it while the elite prosper like never
>>>>before. What the elite fail to realize is that there are more of us than
>>>>them and that will ultimately determine who is right and what is good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I see all those poor people at Walmart suffering when buying
>>> food they can afford. Must be tough for them, indeed.
>>
>>Do you get your information from Rush Limbaugh?
>>
>
What do you do with these books? Perhaps you
burn them or only read books that you think will
agree with you.
>>
>>There will be more poor people because of Walmart.
>>
>
> I honestly can't see why.
If people have no jobs then they have no money and
as such they cannot buy assets. If they cannot buy
assets then they are condemmed to poverty especially
in old age. The shrinking price of hoola hoops is
detrimental to the actual long term well being of the
average American.
>>
>>Walmart provides shit, non-union jobs at the retail end while it destroys
>>domestic production because of all of it's importing from China.
>>
>
> No one is forced to work at Walmart. If the employees are unhappy,
> they are free to leave, aren't they?
And where will they go? All the jobs that used to provide
enough wages to "invest" for retirement are gone due to the
current version of "free trade".
> And IMPORTING is a good thing. It
> brings lots of stuff to the US in exchange for paper.
And that "paper" is a claim on US assets and future
US production. You have been advised of this FACT
and so now you are simply lying. Even if the dollars
are not traded for ownership oy Unocal these dollars
are still assets as they represent a claim on futer US
production.
>>
>>People are very short sighted when it comes to the "good buys" they
>>get at Walmart. There is a great price to be paid.
>>
>
> Can't see why. A good deal is a good deal.
And snake oil is seen by many as a "good deal".
>>
>>I believe it's more important to preserve the middle-class in this country
>>and current free trade policies are about moving middle-class jobs offshore.
>>
>
> I like it when the policy means I'm a free to do as I please. Once
> again, what's wrong with being free and acting freely, including
> trading with whomsoever you wish?
Land is a naturally occurring thing. No person can actually
_own_ land. Maybe someone will pitch a tent on your front
lawn and live there and not pay rent to you are anyone else.
That is _freedom_ and the absence of security If someone
wants your money they'll just take it and the same with your
wife and that is freedom. with no security. If your wife and
this other person decide that your wishes and your wealth
are not important and they have managed to SECURE all
the land rights and all the power of money then those without
can suck eggs and die unless they do as they are told. That
is freedom and security for the few at the expense of the
many. But these things are much too complex for you.
> Personally, I prefer to preserve
> freedom than security, financial or not. What about you? Or, in other
> words, I prefer to starve as a freeman than eat as a slave.
Then please starve..... They rest of us would like to
have a balance of the two along with something called
justice and compassion (with compassion in SECOND
PLACE). That seems to be the central problem with
rightards: They insist on a black and white world though
such a world is not the reality.
>>
>>I'm saying if you want to sell your items in America, we should have
>>regulations mandating that you produce them here and hire legal American
>>workers to do so.
>>
>
> There is, you don't respect my freedom to do business with whomsoever
> I choose. For some reason, you think that you have the right to
> curtail my personal freedom.
Actually, _I_ feel that I have a right to protect _my_
personal freedom from a bunch of aristocratic assholes.
The subject is political power. We have more hoola
hoops and far less freedom (we being the majority).
>>
>>Producing in an offshore company, paying workers cheap
>>wages and then selling the end-product in the U.S. is leeching off our
>>economy and will hurt us in the long run.
>>
>
> Can't see why. Lots of good stuff in exchange for paper sounds like a
> good deal to me.
The continuing lie...
>>
>>Also, if you believe that anybody should be able to trade with anybody from
>>anywhere, why can't I buy prescription drugs from Canada?
>>
>
> Because there are many people in our Government that think like you.
> If more people thought like me, we could buy whatever you wanted, from
> whomsoever you wanted.
A better solution is NO MORE PHARACEUTICAL PATENTS
and a repeal of the current patents.
>>
>>That's Bush's double statndard: one rule for worthless individuals and one
>>rules for big corporations.
>>
>
> From my point of view, both Democrats and Republicans suck.
We finally have a point of agreement. But the Democrats
are still the less EVIL.
The Trucker
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:12:44 GMT, "BO L." <b...@XXXX.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
>>news:28f1j1tp2npc9mnnj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll answer your question: China is going to use dollars to IMPORT
>>> stuff. It is when they IMPORT that they get something of real value,
>>> not Uncle's Sam fiat money. Got it?
>>
>>and as I said in my original response to you, "And all that "green-tainted
>>paper" they have represents ownership of a
>>percentage of the assets of the U.S."
>>
>
> in your pocket representrs ownership of what, exactly? It would be
> nice of this time you asnwer my question, ok?
It represents an asset of $20 that can be traded for
something worth $20. That is no different than owning
a gold piece that is worth $20 on the market or
owning one share of stock that will trade for $20
or a share in a hunk of land oe anything else. The
$20 represents the _ownership_ of whatever is
on the market for $20. The available goods will
come and go but the option to buy will remain.
>>
>>IOW - we have future obligations to provide China with a service, our
>>assetts or some other commodity. How is that good for the U.S.?
>>
>
> Future obligations are promises. In any case, if China starts buying
> from the US, will not that mean jobs for many, many Americans?
Unfortunately, that will not happen until wages in the US
fall below wages in China. I do not understand this
focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
Jim Blair
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dhbvf...@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
> news:pc38j11raqu1d3gp9...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:12:44 GMT, "BO L." <b...@XXXX.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
> >>news:28f1j1tp2npc9mnnj...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>> Ok, I'll answer your question: China is going to use dollars to IMPORT
> >>> stuff. It is when they IMPORT that they get something of real value,
> >>> not Uncle's Sam fiat money. Got it?
> >>
> >>and as I said in my original response to you, "And all that
"green-tainted
> >>paper" they have represents ownership of a
> >>percentage of the assets of the U.S."
> >>
> >
> > In that case, let me ask you again my own question: that 20 dolar bill
> > in your pocket representrs ownership of what, exactly? It would be
> > nice of this time you asnwer my question, ok?
Trucker:
>
> It represents an asset of $20 that can be traded for
> something worth $20. That is no different than owning
> a gold piece that is worth $20 on the market or
> owning one share of stock that will trade for $20
> or a share in a hunk of land oe anything else. The
> $20 represents the _ownership_ of whatever is
> on the market for $20. The available goods will
> come and go but the option to buy will remain.
Hi,
But of course prices change. So the $20 bill will buy something priced at
$20 ON THE DATE THAT YOU SPEND IT.
And in some sense, it is worth nothing until you spend it.
Rather like those people who check the newspaper (or internet) everyday to
see how much money they "gained" or "lost" that day due to stock price
changes.
(They don't realize that they gain or lose only on a day when they sell a
stock)
> >>
> >>IOW - we have future obligations to provide China with a service, our
> >>assetts or some other commodity. How is that good for the U.S.?
> >>
> >
> > Future obligations are promises. In any case, if China starts buying
> > from the US, will not that mean jobs for many, many Americans?
Trucker:
>
> Unfortunately, that will not happen until wages in the US
> fall below wages in China.
??? Wages in the US have been rising for centuries. And are likely to
continue to rise. China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their "surplus
dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
Remember when it was the Japanese who had those low wage jobs? And some in
the US thought that the US trade deficit with Japan would result in all of
the BAD things that the US trade deficit with China is predicted to do?
But notice that those predictions didn't happen, but Japanese wages have
just about caught up to US wages.
>....I do not understand this
> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
>
Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more important
indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household) REAL
Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post
Mason A. Clark
>
>Rather like those people who check the newspaper (or internet) everyday to
>see how much money they "gained" or "lost" that day due to stock price
>changes.
>(They don't realize that they gain or lose only on a day when they sell a
>stock)
I gotta comment on this. It's not true.
This is the false logic that causes people to hang on to bad stock that's
gone down because "if I don't sell it I won't have a loss."
The fact is, the loss has already happened. The question is,
"where to best put the money that remains."
How much "money" you have at any given moment is the market
value of the stock at that moment, whether you sell it or not.
Likewise:
How much your old currency under the mattress is worth depends
on the inflation since you put it under the mattress, whether you
take it out and spend it or not. You own the market value of
that currency, whether you spend it or not.
Mason C
The Trucker
news:dherm4$cv9$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
None of which is dramane to the topic being discussed.
I am refuting the silly statement that we gave traded
worthless pieces of paper fro real stuff. Those pieces of
paper will buy whatever the will on the market and that
is the _VALUE_ of those supposedly "worthless"
pieces of paper.
>> >>
>> >>IOW - we have future obligations to provide China with a service, our
>> >>assetts or some other commodity. How is that good for the U.S.?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Future obligations are promises. In any case, if China starts buying
>> > from the US, will not that mean jobs for many, many Americans?
>
> Trucker:
>>
>> Unfortunately, that will not happen until wages in the US
>> fall below wages in China.
>
> ??? Wages in the US have been rising for centuries.
Until 1980 wages increased at a pace very much in line
with incomes. Not since then has this been the case.
> And are likely to
> continue to rise.
Nope. And that is not a good thing.
> China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
> to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their "surplus
> dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
and they want to get rid of some of that currency
and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
value.
> Remember when it was the Japanese who had those low wage jobs? And some in
> the US thought that the US trade deficit with Japan would result in all of
> the BAD things that the US trade deficit with China is predicted to do?
> But notice that those predictions didn't happen, but Japanese wages have
> just about caught up to US wages.
At this point Japanese wages have probably
surpassed US wages.
>>....I do not understand this
>> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
>>
>
> Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more important
> indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household) REAL
> Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
>
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
>
So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
are getting the shaft when compared to those who
OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
economic rent). Unless and until the Repugnicans
can figure out a way to share the wealth more
equitably they are simply a bunch of lying pigs who
use cherry picked "data" to illustrate distortions.
Jim Blair
"Mason A. Clark" <masoncE...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:q00mj1dn4h05lk7cv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:41:55 -0500, "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Rather like those people who check the newspaper (or internet) everyday
to
> >see how much money they "gained" or "lost" that day due to stock price
> >changes.
> >(They don't realize that they gain or lose only on a day when they sell a
> >stock)
>
> I gotta comment on this. It's not true.
Hi,
I say it is an "all depends on how you look at it" thing. I don't see
"paper gains" as being "real" until my wife spends them ;-)
>
> This is the false logic that causes people to hang on to bad stock that's
> gone down because "if I don't sell it I won't have a loss."
I agree that this way of thinking COULD result in SOME people turning a
small loss into a larger loss.
>
> The fact is, the loss has already happened.
But not if the price drop is temporary and due to some transient factor, but
the underlying factors are sound, and the price bounces back.
Just as people can sell fail to sell when the price drop is just the start
of a larger decline, they can also sell "too soon" and then watch the price
bounce back.
The trick in stocks as in poker is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold
'em.
>...The question is,
> "where to best put the money that remains."
I agree.
>
> How much "money" you have at any given moment is the market
> value of the stock at that moment, whether you sell it or not.
True, but you can spend that money only after you sell the stock.
>
> Likewise:
>
> How much your old currency under the mattress is worth depends
> on the inflation since you put it under the mattress, whether you
> take it out and spend it or not. You own the market value of
> that currency, whether you spend it or not.
>
> Mason C
But what good does it do you until you spend it? Except maybe to make you
feel "rich"?
Jim Blair
> >
> > Trucker:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, that will not happen until wages in the US
> >> fall below wages in China.
jeb:
> >
> > ??? Wages in the US have been rising for centuries.
>
> Until 1980 wages increased at a pace very much in line
> with incomes. Not since then has this been the case.
Hi,
See:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
Note:
Since 1995, real hourly earnings have been rising in the U.S. - even with
the recent slowdown.
This has pushed the decade's average into positive territory, undoing the
sluggishness of the
early 1990s. We'll see if this upturn is sustained; if, as New School
economist Anwar Shaikh
has argued, we're in the early phases of a long-wave upcycle (meaning the
end of the
1970s-1980s crisis, which gave us the only negative real wage decades on
this chart),
>
> > And are likely to
> > continue to rise.
>
> Nope. And that is not a good thing.
>
> > China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
> > to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their
"surplus
> > dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
>
> I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
> and they want to get rid of some of that currency
> and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
> value.
So you agree that their dollars won't be worth as much as they may think?
>
> > Remember when it was the Japanese who had those low wage jobs? And some
in
> > the US thought that the US trade deficit with Japan would result in all
of
> > the BAD things that the US trade deficit with China is predicted to do?
> > But notice that those predictions didn't happen, but Japanese wages have
> > just about caught up to US wages.
>
> At this point Japanese wages have probably
> surpassed US wages.
But not because US wages have dropped to Japan's 3rd World level. Theirs
rose to ours. And I expect China to do the same.
>
> >>....I do not understand this
> >> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
> >>
> >
> > Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more important
> > indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household) REAL
> > Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
> >
> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
> >
>
> So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
> are getting the shaft when compared to those who
> OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
> economic rent).
More the case that "workers" now own more capital (stocks and bonds) than in
the past.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
>....Unless and until the Repugnicans
> can figure out a way to share the wealth more
> equitably they are simply a bunch of lying pigs who
> use cherry picked "data" to illustrate distortions.
>
Share the existing wealth? Or create more wealth for everyone?
ro...@telus.net
>Rather like those people who check the newspaper (or internet) everyday to
>see how much money they "gained" or "lost" that day due to stock price
>changes.
>(They don't realize that they gain or lose only on a day when they sell a
>stock)
That is only true for income tax purposes. An asset is worth what it
is worth, whether you sell it or not.
>??? Wages in the US have been rising for centuries. And are likely to
>continue to rise.
Real wages in the USA have been stagnant for decades.
>>....I do not understand this
>> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
>
>Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more important
>indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household) REAL
>Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
>
>http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
Right. Which means that while the real wages of working people have
been stagnant, the unearned incomes of the rich have been soaring.
-- Roy L
The Trucker
Notice how Blair always picks stuff that merges the 70's with
the 80's and the 90's with the now so as to cover up the
disasters that happen when Repugnicans are in office or when
a weakened Democratic president is forced into doing things
he does not want to do such as the appointment of Volker
as Fed chairman in the late 70's by Jimmy Carter. The
realities are, of course quit different. The Repugnicans are
about an all out assault on any group that does not kiss
the ass of authority. They are anti democratic and the small
"d" is purposeful.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/aristocracy.php
But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
link that he has chosen
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
"inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
are not _REAL_. The last chart confirms my statement
concerning wages VS unearned income quite handily and
then the following statement discusses the chart:
"Productivity can be thought of as setting a limit to wage
increases. Sustained increases in wages in excess of
productivity growth would result in - egads! - a profit
squeeze, and an eventual employers' offensive against
this intolerable situation. But if workers are weak and
unorganized, there's no reason that wages can't lag
productivity growth for a long, long time - a fact of
which this chart is living proof."
>>
>> > And are likely to
>> > continue to rise.
>>
>> Nope. And that is not a good thing.
>>
>> > China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
>> > to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their
> "surplus
>> > dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
>>
>> I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
>> and they want to get rid of some of that currency
>> and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
>> value.
>
> So you agree that their dollars won't be worth as much as they may think?
That is a long way from being "worthless paper". And
it may not actually matter so much to them in that they
are after power as opposed to "stuff". That is the
thing that you seem unable to grasp in all of your,
so called, economics.
>>
>> > Remember when it was the Japanese who had those low wage jobs? And some
> in
>> > the US thought that the US trade deficit with Japan would result in all
> of
>> > the BAD things that the US trade deficit with China is predicted to do?
>> > But notice that those predictions didn't happen, but Japanese wages have
>> > just about caught up to US wages.
>>
>> At this point Japanese wages have probably
>> surpassed US wages.
>
> But not because US wages have dropped to Japan's 3rd World level. Theirs
> rose to ours. And I expect China to do the same.
It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall. The actual
purchasing power of the average American in regard to
LAND has fallen dramatically since the Supply Side
hucksters took over in 1980. The Japanese and now
the Chinese have gained.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
>>
>> >>....I do not understand this
>> >> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more important
>> > indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household) REAL
>> > Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
>> >
>> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
>> >
>>
>> So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
>> are getting the shaft when compared to those who
>> OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
>> economic rent).
>
> More the case that "workers" now own more capital (stocks and bonds) than in
> the past.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
This is precisely the sort of lying for which the rightards
will forever be guilty. While the number of families owning
shares of stock has grown in the last 20 years, the actual
OWNERSHIP of the means of production by the middle
class has decreased as the top few concentrate that
ownership. While goods may not be zero sum, power
certainly is. Wealth is the capacity to forgo or to
COMMAND labor.
>>....Unless and until the Repugnicans
>> can figure out a way to share the wealth more
>> equitably they are simply a bunch of lying pigs who
>> use cherry picked "data" to illustrate distortions.
>>
>
> Share the existing wealth? Or create more wealth for everyone?
>
Share the existing power or concentrate it into
fewer hands? I wonder if the antebellum slaves
would have liked more hoola hoops.
Jim Blair
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:433c6257...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:41:55 -0500, "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> >??? Wages in the US have been rising for centuries. And are likely to
> >continue to rise.
>
> Real wages in the USA have been stagnant for decades.
Hi,
Look at:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
US Real wages are up since1980 (2.5 decades?). The only question is "by how
much", depending on what inflation correction is applied. Boskin and all
that.
>
> >>....I do not understand this
> >> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
jeb:
> >
> >Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more important
> >indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household) REAL
> >Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
> >
> >http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
>
> Right. Which means that while the real wages of working people have
> been stagnant,....
Er increasing, especially since 1980.
Remember the flap when Dubwa proposed tying SS payments to inflation rather
than to wages? The objection was that this move would reduce SS benefits
because everyone (except you and Trucker ;-) knows that wages will continue
rise faster then inflation, as they have historically.
Or would you support Bush on this?
>.... the unearned incomes of the rich have been soaring.
>
> -- Roy L
How much of that "incomes rising faster than wages" is because as the US
population ages, ever more people are getting more of their income from
pensions, interest, dividends and Social Security relative to what they get
from "wages"?
You may describe pensions, SS , etc. as "unearned income", but I bet most
people collecting them think that they earned that money when they were
working.
kevincar
>The Trucker wrote:
> Here's a news flash for ya: Wealth of Nations _STILL_
> stands quite tall in the eyes of most people with any
> common sense at all. And although Smith might have
> denigrated mercantilism, he was addressing the gold
> standard of his day more than anything else; the notion
> that the nation with most gold wins. Today sovereignties
> are bastions of culture and religion and they exist so
> as to provide a means for cultural separation that is
> _REQUIRED_ if freedom of religion is to exist on a
> global level. As such, each sovereignty is in competition
> with the forces of EVIL so as to maintain their religious
> and cultural identities. That is the "mercantilism" of
> today and Smith would have yielded to it. There
> is more than economics at work here; more than
> political economy.
>
Unfortunately, some of Adam Smith's assumtions no longer hold;
Specifically, a lot of the "Wealth of Nations" nowadays can be exported
with just a click of a keyboard....
Culture used to be something that was based on security of the future-
Mahogany offices, Marble buildings and brass plaques on the big marble
buildings and all that stuff which is being torn down for scap
nowadays.
The "culture" you are speaking of is itself becoming less and less
valuable to everyone today; People in the U.S. are becoming
incredibly cynical; the root cause being that collectively (as a
culture) we are less and less convinced that our culture will deliver
the future to us... The only things that are getting delivered to us
are 'throw-away' products- whole neighborhoods getting razed for
WAL-marts and ugly buildings and products made to be as cheap as
possible.
Jim Blair thinks this is a really cool "new world order"- but someday
he and his entire career will be thrown on the scapheap too- along
with forty million others;
kDot
Jim Blair
Hi,
You picked the yrar 1980. It is clear that real wages have risen since
then. Either a lot or less depending on the inflation correction that is
used.
> But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
> link that he has chosen
>
> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
>
> as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
> "inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
> are not _REAL_.
But real wages are up since 1980, no matter which inflation correction is
used. And I say Boskin is correct: the CPI overstated the correction
factor in the past. So "real" gains have been larger than the figures
indicate, Even Paul Krugman admitted this.
>....The last chart confirms my statement
> concerning wages VS unearned income quite handily and
> then the following statement discusses the chart:
Incomes have increased even faster than wages. I say that is not a BAD
thing. For one thing, more people are collecting Social Security, pensions
and dividends, because the population is older and more are either retired
or sem-retired.
> >>
> >> > China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
> >> > to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their
> > "surplus
> >> > dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
> >>
> >> I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
> >> and they want to get rid of some of that currency
> >> and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
> >> value.
At any rate, China is starting to import more US goods and services.
Wisconsin exports to China have been rising rapidly, for example.
> >
> > So you agree that their dollars won't be worth as much as they may
think?
>
> That is a long way from being "worthless paper".
I never said US dollars were "worthless". I said that with the passage of
time they will likely become worth less..
>....And
> it may not actually matter so much to them in that they
> are after power as opposed to "stuff". That is the
> thing that you seem unable to grasp in all of your,
> so called, economics.
I predict that the Chinese will use their dollars mostly to buy "things".
> >>
> >> > Remember when it was the Japanese who had those low wage jobs? And
some
> > in
> >> > the US thought that the US trade deficit with Japan would result in
all
> > of
> >> > the BAD things that the US trade deficit with China is predicted to
do?
> >> > But notice that those predictions didn't happen, but Japanese wages
have
> >> > just about caught up to US wages.
> >>
> >> At this point Japanese wages have probably
> >> surpassed US wages.
> >
> > But not because US wages have dropped to Japan's 3rd World level.
Theirs
> > rose to ours. And I expect China to do the same.
>
> It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
> is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall.
???? These are "real" (inflation corrected) dollars. Everyone can become
"richer":
>....The actual
> purchasing power of the average American in regard to
> LAND has fallen dramatically since the Supply Side
> hucksters took over in 1980.
As population increases, isn't the price of land expected to increase?
>....The Japanese and now
> the Chinese have gained.
>
> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
??? Sure they have. But how does that mean the US has "lost".
> >> >>....I do not understand this
> >> >> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more
important
> >> > indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household)
REAL
> >> > Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
> >> are getting the shaft when compared to those who
> >> OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
> >> economic rent).
> >
> > More the case that "workers" now own more capital (stocks and bonds)
than in
> > the past.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
>
> This is precisely the sort of lying for which the rightards
> will forever be guilty. While the number of families owning
> shares of stock has grown in the last 20 years, the actual
> OWNERSHIP of the means of production by the middle
> class has decreased .....
Meaningless gribbish unless you define "middle class", and show that they
(however defined) now own less stocks and bonds than in the past. (before
1980).
> >
> > Share the existing wealth? Or create more wealth for everyone?
> >
>
> Share the existing power or concentrate it into
> fewer hands? I wonder if the antebellum slaves
> would have liked more hoola hoops.
>
What you deride as "hoola hoops" include more home ownership, more travel,
more education and access to information, more living spaces in our homes,
better medicines, longer lifespans, etc.
Jim Blair
"kevincar" <kevin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128112093.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The "culture" you are speaking of is itself becoming less and less
> valuable to everyone today; People in the U.S. are becoming
> incredibly cynical; the root cause being that collectively (as a
> culture) we are less and less convinced that our culture will deliver
> the future to us...
Hi,
I agree that US "culture" is changing, and that many don't like the changes.
Especially European-Americans who see the US becoming more "3rd World"
because of immigration.
>....The only things that are getting delivered to us
> are 'throw-away' products- whole neighborhoods getting razed for
> WAL-marts and ugly buildings and products made to be as cheap as
> possible.
Replace "cheap" with "affordable" and I agree. Another case of "it all
depends on how you say it"
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/say.txt
>
> Jim Blair thinks this is a really cool "new world order"- but someday
> he and his entire career will be thrown on the scapheap too- along
> with forty million others;
>
> kDot
>
40 million? I don't know where your number comes from, but in a world of 6
billion, with at least half of them "very poor", I say if only 40 million
on the top lose when the 3 billion on the bottom gain, that is not a bad
trade.
And my "entire career" is now almost entirely history :-(
The Trucker
OK. Here's the real stuff instead of your cherry picked crapola:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p53.html
And it says that wages have increased 9% But it does not tell
us whether these are before or after tax wages. It does not
tell us if illegal aliens and H1B people are included in the data.
And, more importantly, it does not tell us about the real cost
of living (health care and housing comprise a larger share of
this than in previous years). If inflation runs at a higher
percentage than the neocons claim then that 9% gets rubbed
out very quickly. Home costs have increased by 161%.
while raw wages have increased by 123%. Health care
costs have probably increased by 300% or more. I is
VERY unlikely that the wage gains are _real_.
And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
>> But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
>> link that he has chosen
>>
>> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
>>
>> as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
>> "inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
>> are not _REAL_.
>
> But real wages are up since 1980, no matter which inflation correction is
> used.
Horsecrap: Use the price of homes as a deflator and you
are toast. And the _real_ data stops at 2001. Here's the
_data_ for 1994 - 2003. Pinocchio is doing EXACTLY
what he was ensconced to do: Stomp hell out
of the middle class and make the rich much richer.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib196
> And I say Boskin is correct: the CPI overstated the correction
> factor in the past. So "real" gains have been larger than the figures
> indicate, Even Paul Krugman admitted this.
Krugman puts his pants on one leg at a time. Just like the
rest of us. And Boskin is probably making the same
presumptions as the rest of the neoconomists.
>>....The last chart confirms my statement
>> concerning wages VS unearned income quite handily and
>> then the following statement discusses the chart:
Yet another nice job of editing by B-liar. I reinstate what his
"source" had to say about productivity vs wages:
"Productivity can be thought of as setting a limit
to wage increases. Sustained increases in wages
in excess of productivity growth would result
in - egads! - a profit squeeze, and an eventual
employers' offensive against this intolerable
situation. But if workers are weak and
unorganized, there's no reason that wages can't
lag productivity growth for a long, long time
- a fact of which this chart is living proof."
> Incomes have increased even faster than wages. I say that is not a BAD
> thing. For one thing, more people are collecting Social Security, pensions
> and dividends, because the population is older and more are either retired
> or sem-retired.
You say? You would say that the moon was made of
slime mold if you thought it would help the Repugnicans.
"incomes" have increased but so too have costs. And
it matters as to _who_ is getting the increase. If the non
productive members of the society are getting the increase
then this is NOT good. It is all rent.
>> >>
>> >> > China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
>> >> > to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their
>> > "surplus
>> >> > dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
>> >>
>> >> I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
>> >> and they want to get rid of some of that currency
>> >> and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
>> >> value.
>
> At any rate, China is starting to import more US goods and services.
> Wisconsin exports to China have been rising rapidly, for example.
Well, sure, Blair. As goes Wisconsin so too does the USA?
What are you exporting: Land titles?
>> >
>> > So you agree that their dollars won't be worth as much as they may
> think?
>>
>> That is a long way from being "worthless paper".
>
> I never said US dollars were "worthless". I said that with the passage of
> time they will likely become worth less..
So we are left with no safe haven for our earnings
but to "invest" in land and gold? The stock market
has (more or less) been a mirror image of the
dollar. So I guess you MIGHT break even in the
stock market if you started at just the right time
like right AFTER Pinocchio came to town just like
right AFTER Reagan came to town. And while
the assets have increased in value the wages have
actually fallen. If ownership was truly more
equal then this WOULD be a good thing. But
ownership is NOT very equal and so it is not.
>>....And
>> it may not actually matter so much to them in that they
>> are after power as opposed to "stuff". That is the
>> thing that you seem unable to grasp in all of your,
>> so called, economics.
>
> I predict that the Chinese will use their dollars mostly to buy "things".
Like OIL and land?
>> >>
>> >> > Remember when it was the Japanese who had those low wage jobs? And
> some
>> > in
>> >> > the US thought that the US trade deficit with Japan would result in
> all
>> > of
>> >> > the BAD things that the US trade deficit with China is predicted to
> do?
>> >> > But notice that those predictions didn't happen, but Japanese wages
> have
>> >> > just about caught up to US wages.
>> >>
>> >> At this point Japanese wages have probably
>> >> surpassed US wages.
>> >
>> > But not because US wages have dropped to Japan's 3rd World level.
> Theirs
>> > rose to ours. And I expect China to do the same.
>>
>> It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
>> is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall.
>
> ???? These are "real" (inflation corrected) dollars. Everyone can become
> "richer":
Horseshit, Blair. Rich is a zero sum game. And it depends
on your deflator as to whether we are doing good or bad.
The value of the dollar has really hit the skids since the
Pugs started their latest 5 years of borrowing and that is
probably a more proper measure of inflation.
>>....The actual
>> purchasing power of the average American in regard to
>> LAND has fallen dramatically since the Supply Side
>> hucksters took over in 1980.
>
> As population increases, isn't the price of land expected to increase?
That is why Pinocchio and pals want as much immigration
as possible; and the illegal immigration is even better for
them than the legal kind. Any time the Pugs want to do
LVT we can have all the immigration they want.
>>....The Japanese and now
>> the Chinese have gained.
>>
>> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
>
> ??? Sure they have. But how does that mean the US has "lost".
The US OWES Japan and China a percentage of future
production. That seems to be quite obvious to most
THINKING people.
>> >> >>....I do not understand this
>> >> >> focus on jobs. No person WANTS to work his ass off.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Right. Which is why it is not WAGES but INCOMES that are more
> important
>> >> > indicators of economic well being. And family (and also household)
> REAL
>> >> > Incomes have been rising even faster than "wages" in the US.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
>> >> are getting the shaft when compared to those who
>> >> OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
>> >> economic rent).
>> >
>> > More the case that "workers" now own more capital (stocks and bonds)
> than in
>> > the past.
>> >
>> > http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
>>
>> This is precisely the sort of lying for which the rightards
>> will forever be guilty. While the number of families owning
>> shares of stock has grown in the last 20 years, the actual
>> OWNERSHIP of the means of production by the middle
>> class has decreased .....
>
> Meaningless gribbish unless you define "middle class", and show that they
> (however defined) now own less stocks and bonds than in the past. (before
> 1980).
I never claimed that they owned LESS stocks, B-liar. I
claimed that they owned LESS of the means of production.
That means that their percentage of ownership has fallen:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html ------
What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of
stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very
dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had
some ownership of stock.
By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock
ownership, in terms of number of families.
But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001,
only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25
percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock.
There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or
10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families.
The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Share the existing wealth? Or create more wealth for everyone?
>> >
>>
>> Share the existing power or concentrate it into
>> fewer hands? I wonder if the antebellum slaves
>> would have liked more hoola hoops.
>>
>
> What you deride as "hoola hoops" include more home
> ownership, more travel, more education and access to
> information, more living spaces in our homes,
> better medicines, longer lifespans, etc.
You never give it up, do you Blair? The people you
refer to as "owners" actually are owned by the lenders.
And the "better medicines" eat up MORE than the
income gains. And the "command of labor" _IS_
a zero sum game.
Jim Blair
> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:dhrlqf$rb2$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >
> > "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:dhhfi...@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > jeb:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ??? Wages in the US have been rising for centuries.
Trucker:
Hi,
Yes. And +9% is an INCREASE. Contrary to your claim.
>....But it does not tell
> us whether these are before or after tax wages. It does not
> tell us if illegal aliens and H1B people are included in the data.
So where is the data to support your claim of no wage increase since 1980?
> And, more importantly, it does not tell us about the real cost
> of living (health care and housing comprise a larger share of
> this than in previous years).
This is inflation corrected "real" wages. Health care and housing costs are
included in the CPI.
>....If inflation runs at a higher
> percentage than the neocons claim then that 9% gets rubbed
> out very quickly.
The BLS CPI is really the highest correction factor that economists accept.
Most have known that historically it overstates inflation because it does
not account for changes in buying patterns because of price changes. So
your 9% is really the lowest estimate of the wage increase.
Go back and re-read the Boskin debate.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/cpi.htm
>.....Home costs have increased by 161%.
> while raw wages have increased by 123%. Health care
> costs have probably increased by 300% or more. I is
> VERY unlikely that the wage gains are _real_.
Housing and medical costs are both included in the BLS CPI. Sure they have
increased faster than the overall CPI. Food costs have increased at a lower
than average rate. Some things are above average, some are below.
> And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
> these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
> of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
??? I thought you said there were no gains? Now its the gains were when
Clinton was in office? My claim is that real wages are higher now than in
1980 (your year of choice).
>
> >> But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
> >> link that he has chosen
> >>
> >> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
> >>
> >> as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
> >> "inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
> >> are not _REAL_.
> >
> > But real wages are up since 1980, no matter which inflation correction
is
> > used.
>
> Horsecrap: Use the price of homes as a deflator and you
> are toast.
Use the price of a meg computer memory and the gains are ENORMOUS. But so
what? Neither computer memory per meg or house price per sq ft are the way
that the CPI is determined.
>...And the _real_ data stops at 2001. Here's the
> _data_ for 1994 - 2003. Pinocchio is doing EXACTLY
> what he was ensconced to do: Stomp hell out
> of the middle class and make the rich much richer.
>
> http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib196
So you have one year of declining real wages (2003) and use that to claim
that real wages are down since 1980?
And sure, some sub-sets of workers have not seen as much real wage growth as
others. Consider high school dropouts....
And you have not yet defined what you mean by "middle class". But using
that term is a good indicator of not knowing what you are talking about.
>
> > And I say Boskin is correct: the CPI overstated the correction
> > factor in the past. So "real" gains have been larger than the figures
> > indicate, Even Paul Krugman admitted this.
>
> Krugman puts his pants on one leg at a time. Just like the
> rest of us. And Boskin is probably making the same
> presumptions as the rest of the neoconomists.
Why not actually look at the Boskin Report?
> > Incomes have increased even faster than wages. I say that is not a BAD
> > thing. For one thing, more people are collecting Social Security,
pensions
> > and dividends, because the population is older and more are either
retired
> > or sem-retired.
>
> You say? You would say that the moon was made of
> slime mold if you thought it would help the Repugnicans.
??? Do you doubt that the US population is aging? Or that a higher fraction
now collects pensions and Social Security?
>
> "incomes" have increased but so too have costs.
???? Which is why "real incomes" are used as the measure. And they have
increased--even faster than real wages.
>.....And
> it matters as to _who_ is getting the increase. If the non
> productive members of the society are getting the increase
> then this is NOT good.
Non-productive? You mean retirees? Those getting Social Security?
> >> >>
> >> >> > China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
> >> >> > to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their
> >> > "surplus
> >> >> > dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
> >> >> and they want to get rid of some of that currency
> >> >> and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
> >> >> value.
> >
> > At any rate, China is starting to import more US goods and services.
> > Wisconsin exports to China have been rising rapidly, for example.
>
> Well, sure, Blair. As goes Wisconsin so too does the USA?
> What are you exporting: Land titles?
As for what we sell to places like China this from a post:
Like ginseng.
http://commerce.wi.gov/IE/IE-OverseasOfficeNetwork.html#CHINA
Gone is the familiar old China that Wisconsin's ginseng farmers
dominated throughout the past century. In the old days, growers
hardly bothered to promote their premium grade of wrinkly root,
which remains a luxury import to the Chinese. Buyers from the
mainland made pilgrimages to rural, out-of-the-way Marathon County,
the ginseng capital of the United States, and shipped back more
than 2 million pounds each year
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=607
Another example of importance of trade to the Wisconsin's economy
is China. State exports to China alone in 2003 increased 52.7 percent
to $548.2 million, members of Gov. Jim Doyle's economic advisory
group were told last week.
Or "information" and medical supplies.
http://www.dailycardinal.com/media/paper439/news/2004/03/29/News/Doyl...
TrafficCast, another Madison-based company participating in the delegation,
signed agreements earlier in the week to provide software and database
technology to help Shanghai manage traffic flow.
In a press release Friday, Doyle stressed the potential of increased
trade with China to create jobs and grow the Wisconsin economy.
"The health care expertise we have in Wisconsin will help to save lives
in Shanghai, while creating a greater demand in China for medical
equipment and services created by Wisconsin companies," Doyle said of
the Center for International Health deal.
To complete its agreement with Shanghai, TrafficCast will need to expand
its Madison operation from 35 jobs to more than 60. Doyle said in a press
release this demonstrates the "tremendous potential for innovative
Wisconsin companies to play a role as China is rapidly upgrading and
modernizing its infrastructure."
"We are pleased that this investment will help us to create high-paying
jobs in Wisconsin," TrafficCast Chief Operating Officer Connie Li said
in a press release."
People in Madison live pretty well, but what do we "produce"? Mostly
university graduates, new technology, medical treatments (we have about 6
hospitals and about as many specialized clinics) and of course state
government.
> >
> > I predict that the Chinese will use their dollars mostly to buy
"things".
>
> Like OIL and land?
Oil yes. But what land? Remember when the Japanese tried that back in the
1980's?
> >> It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
> >> is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall.
jeb:
> >
> > ???? These are "real" (inflation corrected) dollars. Everyone can
become
> > "richer":
Trucker:
>
> Horseshit, Blair. Rich is a zero sum game.
That says it all.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jebl...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
Jim Blair
> >>
> >> It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
> >> is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall.
> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote .
> >
> > ???? These are "real" (inflation corrected) dollars. Everyone can
become
> > "richer":
>
> Horseshit, Blair. Rich is a zero sum game.
.....
> >> >> So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
> >> >> are getting the shaft when compared to those who
> >> >> OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
> >> >> economic rent).
jeb:
> >> >
> >> > More the case that "workers" now own more capital (stocks and bonds)
> > than in
> >> > the past.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
Trucker:
> >>
> >> This is precisely the sort of lying for which the rightards
> >> will forever be guilty. While the number of families owning
> >> shares of stock has grown in the last 20 years, the actual
> >> OWNERSHIP of the means of production by the middle
> >> class has decreased .....
> >
> > Meaningless gribbish unless you define "middle class", and show that
they
> > (however defined) now own less stocks and bonds than in the past.
(before
> > 1980).
>
> I never claimed that they owned LESS stocks, B-liar. I
> claimed that they owned LESS of the means of production.
> That means that their percentage of ownership has fallen:
> ------
>
> What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership
of
> stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go
up very
> dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of
households had
> some ownership of stock.
> By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread
stock
> ownership, in terms of number of families.
Er, yes.
>
> But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In
2001,
> only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only
25
> percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
>
> So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of
stock.
> There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest
1 or
> 10 percent.
You see wealth as a "zero sum" game because you think in terms of "percent
of the total". So most household that owned NO stocks in 1980 now own
"only" $10K-25K. I say that is an increase. You claim not. Because the
total has grown faster?
Say you live on an island with 9 other families. You have the only house.
If another family builds a house, does that decrease the value or usefulness
of YOUR house? Because your share of the housing stock has dropped from
100% to 50%? And if another is built, your share drops to 1/3?
I say percents don't matter here. The more houses the better. If they all
have their own house, that is GOOD. Not only because of my humanitarian
concern for the other, but also because they will be less inclined to try to
move into MY house ;-)
And I don't care if some of them have a bigger house than me. Only that
my house is big enough for me.
The Trucker
I repeat: "It _says_ that wages have increased".
>>....But it does not tell
>> us whether these are before or after tax wages. It does not
>> tell us if illegal aliens and H1B people are included in the data.
>
> So where is the data to support your claim of no wage increase since 1980?
If the gains are not after FICA taxes then there has been a
decline in _real_ wages. If the deflator is wrong (and I say
it is) then there is a decline in real wages.
>> And, more importantly, it does not tell us about the real cost
>> of living (health care and housing comprise a larger share of
>> this than in previous years).
>
> This is inflation corrected "real" wages. Health care and housing costs are
> included in the CPI.
Right. Yep. The neocons hath spoken and this is like the
sermon on the mount. It must be nice to define all the
measuring sticks in such a way as to constantly "prove"
the righteousness of one's claims.
>>....If inflation runs at a higher
>> percentage than the neocons claim then that 9% gets rubbed
>> out very quickly.
>
> The BLS CPI is really the highest correction factor that economists accept.
> Most have known that historically it overstates inflation because it does
> not account for changes in buying patterns because of price changes. So
> your 9% is really the lowest estimate of the wage increase.
Actually, the Neoconomists have _known_ nothing of the
sort. They are acutely aware that if inflation is more
than what they claim then they are proven to be the jerks
that they are. There is EVERY incentive to paint inflation
as less than it actually is.
> Go back and re-read the Boskin debate.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/cpi.htm
It hasn't changed and the rate of inflation is
still an object of art as opposed to science.
>>.....Home costs have increased by 161%.
>> while raw wages have increased by 123%. Health care
>> costs have probably increased by 300% or more. I is
>> VERY unlikely that the wage gains are _real_.
>
> Housing and medical costs are both included in the BLS CPI. Sure they have
> increased faster than the overall CPI. Food costs have increased at a lower
> than average rate. Some things are above average, some are below.
Yep. Hoola hoops made in China are much less expensive.
But the necessary stuff like health care and housing have
increased dramatically and continue to do so.
>> And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
>> these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
>> of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
>
> ??? I thought you said there were no gains? Now its the gains were when
> Clinton was in office? My claim is that real wages are higher now than in
> 1980 (your year of choice).
These are APPARENT wage gains. I am saying that the
"data" tells us that there has been a gain but that the
"data" are probably quite flawed.
>>
>> >> But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
>> >> link that he has chosen
>> >>
>> >> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
>> >>
>> >> as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
>> >> "inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
>> >> are not _REAL_.
>> >
>> > But real wages are up since 1980, no matter which inflation correction
> is
>> > used.
>>
>> Horsecrap: Use the price of homes as a deflator and you
>> are toast.
>
> Use the price of a meg computer memory and the gains are ENORMOUS. But so
> what? Neither computer memory per meg or house price per sq ft are the way
> that the CPI is determined.
So the claim that "real wages are up since 1980, no matter which
inflation correction is used" is just flat wrong. And that is my point:
The data weenies that TELL us what inflation rates are control
just about every shred of economic measuring tool that they
then use to claim that all is fine and well. There IS no fixed
standard by which ANYTHING is currently measured. Hence,
there is no _proof_ of any of the claims.
>>...And the _real_ data stops at 2001. Here's the
>> _data_ for 1994 - 2003. Pinocchio is doing EXACTLY
>> what he was ensconced to do: Stomp hell out
>> of the middle class and make the rich much richer.
>>
>> http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib196
>
> So you have one year of declining real wages (2003) and use that to claim
> that real wages are down since 1980?
Nope. I am illustrating the disagreement among all these data
people about the actual _real_ wages. Note that the epinet
links says that wages rose in 2000 and 2001 but that the rise
was smaller than in the previous few years. Now look back
at the census link and note that wages FELL in 2000 and
2001. This is due to the lack of any real consistency in
the deflator. Assuming that the deflator is the cause then
wages have fallen quite precipitously under Pinocchio.
The 9% was a gain from 80 to 2001. It is quite possible
that _real_ wages have now RETREATED back to a point
where that "apparent" 9% gain is GONE.
> And sure, some sub-sets of workers have not seen as much real wage growth as
> others. Consider high school dropouts....
Consider the increasing number of illegal immigrants and
people who pay no taxes or FICA and consider that the
minimum wage has dropped quite dramatically since
1995. These are the things that lead me to believe that
these "data" are ALL crap.
> And you have not yet defined what you mean by "middle class". But using
> that term is a good indicator of not knowing what you are talking about.
I have done so before: It is those in the median quintile
who's income is primarily from wages. That will include
sole proprietorships in which FICA taxes must be paid
by the proprietor(s).
>>
>> > And I say Boskin is correct: the CPI overstated the correction
>> > factor in the past. So "real" gains have been larger than the figures
>> > indicate, Even Paul Krugman admitted this.
>>
>> Krugman puts his pants on one leg at a time. Just like the
>> rest of us. And Boskin is probably making the same
>> presumptions as the rest of the neoconomists.
>
> Why not actually look at the Boskin Report?
>
>
>> > Incomes have increased even faster than wages. I say that is not a BAD
>> > thing. For one thing, more people are collecting Social Security,
> pensions
>> > and dividends, because the population is older and more are either
> retired
>> > or sem-retired.
>>
>> You say? You would say that the moon was made of
>> slime mold if you thought it would help the Repugnicans.
>
> ??? Do you doubt that the US population is aging? Or that a higher fraction
> now collects pensions and Social Security?
You have inadvertently stumbled onto the real problem with
wage data: People earn MORE as they age until they retire.
Therefore, an aging population will induce apparent wage
gains that are not __REAL__.
From the point of view of the guy performing
as an electrician or a plumber or even a mail clerk at the
age of 25, HIS wage is NOT more than the people that
were doing the same job 20 years ago at the age of 25
even if the productivity has been enhanced by capital.
The aging force increases the aggregate and the per capita
wage but not the wage of the individuals that are performing
at a given age or experience level. And as people retire
LATER and LATER this skew in wages becomes more
and more prevalent. It is disingenuous at best to refer to
this as "wages have been increasing" because in infers
something that is simply not true.
>>
>> "incomes" have increased but so too have costs.
>
> ???? Which is why "real incomes" are used as the measure. And they have
> increased--even faster than real wages.
The rubber ruler of CPI again; but this time spiked with rent.
>>.....And
>> it matters as to _who_ is getting the increase. If the non
>> productive members of the society are getting the increase
>> then this is NOT good.
>
> Non-productive? You mean retirees? Those getting Social Security?
No. I mean the privileged.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > China may equalize the "wage gap" if their wages continue
>> >> >> > to rise faster than in the US. But they can spend some of their
>> >> > "surplus
>> >> >> > dollars" before that happens. And they are starting to.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think they are seeing the writing on the wall
>> >> >> and they want to get rid of some of that currency
>> >> >> and those bonds before the big decline in dollar
>> >> >> value.
>> >
>> > At any rate, China is starting to import more US goods and services.
>> > Wisconsin exports to China have been rising rapidly, for example.
>>
>> Well, sure, Blair. As goes Wisconsin so too does the USA?
>> What are you exporting: Land titles?
>
>
> As for what we sell to places like China this from a post:
>
> Like ginseng.
>
>
> http://commerce.wi.gov/IE/IE-OverseasOfficeNetwork.html#CHINA
>
>
> Gone is the familiar old China that Wisconsin's ginseng farmers
> dominated throughout the past century. In the old days, growers
> hardly bothered to promote their premium grade of wrinkly root,
> which remains a luxury import to the Chinese. Buyers from the
> mainland made pilgrimages to rural, out-of-the-way Marathon County,
> the ginseng capital of the United States, and shipped back more
> than 2 million pounds each year
>
A whole ton!?@?
Hide and watch: The crash is supposed to be near (who knows).
But if the crash occurs the Chinese will seem to soften the blow
as they buy farms and the like.
>> >> It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
>> >> is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall.
>
> jeb:
>> >
>> > ???? These are "real" (inflation corrected) dollars. Everyone can
> become
>> > "richer":
>
> Trucker:
>>
>> Horseshit, Blair. Rich is a zero sum game.
>
> That says it all.
>
Actually it does say it all, Blair. I do not want to have
lots of stuff yet have a bunch of strutting pig rich bitch
Repugnicans using their money to buy the Congress
so as to make my life style illegal or my sexual preferences
taboo. It is a question of balancing freedom and power.
I do not believe that wants are insatiable except the
human "want" to be free from labor and coercion.
The Trucker
No. I claim that wealth has a zero sum dimension as well as
a non zero sum dimension. The top guns still control all the means
of production and they reap so much more from their ownership
that they will ever maintain _control_. No _control_ has been
transferred to the small guys. You refuse to understand that
_WEALTH_ has two dimensions. One is related to goods but
the zero sum dimension is power. It is the power to have others
do as you (an owner) may want.
> Say you live on an island with 9 other families. You have the only house.
> If another family builds a house, does that decrease the value or usefulness
> of YOUR house?
If and when they actually _OWN_ the house and the land
(as defined by our current set of laws) then there will be
a reduction in the power of those who currently own
their homes.
> Because your share of the housing stock has dropped from
> 100% to 50%?
Because they now have a house and they need not beg to
sleep in yours. More importantly, they need not
kiss ass so as to pay the land rent to the privileged
land owners (this includes the trees that are naturally
produced on the land) so as to gain ownership of their
homes.
> And if another is built, your share drops to 1/3?
Your control over others (or your control over your
own life) will have declined if the others actually
_own_ their home In our current economy
the "rat race" is composed of those who do not
_OWN_ their home. They race after such ownership
constantly producing the stuff that is consumed by
those who do own.
> I say percents don't matter here. The more houses the better. If they all
> have their own house, that is GOOD. Not only because of my humanitarian
> concern for the other, but also because they will be less inclined to try to
> move into MY house ;-)
I take issue with your desire to convince the
rest of us that the desire of others to live in a
house is a problem for the "rich".
That desire can be and will be harnessed by
a Repugnican so as to get work done by the
others that will reward the Repugican. The
Repugnican will erect as many barriers as
possible to TRUE REAL home ownership
so as to fleece those who desire it.
> And I don't care if some of them have a bigger house than me. Only that
> my house is big enough for me.
It is a very false analogy, Blair.
1. Houses are not a means of production.
2. Houses sit on LAND and are constructed
from the fruits of LAND and land is in fixed
(zero sum) supply and owned by the big
boys.
You are attempting to conflate _real_ capital
with ownership privilege. _real_ capital does
not require privatization as a fundamental
element of its being. Dams and roads
and bridges need not be owned/privatized
so as to exist as _real_ capital. I have
considered removing owner occupied
structures form the list of things that I
consider to be _real_ capital because they
are more a "durable good" than they are
a tool or a productive piece of machinery.
raylopez99
data used in the analysis of this paper. The main data source is China
Statistical Yearbook (Zhongguo Tongji Nianjian, various years), which
is published by China's State Statistical Bureau. "
You should not trust the official statistics.
Further, I once calculated using first principals that China's GDP is
inflated, because their economy, like most communist economies, is
inefficient in the use of energy (total factor productivity)
Go here:
highfl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have just read a really interesting working paper on China's growth
> in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
> China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
> imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it? I think that it shows
> that most of China's growth is due to internal dynamics such as rising
> asset markets and domestic demand growing. True the catalyst for this
> may have been trade but I would ponder whether it is the change in the
> institutional paradigm in China that has caused the high growth we have
> seen.
>
> The working paper can be seen at:
> http://www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=437
>
> The paper is called:
> 143. China's Nexus of Foreign Trade and Economic Growth: Making Sense
> of the Anomaly
> Dic Lo, August 2004
The Trucker
news:1128828677.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The weak point of this paper is this statement: "Table A.1 gives the
> data used in the analysis of this paper. The main data source is China
> Statistical Yearbook (Zhongguo Tongji Nianjian, various years), which
> is published by China's State Statistical Bureau. "
That must be their BLS:)
> You should not trust the official statistics.
Not there OR here.
> Further, I once calculated using first principals that China's GDP is
> inflated, because their economy, like most communist economies, is
> inefficient in the use of energy (total factor productivity)
>
> Go here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/browse_frm/thread/11d38f5330af6254/dd2c2ca47bf047bc?lnk=st&q=raylo...@yahoo.com+china&rnum=1&hl=en#dd2c2ca47bf047bc
>
>
> highfl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I have just read a really interesting working paper on China's growth
>> in recent years. Its findings from empirical research show that
>> China's growth is not correlated to exports but is correlated to
>> imports. Rather counter-intuitive isn't it? I think that it shows
>> that most of China's growth is due to internal dynamics such as rising
>> asset markets and domestic demand growing. True the catalyst for this
>> may have been trade but I would ponder whether it is the change in the
>> institutional paradigm in China that has caused the high growth we have
>> seen.
>>
>> The working paper can be seen at:
>> http://www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=437
>>
>> The paper is called:
>> 143. China's Nexus of Foreign Trade and Economic Growth: Making Sense
>> of the Anomaly
>> Dic Lo, August 2004
--
Jim Blair
> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:di6i62$n4l$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >
> > "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
speaking of the "middle class":
> >>
> >> I never claimed that they owned LESS stocks, B-liar. I
> >> claimed that they owned LESS of the means of production.
> >> That means that their percentage of ownership has fallen:
> >> ------
> >>
> >> What did happen is that the percentage of households with some
ownership
> > of
> >> stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did
go
> > up very
> >> dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of
> > households had
> >> some ownership of stock.
> >> By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more
widespread
> > stock
> >> ownership, in terms of number of families.
> >
jeb:
> > Er, yes.
> >>
> >> But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market.
In
> > 2001,
> >> only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and
only
> > 25
> >> percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
> >>
> >> So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings
of
> > stock.
> >> There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the
richest
> > 1 or
> >> 10 percent.
jeb:
> >
> > You see wealth as a "zero sum" game because you think in terms of
"percent
> > of the total". So most household that owned NO stocks in 1980 now own
> > "only" $10K-25K. I say that is an increase. You claim not. Because
the
> > total has grown faster?
>
> No. I claim that wealth has a zero sum dimension as well as
> a non zero sum dimension. The top guns still control all the means
> of production and they reap so much more from their ownership
> that they will ever maintain _control_. No _control_ has been
> transferred to the small guys. You refuse to understand that
> _WEALTH_ has two dimensions. One is related to goods but
> the zero sum dimension is power. It is the power to have others
> do as you (an owner) may want.
Hi,
OK, I see two different ways of looking at stock/bond ownership. I (and I
think most people) think in terms of "how much do I need so I can retire and
live from the interest and dividends?". When I own enough to do that, I can
consider quitting/retiring from my job and doing what I please. To us, it
is the absoulte value of the stocks and bonds that count. If I have enough
to do that, I don't care if you have 10 times as much.
Others (you and some other eci.econ posters) think in terms of control. How
much of a stock do I need to influence company policy? For that, it is
percent of total that is important.
Note that some companies have had "stockholder revolts" where lots of small
shareholders get together and demand changes in company policies. Sometimes
they get what they want and sometimes not. Often they want political things
like "don't invest in Israel" or "don't buy products that have been tested
on animals".
Jim Blair
Hi,
It is professional economists (of whatever politics) that claim wages and
incomes have increased since 1980.
>
> >>....If inflation runs at a higher
> >> percentage than the neocons claim then that 9% gets rubbed
> >> out very quickly.
> >
> > The BLS CPI is really the highest correction factor that economists
accept.
> > Most have known that historically it overstates inflation because it
does
> > not account for changes in buying patterns because of price changes. So
> > your 9% is really the lowest estimate of the wage increase.
>
> Actually, the Neoconomists have _known_ nothing of the
> sort. They are acutely aware that if inflation is more
> than what they claim then they are proven to be the jerks
> that they are. There is EVERY incentive to paint inflation
> as less than it actually is.
Like J. M. Keynes?
See also:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/bburk.txt
>
> > Go back and re-read the Boskin debate.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/cpi.htm
>
> It hasn't changed and the rate of inflation is
> still an object of art as opposed to science.
>
> >>.....Home costs have increased by 161%.
> >> while raw wages have increased by 123%. Health care
> >> costs have probably increased by 300% or more. I is
> >> VERY unlikely that the wage gains are _real_.
> >
> > Housing and medical costs are both included in the BLS CPI. Sure they
have
> > increased faster than the overall CPI. Food costs have increased at a
lower
> > than average rate. Some things are above average, some are below.
>
> Yep. Hoola hoops made in China are much less expensive.
> But the necessary stuff like health care and housing have
> increased dramatically and continue to do so.
Food isn't "necessary stuff"?
At any rate your claims that the professionals must be wrong because you
don't like their conclusions sounds to me like the Bush/"Conservative"
claims that the scientists must be wrong about evolution and CO2/Global
Warming. Because they don't like the conclusions. And (like you) they jump
on the few who dissent to claim the whole thing is an open question and the
scientists are biased.
> >> And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
> >> these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
> >> of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
> >
> > ??? I thought you said there were no gains? Now its the gains were when
> > Clinton was in office? My claim is that real wages are higher now than
in
> > 1980 (your year of choice).
>
> These are APPARENT wage gains. I am saying that the
> "data" tells us that there has been a gain but that the
> "data" are probably quite flawed.
Just like the Global Warming data?
> >>
> >> >> But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
> >> >> link that he has chosen
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
> >> >>
> >> >> as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
> >> >> "inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
> >> >> are not _REAL_.
> >> >
> >> > But real wages are up since 1980, no matter which inflation
correction
> > is
> >> > used.
> >>
> >> Horsecrap: Use the price of homes as a deflator and you
> >> are toast.
> >
> > Use the price of a meg computer memory and the gains are ENORMOUS. But
so
> > what? Neither computer memory per meg or house price per sq ft are the
way
> > that the CPI is determined.
>
> So the claim that "real wages are up since 1980, no matter which
> inflation correction is used" is just flat wrong.
OK. Real wages and incomes are up since 1980 using any inflation correction
that professional economists would consider to be reasonable. You can come
up with some that show otherwise. And some here have found some
"corrections" that show that we are "really" worse off than during the
Middle Ages.
>.....And that is my point:
> The data weenies that TELL us what inflation rates are control
> just about every shred of economic measuring tool that they
> then use to claim that all is fine and well. There IS no fixed
> standard by which ANYTHING is currently measured. Hence,
> there is no _proof_ of any of the claims.
Sounds like Bush on Global Warming or Evolution....
.
> >
> > ??? Do you doubt that the US population is aging? Or that a higher
fraction
> > now collects pensions and Social Security?
>
> You have inadvertently stumbled onto the real problem with
> wage data: People earn MORE as they age until they retire.
> Therefore, an aging population will induce apparent wage
> gains that are not __REAL__.
The increase in the average is "real". But as with numbers that deal with
averages and medians, they do not necessarily apply to individuals.
>
> From the point of view of the guy performing
> as an electrician or a plumber or even a mail clerk at the
> age of 25, HIS wage is NOT more than the people that
> were doing the same job 20 years ago at the age of 25
> even if the productivity has been enhanced by capital.
True. Except that HIS wage/income is likely a lot more NOW because he has
more experience and has likely been promoted or has a better job than he had
20 years ago.
I mean that even if there was no increase in the "average" income, every
individual could have an increase. Which is closer to the case.
> The aging force increases the aggregate and the per capita
> wage but not the wage of the individuals that are performing
> at a given age or experience level. And as people retire
> LATER and LATER this skew in wages becomes more
> and more prevalent.
I agree, this is likely the case.
And it also means increases for the individuals that were doing those jobs
then. Each individual can have increased real incomes even if the average
changes little.
>....It is disingenuous at best to refer to
> this as "wages have been increasing" because in infers
> something that is simply not true.
??? "not true"? Of course it is true. You just have to understand what it
means.
> >>
> >> "incomes" have increased but so too have costs.
> >
> > ???? Which is why "real incomes" are used as the measure. And they have
> > increased--even faster than real wages.
>
> The rubber ruler of CPI again; but this time spiked with rent.
>
> >>.....And
> >> it matters as to _who_ is getting the increase. If the non
> >> productive members of the society are getting the increase
> >> then this is NOT good.
> >
> > Non-productive? You mean retirees? Those getting Social Security?
>
> No. I mean the privileged.
Aren't the retired "non-productive"?
>
>...... I do not want to have
> lots of stuff yet have a bunch of strutting pig rich bitch
> Repugnicans using their money to buy the Congress
> so as to make my life style illegal or my sexual preferences
> taboo. It is a question of balancing freedom and power.
> I do not believe that wants are insatiable except the
> human "want" to be free from labor and coercion.
Hey, I don't support the Bush "social agenda" either.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
The Trucker
It is professional neoconomists that make that claim and
their jobs, their power, their position are all on the line
and subject to change at the whim of the politicians.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/handmaidens.php
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/Hijacked.php ----------------
Just as in the whole cloth there is no need for a conspiratorial
group in the halls of economic academia to ensure the adoption
and spread of false economic principles. The root of this
prostitution and the bindings are the same aristocratic tendencies
as we see in the whole cloth. This desire to dominate lest we
be dominated, this fear of becoming just another one of the herd
and this need to be seen as a leader and felt. This disease is as
acute in the economics profession as it is in the political arena.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Do you remember Dr. Food? He claimed, with much justification,
that economics was about food and that since no person can
starve in the USA then we did not need to observe economics as
the allocation of scarce resources. As he observed: Food
just is not part of the puzzle any more. Technological innovation
and capital development have overcome the food monster.
Food as a part of the overall budget has not been a major cost
for a very long time. That era (of food being a major part of the
family budget for the vast majority of Americans) ended long
before 1980.
> At any rate your claims that the professionals must be wrong because you
> don't like their conclusions sounds to me like the Bush/"Conservative"
> claims that the scientists must be wrong about evolution and CO2/Global
> Warming. Because they don't like the conclusions. And (like you) they jump
> on the few who dissent to claim the whole thing is an open question and the
> scientists are biased.
Oh, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
This opinion of the "data" being crap is based on my own real
world observations such as the stagnated minimum wage and
the increasing illegal immigrant count and the increasing H1B
visas. The dissenters are very few, but I most certainly am
one of them.
>> >> And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
>> >> these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
>> >> of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
>> >
>> > ??? I thought you said there were no gains? Now its the gains were when
>> > Clinton was in office? My claim is that real wages are higher now than
> in
>> > 1980 (your year of choice).
>>
>> These are APPARENT wage gains. I am saying that the
>> "data" tells us that there has been a gain but that the
>> "data" are probably quite flawed.
>
> Just like the Global Warming data?
Yet another failed analogy. It is almost impossible to "fake"
data from the physical world, Blair. Economic data simply
does not fall into the same category. Yet, the rightards were
STILL able to lie and perpetrate their fraud and smoke screen
for several years, disavowing global warming as an invention
of the, so called, "liberal media".
>> >>
>> >> >> But I am quite surprised that B-liar has chosen the
>> >> >> link that he has chosen
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_earns.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> as a reference. The paper admits that by screwing with
>> >> >> "inflation" assessments it is possible to "create" gains that
>> >> >> are not _REAL_.
>> >> >
>> >> > But real wages are up since 1980, no matter which inflation
> correction
>> > is
>> >> > used.
>> >>
>> >> Horsecrap: Use the price of homes as a deflator and you
>> >> are toast.
>> >
>> > Use the price of a meg computer memory and the gains are ENORMOUS. But
> so
>> > what? Neither computer memory per meg or house price per sq ft are the
> way
>> > that the CPI is determined.
>>
>> So the claim that "real wages are up since 1980, no matter which
>> inflation correction is used" is just flat wrong.
>
> OK. Real wages and incomes are up since 1980 using any inflation correction
> that professional economists would consider to be reasonable. You can come
> up with some that show otherwise. And some here have found some
> "corrections" that show that we are "really" worse off than during the
> Middle Ages.
That "Middle Ages" stuff is rather difficult to believe. But it
_does_ depend on what is being measured. If your idea of
"good" is that the meanest SOB in the valley gets whatever
he wants, then you would probably see a decline in "goodness"
in the last century. Of late, of course, we have been trying REAL
HARD to get back to those "good old days" of winner
take all.
>>.....And that is my point:
>> The data weenies that TELL us what inflation rates are control
>> just about every shred of economic measuring tool that they
>> then use to claim that all is fine and well. There IS no fixed
>> standard by which ANYTHING is currently measured. Hence,
>> there is no _proof_ of any of the claims.
>
> Sounds like Bush on Global Warming or Evolution....
Repeated false analogy.
>> >
>> > ??? Do you doubt that the US population is aging? Or that a higher
> fraction
>> > now collects pensions and Social Security?
>>
>> You have inadvertently stumbled onto the real problem with
>> wage data: People earn MORE as they age until they retire.
>> Therefore, an aging population will induce apparent wage
>> gains that are not __REAL__.
>
> The increase in the average is "real". But as with numbers that deal with
> averages and medians, they do not necessarily apply to individuals.
The problem with _these_ numbers is that they do not
apply in the way that _you_ portray them. You want to
infer that the "representative" 30 year old electrician gets
more for his labor than he did in the past and that is not
the case. The older (more experienced) electricians are
remaining in the work force longer and they are the
individuals that are getting any "increase" in wages.
There is also the exorbitant salaries paid to executives
that tends to do the same thing. The actual 30 yr old
electricians do not see an increase. And do not attempt
to suggest that electricians are obsolete. It won't work.
>>
>> From the point of view of the guy performing
>> as an electrician or a plumber or even a mail clerk at the
>> age of 25, HIS wage is NOT more than the people that
>> were doing the same job 20 years ago at the age of 25
>> even if the productivity has been enhanced by capital.
>
> True. Except that HIS wage/income is likely a lot more NOW because he has
> more experience and has likely been promoted or has a better job than he had
> 20 years ago.
As I said: Your "his" is doing better because of his experience
and not because of a general rise in wages. If such people
remain in the work force longer (and that is the case) then
"average" wages are increased while _age based_ median
wages might actually fall.
> I mean that even if there was no increase in the "average" income, every
> individual could have an increase.
????? Now that is some _real_ Bushonomics!!!
> Which is closer to the case.
Which gold fish???
>> The aging force increases the aggregate and the per capita
>> wage but not the wage of the individuals that are performing
>> at a given age or experience level. And as people retire
>> LATER and LATER this skew in wages becomes more
>> and more prevalent.
>
> I agree, this is likely the case.
I should hope so.
> And it also means increases for the individuals that were doing those jobs
> then.
This "observation" is either nonsensical or redundant.
> Each individual can have increased real incomes even if the average
> changes little.
And now we see the textbook obfuscation of swapping to
"incomes" as opposed to wages. Yet the statement is even
then nonsensical.
>>....It is disingenuous at best to refer to
>> this as "wages have been increasing" because in infers
>> something that is simply not true.
>
> ??? "not true"? Of course it is true. You just have to understand what it
> means.
A Republican said to me once that the ability to hold several
contradictory positions in ones mind was a sign of real
intelligence. I thought about this for a few moments and
told him that IMHO it was actually a sign of idiocy.
>> >>
>> >> "incomes" have increased but so too have costs.
>> >
>> > ???? Which is why "real incomes" are used as the measure. And they have
>> > increased--even faster than real wages.
>>
>> The rubber ruler of CPI again; but this time spiked with rent.
>>
>> >>.....And
>> >> it matters as to _who_ is getting the increase. If the non
>> >> productive members of the society are getting the increase
>> >> then this is NOT good.
>> >
>> > Non-productive? You mean retirees? Those getting Social Security?
>>
>> No. I mean the privileged.
>
> Aren't the retired "non-productive"?
Why do you now try to exchange non-productive and
privileged?
>>
>
>>...... I do not want to have
>> lots of stuff yet have a bunch of strutting pig rich bitch
>> Repugnicans using their money to buy the Congress
>> so as to make my life style illegal or my sexual preferences
>> taboo. It is a question of balancing freedom and power.
>> I do not believe that wants are insatiable except the
>> human "want" to be free from labor and coercion.
>
> Hey, I don't support the Bush "social agenda" either.
>
This is the point about POWER, Blair. Power is
zero sum.
The Trucker
That is a socially acceptable manner of controlling the labors
of others so as to provide for ones self. People work and
produce so as to pay you what they supposedly owe you.
I have made the point many times that it really does not
matter whether they are paying through the higher prices
they need to pay so as to provide you with the interest,
dividends, and rents that you have supposedly earned, or
they pay a tax to government that then pays you a pension.
Either way, they are producing excess goods that you will
consume. You seem to want to think that the goods that
you are consuming in old age are coming out of a big bank
inside of Fort Knox.
> Others (you and some other eci.econ posters) think in terms of control. How
> much of a stock do I need to influence company policy? For that, it is
> percent of total that is important.
You have again missed the point; probably quite purposefully.
As for myself, I consider both dimensions of wealth as opposed
to the single dimension in which you seem to be locked. Your
"influence" over corporate decisions is not the point. It is
your indirect control of labor that is being addressed here.
That sort of control "the command of labor" is most certainly
seen as socially acceptable and even encouraged in our
society. I question whether it is the only way or even the
best way to arrange for retirement. The entire system is
based on the stupid notion that "individual financial saving" is
necessary to _real_ capital development. While excess
goods must be produced so as to fund _real_ capital
development, there is no atomic need for self deprivation
and hoarding. As a matter of fact, so long as there is any
unemployment then there is no excuse to differ development
of appropriate infrastructure.
> Note that some companies have had "stockholder revolts" where lots of small
> shareholders get together and demand changes in company policies. Sometimes
> they get what they want and sometimes not. Often they want political things
> like "don't invest in Israel" or "don't buy products that have been tested
> on animals".
>
snore......
Jim Blair
On saving and investing while working.
>.... I question whether it is the only way or even the
> best way to arrange for retirement.
Hi,
What do you propose instead? And no matter how you think the world should
be,
what we have is the way things are.
>....The entire system is
> based on the stupid notion that "individual financial saving" is
> necessary to _real_ capital development.
Yes. In a capitalist system of individual ownership.
>....While excess
> goods must be produced so as to fund _real_ capital
> development, there is no atomic need for self deprivation
> and hoarding.
Or what I call "saving and investing".
>....As a matter of fact, so long as there is any
> unemployment then there is no excuse to differ development
> of appropriate infrastructure.
>
Except that most of the unemployed at any given time don't have the skills
needed to build that appropriate infrastructure. And they are typically
only a small fraction (about 5%) of the labor pool.
PS I will probably be off-line for the next several weeks (again ;-)
Jim Blair
> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:dih63s$ea$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >
> > "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> Yep. Hoola hoops made in China are much less expensive.
> >> But the necessary stuff like health care and housing have
> >> increased dramatically and continue to do so.
> >
> > Food isn't "necessary stuff"?
>
> Do you remember Dr. Food?
Hi,
Yes. He was a nut case.
>.....He claimed, with much justification,
> that economics was about food and that since no person can
> starve in the USA then we did not need to observe economics as
> the allocation of scarce resources.
Whle starvation is not a serious problem in the US, it IS one world wide.
And I keep reading about how people in the US "can't afford food". When I
sent a letter to the author of one such atricle asking why I see so many
overweight and obese people (especially the poor), she replied that she sees
them too, but it must be some sort of optical illusion since the surveys say
the poor can't get enough to eat.
>.....As he observed: Food
> just is not part of the puzzle any more.
Of course it is "part of the puzzle" just not as big a part as it was in the
past.
>....Technological innovation
> and capital development have overcome the food monster.
> Food as a part of the overall budget has not been a major cost
> for a very long time. That era (of food being a major part of the
> family budget for the vast majority of Americans) ended long
> before 1980.
The original definition of the "poverty level" was in terms of the income
needed to buy enough food. If that definition had not been changed, there
would be almost no one in the US today that was below the poverty level.
Can't permit that, so the definition of poverty was changed.
> > At any rate your claims that the professionals must be wrong because
you
> > don't like their conclusions sounds to me like the Bush/"Conservative"
> > claims that the scientists must be wrong about evolution and CO2/Global
> > Warming. Because they don't like the conclusions. And (like you) they
jump
> > on the few who dissent to claim the whole thing is an open question and
the
> > scientists are biased.
>
> Oh, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
> This opinion of the "data" being crap is based on my own real
> world observations such as the stagnated minimum wage .....
How about the higher real wages and higher family incomes? The "minimum
wage" is a legal thing, not what people actually earn.
>....and
> the increasing illegal immigrant count and the increasing H1B
> visas.
Er, aren't they comming here BECAUSE of the higher wages and better living
conditions?
>.....The dissenters are very few, but I most certainly am
> one of them.
Yes on both counts.
>
> >> >> And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
> >> >> these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
> >> >> of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
> >> >
> >> > ??? I thought you said there were no gains? Now its the gains were
when
> >> > Clinton was in office? My claim is that real wages are higher now
than
> > in
> >> > 1980 (your year of choice).
> >>
> >> These are APPARENT wage gains. I am saying that the
> >> "data" tells us that there has been a gain but that the
> >> "data" are probably quite flawed.
> >
> > Just like the Global Warming data?
>
> Yet another failed analogy. It is almost impossible to "fake"
> data from the physical world, Blair. Economic data simply
> does not fall into the same category.
Actually there is a lot of uncertainty about past temperature data. Cities
creating local "heat islands" and expanding out to the airports where
weather data is collected, etc.
>....Yet, the rightards were
> STILL able to lie and perpetrate their fraud and smoke screen
> for several years, disavowing global warming as an invention
> of the, so called, "liberal media".
Er, they still do this. I claim that that is like denying that the economy
has been improving for decades. Make that centuries.
jeb:
>
> > I mean that even if there was no increase in the "average" income, every
> > individual could have an increase.
>
> ????? Now that is some _real_ Bushonomics!!!
>
Isn't that claim obvious?
Like just because everyone gets one year older every year, the average age
in a country does not necessarily increase. Duh.
>
> >> The aging force increases the aggregate and the per capita
> >> wage but not the wage of the individuals that are performing
> >> at a given age or experience level. And as people retire
> >> LATER and LATER this skew in wages becomes more
> >> and more prevalent.
> >
> > I agree, this is likely the case.
>
> I should hope so.
>
> > And it also means increases for the individuals that were doing those
jobs
> > then.
>
> This "observation" is either nonsensical or redundant.
jeb:
>
> > Each individual can have increased real incomes even if the average
> > changes little.
>
> And now we see the textbook obfuscation of swapping to
> "incomes" as opposed to wages.
OK. Substitute "wage" for "income".
>...Yet the statement is even
> then nonsensical.
???? No, obvious.
jeb:
> >> > Non-productive? You mean retirees? Those getting Social Security?
> >>
> >> No. I mean the privileged.
jeb:
> >
> > Aren't the retired "non-productive"?
>
> Why do you now try to exchange non-productive and
> privileged?
??? You said "non-productive" when you apparently meant to say "privileged".
So I repeat: are retirees "non-productive"?
PS: I'll probably be off-line for a few weeks
The Trucker
news:1128112093.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The Trucker wrote:
>> Here's a news flash for ya: Wealth of Nations _STILL_
>> stands quite tall in the eyes of most people with any
>> common sense at all. And although Smith might have
>> denigrated mercantilism, he was addressing the gold
>> standard of his day more than anything else; the notion
>> that the nation with most gold wins. Today sovereignties
>> are bastions of culture and religion and they exist so
>> as to provide a means for cultural separation that is
>> _REQUIRED_ if freedom of religion is to exist on a
>> global level. As such, each sovereignty is in competition
>> with the forces of EVIL so as to maintain their religious
>> and cultural identities. That is the "mercantilism" of
>> today and Smith would have yielded to it. There
>> is more than economics at work here; more than
>> political economy.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, some of Adam Smith's assumtions no longer hold;
> Specifically, a lot of the "Wealth of Nations" nowadays can be exported
> with just a click of a keyboard....
You will need to expand on this so we can see what
this "wealth" clicking is about.
> Culture used to be something that was based on security of the future-
> Mahogany offices, Marble buildings and brass plaques on the big marble
> buildings and all that stuff which is being torn down for scap
> nowadays.
Actually I believe culture consists of social
consensus that is usually codified in law.
> The "culture" you are speaking of is itself becoming less and less
> valuable to everyone today; People in the U.S. are becoming
> incredibly cynical; the root cause being that collectively (as a
> culture) we are less and less convinced that our culture will deliver
> the future to us... The only things that are getting delivered to us
> are 'throw-away' products- whole neighborhoods getting razed for
> WAL-marts and ugly buildings and products made to be as cheap as
> possible.
IMHO this is caused by Republicans destroying all of
the social contracts that we have had in the past.
> Jim Blair thinks this is a really cool "new world order"- but someday
> he and his entire career will be thrown on the scapheap too- along
> with forty million others;
Blair is an idealog that excuses his excesses by supporting
his claims using statistical lies that he calls "data".
The Trucker
>
> "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:dij7g...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> On saving and investing while working.
>
>>.... I question whether it is the only way or even the
>> best way to arrange for retirement.
>
> Hi,
>
> What do you propose instead? And no matter how you think the world should
> be,
> what we have is the way things are.
>
There will be those who save and invest as individuals and
these people will have better retirements than those
who don't. That is all well and good. But there must be
a minimum pension and medical care for those who
were not able to save and invest. You will not find me
a champion of welfare. My reason for that should be
obvious: If you live to retirement age then you MUST
have contributed to the pension system, and you are
therefore entitled to draw down on it. Surely you must
understand that a social pension system is an
administered savings program. As we produce goods
with our labor and capital we transfer some of the
excess to those who are pensioned. When we are
old, the same will be done for us. The money that
would have been individually saved is what is being
transferred. The money will be returned at retirement.
>>....The entire system is
>> based on the stupid notion that "individual financial saving" is
>> necessary to _real_ capital development.
>
> Yes. In a capitalist system of individual ownership.
Financial savings is a crock. Money taken from the
productive sector and used to support the elderly and
the infirm is an investment in the society that is
returned on an as needed basis. Money used to
create _real_ capital is created from thin air in the
banking system. The notion that there must be a big
pile of dollars lying around so as to build a new
levee system in New Orleans is total bullshit.
Yet that system will be _real_ capital.
>>....While excess
>> goods must be produced so as to fund _real_ capital
>> development, there is no atomic need for self deprivation
>> and hoarding.
>
> Or what I call "saving and investing".
OK. You call it what you will.
>>....As a matter of fact, so long as there is any
>> unemployment then there is no excuse to differ development
>> of appropriate infrastructure.
>>
>
> Except that most of the unemployed at any given time don't have the skills
> needed to build that appropriate infrastructure. And they are typically
> only a small fraction (about 5%) of the labor pool.
More horseshit with statistics. A great number of the people
that are unemployed are engineers. And if they are
put to work then the other jobs would follow.
> PS I will probably be off-line for the next several weeks (again ;-)
>
--
The Trucker
>
> "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:dihs8...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:dih63s$ea$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>> >
>> > "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>> >> Yep. Hoola hoops made in China are much less expensive.
>> >> But the necessary stuff like health care and housing have
>> >> increased dramatically and continue to do so.
>> >
>> > Food isn't "necessary stuff"?
>>
>> Do you remember Dr. Food?
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes. He was a nut case.
Probably. But the central theme that said food was not
_THE_ object of economics any longer was correct.
Technological advance has removed that problem.
>>.....He claimed, with much justification,
>> that economics was about food and that since no person can
>> starve in the USA then we did not need to observe economics as
>> the allocation of scarce resources.
>
> Whle starvation is not a serious problem in the US, it IS one world wide.
>
> And I keep reading about how people in the US "can't afford food". When I
> sent a letter to the author of one such atricle asking why I see so many
> overweight and obese people (especially the poor), she replied that she sees
> them too, but it must be some sort of optical illusion since the surveys say
> the poor can't get enough to eat.
On this we can agree. Food is not at issue here in the USA.
>>.....As he observed: Food
>> just is not part of the puzzle any more.
>
> Of course it is "part of the puzzle" just not as big a part as it was in the
> past.
Ok, fine.... It is a matter of degree. The increase in available
food has created a situation in which food prices are just
not that big a contributer to the cost of living and this has
been the case since the 60's. It is not like a decline in the
price of groceries is going to offest the rise in the cost
of education and health care and housing and energy.
>>....Technological innovation
>> and capital development have overcome the food monster.
>> Food as a part of the overall budget has not been a major cost
>> for a very long time. That era (of food being a major part of the
>> family budget for the vast majority of Americans) ended long
>> before 1980.
>
>
> The original definition of the "poverty level" was in terms of the income
> needed to buy enough food. If that definition had not been changed, there
> would be almost no one in the US today that was below the poverty level.
> Can't permit that, so the definition of poverty was changed.
Wild goose chase here.
>> > At any rate your claims that the professionals must be wrong because
> you
>> > don't like their conclusions sounds to me like the Bush/"Conservative"
>> > claims that the scientists must be wrong about evolution and CO2/Global
>> > Warming. Because they don't like the conclusions. And (like you) they
> jump
>> > on the few who dissent to claim the whole thing is an open question and
> the
>> > scientists are biased.
>>
>> Oh, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
>> This opinion of the "data" being crap is based on my own real
>> world observations such as the stagnated minimum wage .....
>
> How about the higher real wages and higher family incomes? The "minimum
> wage" is a legal thing, not what people actually earn.
deflator is a lie, deflator is a lie, deflator is a lie, deflator is a lie.
When we use the raw data such as minimum wage and housing
prices we see the REALITY.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/economic_decline.php
>>....and
>> the increasing illegal immigrant count and the increasing H1B
>> visas.
>
> Er, aren't they comming here BECAUSE of the higher wages and better living
> conditions?
Yep. Much better than they had it in their sovereignties. But
that reduces the life style of those of us that live in this
sovereignty. There is no such thing as jobs that Americans
won't do. There are only jobs that Americans do not find
financially rewarding enough to do. As many of these jobs
are very necessary it stands to reason that if the illegal
immigrant and/or H1B options were not available then
wages truly would be higher here in the USA when compared
to the price of land and IP assets.
>>.....The dissenters are very few, but I most certainly am
>> one of them.
>
> Yes on both counts.
>
>>
>> >> >> And when we actually LOOK at the numbers we see that
>> >> >> these wages DECLINED under Reagan Bush and that _ALL_
>> >> >> of the wage gains occurred under Clinton.
>> >> >
>> >> > ??? I thought you said there were no gains? Now its the gains were
> when
>> >> > Clinton was in office? My claim is that real wages are higher now
> than
>> > in
>> >> > 1980 (your year of choice).
>> >>
>> >> These are APPARENT wage gains. I am saying that the
>> >> "data" tells us that there has been a gain but that the
>> >> "data" are probably quite flawed.
>> >
>> > Just like the Global Warming data?
>>
>> Yet another failed analogy. It is almost impossible to "fake"
>> data from the physical world, Blair. Economic data simply
>> does not fall into the same category.
>
> Actually there is a lot of uncertainty about past temperature data. Cities
> creating local "heat islands" and expanding out to the airports where
> weather data is collected, etc.
Most of it now in hand, thank you. There is no continuing
debate on these physical issues in that the proof is there
and can't be cherry picked or distorted. This is just not
true when we speak of deflators and the like.
>>....Yet, the rightards were
>> STILL able to lie and perpetrate their fraud and smoke screen
>> for several years, disavowing global warming as an invention
>> of the, so called, "liberal media".
>
> Er, they still do this. I claim that that is like denying that the economy
> has been improving for decades. Make that centuries.
>
> jeb:
It depends on how you measure "the economy" and it depends
on ones choices as to when the samples are taken. But I
would have to agree that the great majority of us are better off
than we were in 1400. As far as access to consumable goods
the majority may well be better off now than they were in 1980.
But for most of us that are serious about econimics, that is
not the real test. We should have done much, much better
than we have. The falacies of Trickle Down tax breaks for
the rich was proved false by the actions of the Democratic
congress that increased taxes on higher incomes under Clinton.
The result was a growing and prosperous economy with some
wage gains over the stagnant and sinking wages of the
Reagan Bush era. Yet here we are again with a Repugnican
controlled government and an economy geared to the
rich.
>>
>> > I mean that even if there was no increase in the "average" income, every
>> > individual could have an increase.
>>
>> ????? Now that is some _real_ Bushonomics!!!
>>
>
> Isn't that claim obvious?
> Like just because everyone gets one year older every year, the average age
> in a country does not necessarily increase. Duh.
If you have no immigration and births then the "average"
age does increase. If there are a smaller number of NEW
and younger people than the number of older people then
the average age will increase as is the supposed case
right now.
With your claim about increasing incomes you are
maintaining that the population is getting both
smaller and older even while the flood of immigrants
is bloating it more every day? Like I said: Real
Bushonomics. The population is growing and so
is the DOCUMENTED average age. You have to
be very selective about who is counted in the survey in
order to have the desired outcome = _every_ person can
have more _real_ income while the average _real_ income
stays the same. IOW, you must lie with statistics.
One way in which that can be done is to NOT count
the new illegal and legal immigrants and to NOT
count the H1B temps. These participants drag the
average and median wage down.
>>
>> >> The aging force increases the aggregate and the per capita
>> >> wage but not the wage of the individuals that are performing
>> >> at a given age or experience level. And as people retire
>> >> LATER and LATER this skew in wages becomes more
>> >> and more prevalent.
>> >
>> > I agree, this is likely the case.
>>
>> I should hope so.
>>
>> > And it also means increases for the individuals that were doing those
> jobs
>> > then.
>>
>> This "observation" is either nonsensical or redundant.
>
> jeb:
>>
>> > Each individual can have increased real incomes even if the average
>> > changes little.
>>
>> And now we see the textbook obfuscation of swapping to
>> "incomes" as opposed to wages.
>
> OK. Substitute "wage" for "income".
>
>>...Yet the statement is even
>> then nonsensical.
>
> ???? No, obvious.
(sigh)
> jeb:
>
>> >> > Non-productive? You mean retirees? Those getting Social Security?
>> >>
>> >> No. I mean the privileged.
>
> jeb:
>> >
>> > Aren't the retired "non-productive"?
>>
>> Why do you now try to exchange non-productive and
>> privileged?
>
> ??? You said "non-productive" when you apparently meant to say "privileged".
>
> So I repeat: are retirees "non-productive"?
Of course they are non productive. That is what retired means.
Nothing wrong with it. But they are not necessarily
privileged. It is recognized that they have already
contributed and that we owe them the retirement just
as the kids of today that are being educated and cared
for by the current producers will owe those producers
for the extended childhood and education that
they received from thier folks.
> PS: I'll probably be off-line for a few weeks
>
--
highfl...@gmail.com
there should be an identifiable trend from these statistics which
should give a correlation between exports and growth. The fact is
there isn't which is counter-intuitive.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that:
>Further, I once calculated using first principals that China's GDP is
>inflated, because their economy, like most communist economies, is
>inefficient in the use of energy (total factor productivity)
Its GDP is high because it is ungoing a transition from Communism to
free market economy. With high levels of equality there is the fact
that mass market growth is possible. But crucially this is in the
domestic not export sector of the economy. Total factor productivity
(TFP) is the residual from growth accounting equations. If it is low
then most of the growth is occurring through capital and labour growth
and not through high value added industries. Energy has nothing to do
with TFP.
ro...@telus.net
>"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:dihs8...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:dih63s$ea$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>> >
>> > "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>.....He claimed, with much justification,
>> that economics was about food and that since no person can
>> starve in the USA then we did not need to observe economics as
>> the allocation of scarce resources.
>
>Whle starvation is not a serious problem in the US, it IS one world wide.
>
>And I keep reading about how people in the US "can't afford food".
A lot of people in the USA can't afford _good_ food. More
importantly, they can't afford a place to live that has a useful
kitchen, which would allow them to prepare good food if they could
afford to buy it (and yes, were able and willing to do the work of
preparing it).
>When I
>sent a letter to the author of one such atricle asking why I see so many
>overweight and obese people (especially the poor), she replied that she sees
>them too, but it must be some sort of optical illusion since the surveys say
>the poor can't get enough to eat.
Hehe. Do the surveys identify the fact that sugar is one of the
cheapest items in the grocery store per calorie, is the most
fattening, and in most cases needs little or no preparation (e.g.,
candy, breakfast cereals, soda, etc.)?
>>....Technological innovation
>> and capital development have overcome the food monster.
>> Food as a part of the overall budget has not been a major cost
>> for a very long time. That era (of food being a major part of the
>> family budget for the vast majority of Americans) ended long
>> before 1980.
>
>The original definition of the "poverty level" was in terms of the income
>needed to buy enough food. If that definition had not been changed, there
>would be almost no one in the US today that was below the poverty level.
>Can't permit that, so the definition of poverty was changed.
Food-clothing-shelter is pretty easy to understand. Maybe add an
allowance for basic medical care (already done with MedicAid) and
utilities -- heat, water, power, a phone. If you can't afford those
things, you're probably poor.
Food has been getting cheaper, and is now an order of magnitude
cheaper in terms of labor than it was 100 years ago. So that's not
the problem. Perfectly good clothing other than shoes can easily be
obtained for free or nearly free from charities (thousands of tons of
used clothing are bulk-shipped from the USA to Africa every year to be
given away or sold by dealers for a pittance).
That leaves shelter. Well, serviceable _buildings_ can be obtained at
very low cost, but the cost of _land_ has been rising, and rapidly.
That's where the poor are really pinched, and welfare doesn't help: it
just increases the rent they have to pay.
>> > At any rate your claims that the professionals must be wrong because
>you
>> > don't like their conclusions sounds to me like the Bush/"Conservative"
>> > claims that the scientists must be wrong about evolution and CO2/Global
>> > Warming. Because they don't like the conclusions. And (like you) they
>jump
>> > on the few who dissent to claim the whole thing is an open question and
>the
>> > scientists are biased.
>>
>> Oh, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
>> This opinion of the "data" being crap is based on my own real
>> world observations such as the stagnated minimum wage .....
>
>How about the higher real wages and higher family incomes?
Average family income includes the unearned incomes of the rich.
>The "minimum
>wage" is a legal thing, not what people actually earn.
Average real wages have not increased much since the 1970s, and were
certainly increasing faster before that.
>jeb:
>>
>> > I mean that even if there was no increase in the "average" income, every
>> > individual could have an increase.
>>
>> ????? Now that is some _real_ Bushonomics!!!
>
>Isn't that claim obvious?
>Like just because everyone gets one year older every year, the average age
>in a country does not necessarily increase. Duh.
Hehe.
-- Roy L